I was watching a show called Fox Football Fone-In - hosted by Steve Cohen and Nick Geber. They were debating the five greatest English managers of all time. Routinely mentioned were Shankley, Paisley, and Ferguson. There were several others mentioned, but, Cohen thought Ferguson was the best for what he has accomplished in the modern game, while Geber (who is a LFC fan) thought that Paisley's haul of trophies qualified him as the best.
My thinking leads me to beleive that Shankly is the greatest. I did some research and aside from a period of 4 - 5 years in the early 1900's during which Arsenal were dominate, no one even approached the dominance of LFC in the 70's and 80's. My point being is that the modern concept of a football dynasty ows its origins to the work Shankly put in in the years leading up to the 70's.
My question to you all - is LFC really the first "dynasty", and would SHankly be the architect of that or does Paisley deserve more of the credit ? And I apologize in advance, as I am sure the Paisley vs Shanks debate is ongoing in Merseyside. . .
My thinking leads me to beleive that Shankly is the greatest. I did some research and aside from a period of 4 - 5 years in the early 1900's during which Arsenal were dominate, no one even approached the dominance of LFC in the 70's and 80's. My point being is that the modern concept of a football dynasty ows its origins to the work Shankly put in in the years leading up to the 70's.
My question to you all - is LFC really the first "dynasty", and would SHankly be the architect of that or does Paisley deserve more of the credit ? And I apologize in advance, as I am sure the Paisley vs Shanks debate is ongoing in Merseyside. . .
.


Comment