Now that most of the clamour to replace Sir Alex Ferguson has died down from those "fans" and pundits with short memories it seems appropriate to ask. I believe he is for many reasons: 1. He succeeded in breaking the auld firm domination in scotland with limited resources and a club with no history of success. 2. He took them to European glory. 3. He came to a high pressure job at United with huge expectations and exceeded them time and again. 4. He has created several teams which have dominated. 5. He has used youth systems, cast offs and superstars to build his teams. 6. The players who prove their continued loyalty and commitment are rewarded and protected. 7. He has worked with numerous assistants, chairmen, budgets and generations of players and always succeeded, especially when written off. So what do you think? Please vote and include an explanation with your post.
Ah, this old chestnut. It depends entirely on your criteria. I, for instance, believe you have to have some measure of greatness as a man, as well as a manager, in order to be labelled great in any way, let alone the greatest of all time. That reason, for instance, is why I place Bob Paisley ahead of Shankly (instead of the respective trophy counts). Demento's been a fantastic creator of winning football teams, but even on that score others outrank him. Busby did it all after Munich. Clough did it with Derby County and Nottingham Forest. Shankly remains more successful. He's not the greatest of all time by most objective measures. Add to that the fact that Ferguson is a small, petty man with a vainglorious streak as wide as the Govan shipyards he hails from are deep and you have ample subjective cause to dismiss the notion of him as the greatest of all time. Oh - and PS: it's more or less impossible to choose a greatest of all time from British managers and in the British game alone, so your choice of putting all manner of foreign managers in there as well just further complicates the matter.
Sir Alex Ferguson Read this bio. What he has achieved is incredible, especially considering the modern game. I would put him above any other manager.
It is easier for him in the modern game which is so dependent on money, which he has had while at Man Utd, along with the freak of nature 'class of '92'. And if you go on to say look at what he did at Aberdeen, Clough did it with Derby and Notts Forest, winning two European cups, which by the way, is one more than Fergie.
Wrong. When he first came to united they were relegation battlers. His first great teams up to the fantastic '94 double winners were built on amazing bargain buys like Irwin, Schmeichel, Solskjaer, Bruce, Cantona. The later golden generation of kids were brought through because Fergie gutted the United youth system and built it up new from the bottom. What he did at Aberdeen alone was brilliance. In my opinion it is between him a Clough for the greatest, and I'd go with Fergie.
Wrong yourself. The summer he arrived, they had just finished fourth. Season before that? Fourth again. Before that? No, see if you can guess this one by yourself ... there's clue in the sequence. Although you're sort of right, albeit not in the way you intended to be. In his first season, they finished 11th. In addition, Wingtips is also right on the money issue - they had more money than any other club in Britain except Liverpool. In 1989, Ferguson spent what was then a quite mental £8m in one summer. And finished 13th. PS - Solskjaer didn't sign until July 1996 and players like Irwin cost £650,000 at a time when the British transfer record was still under £2m.
http://red11.org/mufc/fergie.htm Full list of Ferguson's transfers. Pallister and Keane (at least) were British records.
I voted for Sir Matt Busby. He built two teams capable of winning everything in club football, but Munich saw that his first team would never get their chance at glory. To think he built up from the tattered remains of that team into a new squad that won a European Cup a mere 10 years after is amazing to say the least. I couldn't argue with other people's choices, as everybody has their own internal criteria... but Sir Matt is it for me.
Obviously I picked Brian. Other managers have achieved more but what makes him special was what he achieved with two provincial clubs full of journeymen and supposed no-hopers. Considering that in order to repeat his success a manager would have to take a Championship side (say, um Nottingham Forest? j/k we're looking at relegation to League One) and in consecutive seasons get them promoted to the top flight, win the league and back to back European Cups. I can't see anyone even coming close in the modern game.
Are we just talking British football? If it's about Europe, it should be Ottmar Hitzfeld. Has anyone else won the Champions League with two different teams?
Good stuff. Don't argue, give reasons or anything whimpish like that. Just state it like an eternal truth. And if in doubt, bomb the opposition.
I still say bob paisley He won the European Cup three times. He never had the advantage of managing the world's richest club.
I think it's far more difficult to win it with two different clubs. Once you have a great team, you are on a roll - like Liverpool or Bayern Munich in the 70s. Far more difficult to win it with a good, but not exceptional squad (Dortmund in 1996). And do it again with a completely different mix of players (Bayern 2001).
If it's British football, I would have to agree w/Paisley. First, he won...a lot. Secondly, I think following Shankly had to have been a burden and he not only pulled it off, but took the club to another level. I don't know too much about Shanks, but I get the impression that he was a stronger man-motivator than tactical manager. Not that that doesn't have value, but I think Paisley may have been the better on that score. Alf Ramsey is the interesting guy in this group for me. I mean what would we be saying if today, if a guy took a second division club all the way to the EPL title, then left that team to take the England job and in the first WC cycle wins the whole thing-at home? That's what Ramsey's feat would be today. I'd have to look it up, but I think he took the Ipswich job in 1956 or 1957? That's a hellavu 10 year run. He takes heat for subbing Charlton in 1970, but they should have found a way to win that match IMO. Ended on a sour note in 1974, but still a good run.
What - Shanks? Not tactical? Arf ... no, you could say that. His teamtalk was basically "they're shit this lot, you can do 'em with your eyes closed" and then he would just stand on the sidelines glowering at people. He was the master motivator and the absolute, break-the-mould prototype for managerial mind-games. It was he that decreed Liverpool would play in all red because when he signed Ron Yeats he realised he was so massive they should make the most of his physical size to intimidate opponents. They messed about with colours for a bit and decided all red was the most menacing. It was he who had the "This is Anfield" sign installed above the exit to the player's tunnel. It was he who, before a derby match (that Liverpool won 4-1) declared "There are two great teams in the city of Liverpool - Liverpool ... and Liverpool Reserves". And, famously, it was he who once told Tommy Smith that he'd seen the opposing wing-half chatting up his missus.
Brian Clough, anyone who can take a such an unfashionable club as Nottingham Forest and turn them into champions of Europe and to an unbeaten domestic season is an untouchable genius.
The thing about Clough is his partnership with Peter Taylor-how much do you factor the success as a partnership? Also let's not get too carried away with the "unfashionable" club. Viv Anderson, Peter Shilton, Trevor Francis...not exactly a Sunday park side. And the buys of Francis and Shilton were big deals at the time. Good buys, but they did spend, yes?