There isn't a doubt that he's doing a much better job than Mick McCarthy did. They got relegared twice under him and set a Premiership record for lowest point total in a season. The thing is when you spend the kind of money he has, you expect results and they aren't exactly doing much better than they did last season.

Your statement is presumptuous. You'll notice that a number of rival fans did mention Ferguson (including me) if you bothered reading back. May I suggest that you stop assuming the worst of us? Not all rival fans are devoid of logic.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Nov 7 2008, 03:07 PM

Well it has to do with your definition of "our time" doesn't it? When I started watching footy, King Kenny was at the helm.

Precisely. What does the issue of diving have to do with management? Just for the sake of argument, there was contact, no? It's gamesmanship and if you feel contact in the box, a good number of players will go down.

I agree with those of you that suggest Mourinho and Wenger do not yet belong in the same bracket as Ferguson, Paisley, Shankly, Busby, etc. They may have brought about a revolution within the club but in the end, it comes down to titles and leaving a legacy doesn't it? It isn't as though Wenger has been working with a limited budget or that he inherited a poor side. His willingness to spend on young talent instead of proven players is his own doing and one must question when he will look to today and not the future.

Like you I enjoy watching Arsenal play and he did have money to spend. If memory serves me he was handed a transfer kitty of $50 million during the break last season. I may be mistaken but he was given a sizable budget nonetheless.

He does indeed come up with wonderful signings doesn't he? Prior to their arrival in the EPL, I had never heard of Toure, Sagna, Flamini, Reyes, Adebayor and company. Somewhat like you mentioned though, he has been unable to keep quality players at the club for the long term which leads to him having to rebuild almost every season. Arsenal have also been criticised for overplaying and overpassing when a more direct approach would have brought about rewards.

I think he meant that Mourinho started winning trophies at a younger age than Ferguson, not that Mourinho has won using young players.

As I've said before there is no doubting Ferguson's contribution to the clubs history. Even back before you won the Premiership, he had already assembled a decent squad. The injection of the class of 92 did give him a major boost though. The question I've been asking myself is, will any other manager be given the time that Ferguson was given in this day and age? Some clubs go through 2 and maybe even 3 managers a season.

A lot of the clubs fame must also be attributed to the upper management team who made great strides in marketing the team worldwide. Of course the two must work hand in hand, I mean what is the point in marketing a team with no titles and whose matches are hardly televised? To some extent, I can't help imagine what might have happened had Liverpool abandoned our traditions years ago and started marketing ourselves to the world during the 80's. Well times were different than I suppose and the old English 1st Division didn't have the same reach as today's Premiership.

You're right and it's the reason I get tired when fans lament that the manager needs more time before going into how much time Ferguson or whoever was given in the past. As you have just quite rightly said, teams back then did not receive huge cash injections from out of the blue and money only came in when you win things. I always use Man Utd as an example because Ferguson built a team that won trophies without receiving a significant cash injection from a bored rich man looking for a hobby. The team won on the pitch and the marketing department did the rest which is why Man Utd is one of the biggest clubs, if not the biggest in the world today.

So why don't managers deserve as much time these days? Simply because some of them are blessed with huge wads of cash. You don't need to spend time developing players when you can go out to the store to buy a plug and play product. With this luxury, it's fair to assume that you will achieve success sooner. I urge fans to consider this before referring to the past again citing how long managers were given back then.

All I know is that if I die this year, that would appear on my tombstone

Because he doesn't swear enough, talk enough, or make barmy decisions? I believe some charisma would help.

The funny thing about Hiddink is that he has yet to land a top job and win anything. He has worked wonders at PSV, Korea and Australia but for some reason, top sides (with the exception of Real Madrid) have eluded him.

Fergie comes out tops when it comes to trophies, without a doubt. The question is, does it come down to purely medals? We spoke about Guus Hiddink and how he took an average PSV side to the Champions League Quarter-Finals where they really should have beaten AC Milan. He also took South Korea to the World Cup semi-finals amidst much contravery and Australia to their very first World Cup Finals ever. If it comes down to trophies alone, only so many managers would qualify for this title because there are only so many top sides around.

The legendary Rinus Michels invented "Total Football" and his teams were a joy to watch but his tally of silverware pales in comparison to Ferguson. Bill Shankly took over a team languishing at the bottom of the old Second Division, with a crumbling stadium, poor training facilities and poor quality playing staff, and turned them into one of the most feared sides in Europe. Bob Paisley won 6 League Championships and 3 European Cups in just 9 years, surely a more impressive ratio is hard to come by?

Another way of looking at it is to consider win percentages. This is of course also flawed as some managers may have started at pretty poor clubs while others like Kenny Dalglish start their careers at top clubs. Incidentally King Kenny had a 60% win record during his time at the helm of Liverpool. Anyway let us have a look at the win percentages of some of the names mentioned here:

1) Ferguson - 56.77% (57.93% @ Man Utd)
2) Paisley - 56.12%
3) Benitez - 56.98% (at Liverpool)
4) Wenger - 53.08%
5) Mourinho - 68.28%
6) Hitzfeld - 77.30%
7) Fabio Capello - 56.70%
8) Matt Busby - 52.38%

*Stats courtesy of wikipedia

I did go a little OT by including past managers but since some mentioned "best of all time" I thought I'd take that into consideration as well. Both Busby and Shankly built teams from nothing and I feel that should be taken into consideration.

If you look at the list then, it seems Hitzfeld is by far the "winningest coach" despite having less silverware than Ferguson.

You are always welcomed to back your opinions up. The term "best" as mentioned by schmeichel7 is subjective. I'm not sure if you're referring to me but if you scroll a few pages back, I did mention Alex Ferguson out of the options given to us. However my latest post is to state that he isn't the most winningest manager, which doesn't mean he isn't the best. Yes I bothered to do some research before posting and you have a right to question the validity of that research if you so wish. Again, it's an opinion. Why do we give opinions and try to back them up? So we can have a discussion and not come across as someone that votes based on pure biasness or heresay. It is always prudent to make informed decisions and keeping guesswork to the minimal.

I rest my case when it comes to research.

Credit to SAF for all his success and building a team that has dominated English football for almost 2 decades. I can't fantom though where he got the notion that Rafa splurged to bring us success. First question I have is,"what success"? Secondly if he is referring to Istanbul which was a one off so far, we didn't exactly splurge on star players like Traore, Biscan, Smicer, Finnan, Hyypia, Dudek, Carra, Gerrard, Alonso, etc. The most expensive signing in our squad at the time was Djibril Cisse at what? $14 mil?

I don't think SAF is overrated but at the same time, I don't think he is a straight choice for best manager off ALL time, certainly in my time time though. It's arguable if Wenger, Scolari or Benitez will achieve the same amount of success if they were given 20 years but since I've started watching football, Man Utd have emerged champions more times than I can remember. Attaining success is one thing but more importantly SAF has managed to maintain success which is arguably tougher. Arsenal and Chelsea have threatened to break the dominance of Man Utd but neither can lay claim to having dominated the league. A title here and there is no indication that the Man Utd stranglehold is broken. I don't care how many years he took to win the title before 1988 (which is when I first started watching football) because that was before my time. In my time, he has won more league titles than any other manager I know.

What irks me is when certain posters claim that I dispel any notion that SAF is the best. How many times do I have to repeat myself? We all agree that it is a subjective matter so what is wrong in me defining it in my own terms. In a recent post I based it of winning ratio and just because SAF didn't come up tops, that means I'm shooting him down? Please. I'm just opening room for discussion. Instead of making false accusations, why don't you refute what I posted with an argument? Here's a good example: I'm pretty sure that if one were manager of Celtic/Rangers for 20 years, he would have an awesome win ratio. Therefore, winning ratios may not be a good benchmark. See, this is a counter argument.

Mmm but that should mean the same thing, Poorer clubs v Poorer clubs as opposed to Richer clubs v Richer clubs. They cancel one another out.

Blinky brought up a good observation. Is Ligue 2 easier to win than the Premiership? Why would anyone say that? We're not comparing leagues here. Of course there is a difference in standard but it doesn't mean that lower leagues aren't as competitive. Even Premiership sides that have been relegated find it hard to bounce back immediately. Therefore I do think it's unfair to belittle Mourinho's success with Porto. How is it any less competitive than the Premiership? Having said that he also won the Champions League. Yes it may not have as much quality but nonetheless it isn't as though the other teams are much much lousier then them.

Please draw a distinction between comparing leagues in terms of quality, and the level of competitiveness in a league. Man Utd have dominated English football with Arsenal and Chelsea winning a title here and there in between. Does this mean that the Premiership is easier to win because Man Utd have won 6 of the last 10 trophies. Porto have won 6 of the last 10 in their league as well.

One could argue that winning the World Cup with a "big" team is easier than winning a the domestic league. It is akin to comparing winning the Champions League to winning the Premiership. If you say that it's tougher to win a cup competition then Rafa should be in with a shout having brought us to 3 semi-finals in 4 years, 2 being final appearances. It is in my opinion that it's tougher to win the league simply because the season takes it's toll on players and you have to rotate your squad wisely.

It really depends on what you define as "bashing". With the exception of a couple of posts, others have been aimed at giving differing viewpoints into why SAF may not be the "best" even though he is the most successful in "our time". For what it's worth I already voted for SAF however I also posted statistics to show that he isn't the most winningest manager. It doesn't change my opinion but I also want to analyse it from differing viewpoints. Instead of claiming that you are being ill treated by rival fans, much like how SAF thinks the whole league has a bias against you lot, why not provide counter arguments? In the end, the facts won't lie.

To put a little perspective into your statement, Man Utd is one of the richest clubs in the world thanks to well thought out marketing initiatives and success on the pitch of course. You compare your spending power to clubs like Chelsea and Real Madrid but fail to take into consideration the vast number of clubs that don't have the kind of money you do. How many Chelseas and Read Madrids are there in the world? I'm wondering if Rafa has hung himself yet.

Ferguson did not "have" to sell the players you mentioned incidentally. He chose to.

"Life is never fair"? I really think you've lost touch with reality here. Sorry but it gives me the impression you don't keep yourself updated with the rest of the footballing world. It's almost comical you think you're in dire straights.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jun 12 2009, 10:13 AM

I do know a fair bit about your history thank you. You weren't just almost relegated, you were relegated curtousy of a goal from Dennis Law, your former player. He was close to tears after scoring that goal. I've been following your club since I started supporting Liverpool back in 1988. If you've been following this post, you'll notice that I did agree with several posters stating that Fergie is one of the best managers during our time. However I was responding to a poster that spoke as though you were a debt ridden club fighting relegation. I did say that success on the pitch and good marketing brought you the income you have now. I did also defend you on many times when supporters from Chelsea, etc claim that you bought success as well. I have been quoted many times saying that you "earned" your success. Please feel free to verify this with seasoned posters here. Don't be so presumptious mate. Having said all this the financial disparity between clubs back then wasn't as wide as it is today. Today, billionaires looking for a hobby are a dime a dozen. When was the last time Everton, Spurs, Newcastle, Blackburn or West Ham challenged for the league? The smaller clubs are falling behind the bigger ones. These days promoted clubs hope to stave of relegation, nothing more. Back then newly promoted sides like Newcastle and Blackburn could fight for the Prem the very next season after promotion. There was a discussion to do with this and I agree that it's harder these days without substantial financial backing.

Ditto to you. How was my post biased again? Please do point out what I said wrong. Take into consideration the post I was responding to. Isn't your allegation a little biased given you never took into consideration what I've previously said about your club? The point of my post was to put things into perspective. You may have earned your wealth while Chelsea inherited theirs as I quite rightly pointed out but to say that the world is unfair and life is an uphill battle for you, is an insult to the other 18 teams in the league, no?

If you weren't a little biased, you'd see how overly dramatic his post is. Poor you for not having the wealth of Chelsea and Real Madrid? Well same goes for 95% of clubs round the world. "Ferguson had to sell players"? He chose to sell them. Am I wrong?

We have spent a fair bit on transfers, where did I say otherwise? Again, you're making an assumption. I brought up the issue of marketing because Rick Parry did a piss poor job in this department or we'd have been the huge commercial success you are back in the 80's. It's why we're in debt because we aren't generating enough income to pay for players via cash. If you look at statstics of the world's richest clubs you'd see this. WTF does bringing us into the picture have to do with the post I was responding too anyway. If I accuse someone of being a prick, should he justify his actions or point out that there are other pricks around?

I hope that instead of accusing me of being biased, you can put up an argument. Feel free to counter my points if you think I'm wrong. It's what a discussion thread is all about.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jun 14 2009, 08:48 AM

I'd agree if you said "our time" but "ever"? I can't help but think of names like Shankley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Shankly), Busby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Matt_Busby) and Jock Stein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Stein). Outside of England, have a look at the legendary Rinus Michels(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinus_Michels) What do you reckon makes Ferguson better than those two? Even if we were to focus on the present, someone like Guus Hiddink while not having achieved the same level of success at club level, has brought unfancied sides like Australia and South Korea to the World Cup Finals. How many expected the Koreans to reach the semis albeit amidst some contraversy? He has also brought PSV to the Champions League semi's twice, and where really unlucky to lose to AC Milan on one occasion.

That all being said I did vote for Ferguson as well and I stated my reasons sometime back between pages 14 - 18. Would you like to share yours? I'd repeat myself but it's tiring and I feel that if someone were to enter an ongoing conversation, they should do their best to listen and catch up before interjecting because wrong assumptions are often formed. Most of the time people post for the sake of posting something.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jun 16 2009, 10:10 AM

I'm aware of Ferguson's achievements. I actually took the liberty of reading up a little on other managers before I posted my nomination. I myself agree that he's the best manager of my time but I'm questioning claims that he's the "best manager ever", especially when there is no justification. If it were purely down to medals and trophies, we won't even hear names like Shankly or Busby being whispered.