Results speak for themselves and I will grudgingly have to say, Alex Ferguson. I do however like Bobby Robson as well.

So the question becomes, which achievements indicate you are a better manager? Is it easier to win your domestic league, the champions league or the world cup? Ultimately you'd like to win all of the above but you can't manage so many teams at once.

Firstly, I must admit I know more about the EPL than any other league and my opinions may therefore be biased. I do appreciate La Liga and Serie fans sharing their point of views with us, it is refreshing.

I must say however that some of the managers mentioned have achieved only relatively short terms success. I'm not referring to the likes of Marcelo Lippi obviously. What is the criteria for being the most successful manager? To me, it's sustained success. Ferguson has the advantage of being with one club for a really long time and it's not rocket science that the longer you are at a club, the more time you have to build it into a championship side. It took him 7 years, a commodity many managers do not have these days. Even when you win trophies these days, you can't guarantee your job security. Ferguson has however had to build his squad not once but 3 times if you ask me. In the early 90's, out went key players like Hughes, McClair, Pallister, Bruce, Irwin, Ince, Robson and Sharpe and in came the famous class of 92 (Becks, Nevilles, Scholes, Butt and Giggs). His latest piece of work was the inclusion of players like Rooney, Ronaldo, Tevez, Vidic and Nani, and they won both the Premiership and the Champions League.

Don't get me wrong Liverpool fans, I really hate the guys guts because I think he is an arrogant git, but I have to give credit where it's due. Managers can hop between clubs, some better some worse. Fans will empathise with them for not achieving immediate success with smaller clubs, having a smaller budget. You won't usually get the same level of understanding from the board or the fans if you stay with one club. We've all seen it happen. A manager is only as good as his last season. The moment results go against you, you get the infamous "assurance from the board" message and before you know it, out you go. Fergie has maintained a level of consistent success over the years with one club.

The World Cup is indeed a coveted prize and I have to agree that it's probably the biggest honour a manager can be bestowed with. The issue I have with using the World Cup as a gauge is that is it a one off tournament and as such, even rookie managers like Klinsmann can look good by taking over an already strong side. Who knows, they may have won it with someone else in charge or they may have done worse? In any case, is it fair to say that Klinsmann is a good manager? The jury is still out if you ask me. It's too soon to tell.

The challenge international managers have is that there is always an on-going tug-o-war between club and country. Often, international managers don't have the luxury of having all players available to train together fur a long period of time. Then again, I find this argument moot as most international managers with the exception of small sides like Luxemborg, Lithuania , Macedonia, Andorra and like face a similar dilemma. That being said, I believe the key factor of success for international managers is selecting the right group of players and getting them to play cohesively. You can get lucky and you can have one good tournament even if your team is driven solely by star power. Don't get me wrong, I'm not belittling the role of an international manager but when you are in charge of a side like Brazil, you have a wealth of talent at your disposal and I do believe that in a one-off tournament, you can get lucky and progress really far. Notable exceptions may be like when Gus Hiddink brought and unfancied side like Korea to the World Cup semi's (though there was a hugh amount of controversy surrounding that achievement). He is one manager whom I rate by the way. Did very well with Ajax in the Champions League and also took Australia to the World Cup Finals. He is one manager who may not have won as many trophies as some of the names mentioned, but has taken unfancied sides far in major tournaments.

It is almost the same with players at the World Cup really. I mean players like Toto Schilacchi, Davor Suker and Oleg Salenko have won the Golden Boot before but made no real progress after. Salenko scored 4 against Cameroon!

I guess the point I am trying to make is, I do think it's tougher to achieve sustained domestic success than it is to succeed in one-off tournaments. Granted international tournaments only come about every few years and you have few opportunities as a manager. All i'm saying is that it's easier to get lucky in cup tournaments than it is in the league. I'm not saying it's not tough but one is easier than the other if you ask me.

Liverpool fans may raise and eyebrow and suggest that I'm belittling our clubs achievements in the Champions League but it's not easy to reach 2 finals and 1 semifinal in 4 season so there is an amount of consistency here. That being said, we weren't consistent enough of 38 domestic league matches.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jun 10 2008, 01:10 PM

Steve Coppell did the same with Reading. Keep in mind that Keane did bring in a lot of players which was helped by the Nial Quinn led Irish Consortium. Let's see how they do in their second season.

I'm interested in hearing the opinions of those that voted for Wenger.

I have no doubt that he has built a talented young squad whilst spending less than the other top clubs. He even brought Patrick Viera and Thierry Henry to England and turned them into superstars. The thing is this, he had the money to spend especially in the summer but chose not to. Was this a wise choice? Would a better manager have thought it appropriate to bring in a star or two to shore up the squad and give them some experience given that they were challenging on all fronts? Sure spending less and ensuring you're still up there with the but it could also mean you didn't make wise decisions. In the end, it's not about how much you save for the club, it's about how much revenue you bring in.

Let's face it, what do we all remember in the end? Some will remember the way managers like Shankly changed the fortunes of a club lingering in the 2nd division like Liverpool. Was he our most successful manager? No, that honour belongs to Mr. Bob Paisley. Shanks however provided the foundation for that success, he rebuilt not just the team but he also instilled values in the club that linger on till today. He changed the way the team trained, the way the team thinks, he instilled a winning mentality in them. At the same time he cherished the clubs greatest asset, it's fans. This is why so many of us still talk about him.

Now stories like the above are heart warming but let's face it, how many similar stories are there? Today, people remember results. Did Wenger inherit a poor squad from Bruce Rioch? In his only season, Rioch took Arsenal to a 5th place finish in the league, and with that came UEFA Cup qualification. Arsene Wenger did inherit a team who were solid at the back (Dixon, Keown, Adams, Bould, Winterburn) and which also consisted of one Dennis Bergkamp, David Platt, David Seaman and Ian Wright. In his first season in charge and with the addition of Patrick Viera, Wenger took Arsenal to 3rd in League, just missing out of Champions League qualification. My point is, he didn't exactly inherit a crap squad and turned their fortunes around. He built on one with solid foundations and with the addition of several young and up and coming stars, prepped them for the future. There is lies the problem; Arsenal have come close to dominating the Premiership much like Liverpool did in the 70's/80's and much like how Man Utd are currently doing but they have not enjoyed sustained success, with the exception of the FA Cup. They have not dominated Europe which all great clubs have. Please don't take this as an insult, it's just a comparison.

Will Wenger always be building a team for the future, and never focusing on the present? Will he in time, be remembered as a great manager unless he wins more silverware? I'm sure most will answer with an empathic, "yes!" but what if another comes along and wins more silverware? Will Wenger be remembered as the one who laid the foundation? Will his name echo in eternity along with the other great managers?

My point is that unless you make a deep impression on the foundations of the club, you must have silverware to have any credibility. I'm not saying Wenger is a failure, he has won titles but he has however yet to enjoy any sustained success. Arsenal do play good football and I do enjoy watching them but the only thing that will linger in the memories of football fans, is what they will have achieved under Wenger.

---

Added on June 10, 2008, 4:53 pm

The thing about luck is that I feel a team generally gets a fair share of both good and bad luck over the course of 38 games. The more games you play, the less luck plays a part. As for my take on injuries, I feel it's the role of the manager to ensure they have sufficient cover. It is foreseeable that at some point of the season, you will be missing a couple of players through injury, international duty, fatigue, or even family grievances. The lucky manager is one that has prepared for these situations. The unlucky one was the manager that took the risk of not having ample cover. Mourinho took a big risk by selling Robert Huth, leaving John Terry and Ricardo Carvalho as the only real centrebacks in his first team. When injury beset the team, he even had to play Essien at centreback. Was he unlucky or did he just not prepare?

I actually don't analyse the World Cup too much to be honest. It's too short a tournament to claim that teams did or did not perform because of injuries or whatever. I watch it for it's entertainment value. It comes across like more of a car show than a motorsports event to me. Teams go there, parade their stars and wait for buyers to call up after the tournament.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jun 10 2008, 05:11 PM

It's simple, you can spend or you can save. In the end, you have to determine which works best. I have said that the thriftiest manager is not necessarily the better manager and I doubt you'd disagree. If a manager spends and wins trophies ala Ferguson or Mourinho, they will get the recognition they deserve from their fans. Only opposition fans will claim the 'bought' the trophies. In the end, it is them that will have a healthier bank balance and happier fans. If a manager chooses not to spend and still wins trophies, NO ONE can say a bad thing about him. What about if a manager had the funds ($50 million pounds I believe it was), didn't spend and didn't win anything, falling near the final hurdle? I don't know about you mate but I for one will be wondering if we could have gone further had we added a couple of players or so to the squad. To each his own.



I may be wrong but this article ranks you 5th on the "biggest clubs" list, in terms of revenue. http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/0...ER-FINANCES.php

If anything we (Liverpool) are in massive debt now, after our owners took out loans on everything, even Torres belongs to the bank.



Don't know who you're referring to, I made no reference to his man management skills.

Wenger was appointed manager in 1996 right?

As for your backline at the time, read my post. I said, "solid at the back". I did not say, "solid foundation". At the time Wenger took over, Martin Keown and Tony Adams were 29. Both were England internationals. Dixon was 32 but played for England until he was 34. Winterburn is the notable exception, being unlucky enough to be playing the same time Stuart Pearce did, and he was 32. I did not say they were players for the future but as you can see, they remained mainstays of the Arsenal defence for another 3 season.

I haven't a doubt Wengerl will go down in your history books as one of your greatest every managers. Take a look at the thread title. Man Utd have dominated the Premiership since it's inception under Ferguson. They have also won the Champions League twice under him. I for one cannot say that in time, Wenger will be remember as the better manager especially by neutral fans. If you think otherwise, fairplay. I do however think some other Man Utd fan will come along and tell you how Ferguson has built a foundation for the club, etc AND he has the trophies to back it up. I hate Ferguson, no big secret but I find it hard to argue with logic.

Pardon my ignorance but how has Wenger brought you to the Emirates?

As for building a foundation, you'll know it's there when you've built an empire at the top of it. Only time will tell.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jun 11 2008, 05:46 PM

I guess we each have our problems. If our owners decide to high tail it back to Yankland, we need someone willing to clear our debts.



Ferguson's team also plays entertaining football, much like Liverpool did in the 70's/80's. Ultimately fans would want their teams to pummel their opposition into submission with exquisite football, but that isn't always the case. Chelsea don't play the most attractive football but they did enough to squeeze through a number of encounters one nil on their way to the Premiership. I do not think that playing beautiful football and winning trophies are mutually exclusive but I do think the latter is most important. The game has gotten more technical and I do think this has sometimes resulted in football matches being as interesting to watch as a game of chess.

I get what you mean when you say "entertaining" team but what is your definition of "historic" in this context?



Given the two options you have presented me with, I'm leaning towards the latter. Although each manager will have his preference in terms of style of play, I do think they know better than to change a winning formula. Liverpool played practically the same football under Shankly, Paisley, Fagan and Dalglish and I think it's safe to assume then that they built on the foundations laid down by the Shanks. The Bootroom, the all-red kits, the "This Is Anfield" sign are just some of the traditions that was started by the Shanks. The bond between the players and coaching staff stemming from when Shankly famously proclaimed that Liverpool is the people's club and that fans matters most. The day when Shankly bought a ticket and stood at the Kop as a fan after his retirement. When asked he said it was where he felt he belonged, with the fans, the people. These attribute to the foundations of the club, and it's blue collared background. These are some examples of what I refer to as "foundations" as some of it is still practiced.



Thanks for the enlightenment.

Fairplay. This may lead to an era of dominance soon, who knows?

---

Added on June 12, 2008, 5:27 pmI brought up the same question in the "Best Buy" thread. It appeared that the general concensus was "$ to goal ratio". What about intangible values, or contributions that aren't recorded? What if a player had completely changed the shape of a team which led to them winning more games? He doesn't have to score goals for them to win. His teammates play better with him. How do you rate players like these without seeing them play every week?

It's subjective which is why I always encourage posters to articulate their reasons. As you can see I am having a conversation with FOLLOW N and he is able to reason why he thinks Wenger is the better manager, although he doesn't have that many manager. I may or may not agree with his points, but they are still valid points. It then comes down which points are most valid, those in favour of Ferguson, or those in favour of Wenger. It's when you see posts like "Ferguson, end off", that fail to convince other posters.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jun 12 2008, 05:27 PM

I hear that mate and I've no doubt over his managerial abilities. His players respect him and he protects his players. It's just when you mentioned...

"he made the players believe they're good enough to win trophies."

... they weren't exactly a bunch of mugs to begin with and they went really close under Ranieri Maybe he didn't attain much success but under Ranieri, Chelsea got more points than they did in the previous season, in each of his 4 seasons at the helm. Who knows? He may have finally got it right if he had another season.

John Terry, Petr Cech, Arjen Robben, William Gallas, Eidur Gudjohnsen, Claude Makalele, Frank Lampard... that is a talented bunch.

To be fair he did say, "Best manager of our time". Even I wasn't around when Shankly was manager.

To be honest I love this statement. At least we're still around after these 18 years. It may hurt falling behind our rivals but I do take pride in the fact that our loyalties have not wavered. If anything my support has grown stronger over the years and I'm sure some posters here feel the same. Weird how our lack of success has attributed to this. I can't begin to explain it. It's easy to say things like, "Once a red, always a red..." but some of us have proved it. I've said this before, I'm not only a fan of Liverpool, I'm a fan of Liverpool fans. It may sound corny but it's the truth. Maybe it's the fact that we're a defiant lot that has attributed to this.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jun 13 2008, 11:10 AM

Firstly, there will always be bad hats in any group and I can only refer to the general bunch. Liverpool fans did themselves no favours at Heysel but this was at the height of the era of "hooliganism". Since then however, we have cleaned up our act and let's face it, there will always be a problem with discipline when passions are running high. We do thing without thinking sometimes and we as humans are all fallible, what more when we are drunk on emotion?

When I say I am a fan of Liverpool fans, I refer to those I see on tv, and those who post on international forums. I refer to those who save every hard earned pound from their blue collared jobs to follow the team around the world. I would have killed to be amongst those at Istanbul, especially during half-time (my mate was lucky enough to be there the **** ). 3-0 down and "YNWA" rang out around the stadium as our fans let our boys know that they were still with them. I even like the Liverpool people because when I was there and having a few pints at the Albert, I found them to be a friendly bunch and made friends with the barkeep and a few of his mates that were at the bar. One particular gentleman called Charlie stood out and even he was amazed that someone like me would travel all the way to watch a football match. They have never had a good impression of OOT's (Out Of Towners) mind you but when you get to talking and they see you know your stuff, there is nothing but genuine respect.

Since hooliganism has been eradicated, Liverpool fans have made a lot of friends over the years. After the game at Anfield against Barcelona in 2007, both sets of fans exchanged scarves and sang "YNWA" in unison. After we had beaten Bayer Leverkusen in 2005 at the Bay Arena, the German's played "YNWA" over the loud speaker as both sets of fans again came together as one. When we visited Olympiakos in 2007, Liverpool fans paid tribute to the 21 Greek lives lost in their own tragedy (http://www.redandwhitekop.com/article.php?id=3850989). Against AC Milan in Athens, we (yes, even those of us watching here did) stayed back to applaud AC Milan as they went up to claim the trophy.

I can go on and on mate but I've digressed for too long I feel. There are always negatives and positives to each situation. It's up to you to choose which to focus on. For me, the positives far outweigh the negatives.

I'm inclined to think that we should judge this based on reasoning and not purely by numbers. As it is Man Utd fans take great pride in having the most posts. Yes, I've actually seen posters going, "we have the more posts than any other club! yay!", without considering the quality of the posts. Suffice to say, Man Utd fans probably outnumber the rest and not all of them can be subjective. Thus, I find it ever so important that people are able to articulate their decisions and not just vote with no reason.

Just a word on the issue if I may.

I do not think dream5518 is calling for anyone to be banned here, which is likely why I'm assuming he hasn't hit the "report" button. I've always felt that some of the rules were a little anal and even rival posters like airmood can attest to that. The problem with having too many rules is that, there will be many complaints. It's like when you are giving a presentation. The more you talk, the more you invite questions, some of which you won't be able to answer. Why then open yourself to attack?

The issue has passed but you cannot expect it to be forgotten. Posters are more aware of the rules now and the punishment that comes along with infringing them because they have experienced it first hand. They are now only asking for consistency and I have to say, the onus is on the mods to ensure that they are fair and equal in their treatment. We ask for the same of referees in football, no? Rest assured that when equal treatment is dished out, the issue will come to a rest.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jun 17 2008, 12:22 PM

Since you don't seem to know why a lot of anger has been directed his way, let me give you a summary.

- Punishment (bans) dealt out for infringing "flame baiting/trolling" rules were not meted out consistently.
- The rules seem to put decent but controversial posters at a disadvantage. We do visit one another's threads, let's face it. When a decent poster (e.g. Jonno/Mad Moz) puts up a decent argument that is not all positive to say Man Utd, some fans take it personally and hit the "report" button. I find it shameful that people with opinions get reported. It reminds me of the ISA.
- "Jonno" was also banned wrongfully (as the mods later admitted) but no apology was extended. To some, that may reflect insincerity.

Fairplay if you think we are being sensitive over the matter but it matters nonetheless.

Exactly.

One of your mates brought it up for your information. If you don't want to discuss it, ignore the post. By the way, even if I did want to keep talking about it, so what? You going to report me? This doesn't concern you, so why don't you go play in your little corner? We are clearly angered by what had happened and you obviously cannot empathise so please do not get involved.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jun 18 2008, 11:01 AM

I was directly involved in the initial fracas, were you? Thought so.

---

Added on June 19, 2008, 12:01 pmWell he did also take Australia to the World Cup. Let's not also forget he took PSV to the Champions League semi-finals, losing only by a narrow margin to AC Milan.

I don't know too much about him, but he has taken unfancied sides pretty far in major tournaments.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jun 19 2008, 12:01 PM

Came across this interesting writeup and didn't want to start another thread so I'm reviving this one. Anyway here you go:

I was surprised by the amount myself. Cisse's on loan from what I know. Tainio, Malbranque, Diouf? What's happened to Kenwyn Jones?

He has a problem that the other big sides don't. Sunderland doesn't quite have the same appeal for players. It isn't a nice place to live to begin with and it's not as though they are known outside of England. He may have had money to spend but it's still up to the player to decide if he wants to sign.

Well Cisse isn't exactly in the position to be picky at the moment is he? He wasn't even starting for Marseille. He had been playing really well though which prompted me to pick him as an outside chance to challenge for the golden boot.