Desperation from Utd?

[ashey]

Haha. Just beat me to it.

It can be summarised thus - it's alright when he's the bully in the transfer market but he doesn't like it one little bit now other teams have more money.

I made a similar point when arguing with colleagues, that he wasn't a "great" manager. Utd's dominance was when they could financially out muscle every other club. As soon as someone else came along with a bigger wallet (Chelsea under Maureen, & now City), they struggle.

[Pablo]

As much as I hate him, and even including the factors you've just mentioned, I think he is still indisputably a great manager

[G]

He's defo a great manager.

He's built at least 3 different sides that have won trophies galore.

Chelsea still have their spending power yet he still challenges them every season even with the obvious flaws in their side and for all City's wealth they won the title because United imploded,nothing else.

He's a great manager,he's not legendary though, His European cup failures hold him back from that. 2 in 25 years is pitiful given how dominant they were domestically for most of that time

[Shaggy]

He's defo a great manager.

He's built at least 3 different sides that have won trophies galore.

Chelsea still have their spending power yet he still challenges them every season even with the obvious flaws in their side and for all City's wealth they won the title because United imploded,nothing else.

He's a great manager,he's not legendary though, His European cup failures hold him back from that. 2 in 25 years is pitiful given how dominant they were domestically for most of that time

Although I disagree with the United imploding thing. City imploded first and contrived to throw away a big lead. City were by far and away the best side in the league and deservedly won the title.

[Neil Young]

As much as I hate him, and even including the factors you've just mentioned, I think he is still indisputably a great manager

Ok, I'll dispute it.

How are you judging him?

It's very well established that success in football is directly dependent on money - it's not a correlation of 1.0 but it's not far off.

Throughout the time F3rguson (EDIT: FFS, can we lose this tedious and childish filter?) has been in charge, Man United have been the biggest spenders, except for a period when Liverpool were (and were dominant, ending only with the Premier League and the effects of the Heysel ban), Chelsea were (and were dominant until Abramaovich lost interest in backing the manager and took too much interest in selecting players) and now, when Man City (who won the league) and Chelsea (Champions League) are.

So really, trophies tell us he had a lot of money to spend. He's spent it reasonably well but I doubt his success rate is more than 10% above random chance, i.e. 50/50. That's quite a good enough rate but it doesn't mean he's a genius, the like of which has never walked the Earth before, nor will again.

There's an insight in behavioural economics that tells us the success of CEO's of big companies is mainly down to luck but that human beings (and the financial press) are particularly poor at recognising the role of luck, naturally preferring to weave a narrative based on skill, talent, etc. And the financial press backs this "star system" because there are more books to be sold, ratings to be chased and names to be made by presenting us all with the idea of individual brilliance than the tale of someone who was slightly better than most and just happened to be in the right time and right place.

The same applies in all other walks of life.

[G]

Although I disagree with the United imploding thing. City imploded first and contrived to throw away a big lead. City were by far and away the best side in the league and deservedly won the title.

They defo deserved it over the course of the season but I think the slump was the Mancini factor,I don't rate him. They won it in the end because United did a very un United like thing by throwing away a big lead.

To be fair though it was City's first crack at it so the pressure involved may have been significant in the mid season slump though such pressure usually involves end of season slumps.Once the pressure was off them they responded brilliantly.To win it in your first proper attempt is commendable.

I think United got complacent or maybe teams like Wigan,Blackburn and Everton stopped being beaten before they started and showed them up to be the fragile team they are.With a proper Midfield,I don't think United would've surrendered that lead.

[Neil Young]

Why did Man United throw away a big lead?

We can all have our theories but it looks to me like Man City have much better players than Man United, and were able to win games when under intense pressure, culminating of course in the last minute of the whole season.

And the reason Man City have better players is because they have the biggest budget. It's by far the most important factor.

[Lee]

(EDIT: FFS, can we lose this tedious and childish filter?)

Please? It's very small-time.

[G]

Why did Man United throw away a big lead?

We can all have our theories but it looks to me like Man City have much better players than Man United, and were able to win games when under intense pressure, culminating of course in the last minute of the whole season.

And the reason Man City have better players is because they have the biggest budget. It's by far the most important factor.

City didn't cope with the pressure during the mid season slump,it was only when United had a seemingly un-asailable lead did they start to play again.

They have the biggest budget and the better players for sure but they have been buying expensive players for a number of years and it didn't lead to success straight away.

They been through a few "star" signings before they found the right blend that led them to the holy grail.

You need money for sure but far more important is spending it well. The likes of Kompany,Hart,Zabaleta,Clichy and Kolarov are just as important as the no risk superstars like Tevez, Toure and Aguero.

Slur has been good in that regard until recent years,helped massively by their youth system.

[Alex]

Agreed. Filter is no longer funny.

[Lee]

Agreed. Filter is no longer funny.

It wasn't funny to start with. It's similar to the Skittles, Lumpard, Dogbreath sort of unfunny names.

[Alex]

It was funny the first time I noticed it had changed my post. But yes your right. I absolutely hate nicknames for footballers.

[Muddled]

Tru fax.

[Shaggy]

It was funny the first time I noticed it had changed my post. But yes your right. I absolutely hate nicknames for footballers.

Always reminds me of Brendan who used to post on here, got banned, went to 6CM, got banned and is now on TLW.

"Lucarse"

"Horrenderson"

Etc.

[Pablo]

I remember Brendan from Koptalk, what an irritating little turd he was.