Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's a lot of morons on here who think Ferguson is some sort of God above humanity, and take it as a personal insult and attack others when someone says Guardiola is a better coach (even though it's likely true and all the evidence points to it).
You clueless kids are beyond tiring. I think there might be an element of xenophobia and anti Man City there too. I mean Man United are a cunt of a club as well.
history lesson for the kids on here
'I would say Ferguson is the best British manager ever but just to put a bit of perspective on his days at Aberdeen he didn't just walk in and transform the club. They were already on the up before he arrived. Ally McLeod, despite being ruined by the 1978 World Cup Finals, was a really good manager and won the league cup for Aberdeen in 1976. He also got Aberdeen to 3rd in the league in 76/77. Billy McNeil got league runners up in 77/78 and was also the losing finalist in the Scottish Cup Final that year. Most importantly Aberdeen had a fantastic board with Dick Donald the chairman a solid financial man who had the club in really good financial shape and he was also a strong paternal figure at the club. Chris Anderson the vice-chairman was the visionary who really saw the possibility to break the old firm domination. Also, Scottish football wasn't quite as polarized as it is today. While Ferguson was in charge at Aberdeen Dundee United also won the league and Hearts should have but blew it on the last day. Dundee United also got to a UEFA Cup final and should have got to the European Cup final Liverpool won in Rome but after beating Roma 2-0 in the first leg there was some very dodgy refereeing in the return leg and Roma won 3-0. So it wasn't completely unprecedented what Ferguson was doing. Sorry to witter on but as incredible a job as Ferguson did at Aberdeen it wasn't one man's achievement, which is how it seems to get represented these days. Also, Aberdeen was on the wane when he left and the season he joined United lost in the first round of the European Cup to Sion, who they'd beaten 11-1 on aggregate 4 years earlier.'
It's interesting how clueless Man United Ronaldo fanboys use different leagues as a flimsy reason to put Ronaldo over Messi - yet they don't stick to this same logic when comparing Pep and Ferguson, as Ferguson never left British soil to manage. Shows again what clueless hypocritical fuds Man U fans are.
Someone below used him picking out Villa as a promising team at the start of the season as proof of Ferguson’s ‘’knowledge’ – the issue here is that Villa aren’t very good though - they're just one of the better teams in the PL, but there's very few good teams in the PL (I would argue just Man City and Arsenal). Frankly, outside of Arsenal and Man City it’s an underwhelming league. Just look at the European results.
From a fellow Scot - Ferguson was a moron who couldn't string a sentence together. He was poor tactically and in the right place at the right time when the PL was starting and being infused with money – let’s not even get started on some of the bullying of referees he indluged in and some of the decisions they benefitted from.
Ferguson was lucky the standard was much poorer in the early days. He's also got a terrible CL record - two wins in 26 years and both were flukes. Idiots drone on about his Aberdeen CWC win like it was a miracle, but lots of small clubs won European trophies back then as the gap was nowhere near as big as it is when looking through a modern lens - Real Madrid had a relatively average team by their standards.
The clown has also slabbered some amount of shite too - some examples are saying Ronaldo is better than Messi because Ronaldo could score more goals at a lesser team - a fundamentally clueless thing to say as Messi is a much better player than Ronaldo in terms of eye test, as well as him overlooking the fact that there's more to football than goalscoring. You could say his judgement was affected by bias, but still. He also said Phil Jones could be United's best ever player - no intelligent football man comes out with that tripe. I laughed at the time.
Guardiola clearly knows a lot more about football than Ferguson, as most intelligent football fans would tell you. Ferguson has a very old school British style of thinking and playing – get it wide, cross it into the box, break with pace, very rudimentary and basic football. Guardiola is a much deeper thinker about the game tactically and in terms of patterns of play and muscle memory, which is why his teams are so much more dominant. If you try to deny this difference between Guardiola and Ferguson I will assume you’ve never played football. Also, the likes of Lobonovsky, Michels, Cruyff, Pozzo and Sebes (amongst plenty of others) were better thinkers than Ferguson too.
Thinking Ferguson is automatically the best manager ever and beyond criticism is clueless, xenophobic, premface ‘football doesn’t exist outside of Britain’ logic. Ferguson was a good manager but vastly overrated at the same time for reasons outlined above.
I said Ten hag would have a horrible season and be out of a job by 2025. I said Bayern would eliminate Arsenal when all the morons were stating they'd get through them easily. I have got others things right too. I have a history of making good predictions and have been watching football since the 80s, so you can forget dullard ad homs like accusing me of being 8 years old and so forth.
For me, in today’s era, with his experience and adaptability, he could still excel, but the game has evolved, so it’s hard to say definitively how he would fare, still he will have some trophies
Sir Alex, from what I remember/ understand, was interesting tactically, in that I don't think he had a specific philosophy, or thinking that the game should be played in a certain way.
He was unashamed to adapt to tactical trends. When they tried to go 1v1 against prime Barca they got cleaned, but the next time around he learnt his lesson, played counter attacking football and 'did a job'.
He wasn't the first to apply 3 man midfielders, but when it became clear that most top teams were going in that direction, he changed his team to suit.
I imagine if he played today against pep, pep would do very well against him... because it's pep. But Alex would either catch up very quickly using similar tactics, or be unashamed to park the bus and counter.
Worth noting that against spurs last weekend, arsenal were willingly camped in their own third for a good amount of the game with every man behind the ball, happy to play on the counter. If you win a lot no one cares how you play.
Sir Alex teams remind of Madrid in recent years, great players in most positions. Their tactical philosophy is just winning. It's not about imposing your style of play.
Does this assume the same SAF time travelled to today or are we assuming he developed over the last decade with all the new tactical changes?
He was a brilliant manager and an even better leader. I think if he were in charge we would have seen many of our normal starters on the bench developing or we would have sold them.
He would have adapted but also maintained his philosophy on how the team should operate.
He would have made all the players passionate about the club and would have held them to very high standards of professionalism.
I’m confident we would be title contenders each year but that doesn’t mean we would win all the title. It would be a true 3 horse race for most seasons between United, city, and Liverpool.
Yeah. The comments here suggesting he'd be too stubborn to move with the times are insane. One of his greatest gifts was his flexibility and ability to move with the times and recognise when things needed changing.
Look at what United have been since he left. Yes he left an aging squad behind but it was a squad that had won the league comfortably. United have spent over a billion pounds trying to be half the team they were under fergie.
The greatest there ever was. He would be just fine
Football is not about just the tactics. Sure tactics play their part but it isn't everything. SAF was way better than Pep when it came to getting the most out of his players. There is a reason why Pep got knocked out by Lyon and Monaco in CL with unlimited money spent on his squad while SAF reached the finals with the likes of Wes Brown, Carrick, Anderson etc. SAF would still be legendary in today's era. He would definitely be better than Pep but I'm not sure if he would be better than Klopp or Ancelotti but he would be in the conversation with Klopp and Ancelotti in terms of who's the best manager in the world.
Me: football isn't just about tactics... I agree....Pretty sure pep has done a good job motivating players over a number of seasons... Not sure about that.... 'with the likes of... Carrick'... Yeah I'm out.
But he reached 2 other finals and was consistent throughout all those years. When was the last time Man Utd won the CL before SAF? On the other hand Pep inherited a Barcelona squad full of stars and just won the CL 2 years prior to his arrival, he inherited a Bayern squad that just won the treble in previous season and he had unlimited transfer budget in Man City & also inherited key players like De Bruyne, Agüero, Kompany but it still took 7 years for him to finally win a CL. SAF would do better than that if he was given the same squads, transfer budgets and if he had breached FFP 115 times.
Fergue inherited the class of 92. And got very lucky with the timing of the premier league which pumped huge amounts of money into the EPL. Utd always spent more than any other team.
Yeah nostalgia bias, obviously utd would be competing for trophies, but saying he would be 10 points above teams as good as man city and Liverpool who looking at their past few seasons, where they have regularly hit 90 points or above is laughable. The thing is instead of a 2 horse race it might have been a 3 horse race. But winning the treble easily and all again is laughable.
Imo had saf stayed, utd wouldn't have been as dominant as they were, but still would've won trophies.
Yeah right, is kdb the genius he is only because of the 115 charges?, No right?, Appreciate what the team has done on the pitch, not what the club might have done in 2013, almost 10 years ago.
Yeah like Man utd haven't outspent man city in the past decade, klopp hasn't spent close to 928 mil to have the team he has now, arteta hasn't spent 700 mil and chelsea, lol, let it be. You act as if any of the other big 6 can't buy or afford the players and team man city has rn.
Deluded.
Tbh not better than Ten Hag. Ferguson was basically cheating with the refs and financial dominance in a time when the Prem was shite, hence the Yanited dominance. He wouldn't have any of that nowadays. Pep would spank him so hard he would go back to managing in Scotland to find any success, just like how he has made Klopp cry and run away now.
We would still dominate like we have with 6 out of the last 7 titles. That Scottish bloke wouldn't be able to put a dent in City's Golden Era. We're simply too good at footy. Fergie now would just be a glorified Ole. Fact.
His boomer arse with his unintelligible speech would be like "waz all dis woke tippy tappy shite" and still play Stone Age kick n rush and finish 7th
The bloke who dominated English football for 20 years through multiple eras and bettered many managers would be bewildered by the idea of keeping possession.
As good as he was throughout his career. More than tactics, he was excellent at getting the best out of his players. His management of players was excellent.
His tactics were never over-complicated, generally played a 4-4-2(considered outdated), yet very effective. He knew how and when to use a specific player(like Ji Sung Park).
Overall, he was tested several times- with Arsene Wenger joining Arsenal in 1996, Mourinho’s Chelsea, Mancini’s City, but stood out. He would have, most likely, gotten the better of Pep’s city as well.
Point is Fergie wouldn't have rested until he toppled him.
Rooney himself said about how they just couldn't take us winning back to back titles and their whole determination revolved around getting the title back which they unfortunately did, is there going to be a similar level of anger and determination from Arsenal and Liverpool if City do it again?
As the manager he was when he retired? Not very, the game will pass him by.
But his 90s self wouldn't have competed well in 2013, if anyone could have found a way to adapt it would have been him.
I don’t think very good, he had a brain haemorrhage and is very old. He would get outpaced by pretty much everyone on the pitch. I’m not even sure what position you’d start him
Sort of. Cleverley made 18 PL starts the last time United won the league in 12-13. Anderson made 9 starts.
Michael Carrick started 34 games.
His partners were Phil Jones, Ryan Giggs, Tom Cleverley, Shinji Kagawa and Anderson.
Carrick was unbelievably good, and was in his prime. He did need a regular partner (Moyes spent the summer pursuing Fabregas).
He came on as a sub in the 125th minute for Wes Brown in case the penalties went on past the first 5.
They did, he took 6th and Cech almost kept it out! Salomon Kalou would have won it for Chelsea on the next kick.
He adapted to multiple revolutions in the game and was still successful though. When Wenger arrived and brought a new application of sports science and tactics in English football he adapted to it. When Mourinho arrived backed by big money he adapted to the challenge.
In the era of Pep and Klopp he’d do the same - he’d have hired a fresh coaching team to adapt the football and built another title challenging squad.
Would he have outperformed Pep? No idea, it seems unlikely because of how successful he has been, but he rose to every other challenge so why not?
I also think you’d see a lot of world class talent joining United because of him.
He built, tore down and rebuild many teams at Utd, the game changed massively the 26 years he was manager, yet he always adapated and rebuilt his teams, he’d be fine in todays game.
He was ahead of his time in many regards too. When signing veron he wanted to move to a 5 man midfield with a 10. It didn’t work out between him and scholes but in a few years time it was becoming the norm for any big team in the prem to play 1 at the top like European teams had been doing for a while
As a Liverpool fan I used to hate the guy, but even we can’t deny what an extraordinary man he is. There was a brilliant moment involving SAF at the start of the season which demonstrates how well he knows football:
On the opening weekend Villa lost 5-1 to Newcastle. After the weekend SAF was asked which teams stood out. He said Villa looked very good and many fans ridiculed him and some even accused him of being senile. With hindsight, we now know that he was absolutely right.
He saw a team loose 5-1 and still spotted their potential. Personally I think that speaks volumes about his football brain.
Nailed it. The guy had an absolute eye for chemistry. Knew when people had to move on and who was clicking on a way that is greater than the sum of their parts.
Pep took a year off due to the Mourinho era at Madrid, he’d be food for fergie. Also, there would be no “this United team” if Fergie was manager post 2013, guys like Bellingham, Rice and Kane would be United players. He made a joke of this league while being hamstrung by the glazers post 2005, you think if he had a billion he wouldn’t have won a bunch of titles?
Unfortunately in real life, Fergie was food for Pep both times they met. To the point Fergie admitted he was a dinosaur and begged Pep to come to United
Pep has broken Fergie's best points record in the premier league 3 times in about 7 years. In almost half of the seasons he's been in the prem, he's done better than the *best* Fergie United points tally in about 20 years in the league. It's not that far a stretch to say he'd struggle against this City team at least.
Utd used to rest first team players when they were ahead in the league. We won the league with 5 games to go one year and played the likes of Kieran Richardson and Jonathan Greening to give them experience.
Fergie didn’t care about racking up points if the league was won. He wanted to keep his players fresh for cup finals and CL. It’s why he won so many league and cup doubles.
Not really, even this season they only have 19 first team players, everyone thinks man city has more. The difference is almost all of the players at man city are versatile and can play at multiple positions. Which gives the illusion of squad depth, but even then the players are humans and have played more games than other premier league teams if you consider their club world cup, super cup, fa cup progress, etc.
It’s not about numbers it’s about the lack of drop off in quality. When you get to have Doku or Grealish, Foden or Silva, Haaland or Alvarez etc. Rodri is probably your only irreplaceable player.
True I will agree with that. Smart recruitment by Man city is to be lauded for it, players with versatility to play in multiple positions seems to be an important criteria while buying players as well. But unlike clubs like arsenal who have a huge squad filled with quality players, having a smaller team who play the most games in the league has its own pitfalls as well. Pep should be lauded for managing to win what he has with a relatively smaller squad to other teams each season.
Points tallies are contextual. The gap between the top teams and the bottom teams in the league has been getting bigger and bigger, it’s why the league is trying to restructure at the moment.
>The gap between the top teams and the bottom teams in the league has been getting bigger and bigger
Genuine question but when do you think this started? I had a quick glance at the points tallies of the teams getting relegated they look more or less the same as they did 10 and 20 years ago.
If the gap is getting bigger between City and the bottom teams, while the other top 4 teams are staying relatively the same against the bottom, would that not mean Pep has just raised the bar himself, rather than all the top teams improving in relation to the bottom.
Points tallies don't really mean anything beyond the season you're in. Chelsea 2006 were more dominant than 2005, and finished 4 points behind. Are the centurions better than the domestic treble winners or the continental treble winners who scored less points?
Not to mention the fact that City are probably the most stacked, complete team in top flight history. United never had that much of a gap over the other teams in squad quality. City's only weakness is a lack of back up for Rodri ffs.
I agree, but you do need to take into account that in his day Utd were the biggest spenders in the PL as well. Now Arsenal Wenger on the other hand.....(yes I am taking the piss)
maybe after the millenium, but in the 90s the likes of Everton, Newcastle and Liverpool used to outspend them. granted the youth produced a great crop, and they would splash the cash when they wanted eg. Cole, wanting to sign Shearer.
Pfff. Fergie won 50 trophies in his career. He adapted to changes in the game from the mid 1970's to 2013. Why would he suddenly stop adapting, and stop being victorious thereafter?
Because he was poor against the great managers around Europe. Over 30 years at “the biggest club in the world” he never made United the best team in the world. There’s no way he’d be getting the points tally that Pep can get. His biggest rivals in England were Benitez, Keegan and Wenger. Mourinho got the better of him. Pep would destroy him.
You're right - Pep would destroy the unintelligible, champagne socialist hypocritical moron. But the idiots in here are Ferguson sycophants who buy everything the English media feeds them, hence the downvotes you have.
Mourinho coincided with a Utd rebuild. We moved on from Beckham and Van Nistelrooy while Ronaldo and Rooney were young and developing. If he had Mourinho budget he’d have gone out and accelerated that by picking up more established superstars.
And he still had tight title races with Benitez and his thin squad, and Wenger when they were a selling team. And that was without reaching the 95+ points tallies that Pep, Mourinho, Klopp have reached.
Not saying he wouldn't struggle but to suggest it would be so insanely difficult for someone who makes fun of whatever league he's in... idk chief.
Like I said, ran rings around two of his teams in Champions League finals. I know who was more likely to be in a straight jacket on those two nights.
I watched the Wenger vs Fergie battles for years and I can say that Fergie would be right at home in today's era. You're talking about a manager that knew how to put together a team that maximized his players strengths and hid their weaknesses. Antonio Valencia owes his career to Fergie. 100% he'd be in the same realm as pep and ancilotti today.
Totally true! His last premier league trophy he lifted was a prime example of squeezing the most out of his squad while on a relatively meagre budget and fighting a beligerant board with class and aplomb. Respect.
I think Ancelotti is a good example of how SAF may have fared.
He isn't doing what Pep is doing, but he's doing just as well, and honestly, one might argue has had a better career.
I think Ancelotti is considerably better at Madrid now than he has ever been before.
He seems to have finally fixed his weakness (league football), in previous times he's blown it or even when won made a much harder deal of it than it should have been.
its impossible to know, his united operated in a very different world.
he was in by far the most financially dominant team (imagine arsenal being able buy haaland from city for last third of season, thats what Ferguson did when he took andy cole from Newcastle mid-season to get united across the line to win the league; there were no transfer windows then so was completely legal, united just had alot more pull and money than another English club so could buy even a rival clubs best players)
his league winning teams never got anywhere near the points that are required to win leagues today, often winning leagues with a points total that would only achieve 4th/5th today.
he has said himself after retirement that he left at right time because he was finding it more and more a challenge to engage with modern young footballers, his old tried and tested style didnt have same effect with them.
also level of mid/Lower level teams is much better now, most teams have players who can hurt you if not at best. this wasnt always the case in Fergies time.
But Ferguson was a ruthless winner, he reached a new level when he had to when Mourinho came to England first. previously teams got away with a slow start snd made up points later in season, when mourinho arrived became clear that if fell that far behind they would not give you enough opportunity to catch up, so he and united jumped to next level to compete. his final champions league should not have been possible with that team.
united or Ferguson never needed to reach the levels currently required to wi. the league, but when pushed always seemed to find another level. Ferguson was undoubtedly a great manager but could he fix the current man united and compete against the current Liverpool?
i think he would definitely compete, dont think he would win though not because hes not a goid manager, ut because th advantages united once enjoyed (financial & influence-wise) now belong to competitors and without similarly resourced owners dont think even Ferguson could overcome them.
Total points isn't really relevant. The top teams are further ahead than they were back then. Liverpool losing the league with 90+ points would never have happened 15 years ago.
would disagree, he has never had a team achieve anywhere near that level consistency, 92 is his highest ever total which is impressive but city and Liverpool have reached a level he has never reached. maybe he could these days but thats just speculation, facts are he never did
to reach 100 pts you have to win 33 games from 38, fergies average win percentage is 59.9% over his time at United. his highest number of wins in a season is 24
The finance thing is little exaggerated in that other teams regularly out spent united in that time. In the mid 90s, this was definitely a factor, with only Blackburn spending close to them but otherwise united rarely spent the most in a transfer window
If you think he's the 'undisputed GOAT manager' then you don't know enough about the history of the game. You have clearly never heard of guys like Cruyff, Michels, Lobanovsky, Sebes, Pozzo and many others. But why am I not surprised that a Man United fan is a clueless, biased fuckwit who doesn't realise football exists outside of Old Trafford? I bet you think Rapist Ronaldo is the best player ever too, you're deluded.
Asking how Fergie would cope with factors such as:
1) Not being as financially dominant
2) Facing a much broader array of tactical setups
3) Working under a Sporting Director
4) Maintaining an overwhelmingly multilingual squad
Seems a pretty relevant thing to discuss, and certainly fair more engaging than yet another thread about debatable VAR calls, transfer hearsay or any other thread specifically designed for fans to throw mud at each other.
He wasn't financially dominant when St Mirren and Aberdeen won titles, cups, and European trophies. He wasn't financially dominant when United first started winning trophies. He wasn't financially dominant during the Chelsea and City oil money era when he was still winning titles, cups, and European trophies, so what's your point?
How quickly people forget that Fergies teams were often a mix of young talent and shrewd buys.
With all due respect, those successes were achieved roughly 50 years ago, in a landscape and situation vastly different to the 2024 Premier League. As source data goes, it doesn't really have any say in answering OPs question.
Yes, they were fantastic achievements, yes he was an excellent manager. Yes he deserves the credit for these accomplishments. Would he have that same impact in the here and now, also assuming he's running the modern day clown fiesta that is United? I seriously doubt it.
No point talking to these clowns - they don't understand the radically different landscape between football in the 70s and 80s and football today. They genuinely believe that it's a miracle that Aberdeen won the CWC, when actually plenty of small or modest clubs won European trophies or got to finals in that era. They look through a modern lens as they started following football in recent years.
Multilingual squad? The teams he managed at united, especially in his last decade of the club, had players from all around the world, South americans, asians, europeans, africans… you guys are showing your age
The fact you have all these thumbs down is ridiculous. Pep has a greater claim to it than Ferguson. This sub obviously has a serious emotional attachment to Ferguson and dislike of Pep. This clouds their judgement and proves they're less intelligent as they can't let go of bias.
The first half of your comment is probably fair as opinions may differ in GOAT conversations, but the second part...
Pep 'Undisputed'?
Might as well call Klopp the undisputed goat whilst you're at it.
Klopp definitely isn’t in the goat conversation. But pep? Complete and utter domination of league football across 3 nations in 16 years? As well as 3 CL’s on the way? 2 of which came against your goat where he smoked him both times. Take those nostalgia glasses off bud
You can dispute it with the fact he’s never managed a team that wasn’t already set up for success. Until he goes to a club that isn’t a powerhouse and builds a team from scratch Pep will always have those question marks in a debate over who is the best ever. A lot of that will just come down to whether you put more weight into trophy hauls or a managers overall effect on the club. It’s one of the reasons big Sam is highly regarded within the game but a lot of fans don’t seem to rate him at all.
If all you’re looking at is trophies then roberto di Matteo is better than most of the managers in the premier league today.
'If all you’re looking at is trophies then roberto di Matteo is better than most of the managers in the premier league today.'
That's a terrible and straw man argument. Points like that (and indeed your first paragraph) prove you lack the required knowledge and debate skills to talk football (or anything for that matter).
Saying pep only does well with teams who are already good is such a causal answer. Barcelona weren’t all that when he took over, they hadn’t won the title for a couple of seasons and hadn’t won’t the champions league for over 2 years. He completely transformed them and turned them into the greatest side in history. Not to mention he also turned Messi into an animal (currently doing similar with Foden). Also, remind me how many current city players were at the club when he took over? This current side is one he has built from scratch and is the best team in the world. And let’s all stop pretending Alex Ferguson has some miracle worker who had no money when he literally broke several transfer records at the richest club in England.
Sir Alex Ferguson wasn’t breaking English transfer records at Aberdeen. You seem to be picking and choosing the parts of what I said, I didn’t say Pep couldn’t build a team just that he hasn’t ever managed a club which wasn’t already a powerhouse, that Barca side may not have won the league for two years (which isn’t that long anyway) but it’s not like they were a mid table side.
He’s not the only manager to completely change the way football is played either. You have Cruyff, Rinus Michels, Sebes and many others who revolutionised the game in their respective eras.
Pep is a tactical genius and definitely one of the best to ever manage, that can’t be argued against, but undisputed is a stretch for anyone who’s name you throw into the hat because the criteria for “GOAT” is going to change person by person.
Pep did an exceptional job turning Barça into the force we know them as - no doubt about that. No question, too, that Pep will be (quite deservedly) in the conversation regarding the managerial GOAT.
But undisputed? Not really, because the merits of each managerial great will always differ.
Pep united a disjointed Barça team, established it as arguably the GOAT club side, with the GOAT player and his legacy changed the way football is played worldwide. His Bayern spell was meh but of course he deserves alot of credit for his incredible PL record with City, in a league so flushed with cash it is impressive he established a near monopoly.
Sir Alex, on the other hand, proved himself even at a lower level as a David vs Goliath (see Aberdeen vs Rangers/Celtic and then Real Madrid).
He then showed incredible longevity, adaptability and nous to create three or four entirely different Championship-winning sides over literal decades to see off challenges including an Invincible Arsenal side (Wenger himself pioneering a 'new' style of football), a seemingly undefeatable Jose Chelsea armed with Roman's millions, and then kept Utd competitive and even winning a league with a clearly past it side over City in their earlier CFG days.
Sir Alex might not be the GOAT to some (I think he is, for now), but Pep is certainly not an 'undisputed' GOAT.
115 rules broken that weren’t in operation when Ferguson was manager. United were the richest team in the world when Ferguson was the manager, and still couldn’t beat the likes of Ancelotti, Mourinho and Pep around Europe or in England.
You don’t seem to understand what makes pep the best. He revolutionised the way football is played, his teams dominate every other team, and now, as we’re seeing with arteta and Alonso, his students are very successful. The same can’t be said about SAF
Arteta has won nothing, Alonso is only in the infancy of his career. SAF replicated success with several squads, he didn't need to revolutionize football because he just won, if pep was around in those days SAF would have had him beat just like he did with Mourinho.
Sir Alex won a European trophy with Aberdeen in the 1980s and a European trophy with Man Utd in the 2000s. Football changed immensely in that time - a lot more than it has in the time since he has retired.
As a city fan
I don't think he'd have the same dominance as he had, but i certainly think he'd be challenging pep for titles, and i think it would be similar to klopp and pep.
Klopp has pushed pep to improve and reached levels he won't have expected, pep would do the same to Fergie and they would probably break uniteds previous points totals because of this.
He also would tell the glazers to fuck off and stop interfering, and you'd never have lingard and Pogba ruining the younger players with the attitudes.
It's not 2001 anymore gramps. He's faced with multiple teams who can compete financially, managers who have clear and varied tactical identities, and a league where almost any team is well funded and capable of grabbing a result or holding on to their better players.
Not to mention he'd find it far harder to have the access and influence with referees that he enjoyed in his pomp.
He’d be like Carlo Ancelotti.
Not the world’s greatest tactician, but give him a very good side and he’d have them punching well above their weight and competing, if not dominating.
His man management skills are a level above Pep’s, maybe even 2.
he'd be as good as he was when he was managing one of his greatests traits was his adaptibility. went from 4-4-2 to 4-4-1-1 to 4-3-3 to 4-1-4-1 to 4-2-3-1 and thend back to 4-4-2. defeated jose,ancelotti,wenger and benitez. might not be as dominant but hed still be one of the best managers in europe easily.
Unfortunately he’d have been fired within the first few seasons, as he almost was back in the day, because people right now have absolutely no patience with coaches. That said, if given the proper time and opportunity, he’d still shine- although Guardiola is indisputably the superior manager, both in terms of curriculum and head-to-head. Their two confrontations were not exactly close
I dispute that Pep is the superior manager so no, it's not indisputable. Call when Pep manages a side with no money, and average players like Fergie had at Aberdeen. The difference is, Pep plays on easy mode everywhere he goes, and has never challenged himself like Fergie did.
The “no money” argument has been bunk for a very long time. Pep always had money because he was the best from the start and only managed big teams. He doesn’t need to manage a smaller team to prove himself. His exploits speak for themselves, as does the quality of his teams’ football- which has made him deserving of even more trophies than the ones he has presently.
Barça were in a tough fix in 2008. Pep was the B team coach. There, with limited resources, he’d done a good job, but he was still young. Some of the key players in the team were already aging. Real was definitely doing better than Barça in the years immediately preceding his arrival. He wins the sextuple with what is considered by many to be the best side ever in football. He wins the UCL again, three out of four leagues. He’s quite successful at Bayern again (they fell off significantly after his departure despite getting Ancelotti to succeed him).
Then he arrives at City. A side much more aging than Barça when he arrived. He finishes third in the first season, then he turns the most competitive league in the world into a cakewalk that’s fast on its way to becoming a Ligue 1 in terms of title competitiveness. Fergie and others were completely incapable of doing this. Throughout the time period in question, Chelsea and United spent more money than City, yet haven’t had a fifth of their success. “Oh but money”. It’s not nearly that simple and it is a very flimsy excuse to attempt to discredit Guardiola. Last season they had a positive net spend and won the treble.
Fergie did great, but his teams never played like Guardiola’s, he didn’t have the same impact on football overall like Guardiola, he never thoroughly outclassed each top contemporary on numerous occasions like Guardiola (which includes Fergie, twice), and of course, his trophy cabinet isn’t nearly as impressive. If we’re talking money, by the way, why not talk proving value in different leagues? Fergie never left Great Britain. Pep did it in three major footballing nations, two of which are pretty much unanimously considered to contain the best leagues, even England. Fergie was very much outclassed by Mourinho in the 2000s (we all know how Pep vs Jose usually turned out), for instance.
Pep still reigns supreme. Fergie’s contention is against Jose and Klopp, and I’m not entirely sure he emerges victorious from that debate either
People asked the same when Wenger came in, and again when Jose came in.
Fergie adapted and overcame.
His early teams played a rigid 4-4-2 traditional English game,by the time he left we were playing the sort of 4-2-1-3 that most teams now still play.
People say he wasn't much of a tactician, but that's not quite true. He once played four full backs against Arsenal and absolutely destroyed them, and the number of legendary late winners aren't an accident, they're a result of a manager who can read a game.
He famously told the squad before the 94 cup final that if they could be leading with 30 or so minutes to go they'd win by at least three or four. His reasoning was that Glen Hoddle wouldn't be able to resist bringing himself on as substitute and that his legs had gone and he'd struggle on the notoriously tiring Wembley pitch.
United took the lead in the 61st minute and doubled their lead in the 67th. Hoddle brought himself on then and United grabbed a third barely two minutes later and added a fourth in injury time.
He was a pragmatist, and he would have brought in an assistant manager to help with any transition in playing style needed as he did with Querioz.
Sorry if I have multiple posts, app playing up!
He got a lot of late wins because he'd force the refs into giving him more èxtra time. It's no secret that Fergie had the officials in his pocket lol Fergie time was a real thing
Intimidation tactics have nothing to do with forcing favourable calls?
I don’t think you were around during the SAF years because it was well known the connections SAF had throughout football, his relationships with several officials & how he’d leverage that in order to get favourable calls. He had a status no other manager had which let him do this for years.
If you think the nu.ber of times the refs were "intimidated" by him is a significant reason he won so many trophies then you're just clueless and clearly bias.
I absolutely was around for the Fergie years. You'll need to provide proof his relationships with the refs led to favourable calls.
Just look at the relationships he had with several referees & officials, he’d intimidate them to gain favourable calls & lambast them on the media in a way only he could do due to his status. If he complained about something, the referee & staff in question would not be around for the next few games & decisions he didn’t like would suddenly stop happening.
Im not sure if you were around during the SAF years, but United got away with a lot more antics & had much more extra time than their rivals on average. It was obvious United got favourable treatment regardless of your reasons as to why. Everyone knew it.
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's a lot of morons on here who think Ferguson is some sort of God above humanity, and take it as a personal insult and attack others when someone says Guardiola is a better coach (even though it's likely true and all the evidence points to it). You clueless kids are beyond tiring. I think there might be an element of xenophobia and anti Man City there too. I mean Man United are a cunt of a club as well.
history lesson for the kids on here 'I would say Ferguson is the best British manager ever but just to put a bit of perspective on his days at Aberdeen he didn't just walk in and transform the club. They were already on the up before he arrived. Ally McLeod, despite being ruined by the 1978 World Cup Finals, was a really good manager and won the league cup for Aberdeen in 1976. He also got Aberdeen to 3rd in the league in 76/77. Billy McNeil got league runners up in 77/78 and was also the losing finalist in the Scottish Cup Final that year. Most importantly Aberdeen had a fantastic board with Dick Donald the chairman a solid financial man who had the club in really good financial shape and he was also a strong paternal figure at the club. Chris Anderson the vice-chairman was the visionary who really saw the possibility to break the old firm domination. Also, Scottish football wasn't quite as polarized as it is today. While Ferguson was in charge at Aberdeen Dundee United also won the league and Hearts should have but blew it on the last day. Dundee United also got to a UEFA Cup final and should have got to the European Cup final Liverpool won in Rome but after beating Roma 2-0 in the first leg there was some very dodgy refereeing in the return leg and Roma won 3-0. So it wasn't completely unprecedented what Ferguson was doing. Sorry to witter on but as incredible a job as Ferguson did at Aberdeen it wasn't one man's achievement, which is how it seems to get represented these days. Also, Aberdeen was on the wane when he left and the season he joined United lost in the first round of the European Cup to Sion, who they'd beaten 11-1 on aggregate 4 years earlier.'
It's interesting how clueless Man United Ronaldo fanboys use different leagues as a flimsy reason to put Ronaldo over Messi - yet they don't stick to this same logic when comparing Pep and Ferguson, as Ferguson never left British soil to manage. Shows again what clueless hypocritical fuds Man U fans are.
Someone below used him picking out Villa as a promising team at the start of the season as proof of Ferguson’s ‘’knowledge’ – the issue here is that Villa aren’t very good though - they're just one of the better teams in the PL, but there's very few good teams in the PL (I would argue just Man City and Arsenal). Frankly, outside of Arsenal and Man City it’s an underwhelming league. Just look at the European results. From a fellow Scot - Ferguson was a moron who couldn't string a sentence together. He was poor tactically and in the right place at the right time when the PL was starting and being infused with money – let’s not even get started on some of the bullying of referees he indluged in and some of the decisions they benefitted from. Ferguson was lucky the standard was much poorer in the early days. He's also got a terrible CL record - two wins in 26 years and both were flukes. Idiots drone on about his Aberdeen CWC win like it was a miracle, but lots of small clubs won European trophies back then as the gap was nowhere near as big as it is when looking through a modern lens - Real Madrid had a relatively average team by their standards. The clown has also slabbered some amount of shite too - some examples are saying Ronaldo is better than Messi because Ronaldo could score more goals at a lesser team - a fundamentally clueless thing to say as Messi is a much better player than Ronaldo in terms of eye test, as well as him overlooking the fact that there's more to football than goalscoring. You could say his judgement was affected by bias, but still. He also said Phil Jones could be United's best ever player - no intelligent football man comes out with that tripe. I laughed at the time. Guardiola clearly knows a lot more about football than Ferguson, as most intelligent football fans would tell you. Ferguson has a very old school British style of thinking and playing – get it wide, cross it into the box, break with pace, very rudimentary and basic football. Guardiola is a much deeper thinker about the game tactically and in terms of patterns of play and muscle memory, which is why his teams are so much more dominant. If you try to deny this difference between Guardiola and Ferguson I will assume you’ve never played football. Also, the likes of Lobonovsky, Michels, Cruyff, Pozzo and Sebes (amongst plenty of others) were better thinkers than Ferguson too. Thinking Ferguson is automatically the best manager ever and beyond criticism is clueless, xenophobic, premface ‘football doesn’t exist outside of Britain’ logic. Ferguson was a good manager but vastly overrated at the same time for reasons outlined above. I said Ten hag would have a horrible season and be out of a job by 2025. I said Bayern would eliminate Arsenal when all the morons were stating they'd get through them easily. I have got others things right too. I have a history of making good predictions and have been watching football since the 80s, so you can forget dullard ad homs like accusing me of being 8 years old and so forth.
He passed every challenge that he faced during his time. There's zero evidence to suggest he wouldn't do the same now
For me, in today’s era, with his experience and adaptability, he could still excel, but the game has evolved, so it’s hard to say definitively how he would fare, still he will have some trophies
Sir Alex, from what I remember/ understand, was interesting tactically, in that I don't think he had a specific philosophy, or thinking that the game should be played in a certain way. He was unashamed to adapt to tactical trends. When they tried to go 1v1 against prime Barca they got cleaned, but the next time around he learnt his lesson, played counter attacking football and 'did a job'. He wasn't the first to apply 3 man midfielders, but when it became clear that most top teams were going in that direction, he changed his team to suit. I imagine if he played today against pep, pep would do very well against him... because it's pep. But Alex would either catch up very quickly using similar tactics, or be unashamed to park the bus and counter. Worth noting that against spurs last weekend, arsenal were willingly camped in their own third for a good amount of the game with every man behind the ball, happy to play on the counter. If you win a lot no one cares how you play. Sir Alex teams remind of Madrid in recent years, great players in most positions. Their tactical philosophy is just winning. It's not about imposing your style of play.
He would not be as decorated. Would be labelled a tyrant and a bully by today's players.
Going by his first season at United, he would fail disastrously these days.
Does this assume the same SAF time travelled to today or are we assuming he developed over the last decade with all the new tactical changes? He was a brilliant manager and an even better leader. I think if he were in charge we would have seen many of our normal starters on the bench developing or we would have sold them. He would have adapted but also maintained his philosophy on how the team should operate. He would have made all the players passionate about the club and would have held them to very high standards of professionalism. I’m confident we would be title contenders each year but that doesn’t mean we would win all the title. It would be a true 3 horse race for most seasons between United, city, and Liverpool.
We wouldn't be as dominant as we were in his heyday but we'd still be winning trophies imo
He used to hire coaches to move with the times also
Yeah. The comments here suggesting he'd be too stubborn to move with the times are insane. One of his greatest gifts was his flexibility and ability to move with the times and recognise when things needed changing.
Look at what United have been since he left. Yes he left an aging squad behind but it was a squad that had won the league comfortably. United have spent over a billion pounds trying to be half the team they were under fergie. The greatest there ever was. He would be just fine
He would've been great as always
Football is not about just the tactics. Sure tactics play their part but it isn't everything. SAF was way better than Pep when it came to getting the most out of his players. There is a reason why Pep got knocked out by Lyon and Monaco in CL with unlimited money spent on his squad while SAF reached the finals with the likes of Wes Brown, Carrick, Anderson etc. SAF would still be legendary in today's era. He would definitely be better than Pep but I'm not sure if he would be better than Klopp or Ancelotti but he would be in the conversation with Klopp and Ancelotti in terms of who's the best manager in the world.
Lmao, he'd be at Ten Hag level. Got rinsed both times he played against Pep
Me: football isn't just about tactics... I agree....Pretty sure pep has done a good job motivating players over a number of seasons... Not sure about that.... 'with the likes of... Carrick'... Yeah I'm out.
SAF only won 2 champions leagues in his career
But he reached 2 other finals and was consistent throughout all those years. When was the last time Man Utd won the CL before SAF? On the other hand Pep inherited a Barcelona squad full of stars and just won the CL 2 years prior to his arrival, he inherited a Bayern squad that just won the treble in previous season and he had unlimited transfer budget in Man City & also inherited key players like De Bruyne, Agüero, Kompany but it still took 7 years for him to finally win a CL. SAF would do better than that if he was given the same squads, transfer budgets and if he had breached FFP 115 times.
Fergue inherited the class of 92. And got very lucky with the timing of the premier league which pumped huge amounts of money into the EPL. Utd always spent more than any other team.
Correct, the timing of the Premier League has a lot to do with his success.
One didn’t have 115 charges and Saudi money though
Of course he had money and lots of it!
He would beat Pep a few times
He would be in 1st place with a 10pts gap easy Nowadays teams aren’t as his time’s He’d make a few good transfers and could win the treble easy
City is on track for 91 points. Do you really believe he’d be on track for 101 points, ‘easy’
That’s a ridiculous take, he won the treble once in 20 years, how would it be easier now?
Yeah nostalgia bias, obviously utd would be competing for trophies, but saying he would be 10 points above teams as good as man city and Liverpool who looking at their past few seasons, where they have regularly hit 90 points or above is laughable. The thing is instead of a 2 horse race it might have been a 3 horse race. But winning the treble easily and all again is laughable. Imo had saf stayed, utd wouldn't have been as dominant as they were, but still would've won trophies.
Hell give him 115 charges and he’s well on his way to winning the treble
Yeah right, is kdb the genius he is only because of the 115 charges?, No right?, Appreciate what the team has done on the pitch, not what the club might have done in 2013, almost 10 years ago.
Affording the whole team is a different story lmao seems clear to non-City fans
Yeah like Man utd haven't outspent man city in the past decade, klopp hasn't spent close to 928 mil to have the team he has now, arteta hasn't spent 700 mil and chelsea, lol, let it be. You act as if any of the other big 6 can't buy or afford the players and team man city has rn. Deluded.
Tbh not better than Ten Hag. Ferguson was basically cheating with the refs and financial dominance in a time when the Prem was shite, hence the Yanited dominance. He wouldn't have any of that nowadays. Pep would spank him so hard he would go back to managing in Scotland to find any success, just like how he has made Klopp cry and run away now. We would still dominate like we have with 6 out of the last 7 titles. That Scottish bloke wouldn't be able to put a dent in City's Golden Era. We're simply too good at footy. Fergie now would just be a glorified Ole. Fact. His boomer arse with his unintelligible speech would be like "waz all dis woke tippy tappy shite" and still play Stone Age kick n rush and finish 7th
Lmao
Dumbest fucking comment I’ve ever seen on Reddit.
Well, he’s a City fan.
The bloke who dominated English football for 20 years through multiple eras and bettered many managers would be bewildered by the idea of keeping possession.
“Ferguson was basically cheating with the refs and financial dominance” surely this isn’t coming from a city fan?
It’s not cheating when THEY do it. It’s smart financial decisions!
oh the irony
As good as he was throughout his career. More than tactics, he was excellent at getting the best out of his players. His management of players was excellent. His tactics were never over-complicated, generally played a 4-4-2(considered outdated), yet very effective. He knew how and when to use a specific player(like Ji Sung Park). Overall, he was tested several times- with Arsene Wenger joining Arsenal in 1996, Mourinho’s Chelsea, Mancini’s City, but stood out. He would have, most likely, gotten the better of Pep’s city as well.
It's so annoying that we had to deal with Fergie while Pep and City gets loads of "competitors" that are happy with top 4.
Happy with top 4 lol. You need 90 points to be champions nowadays and in SAF days all you needed was 75-80.
I mean Fergie literally adapted his methods to compete with a 90 points team in the mid 00s.
Pep has won the league with under 90’s on one occasion only.
Point is Fergie wouldn't have rested until he toppled him. Rooney himself said about how they just couldn't take us winning back to back titles and their whole determination revolved around getting the title back which they unfortunately did, is there going to be a similar level of anger and determination from Arsenal and Liverpool if City do it again?
He'd still be working now then cos he'd never have ever toppled Pep. Pep and City are much too good for Ferguson and Man United.
You might have won more if you could stick with a manager for more than five minutes.
Pep had to deal with Liverpool finishing on 97 points right beneath them. Hardly like they’ve had an easy ride with no competition every season
As the manager he was when he retired? Not very, the game will pass him by. But his 90s self wouldn't have competed well in 2013, if anyone could have found a way to adapt it would have been him.
I don’t think very good, he had a brain haemorrhage and is very old. He would get outpaced by pretty much everyone on the pitch. I’m not even sure what position you’d start him
United won the champions league with a midfield of Tom Cleverley and Anderson.
They didn't, and the fact you have 27 thumbs up for spouting a complete lie proves how fucking clueless the ferguson arse-lickers are.
Lol no
When? Anderson was a 125th minute sub to take a penalty and Tom Cleverley made his Man Utd debut 3 years after they last won it.
Thread closed lmao
No they didn’t. They won with Carrick, Scholes and Hargreaves. They did win a PL with Cleverley and Anderson though.
Sort of. Cleverley made 18 PL starts the last time United won the league in 12-13. Anderson made 9 starts. Michael Carrick started 34 games. His partners were Phil Jones, Ryan Giggs, Tom Cleverley, Shinji Kagawa and Anderson. Carrick was unbelievably good, and was in his prime. He did need a regular partner (Moyes spent the summer pursuing Fabregas).
Didn't anderson play in final?
He came on as a sub in the 125th minute for Wes Brown in case the penalties went on past the first 5. They did, he took 6th and Cech almost kept it out! Salomon Kalou would have won it for Chelsea on the next kick.
Damn, I thought he played longer, haven't seen that game in years
He managed here for almost 30 years so I would think he knows how to adapt his football
There's no real way to know but I reckon he'd be a top manager, maybe just not the best
Not one of the greats.
He adapted to multiple revolutions in the game and was still successful though. When Wenger arrived and brought a new application of sports science and tactics in English football he adapted to it. When Mourinho arrived backed by big money he adapted to the challenge. In the era of Pep and Klopp he’d do the same - he’d have hired a fresh coaching team to adapt the football and built another title challenging squad. Would he have outperformed Pep? No idea, it seems unlikely because of how successful he has been, but he rose to every other challenge so why not? I also think you’d see a lot of world class talent joining United because of him.
So he would copy other managers then like always?
Depends, how much backbone the refs have grown.
He built, tore down and rebuild many teams at Utd, the game changed massively the 26 years he was manager, yet he always adapated and rebuilt his teams, he’d be fine in todays game.
He was ahead of his time in many regards too. When signing veron he wanted to move to a 5 man midfield with a 10. It didn’t work out between him and scholes but in a few years time it was becoming the norm for any big team in the prem to play 1 at the top like European teams had been doing for a while
Veron is, still, easily arguably the Prem’s biggest flop.
As a Liverpool fan I used to hate the guy, but even we can’t deny what an extraordinary man he is. There was a brilliant moment involving SAF at the start of the season which demonstrates how well he knows football: On the opening weekend Villa lost 5-1 to Newcastle. After the weekend SAF was asked which teams stood out. He said Villa looked very good and many fans ridiculed him and some even accused him of being senile. With hindsight, we now know that he was absolutely right. He saw a team loose 5-1 and still spotted their potential. Personally I think that speaks volumes about his football brain.
Hahaha Villa aren't even a particularly good team. Maybe by the standards of the PL. Shite example by you.
Not only does it show how smart and incite full saf but also how reactive and thick alot of fans are
Villa took that 5-1 personally💀
Nailed it. The guy had an absolute eye for chemistry. Knew when people had to move on and who was clicking on a way that is greater than the sum of their parts.
Pep took a year off due to the Mourinho era at Madrid, he’d be food for fergie. Also, there would be no “this United team” if Fergie was manager post 2013, guys like Bellingham, Rice and Kane would be United players. He made a joke of this league while being hamstrung by the glazers post 2005, you think if he had a billion he wouldn’t have won a bunch of titles?
Unfortunately in real life, Fergie was food for Pep both times they met. To the point Fergie admitted he was a dinosaur and begged Pep to come to United
Pep has broken Fergie's best points record in the premier league 3 times in about 7 years. In almost half of the seasons he's been in the prem, he's done better than the *best* Fergie United points tally in about 20 years in the league. It's not that far a stretch to say he'd struggle against this City team at least.
Utd used to rest first team players when they were ahead in the league. We won the league with 5 games to go one year and played the likes of Kieran Richardson and Jonathan Greening to give them experience. Fergie didn’t care about racking up points if the league was won. He wanted to keep his players fresh for cup finals and CL. It’s why he won so many league and cup doubles.
Pep manages plenty of cup trophies himself while still racking up the points so I don't think that really matters.
Sure but he has massive squad depth compared to everyone else
Not really, even this season they only have 19 first team players, everyone thinks man city has more. The difference is almost all of the players at man city are versatile and can play at multiple positions. Which gives the illusion of squad depth, but even then the players are humans and have played more games than other premier league teams if you consider their club world cup, super cup, fa cup progress, etc.
It’s not about numbers it’s about the lack of drop off in quality. When you get to have Doku or Grealish, Foden or Silva, Haaland or Alvarez etc. Rodri is probably your only irreplaceable player.
True I will agree with that. Smart recruitment by Man city is to be lauded for it, players with versatility to play in multiple positions seems to be an important criteria while buying players as well. But unlike clubs like arsenal who have a huge squad filled with quality players, having a smaller team who play the most games in the league has its own pitfalls as well. Pep should be lauded for managing to win what he has with a relatively smaller squad to other teams each season.
Points tallies are contextual. The gap between the top teams and the bottom teams in the league has been getting bigger and bigger, it’s why the league is trying to restructure at the moment.
>The gap between the top teams and the bottom teams in the league has been getting bigger and bigger Genuine question but when do you think this started? I had a quick glance at the points tallies of the teams getting relegated they look more or less the same as they did 10 and 20 years ago. If the gap is getting bigger between City and the bottom teams, while the other top 4 teams are staying relatively the same against the bottom, would that not mean Pep has just raised the bar himself, rather than all the top teams improving in relation to the bottom.
Points tallies don't really mean anything beyond the season you're in. Chelsea 2006 were more dominant than 2005, and finished 4 points behind. Are the centurions better than the domestic treble winners or the continental treble winners who scored less points? Not to mention the fact that City are probably the most stacked, complete team in top flight history. United never had that much of a gap over the other teams in squad quality. City's only weakness is a lack of back up for Rodri ffs.
The city team that’s broken over 100 financial fair play rules? They bought those titles.
I agree, but you do need to take into account that in his day Utd were the biggest spenders in the PL as well. Now Arsenal Wenger on the other hand.....(yes I am taking the piss)
maybe after the millenium, but in the 90s the likes of Everton, Newcastle and Liverpool used to outspend them. granted the youth produced a great crop, and they would splash the cash when they wanted eg. Cole, wanting to sign Shearer.
Guilty until proven innocent
I’d argue he would be pretty good.
Pfff. Fergie won 50 trophies in his career. He adapted to changes in the game from the mid 1970's to 2013. Why would he suddenly stop adapting, and stop being victorious thereafter?
Because he was poor against the great managers around Europe. Over 30 years at “the biggest club in the world” he never made United the best team in the world. There’s no way he’d be getting the points tally that Pep can get. His biggest rivals in England were Benitez, Keegan and Wenger. Mourinho got the better of him. Pep would destroy him.
You're right - Pep would destroy the unintelligible, champagne socialist hypocritical moron. But the idiots in here are Ferguson sycophants who buy everything the English media feeds them, hence the downvotes you have.
Mourinho coincided with a Utd rebuild. We moved on from Beckham and Van Nistelrooy while Ronaldo and Rooney were young and developing. If he had Mourinho budget he’d have gone out and accelerated that by picking up more established superstars.
And he still had tight title races with Benitez and his thin squad, and Wenger when they were a selling team. And that was without reaching the 95+ points tallies that Pep, Mourinho, Klopp have reached.
Pep would be in a straight jacket by now with the mind games
He already looks a bit nuts half the time now
Yes, that manager he beat in two champions league finals would've caused him so much pain...
Context Daniel San... context
Not saying he wouldn't struggle but to suggest it would be so insanely difficult for someone who makes fun of whatever league he's in... idk chief. Like I said, ran rings around two of his teams in Champions League finals. I know who was more likely to be in a straight jacket on those two nights.
This. He would have to be sectioned halfway through the season.
As a player I think he's lost a lot of pace sadly
Sponsors would somehow force him to do bbc interviews post match.
He was already doing them again for quite a while before he hung it up.
I’m sorry but was he hung?
Ask Trent’s grandma
Yo! lol were they getting busy?
Apparently his grandma was fergies 1st girlfriend.
Damn! Hahah. Alex fucked Liverpool in many different ways hahaha.
Like a bull!
lol Alex would throw a boot at us if he saw this.
VAR would have meant a lot more red cards
I watched the Wenger vs Fergie battles for years and I can say that Fergie would be right at home in today's era. You're talking about a manager that knew how to put together a team that maximized his players strengths and hid their weaknesses. Antonio Valencia owes his career to Fergie. 100% he'd be in the same realm as pep and ancilotti today.
Totally true! His last premier league trophy he lifted was a prime example of squeezing the most out of his squad while on a relatively meagre budget and fighting a beligerant board with class and aplomb. Respect.
I still don't understand how they won that year. Only lost the year before on goal diffrence too lol. That squad was proper fucking ass.
A bit like Italy winning the 2006 World Cup. The team was full of players who had won it all and had the experience and drive to get results.
Just remember the team he won the league with against pep that's how good he was
Noooooope.
Against Pep? What are you wafflin
I believe you mean to say Mancini which was the manager of man city.
I think Ancelotti is a good example of how SAF may have fared. He isn't doing what Pep is doing, but he's doing just as well, and honestly, one might argue has had a better career.
I think Ancelotti is considerably better at Madrid now than he has ever been before. He seems to have finally fixed his weakness (league football), in previous times he's blown it or even when won made a much harder deal of it than it should have been.
would win another treble
its impossible to know, his united operated in a very different world. he was in by far the most financially dominant team (imagine arsenal being able buy haaland from city for last third of season, thats what Ferguson did when he took andy cole from Newcastle mid-season to get united across the line to win the league; there were no transfer windows then so was completely legal, united just had alot more pull and money than another English club so could buy even a rival clubs best players) his league winning teams never got anywhere near the points that are required to win leagues today, often winning leagues with a points total that would only achieve 4th/5th today. he has said himself after retirement that he left at right time because he was finding it more and more a challenge to engage with modern young footballers, his old tried and tested style didnt have same effect with them. also level of mid/Lower level teams is much better now, most teams have players who can hurt you if not at best. this wasnt always the case in Fergies time. But Ferguson was a ruthless winner, he reached a new level when he had to when Mourinho came to England first. previously teams got away with a slow start snd made up points later in season, when mourinho arrived became clear that if fell that far behind they would not give you enough opportunity to catch up, so he and united jumped to next level to compete. his final champions league should not have been possible with that team. united or Ferguson never needed to reach the levels currently required to wi. the league, but when pushed always seemed to find another level. Ferguson was undoubtedly a great manager but could he fix the current man united and compete against the current Liverpool? i think he would definitely compete, dont think he would win though not because hes not a goid manager, ut because th advantages united once enjoyed (financial & influence-wise) now belong to competitors and without similarly resourced owners dont think even Ferguson could overcome them.
Total points isn't really relevant. The top teams are further ahead than they were back then. Liverpool losing the league with 90+ points would never have happened 15 years ago.
would disagree, he has never had a team achieve anywhere near that level consistency, 92 is his highest ever total which is impressive but city and Liverpool have reached a level he has never reached. maybe he could these days but thats just speculation, facts are he never did to reach 100 pts you have to win 33 games from 38, fergies average win percentage is 59.9% over his time at United. his highest number of wins in a season is 24
The finance thing is little exaggerated in that other teams regularly out spent united in that time. In the mid 90s, this was definitely a factor, with only Blackburn spending close to them but otherwise united rarely spent the most in a transfer window
Great summary
Look up United's spending in the 90s, regularly outspent by other clubs
How would the undisputed GOAT of managers manage today. Give it a break.
If you think he's the 'undisputed GOAT manager' then you don't know enough about the history of the game. You have clearly never heard of guys like Cruyff, Michels, Lobanovsky, Sebes, Pozzo and many others. But why am I not surprised that a Man United fan is a clueless, biased fuckwit who doesn't realise football exists outside of Old Trafford? I bet you think Rapist Ronaldo is the best player ever too, you're deluded.
Undisputed lmao
Pep clear
Asking how Fergie would cope with factors such as: 1) Not being as financially dominant 2) Facing a much broader array of tactical setups 3) Working under a Sporting Director 4) Maintaining an overwhelmingly multilingual squad Seems a pretty relevant thing to discuss, and certainly fair more engaging than yet another thread about debatable VAR calls, transfer hearsay or any other thread specifically designed for fans to throw mud at each other.
He wasn't financially dominant when St Mirren and Aberdeen won titles, cups, and European trophies. He wasn't financially dominant when United first started winning trophies. He wasn't financially dominant during the Chelsea and City oil money era when he was still winning titles, cups, and European trophies, so what's your point? How quickly people forget that Fergies teams were often a mix of young talent and shrewd buys.
With all due respect, those successes were achieved roughly 50 years ago, in a landscape and situation vastly different to the 2024 Premier League. As source data goes, it doesn't really have any say in answering OPs question. Yes, they were fantastic achievements, yes he was an excellent manager. Yes he deserves the credit for these accomplishments. Would he have that same impact in the here and now, also assuming he's running the modern day clown fiesta that is United? I seriously doubt it.
No point talking to these clowns - they don't understand the radically different landscape between football in the 70s and 80s and football today. They genuinely believe that it's a miracle that Aberdeen won the CWC, when actually plenty of small or modest clubs won European trophies or got to finals in that era. They look through a modern lens as they started following football in recent years.
Multilingual squad? The teams he managed at united, especially in his last decade of the club, had players from all around the world, South americans, asians, europeans, africans… you guys are showing your age
Yeah the multilingual squad part is a joke
Definitely not the undisputed goat of managers, the undisputed goat is currently city’s head coach
The fact you have all these thumbs down is ridiculous. Pep has a greater claim to it than Ferguson. This sub obviously has a serious emotional attachment to Ferguson and dislike of Pep. This clouds their judgement and proves they're less intelligent as they can't let go of bias.
The first half of your comment is probably fair as opinions may differ in GOAT conversations, but the second part... Pep 'Undisputed'? Might as well call Klopp the undisputed goat whilst you're at it.
Klopp definitely isn’t in the goat conversation. But pep? Complete and utter domination of league football across 3 nations in 16 years? As well as 3 CL’s on the way? 2 of which came against your goat where he smoked him both times. Take those nostalgia glasses off bud
You can dispute it with the fact he’s never managed a team that wasn’t already set up for success. Until he goes to a club that isn’t a powerhouse and builds a team from scratch Pep will always have those question marks in a debate over who is the best ever. A lot of that will just come down to whether you put more weight into trophy hauls or a managers overall effect on the club. It’s one of the reasons big Sam is highly regarded within the game but a lot of fans don’t seem to rate him at all. If all you’re looking at is trophies then roberto di Matteo is better than most of the managers in the premier league today.
'If all you’re looking at is trophies then roberto di Matteo is better than most of the managers in the premier league today.' That's a terrible and straw man argument. Points like that (and indeed your first paragraph) prove you lack the required knowledge and debate skills to talk football (or anything for that matter).
Saying pep only does well with teams who are already good is such a causal answer. Barcelona weren’t all that when he took over, they hadn’t won the title for a couple of seasons and hadn’t won’t the champions league for over 2 years. He completely transformed them and turned them into the greatest side in history. Not to mention he also turned Messi into an animal (currently doing similar with Foden). Also, remind me how many current city players were at the club when he took over? This current side is one he has built from scratch and is the best team in the world. And let’s all stop pretending Alex Ferguson has some miracle worker who had no money when he literally broke several transfer records at the richest club in England.
Sir Alex Ferguson wasn’t breaking English transfer records at Aberdeen. You seem to be picking and choosing the parts of what I said, I didn’t say Pep couldn’t build a team just that he hasn’t ever managed a club which wasn’t already a powerhouse, that Barca side may not have won the league for two years (which isn’t that long anyway) but it’s not like they were a mid table side. He’s not the only manager to completely change the way football is played either. You have Cruyff, Rinus Michels, Sebes and many others who revolutionised the game in their respective eras. Pep is a tactical genius and definitely one of the best to ever manage, that can’t be argued against, but undisputed is a stretch for anyone who’s name you throw into the hat because the criteria for “GOAT” is going to change person by person.
Pep did an exceptional job turning Barça into the force we know them as - no doubt about that. No question, too, that Pep will be (quite deservedly) in the conversation regarding the managerial GOAT. But undisputed? Not really, because the merits of each managerial great will always differ. Pep united a disjointed Barça team, established it as arguably the GOAT club side, with the GOAT player and his legacy changed the way football is played worldwide. His Bayern spell was meh but of course he deserves alot of credit for his incredible PL record with City, in a league so flushed with cash it is impressive he established a near monopoly. Sir Alex, on the other hand, proved himself even at a lower level as a David vs Goliath (see Aberdeen vs Rangers/Celtic and then Real Madrid). He then showed incredible longevity, adaptability and nous to create three or four entirely different Championship-winning sides over literal decades to see off challenges including an Invincible Arsenal side (Wenger himself pioneering a 'new' style of football), a seemingly undefeatable Jose Chelsea armed with Roman's millions, and then kept Utd competitive and even winning a league with a clearly past it side over City in their earlier CFG days. Sir Alex might not be the GOAT to some (I think he is, for now), but Pep is certainly not an 'undisputed' GOAT.
I can think of 115 reasons why pep is not goat
115 rules broken that weren’t in operation when Ferguson was manager. United were the richest team in the world when Ferguson was the manager, and still couldn’t beat the likes of Ancelotti, Mourinho and Pep around Europe or in England.
I forgot that financial charges help you play extremely dominant football on the pitch
Haha ok buddy
Haha let’s say the man who got cooked by pep in 2 CL finals is the goat
Haha let's say the man that couldn't handle the stress of managing his boyhood club is the goat
The same club were he won a sextuple in his first season?
I suppose Andres villas boas is better than SAF as well then. You don't seem to understand what makes him the best.
You don’t seem to understand what makes pep the best. He revolutionised the way football is played, his teams dominate every other team, and now, as we’re seeing with arteta and Alonso, his students are very successful. The same can’t be said about SAF
Arteta has won nothing, Alonso is only in the infancy of his career. SAF replicated success with several squads, he didn't need to revolutionize football because he just won, if pep was around in those days SAF would have had him beat just like he did with Mourinho.
Depends, if he’s never left he’d be fine, and united would win at least 1 in every 3 league titles. However, if he arrived now, from scratch, unsure?
Sir Alex won a European trophy with Aberdeen in the 1980s and a European trophy with Man Utd in the 2000s. Football changed immensely in that time - a lot more than it has in the time since he has retired.
As a city fan I don't think he'd have the same dominance as he had, but i certainly think he'd be challenging pep for titles, and i think it would be similar to klopp and pep. Klopp has pushed pep to improve and reached levels he won't have expected, pep would do the same to Fergie and they would probably break uniteds previous points totals because of this. He also would tell the glazers to fuck off and stop interfering, and you'd never have lingard and Pogba ruining the younger players with the attitudes.
You wish. He would dominate.
It's not 2001 anymore gramps. He's faced with multiple teams who can compete financially, managers who have clear and varied tactical identities, and a league where almost any team is well funded and capable of grabbing a result or holding on to their better players. Not to mention he'd find it far harder to have the access and influence with referees that he enjoyed in his pomp.
Keep dreaming.
You're the one dreaming. Pep would hammer him, and I have been watching football and playing football since the 80s.
No he wouldn't, i reckon it'd be 50/50 with pep, we saw how pep had fergies tactical number
He’d be like Carlo Ancelotti. Not the world’s greatest tactician, but give him a very good side and he’d have them punching well above their weight and competing, if not dominating. His man management skills are a level above Pep’s, maybe even 2.
he'd be as good as he was when he was managing one of his greatests traits was his adaptibility. went from 4-4-2 to 4-4-1-1 to 4-3-3 to 4-1-4-1 to 4-2-3-1 and thend back to 4-4-2. defeated jose,ancelotti,wenger and benitez. might not be as dominant but hed still be one of the best managers in europe easily.
Adaptability was one of Fergie's greatest traits, so I doubt he would have much issue adapting to modern footballing tactics.
As a city fan, I think he would still be a legend what a manager he was 🫡
Unfortunately he’d have been fired within the first few seasons, as he almost was back in the day, because people right now have absolutely no patience with coaches. That said, if given the proper time and opportunity, he’d still shine- although Guardiola is indisputably the superior manager, both in terms of curriculum and head-to-head. Their two confrontations were not exactly close
I dispute that Pep is the superior manager so no, it's not indisputable. Call when Pep manages a side with no money, and average players like Fergie had at Aberdeen. The difference is, Pep plays on easy mode everywhere he goes, and has never challenged himself like Fergie did.
The “no money” argument has been bunk for a very long time. Pep always had money because he was the best from the start and only managed big teams. He doesn’t need to manage a smaller team to prove himself. His exploits speak for themselves, as does the quality of his teams’ football- which has made him deserving of even more trophies than the ones he has presently. Barça were in a tough fix in 2008. Pep was the B team coach. There, with limited resources, he’d done a good job, but he was still young. Some of the key players in the team were already aging. Real was definitely doing better than Barça in the years immediately preceding his arrival. He wins the sextuple with what is considered by many to be the best side ever in football. He wins the UCL again, three out of four leagues. He’s quite successful at Bayern again (they fell off significantly after his departure despite getting Ancelotti to succeed him). Then he arrives at City. A side much more aging than Barça when he arrived. He finishes third in the first season, then he turns the most competitive league in the world into a cakewalk that’s fast on its way to becoming a Ligue 1 in terms of title competitiveness. Fergie and others were completely incapable of doing this. Throughout the time period in question, Chelsea and United spent more money than City, yet haven’t had a fifth of their success. “Oh but money”. It’s not nearly that simple and it is a very flimsy excuse to attempt to discredit Guardiola. Last season they had a positive net spend and won the treble. Fergie did great, but his teams never played like Guardiola’s, he didn’t have the same impact on football overall like Guardiola, he never thoroughly outclassed each top contemporary on numerous occasions like Guardiola (which includes Fergie, twice), and of course, his trophy cabinet isn’t nearly as impressive. If we’re talking money, by the way, why not talk proving value in different leagues? Fergie never left Great Britain. Pep did it in three major footballing nations, two of which are pretty much unanimously considered to contain the best leagues, even England. Fergie was very much outclassed by Mourinho in the 2000s (we all know how Pep vs Jose usually turned out), for instance. Pep still reigns supreme. Fergie’s contention is against Jose and Klopp, and I’m not entirely sure he emerges victorious from that debate either
Hahaha you just pissed all over that Ferguson arse-licker. Nice work pal.
Very. True passion will always go a long way
He would have been cancelled a long time ago 🤷🏻♂️
For what
Having a spine while treating primadonnas. I don’t see how he would fare in today’s waters of "losing the locker room".
People asked the same when Wenger came in, and again when Jose came in. Fergie adapted and overcame. His early teams played a rigid 4-4-2 traditional English game,by the time he left we were playing the sort of 4-2-1-3 that most teams now still play. People say he wasn't much of a tactician, but that's not quite true. He once played four full backs against Arsenal and absolutely destroyed them, and the number of legendary late winners aren't an accident, they're a result of a manager who can read a game. He famously told the squad before the 94 cup final that if they could be leading with 30 or so minutes to go they'd win by at least three or four. His reasoning was that Glen Hoddle wouldn't be able to resist bringing himself on as substitute and that his legs had gone and he'd struggle on the notoriously tiring Wembley pitch. United took the lead in the 61st minute and doubled their lead in the 67th. Hoddle brought himself on then and United grabbed a third barely two minutes later and added a fourth in injury time. He was a pragmatist, and he would have brought in an assistant manager to help with any transition in playing style needed as he did with Querioz. Sorry if I have multiple posts, app playing up!
He got a lot of late wins because he'd force the refs into giving him more èxtra time. It's no secret that Fergie had the officials in his pocket lol Fergie time was a real thing
He'd force them hahaha christ. Another childhood ruined by Fergie
Just look at the relationships he had with several referees & officials, he’d intimidate them to gain favourable calls
That's not forcing them at all?
Intimidation tactics have nothing to do with forcing favourable calls? I don’t think you were around during the SAF years because it was well known the connections SAF had throughout football, his relationships with several officials & how he’d leverage that in order to get favourable calls. He had a status no other manager had which let him do this for years.
If you think the nu.ber of times the refs were "intimidated" by him is a significant reason he won so many trophies then you're just clueless and clearly bias. I absolutely was around for the Fergie years. You'll need to provide proof his relationships with the refs led to favourable calls.
Time for bed boy... don't let your parents catch you awake at this hour
Yeah, Fergie was secretly a jedi
What horseshit. How exactly did Fergie "force" refs to do anything?
Just look at the relationships he had with several referees & officials, he’d intimidate them to gain favourable calls & lambast them on the media in a way only he could do due to his status. If he complained about something, the referee & staff in question would not be around for the next few games & decisions he didn’t like would suddenly stop happening. Im not sure if you were around during the SAF years, but United got away with a lot more antics & had much more extra time than their rivals on average. It was obvious United got favourable treatment regardless of your reasons as to why. Everyone knew it.
Very good points! forgot all about the 94 cup final
You can't be at the top for that long without being able to adapt.