Greatest ever British manager

[marc71178]

Back in the 80s there wasn't anywhere near the same level of Old Firm dominance because there wasn't the money in football.

Incidentally there was the money in football when he started to be successful at OT though, and guess which club had more of it than anyone else?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Back in the 80s there wasn't anywhere near the same level of Old Firm dominance because there wasn't the money in football.

15 years of Old Firm winning the league is fairly dominant.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Back in the 80s there wasn't anywhere near the same level of Old Firm dominance because there wasn't the money in football.

Incidentally there was the money in football when he started to be successful at OT though, and guess which club had more of it than anyone else?

TBF Ferguson was probably more the cause than the beneficiary of that IMHO. Aberdeen have won four titles ever; three under Sir Alex. Aside from them there was (IIRC) one title for Dundee United in the 80s, which still leaves six titles for yer old firm.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Don't think it matters that much that Clough and Shankly aren't there, because Paisley should take this anyway.

If Ferguson wins this then it shows how blinkered Man U fans are. Paisley was more successful, and Liverpool continued to dominate after he left. Time will tell if United do the same.

Shankly > Paisley by a fair distance IMO. Shankly rebuilt the side, Paisley carried it on, but would in all probability never have been so successful had Shankly not done his bit.

Paisley was not all that much more successful than Ferguson, apart from in the European department. And any knock-out competition, despite being one that every side desperately wants to win (European Cup especially) is always something of a lottery owing to the fact that it is knock-out. This is evidenced somewhat by the fact that Paisley never won the FA Cup.

 

[Cloete]

Busby of those listed

Would go Cloughy though.

 

[marc71178]

TBF Ferguson was probably more the cause than the beneficiary of that IMHO. Aberdeen have won four titles ever; three under Sir Alex. Aside from them there was (IIRC) one title for Dundee United in the 80s, which still leaves six titles for yer old firm.

My point was that it wasn't the same 2 sides well clear of the pack year on year - like it is now.

 

[Tom Halsey]

My point was that it wasn't the same 2 sides well clear of the pack year on year - like it is now.

Ferguson was the first non-Old Firm manager to win the league since 1965.

 

[GIMH]

Shankly > Paisley by a fair distance IMO. Shankly rebuilt the side, Paisley carried it on, but would in all probability never have been so successful had Shankly not done his bit.

Paisley was not all that much more successful than Ferguson, apart from in the European department. And any knock-out competition, despite being one that every side desperately wants to win (European Cup especially) is always something of a lottery owing to the fact that it is knock-out. This is evidenced somewhat by the fact that Paisley never won the FA Cup.

Yet on the other hand, you had to win the league to qualify, and all sides in it were champions, and there was no group stage which gives second and third and fourth chances.

The opinion of most true Liverpool fans is that Shankly is a legend who is completely loved but Paisley was the better manager

 

[Fiery]

Ferguson

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yet on the other hand, you had to win the league to qualify, and all sides in it were champions, and there was no group stage which gives second and third and fourth chances.

The opinion of most true Liverpool fans is that Shankly is a legend who is completely loved but Paisley was the better manager

In which case IMO they're a bit blinkered, Paisley inherited an extremely good team, thanks to Shankly, Shankly did not inherit a good team.

The point about Europe is a valid one, but it was then if anything even more of a louttery than it is now due to it being a straight knock-out.

 

[steds]

Back in the 80s there wasn't anywhere near the same level of Old Firm dominance because there wasn't the money in football.

Incidentally there was the money in football when he started to be successful at OT though, and guess which club had more of it than anyone else?

TBF Ferguson was probably more the cause than the beneficiary of that IMHO. Aberdeen have won four titles ever; three under Sir Alex. Aside from them there was (IIRC) one title for Dundee United in the 80s, which still leaves six titles for yer old firm.

My point was that it wasn't the same 2 sides well clear of the pack year on year - like it is now.

When Ferguson took over as manager of Aberdeen in the summer of 1978, there hadn't been a non-old firm winner since Kilmarnock in 65.

Must be said he inherited a team that had finished 2nd the previous season, though.

 

[GIMH]

In which case IMO they're a bit blinkered, Paisley inherited an extremely good team, thanks to Shankly, Shankly did not inherit a good team.

I don't see how it's blinkered tbh. Shankly's name is revered around these parts so naming someone else as a better manager is hardly a biased thing to do. Whilst Paisley brought the more trophies, Shankly's name is synonomous with LFC and as such it'd be easy for their fans to choose him as their best ever manager but an awful lot of them don't. nothing blinkered about that, and I can accept that he laid foundations - who do you regard as the better England captain, Nasser Hussain or Michael Vaughan?

The point about Europe is a valid one, but it was then if anything even more of a louttery than it is now due to it being a straight knock-out.

I disagree. Two legs removes the off-day excuses, whereas playing 3 teams twice allows you too much leeway. You can conceivably win three and lose three and go through; and though the same can be said of a knock-out stage, the psychology of a one-on-one tie makes it much more unlikely.

Always enjoy these discussions with you though.

 

[Tom Halsey]

a) I don't see how it's blinkered tbh. Shankly's name is revered around these parts so naming someone else as a better manager is hardly a biased thing to do. Whilst Paisley brought the more trophies, Shankly's name is synonomous with LFC and as such it'd be easy for their fans to choose him as their best ever manager but an awful lot of them don't. nothing blinkered about that, and I can accept that he laid foundations - who do you regard as the better England captain, Nasser Hussain or Michael Vaughan?




b) I disagree. Two legs removes the off-day excuses, whereas playing 3 teams twice allows you too much leeway. You can conceivably win three and lose three and go through; and though the same can be said of a knock-out stage, the psychology of a one-on-one tie makes it much more unlikely.

c) Always enjoy these discussions with you though.

a) Sorry, bad choice of words. Meant basically that I think they're wrong. Doesn't really change my main point.

b) While the group stages undoubtedly leave a bit to be desired (along with the idea of admitting 4 English teams to the CL, as you said earlier), at least over the course of the 6 matches it is likely that the best two teams are going to get through. As for two legs - not a lot better than one leg IMO, especially if only a week seperates the legs. Not trying to make excuses (I think we'd have gone out anyway), over the two legs against Milan, of the 8 slots in defence we had (4 for each leg), only one was filled by a first choice defender (Evra at home). Yes, I know Vidic played in Milan but that was desperation as he hadn't played for a month.

In 2005, Chelsea won the league, Liverpool the European Cup. Who would you say was the better team that year? If you really want to find the absolutely best team in Europe, it has to be a league IMO, and hopefully that will never happen because as a knockout, at least 10 teams have a realistic chance of winning it. As I said earlier, Paisley never won the FA Cup, and that wasn't for the lack of trying, it was largely due to random factors IMO.

c) So do I, any debate about football is good AFAIC.

 

[GIMH]

a) Sorry, bad choice of words. Meant basically that I think they're wrong. Doesn't really change my main point.

Fair enough - we shall have to disagree on that. If I could have either of them at Tranmere, it would be Paisley (and would involve a fair bit of magic)

b) While the group stages undoubtedly leave a bit to be desired (along with the idea of admitting 4 English teams to the CL, as you said earlier), at least over the course of the 6 matches it is likely that the best two teams are going to get through. As for two legs - not a lot better than one leg IMO, especially if only a week seperates the legs. Not trying to make excuses (I think we'd have gone out anyway), over the two legs against Milan, of the 8 slots in defence we had (4 for each leg), only one was filled by a first choice defender (Evra at home). Yes, I know Vidic played in Milan but that was desperation as he hadn't played for a month.

Hmmm, I think two legs does make a difference as it gives each side a chance to press home their home advantage. Usually the top two teams will go through from the group stage, but conversely were United a worse side than Benfica last season? I'd say no.

My opinion is that it is harder to go all the way when each tie is knockout, and it adds an intensity to ties throughout the competition, whereas we often see a good 5/6 dead rubbers in the CL in late November/early December. I do think there should be two weeks between legs though, but obviously scheduling is difficult these days

In 2005, Chelsea won the league, Liverpool the European Cup. Who would you say was the better team that year? If you really want to find the absolutely best team in Europe, it has to be a league IMO, and hopefully that will never happen because as a knockout, at least 10 teams have a realistic chance of winning it. As I said earlier, Paisley never won the FA Cup, and that wasn't for the lack of trying, it was largely due to random factors IMO.

c) So do I, any debate about football is good AFAIC.

Completely agree, there were worlds between Chelsea and Liverpool in 05, just as there were between Chelsea and Arsenal last season. My earliest memories of watching the European Cup live is the 92 final which Ronald Koeman scored a belter in, so to me, it's always had a group stage, but you get the feeling that the great teams of Real madrid, bayern Munich and Liverpool that dominated the competition for periods were actually the best sides in Europe at that time. You tend not to get that feeling that much these days.

 

[Tom Halsey]

a) Hmmm, I think two legs does make a difference as it gives each side a chance to press home their home advantage. Usually the top two teams will go through from the group stage, but conversely were United a worse side than Benfica last season? I'd say no.

My opinion is that it is harder to go all the way when each tie is knockout, and it adds an intensity to ties throughout the competition, whereas we often see a good 5/6 dead rubbers in the CL in late November/early December. I do think there should be two weeks between legs though, but obviously scheduling is difficult these days



b) Completely agree, there were worlds between Chelsea and Liverpool in 05, just as there were between Chelsea and Arsenal last season. My earliest memories of watching the European Cup live is the 92 final which Ronald Koeman scored a belter in, so to me, it's always had a group stage, but you get the feeling that the great teams of Real madrid, bayern Munich and Liverpool that dominated the competition for periods were actually the best sides in Europe at that time. You tend not to get that feeling that much these days.

a) Agree to an extent, I do feel that playing it as a straight knockout would probably make it a better competition, I just feel that it isn't the best way of finding the best team though (as I said earlier I hope very much that it never becomes a full league competition).

b) Yeah you have a fair point, which makes comparisons between eras very difficult. Liverpool almost certainly were the best team in Europe under Paisley, but if the competition was won by the genuine best team each season, they'd have won Europe all 9 (?) seasons he was in charge, or at least more than 3.

I'm not trying to be biased, and now we've won the league again Europe is probably the one I want to win most next season, but I've always felt that if you're comparing two teams in the same league as each other, the league is always the best way to do that.

 

[GIMH]

a) Agree to an extent, I do feel that playing it as a straight knockout would probably make it a better competition, I just feel that it isn't the best way of finding the best team though (as I said earlier I hope very much that it never becomes a full league competition).

b) Yeah you have a fair point, which makes comparisons between eras very difficult. Liverpool almost certainly were the best team in Europe under Paisley, but if the competition was won by the genuine best team each season, they'd have won Europe all 9 (?) seasons he was in charge, or at least more than 3.

I'm not trying to be biased, and now we've won the league again Europe is probably the one I want to win most next season, but I've always felt that if you're comparing two teams in the same league as each other, the league is always the best way to do that.

Without doubt. If I was a United fan, I'd be delighted with this season. if I were a Liverpool fan, I'd swap the game on Wednesday night to have won the league.

If I was a Chelsea fan, though, I'd have rather won the CL than the Prem this year, simply because they'd already won the Prem the previous two years. Alas, they won neither. Is Mourinho the special one? Need to win home, and away, to be truly special, I'm sure you will agree on that

 

[DireWindies]

Not enough trophies. Worked off a minimum of eight.

And you did a dire job of it. What hideous rationale.

Don't start threads about stuff you know nothing about, Johnny come lately.

 

[roseboy64]

We can't all have our own way can we? If I'd included other managers in there it would have been much longer and a lot more work which I didn't have the time to do. If you don't like it fine, but leave the insults out of it huh?

 

[Matteh]

When Ferguson took over as manager of Aberdeen in the summer of 1978, there hadn't been a non-old firm winner since Kilmarnock in 65.

Must be said he inherited a team that had finished 2nd the previous season, though.

That's because Jock Stein won 9 titles for Celtic in a row. That's who i'll vote for.

 

[DCC_legend]

Lawrie Sanchez tbh, didn't win any trophys but worked wonders with the Northern Irish team.