Alex Ferguson c/d

Personnally I think Mourinho's great, mainly for the way he winds up all the administrators and those who like to think they run the game at FIFA, EUFA and FA.

But then I don't really like football and regard it as corrupt, and those involved at the top level as spoilt and overpaid and those at the bottom (ie the local park) as hopelessy deluded if they really think that a game between two sets of 9 year old boys matters as much as they seem to think it does.

And why if a manager accuses a team or player of cheating is that manger accused of "bringing the game into disrepute" rather than an invetsigation being carried out to see if cheating really was taking place (viz. the goal that ? scored against Man U but the referee didn't see it go over the line and the Man U goalkeeper (Carroll?) didn't admit it had, so it didn't count as a goal...shouldn't the goalkeeper have been taken to task for dishonesty?)

i hesitate to write him off completely, i've done it before, and he fought back to win the premiership.

i suppose a third bacon-free season and the game *will* be up, though.

still, i think there's often an element of wishful thinking in forecasting his decline at times (and this has certainly been the case before). people were saying he'd lost it at the start of the "you can't win anything with kids" double season, and half way through united's last title season - though 2 disappointing years on the trot is the worst run united have been on in some time.

long-term? maybe. if he goes and proves himself at a smaller club, then he might make a good appointment later on. it is hard to know if a player will make a good manager before they have embarked on their career. i seem to recall that, at the outset, everyone thought bryan robson had all the right qualities to be a great manager, and he certainly hasn't lived up to that imo.

But the media hype surrounding ManYoo obscure the fact that Fergie's most outstanding achievements were at Aberdeen. No Scottish club apart from Rangers and Celtic had won the Scottish championship for 25 years, not surprising given the colossal differences in support and income. He won it 4 times, as well as several other domestic trophies. He also won a major European trophy as well as winning the European Super Cup. All this with a club about the same size as Bristol Rovers.

of course, he has had the benefit of a large wallet at times also.

i think he has assembled a strong group of players at the moment - i think the failure may be somewhat down to his motivational methods becoming a bit tired. perhaps the older players have become a bit worn out with the hairdryer treatment. perhaps the younger players feel more in need of an arm around the shoulder. perhaps his relationship with keane is alienating some of the other players.

next season will be interesting. i would imagine he will stay for one last tilt at the major trophies.

This isn't entirely true. United were the best supported club (and therefore presumably the richest) for a good 25 years while failing to win the league. They certainly weren't able to outbuy everyone else over that time. I can remember Liverpool beating United to plenty of players in the 80s (Beardsley, Barnes, erm... Hysen),
Spurs got Gazza, and in the early 90s Blackburn were outspending
United and nabbing Shearer et al. When you look at the team that
finally won the league in 92/93 there were quite a few people who
were never going to be big budget signings for anyone: Phelan,
Blackmore, Fergie's son, possibly Donaghy was still playing.

Basically, United had more fans than the other teams in the 70s
and 80s, but they didn't really seem to have that much more financial
muscle. But they were lucky in that their resurgence in the early
90s coincided with the post-Italia 90 middle class rise of football.
In other words, they got good at just the right time. I would say
it was only really from the mid-90s that the big money started
talking (Cole, Yorke, Stam, Van Nistelrooy, Ferdinand, Rooney), but
unlike, say, late-90s Chelsea (who were almost entirely made up of
expensive foreign mercenaries) the backbone of the United team were
either youth team products (Scholes, Butt, Beckham, Neville x 2,
Giggs) or bargain bucket signings (Cantona, Solksjaer, Sharpe).

The difference now is that Chelsea are spending an absolutely
unbelievable amount of money on players each year. It's not just
that they have replaced United as the highest spending club, they've
totally changed the rules. There has been nothing on this scale
before. To be honest, unless/until their Russian benefactor gets
sent down (or bored) I can't see anyone other than Chelsea winning
the league for the rest of time.

It had been 15 years in fact (Kilmarnock won it in 1965). Ferguson's success wasn't the shock it would be today. In 25 seasons (from 70/1 to 94/5) Rangers and Celtic took the top two spots in the league only three times (1976, 1977, 1979). Rangers were terrible while Ferguson was at Aberdeen. Dundee Utd won the title also, and Hearts came very very close. The European success was impressive, although Dundee Utd had good European runs as well in this period. It was an unusually open and exciting period in Scottish football.

http://olympia.fortunecity.com/manning/537/ferguson.html

i shd think chelsea's wage structure is smaller than united's right now btw. (i'd also hazard that this chelsea squad managed by ferguson wd finish worse off than under ranieri)

also chelsea have yet to bust the world open with a crazy-ass star signing like a wayne rooney, though this summer may see differently. but where they have changed the game so far however is in the silent ominous threat of unlimited ca$h.

so, non-porto players from the spending spree:

robben
duff
drogba
johnson
cole
cech
kezman
makelele

plus the fact that he coached the porto arrivals to excellence doesn't quite change the fact that it took a hell of a lot of money to transplant them.

i mean, your first paragraph sets out to trash the idea that chelsea spend "an absolutely unbelievable amount of money on players each year" by saying that this is not the case because "18m for carvalho was kinda spent on managerial convenience rather than an 18m-rated player" - the reasoning behind the signing surely doesn't alter the figures involved? unless i'm misunderstanding you.

2)You can add Veron and Mutu to that spending spree. If you add up what Chelsea have spent on players since Abramovich arrived I would have thought it easily dwarfs any other club's spending ever.

It's not a silent ominous threat, they spent more in the summer when Roman arrived than surely any other club has ever ever ever spent in a summer, or more than most clubs spend in 5 summers.

And the argument that Mourinho hasn't used all these players or whatever doesn't hold true either, other clubs can't afford to waste 20 million on a striker and just buy another one.

Kilian also forgot Crespo. And I'm sure there must be other players too.

Some things never change.

I fully expect him to spend another £50M in the summer.

also, why are foreign players always 'mercaneries'? why not Rooney, or Campbell, or, in fact, anybody else who joins a different club ever?

That's still not really true (eg Shearer going to Blackburn). And it's not like United plucked Henry and Viera from Arsenal. Yeah, you always expected United were going to outbid Newcastle when it came to signing Rooney, but they did blow their entire year's budget on him. Whereas Chelsea are in an unprecedented situation. If they really wanted to they could sign the entire squad of United and Arsenal just for a laugh.

I didn't say all foreign players were. But Chelsea's mid-to-late 90s policy was to buy ageing Italians and Frenchmen who were looking for a decent final pay packet, rather than younger players on the up. Same thing with Middlesboro under Robson.

("shevchenko is certainly a more convenient striker than sean dundee ho ho" yes yes v funny but work with me here ppl!)

having coached the porto arrivals doesnt change the money spent on them, sure , but i also think its reasonable enough proof of mourinho's nous that a cheaper player could have been integrated with similar results and a little more time. and the key new players cech, makelele, robben add up to something like £35m in total - not a sum man utd were incapable of stumping up themselves, really, and probably have done. (robben moving to chelsea had a lot to do with utd being arrogant pricks rather than the power of money, as with ronaldinho before him.) and if someone else had signed makelele wd they have seen this year's colossus or last year's wage packet drifter? and what about joe cole? this is why i cant say the abramovich era doesnt really start with mourinho.

anyways cmon ppl you know i'm not saying "grr its done on the cheap!" here, and duff and drogba and others were clearly madly priced.

(pete w's point is sorta what i had in mind when i mentioned the threat of money perhaps)

Of course you are right, 15 years, don't know why I had 25 in my head. But there have been only 4 non Old Firm championship winners in 40 years. Fergie won 3 of them and would certainly have won the other but for the distractions of a winning run in the Cup Winners Cup the year Dundee Utd won it.

The credit for the fact that the Old Firm took the two top places in Scottish football only 3 times in that period must go largely to Fergie with some help from Jim McLean. Their European results indicate that they had exceptional sides by Scottish standards - they weren't just taking advantage of the Old Firm going through a bad spell. Hearts on the other hand were a nothing special side who nearly took advantage of a both Old Firm clubs going through a bad spell.

My main point though is that Fergie had to be a better manager to consistently win things, including a European trophy, at a club like Aberdeen than to win a collection of trophies at ManYoo, the richest club in England and one of the richest (if not the richest) in Europe during Fergie's spell in charge. I'm not his biggest fan by any means but given his Aberdeen career it would be ludicrous to imply Fergie's success came from outspending his rivals.

Time is running out now for Alex Ferguson. I described him as a god back upthread. Less than a month later Glazer swooped, and when Ferguson decided to stay I lost all respect for him (as I have for all the fans who sang 'not for sale' but then decided to keep going). I'm still grateful for his achievements between 1990 and 2003, but he's lost it now.

He was going to retire in 2002, but his family were apparently instrumental in changing his mind and convincing him to keep going. At the time I assumed that meant that they could see how much it meant to him, so they wanted him to keep doing what he loved most. Now I'm not so sure, it's probably more that they wanted the gravy train to keep on rolling: the agent son representing several players draining money from the club and only revealed when Magnier insisted on closer scrutiny, the brother who's possibly the least effective scout ever, not forgetting the other son who somehow played for United back in the early 90s.

Where did it start to go wrong? Possibly 2001. Ferguson has said time after time that the sign of a great team is one that can win the European Cup several times. Like Blair, he seems obsessed with his place in history, to the point that he just doesn't know when to call it a day. By the summer of 2001 United had shat all over the domestic opposition for the previous two seasons, but lacked the ability to win the European Cup. Ferguson splashed out more money than ever before to get Van Nistelrooy and Veron. To accomodate these players the system was changed to 4-5-1. Then Stam's autobiography revealed Ferguson's penchant for tapping up players, and he was sold off. United plummeted from a position of invincibility to losing games left, right and centre in the autumn of 2001.

To be fair, they fought back to claim third place that season, and the following season they won the league again. But the summer of 2003 saw the sale of Beckham for £20-odd million and the flop Veron for £14 million (just half what he'd cost), to be replaced by Ronaldo (good), Kleberson (shit), Bellion (shit), Djemba Djemba (unconvincing), and Miller (really shit). The 4-5-1 formation doesn't have to be bad, but it needs the right players. United manifestly didn't have the right players. The defence may well be more effective, but you don't win anything if you don't score. In 2000 United set the Premiership record with 96 goals in the season. They won it with 74 in 2003, were down to 64 the following year, and got just 58 last season. On current form they're on target for 44.

Despite this, in a parallel universe in which Abramovitch hadn't decided to rescue a club teetering on the edge of Leeds-style oblivion United would still have probably won the league last season. They destroyed Arsenal in all three meetings (even though Arsenal actually got the cup on penalties). But at what cost? United were the best supported club throughout the 70s and most of the 80s, even when they were in division 2, not because they won everything (three FA cups and no league titles) but because of their cavalier attacking style. As Dave Sexton learnt to his cost, Old Trafford doesn't tolerate a manager who can grind out 1-0 wins. I look back at the games I saw in the last few seasons and tedious is the best word to sum it up, even when we won.

The fans have turned now. Those who cared about what Glazer meant have fucked off to FC United. Those who still go are bored rigid and becoming restless. From what I understand, boos rang out today. "4-4-2! 4-4-2!" echoed round the stadium. The fanzines have started calling him Sir Alex Sexton TM (oh yes - he has trademarked 'Fergie'). It's difficult to see things getting significantly better - even if the tactics were changed, key players are injured and the new Glazer era has seen people sold and not adequately replaced. Besides, just like last season, Chelsea are already ten points out of sight and coasting well on the way to another hollow victory.

He could have quit back in May and he would have been a hero. Now I think the end is nigh, and it won't be pretty.

You'll notice that the first four is a pretty fucking terrific midfield, and weren't the regular midfield because of Keane. Beckham and Butt were sold, and the other three are plainly past it - not bad players now, but far short of their peak. Who's he replaced them with? You mention some, and we also see Fletcher regularly, and now Alan Smith played in a role that doesn't suit him. I don't think he's ever had good ideas about how to replace that midfield, and that's why they aren't going to be challenging this year, here or in Europe. I think if you had two new midfielders the quality of Essien, Makalele and Lampard at Man U, that might make up just about all the gap on Chelsea. I don't think Fergie has the judgement to find them.

I would guess that his major trophy count might save him from ignominious dismissal during the season, but I doubt that it'll be long before the board are having a word with some top class managers around Europe about their plans from next summer on.

keane doesn't need extra bodies in midfield imo. he's well past his best, but his best performance of recent times was in ireland's 1-0 defeat aginst france - in a two-man central midfield. maybe the extra workload would mean he'd have to be rested even *more* frequently, but if we'd bought a top class midfielder we could have been able to do so without dropping too many extra points. keane, fletcher, scholes and one other top class midfielder going for 2 central midfield positions is *far* better than scholes, keane, fletcher and smith going for 3 central midfield positions. plus it would mean rooney (our best player by seven million miles, and the man we should be building the team around) won't have to play in a silly wing-striker position. giggs, park, richardson and ronaldo would all be comfortable in 4-4-2 wing positions, and 4-3-3 *clearly* isn't working, so ferguson *must* knock it on the head if he wants to remain a winner.

Kilian is spot on re 4-3-3/4-5-1 - but I don't think the idea is protecting Keane, I think it's "hey, this works so well for Chelsea..." without grasping that Man U don't have the same players as Chelsea, and as you say, it fails to make the best of your most brilliant talent.

Park Ji-Sung is the only Premiership player I've turned PlayerCam on for - watching him running around shaking his head and not touching the ball is very funny. It's like having Ronnie Rosenthal back.

The counter-argument to this is that if it weren't for Abramovich, Man Utd would have signed Robben and Essien and would be comfortably top of the league by now.

Atkinson was sacked and Ferguson came in in November 1986. I don't see him lasting long enough to make that milestone.

Can someone who knows more about the club's workings in years past give me any clues on who to credit for that crop of players coming through the youth team? It might be the best bunch any team in the world has ever produced.

I think it was Bryan Kidd.

Kilian is spot on re 4-3-3/4-5-1 - but I don't think the idea is protecting Keane, I think it's "hey, this works so well for Chelsea..." without grasping that Man U don't have the same players as Chelsea, and as you say, it fails to make the best of your most brilliant talent.

But this started before the Chelski phenomenem. As I said, in the summer of 2001 they signed Van Nistelrooy and Veron, and the formation was changed to make use of them. Also, he wasn't trying to emulate any domestic rivals (at that time there were no domestic rivals - they'd just walked to the title twice since winning the treble), he was trying to improve United's performances against European opposition.

For all the talk about who he should have signed this summer, it seems to have gone unnoticed that United have had to offload over a dozen players to reduce the wage bill. I wonder if the Glazers still feel confident of trebling profits to pay off the interest on their debts as interest starts to fade in The World's Most Exciting League.....Ever! (TM).

Coincidentally - Fergie should have signed Gravesen last season. And, partisan though I am, why has he been letting teams like Spurs hoover up the likes of Defoe, Routledge and Huddlestone? Did they even go in for them?

;)

I always thought he signed Veron to show he could sign players like Veron; the club had been in the running for several; players, but it was failing, and there was a danger that a meme would take hold that despite their cash, players wouldn't go to Manchester, and Ferguson was desperate to prove he could compete, and so signed Veron for those reasons more than for the actual value he brought to the team.

fergie bought him because he likes playing as united on Fifa, and veron, unlike in real life, is BLUDDY GOOD in the game.

http://x400.putfile.com/videos/30912263371.mpg

Ferguson: Naaah...that's absolute bollocks, that, absolute nonsense, there's always pressure here

Interviewer: -ha-have to-

Ferguson: You know we went 13 games without winning, once. People forget these things.

Interviewer: -you have-I have to ask you mind your language, there are children watching

A year ago I said he'd be gone by now, now they're top of the league.

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2194045,00.html

Sir Alex told police in a statement: "He really gave me a whack. At the time my natural instinct was to react and defend myself. However, I decided against it as I did not know if he was carrying any weapon and might come at me again."

Yeah, sure pal.

Reynolds, whose criminal record lists 146 convictions, including many for violence

Wait, are these all for testicular boxing?

Kevin Reynolds, 44, who was described in Southwark crown court as a "fighting drunk"

Hold on, Fergie's from Govan, virtually everybody there could be described as a "fighting drunk"

russellcrowe.gif

His "stunned" victim promptly doubled up in agony and, as he fought for breath, managed to gasp, "What the hell are you doing?"

lololololol.

@ "stunned"

more like "FUCKING HELL REF DID YE NO SEE THAT YE CONT"

Peter Zinner, prosecuting, told the court: "Your honour may know it is a chant that is used by football supporters in Scotland, or is something heard at matches involving Manchester United when Sir Alex gets excited."

I skimmed this and then had to reread before realising it didn't come from the defence

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/07/article-1292716-0A5824C5000005DC-123_634x401.jpg

Mungolian Red Set

ravel morrison, pogba and maybe ezekiel fryers.

is he losing the ability to manage difficult young footballers?

reading wine shite and found dis

'My favourite wine is called Pesquera, which comes from a lovely little Spanish wine-making region,' said Ferguson. 'It's a gorgeous red, which is very fruity; I recommend you try a bottle.'

the crianza is abt £20 hmmn

ive realized what has been troubling me lately about ferguson -- he refers to hernandez as 'chicharito'

i know it is on his shirt and everything but still

http://www.ftbpro.com/posts/jeff.grady/619796/8-reasons-why-sir-alex-ferguson-is-not-the-best-manager-of-all-time?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=share

and who the fuck is that cunt

is ferguson's 2000 autobiography worth reading? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Managing-My-Life-Autobiography/dp/0340728566/ref=la_B000APIIYK_1_2

or is he stymied by his paymasters

Depends what you're after.

something similar to last years book i guess, where he was given free reign to rant on about his methods, candid about players and foes, etc. wondering if it's just a cash-in puff piece before i blow my £5.99 on the kindle store

I haven't read the more recent one, so I can't compare them, and I read this one way back in 1999 so I can't remember it that well. Like just about every footballing autobiography it's ghostwritten and doesn't really sound like it's actually Ferguson doing the talking. There's stuff about his early life, playing career, pub etc. From what I recall he sticks the knife into a few people - Gordon Strachan and Brian Kidd spring to mind.

ok thanks, think i'll go for it. his recent book is great btw, like that LRB review mentioned in a different thread says it's like having him sat in the room delivering a tirade - relentless and exhausting but fascinating. very much 'his voice' too, doesn't feel ghost-written

the 2013 autobiograph is very evidently ghostwritten by a shit writer (paul hayward)

the ferguson autobiography: a life in content

yeah saw that thread. did you want a load of umms and coughs and pauses in for authenticity? i'm with the LRB take on it:

Ferguson’s ghostwriter is Paul Hayward, one of the most elegant sports journalists around. In this case, though, Hayward has absented his own voice entirely and decided to give us the authentic sound of Ferguson in full flow. The result reads like the unedited transcripts of taped conversations in which Ferguson was allowed to say whatever occurred to him whenever it occurred, without interruption. It’s ugly, it’s grinding, but it gives you the flavour of the man. The only other autobiography I’ve read recently that comes across like this is Tony Blair’s, which was also so disconnected, erratic and self-referential that it had the unmistakeable ring of authenticity. Blair jumped from subject to subject in such a peculiar way that it had to be the way his mind really worked. Interestingly, both books have sold far better than anyone expected, especially given how unpopular the two men are with many members of the public (Ferguson’s has been shifting nearly a hundred thousand copies a week, which means a lot of people are going to get an uncomfortable Christmas present). Part of it, of course, is sheer celebrity. But authenticity also sells.

just saying if you can read properly you will probably notice it is written by a shit writer, authenticity is neither here nor there

runciman is one of the best political writers but describing paul hayward as elegant is fairly deranged

some clunky bits, sure but the overall feel was very much ferguson one-on-one bragging/ranting at the reader. felt very 'honest', for better or worse. hayward probably spun some bits out for effect but .. so?

https://www.google.co.il/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/05/05/sir-alex-ferguson-rushed-hospital-serious-condition/amp/