Father Ted,

Keep Rafa then.We are happy with Fergie.Comparing managers makes me assume you are saying we should have him as he is better than Fergie.laughable by the way.

Also he has had over 100 player transactions in 6 years.he's like a child playing championship manager.

I respect Liverpool enough to know that he is not good enough to get you the elusive title you want and probably deserved last year.paper over the cracks all you want by winning the Europa cup this year but you know yourself that Rafa is further away than ever from winning the title.And to moan the other day that he needs money to invest is also a joke.He had 20m to send and he bought Aquilani.A player with a dreadful injury record.I am sorry but he has been given enough time and money to invest but isn't up to the job.

and I am not hereslaggign Liverpool lads.Rafa is not as good as Fergie.

Tipple30 (Tipperary) - Posts: 77 - 09/04/2010 13:03:56    612745

nocky - I wouldn't say they've gotten worse but I don't think they've gotten any better either

NavyNBlue (Dublin) - Posts: 1357 - 09/04/2010 13:27:00    612772

There isnt another manger on earth that has done what ferguson has achieved with utd. He went to them when they were nothing of note. Like an everton or villa in today's game. He then turned them into the most successful club side in the country and kept them there for the best part of 3 decades. Many 'better' false-prophets came, equipped with limitless money or a superb eye for youth players, but ultimately none could master him. He has gone at the top and stayed there, displaying an unmatched ability to change with the times, that is what it is all about. Guardiola may have won the battle, but that has been done before. However wenger, mourinho and the rest will tell you it is quite another thing to win the war

TheMaster (Mayo) - Posts: 16187 - 09/04/2010 13:47:24    612797

NavyNBlue
County: Dublin
Posts: 413

612664 25 years in Europe?I seem to remember United bening banned from European football for about 5 years?Who was to blame for that?

What European competitions would United have been playing in in those 5 years? Other than 87/88 when United came second which in those days meant UEFA cup, United would not have qualified for nothing else. Bit of a mute point there Tipple

man utd won the fa cup in 1985 so they would have been playing in the following seasons cup winners cup.everton are the team who missed out big time during the english ban.won the league in 1985+1987.a great team who who would have gone far in europe.

OLLIE (Louth) - Posts: 12224 - 09/04/2010 13:59:40    612806

nocky
County: Wexford
Posts: 1889

612738
Fr. Ted, I think Ferguson actually improved the Manchester United team in his first 6years, Liverpool have gotten worse.

Exactly, Nocky. It goes for the Guardiola comparison as well that both Liverpool and Barcelona were much much better placed when they took over than Utd were when Ferguson took over.

Being reasonable and consistent and using the same standards when discussing Man Utd and Alex Ferguson seems to be beyond a lot of the "experts" on here.

Breffni40 (Cavan) - Posts: 12291 - 09/04/2010 14:10:55    612824

Now, Who's 1st 6 years looks more impressive?? Liverpool aren't jealous of United, Their history speaks for itself. Why would they be jealous of a team who has the same number of league trophies as them, and about half the number of European cups?

Would be a valid point if Benitez hadn't taken over a team that had won a Uefa Cup only a few years previous and had been consistently in the Champions' League, whilst Ferguson was taking over a team that had been struggling to get beyond mid-table. Also, look at the era's they took over in, Ferguson didn't have the luxury of qualifying for the European Cup from 4th place and didn't have the Champions' League money to give them an advantage over all but 3 others of the English teams.

But keep doing what Liverpool fans do best, living in the past. Same number of league titles, but 20 years since the last one. I'm sure there's no jealousy at all that Liverpool's doldrums has conincided with United's most successful period.

black&white (Sligo) - Posts: 1628 - 09/04/2010 14:19:49    612830

TheMaster - GREAT post!

slayer (Limerick) - Posts: 6480 - 09/04/2010 14:28:38    612841

The Master - your post makes so much sense and simply can't be argued with by any rational or reasonable human being.

Brolly (Monaghan) - Posts: 4472 - 09/04/2010 14:36:10    612850

TheMaster
County: Mayo
Posts: 1976

612797 There isnt another manger on earth that has done what ferguson has achieved with utd. He went to them when they were nothing of note. Like an everton or villa in today's game. He then turned them into the most successful club side in the country and kept them there for the best part of 3 decades. Many 'better' false-prophets came, equipped with limitless money or a superb eye for youth players, but ultimately none could master him. He has gone at the top and stayed there, displaying an unmatched ability to change with the times, that is what it is all about. Guardiola may have won the battle, but that has been done before. However wenger, mourinho and the rest will tell you it is quite another thing to win the war

yes he is a brilliant manager. but while he was there united also transformed into a multi national business, who also had unlimited money until recently.

what age is mourinho. he had NO money in porto. look what he achieved there. ferguson has never achieved anything that monumental. and guess who he beat in the process to europes biggest prize. when he came to england he completely dominated ferguson AGAIN. only for countless injurys in his final year in england united JUST won the title. what had ferguson achieved at mourinhos age? not much. to mourinho, he's in a results. and more often than not, he'll get the results.

as he's much younger he obviously hasnt achieved as much. but no doubt the special one will surpass him. as for ferguson's "mind games". i didnt see him say too much when mourinho was on the scene. no doubt about it, the special one is a more effective manager

32_4_1 (Meath) - Posts: 4122 - 09/04/2010 14:50:14    612872

Black&White - whilst Ferguson was taking over a team that had been struggling to get beyond mid-table. Also, look at the era's they took over in, Ferguson didn't have the luxury of qualifying for the European Cup from 4th place and didn't have the Champions' League money to give them an advantage over all but 3 others of the English teams.

We've had this conversation before I'm sure. United were 3rd in 83/84 and 4th in 84/85, had won the FA Cup in 83 and in 85 - hardly what I'd call a midtable team. Yes the money from the champions league was not available to spend, but there was nowhere near the same amount of money floating about for simply qualifying for competitions that teams get now. All money made back then was down mostly to the wealth of the chairman and shareholders, of which United were still one of the richest clubs at the time. In comparitive terms, they still had enough money to spend. Sure Bryan Robson was the most expensive english transfer for years when he went to united. When he took over, Fergie had money to spend and within a few years had made another buy that broke the transfer record when he took Pallister in for 2.3 million - huge money in those days.
Yes I've been around the football game longer than most, long enough to remember that in 89 United supporters had a banner saying "Three years of excuses and it's still ****. Ta ra Fergie."
I'm sure United fans are counting their lucky stars that they didn't sack him when things weren't so great

NavyNBlue (Dublin) - Posts: 1357 - 09/04/2010 15:11:25    612911

32_4_1

are you for real?

you wrote this below:

what age is mourinho. he had NO money in porto. look what he achieved there. ferguson has never achieved anything that monumental. and guess who he beat in the process to europes biggest prize. when he came to england he completely dominated ferguson AGAIN. only for countless injurys in his final year in england united JUST won the title. what had ferguson achieved at mourinhos age? not much. to mourinho, he's in a results. and more often than not, he'll get the results.

Er, Ferguson at Aberdeen. 3 Scottish titles, 80, 84 & 85. 3 Scottish cups, 82, 83, 84. In 1983 Aberdeen won the cup winners cup beating BAYERN MUNICH and REAL MADRID to win the cup. All this wth NO MONEY.

As for Mourinho dominating Fergusn in England - who won the 2007 premiership title? In his time it finished 2 titles to Mourinho, 1 to Ferguson, this in a time when Mourinho had a limitless budget and United were rebuilding - departure of Roy Keane for example.

And to say Ferguson had achieved nothing at Mourinho's current age - well, I'm just astounded.

Have you EVER heard of google.com? These facts are out there on the net and you won't sustain any injuries if you search, like the keyboard won't electrocute your fingers.

Holy God!

slayer (Limerick) - Posts: 6480 - 09/04/2010 15:44:33    612954

NavyNBlue wrote:

Yes I've been around the football game longer than most, long enough to remember that in 89 United supporters had a banner saying "Three years of excuses and it's still ****. Ta ra Fergie."

I remember this & am honest enough to admit I wanted him out. I never saw us winning the title under him, but now I dread the thoughts of him leaving.

slayer (Limerick) - Posts: 6480 - 09/04/2010 15:47:34    612961

slayer - As usual a great voice of reason.

NavyNBlue (Dublin) - Posts: 1357 - 09/04/2010 16:18:15    613001

NavyNBlue

True United had finished in the top 5 in most of those years, but in 3 of the 5 seasons previous to Ferguson taking over United were closer (in points) to 10th place than to 1st. To my mind that equates to a mid-table team.
The money arguement is more relevent in my opinion. When Rafa took over, the gap between the "Big 4" and the rest was already becoming evident, as was the gap (money-wise) between the Premiership and every other league in Europe.
When Fergie took over at United, they may have been the big-boys money wise in England, but the gap between United and the rest wasn't that significant, whilst other European leagues were on a par, and ahead in some cases, in terms of money.
Just look at Rafa's transfer activity since he took over. Ferguson bought nowhere near the volume (can't really compare values) of players in his first 10 years, never mind 5. Over Fergie's first 5 years he built the foundations of his first double-winning team, making two or three key acquisitions per season. He revitalised the YTS system at United, which again came to bear fruits in years to come. The fan's mightn't have realised the progress that he was making, but the groundwork for the future was being laid.
Has Rafa done similar? It's hard to tell, but he certainly doesn't appear to be building the foundations of a team, with the revolving door policy he seems to have with so many players.

black&white (Sligo) - Posts: 1628 - 09/04/2010 16:33:09    613010

The money debate is a tough one black and white. The influx of money into the top 4 makes it nigh on impossible for other teams to compete as you say. Its no big deal whatsoever for an English team to buy a player from nearly any country in the world and compete with other big european names in acquiring such players. Coming 3rd or 4th now is so much more important than it was back then but transfer market wise, it was all about the country you were from and within that country, what club you played for. Liverpool won a treble in 83/84, winning the league, league cup and the european cup. The only non-british or irish player I remember them buying during that period was Jan Molby (great buy by the way). But as european champions they weren't able to have the pick of the players from the other big clubs in europe. The english league was still seen as second rate even though at the time English teams were dominating Europe.
Now, whichever team wins the european cup, will be able to attract players from anywhere in the world. Having more money to spend and a bigger budget to work with aren't always the perfect marriage. Rafa has had some well known stinkers in this department but Fergie has had them too, in fact most managers at top clubs have spent badly at one time or another. Fergie didn't buy as many in the first 5 years in his reign because he was dealing with a smaller market and had nowhere near the budget that the likes of Liverpool have to play with now but he had no trouble in bringing players in, and, at the time spending big too - Pallister, Webb, Ince, Bruce, Wallace, Parker and Hughes all costing a pretty penny at the time. All these signings were seen as big money transfers just as Johnson, Aqualani, Crouch, Torres and Keane would have been seen today.
But you're right in so far as what Fergie achieved with his YTS. Being able to build a team around talent that has come through a club with the likes of Beckham, Giggs, Scholes, Butt and Neville is what I regard as Fergies greatest achievement. Its what has been able to maintain Uniteds dominance for so long in my opinion and again showing that you don't have to spend big to groom great players.

NavyNBlue (Dublin) - Posts: 1357 - 09/04/2010 16:57:35    613058

TheMaster
County: Mayo
There isnt another manger on earth that has done what ferguson has achieved with utd. He went to them when they were nothing of note. Like an everton or villa in today's game

ferguson is a great manager alright but united wer never a small club when he took over. bill shankly done more - he brought a bad second division club with a terrible pitch and training methods and turned the club (or rathar laid the foundations) into one of the biggest and most successful clubs in the world.

yew_tree (Mayo) - Posts: 11539 - 09/04/2010 17:51:36    613125

I am more worried about Fulham
They are the only English team that can outdo Liverpool in Europe - which is where it matters

madasbutter (Mayo) - Posts: 872 - 09/04/2010 18:12:09    613140

ferguson is a great manager alright but united wer never a small club when he took over. bill shankly done more - he brought a bad second division club with a terrible pitch and training methods and turned the club (or rathar laid the foundations) into one of the biggest and most successful clubs in the world.

If this is the benchmark, is what Clough achieved with Forest more impressive?

I think Fergie is a special case - the longevity of his career, constantly winning a trophy most seasons, is unbelievable. The achilles heel is as a manager he has won 4 European trophies in 30+ years, although he was not in Europe every year. But by his own admission that is a poor return. As a United fan, I wish we had won more in Europe, but I also think that were it not fir his vision, we might never have won the European crown again and we would be looking back on 68 with envy.

slayer (Limerick) - Posts: 6480 - 09/04/2010 18:29:26    613155

no doubt clough was better than ferguson too

32_4_1 (Meath) - Posts: 4122 - 09/04/2010 18:44:31    613169

slayer in this day and age winning the champions league with porto is far superior to anything ferguson has done. its a lot harder for the smaller teams to come through, as the bigger teams are richer and only get richer, and the gap to the chasing pack widens. it wasnt quite the same years ago. anyway porto were in trouble when mourinho took them over.

ferguson only won the premiership in mouribhos final year in england due to all the injurys. his whole back 4 was out at one stage, the area of the pitch where the foundation for any team is laid

32_4_1 (Meath) - Posts: 4122 - 09/04/2010 18:59:25    613181