is SAF Top 5 managers of all time?

I Have Mono wrote:For the champions league, top 20

- 2x winner
- 2x runners up
- 3x semi finalist
- 5x quarter finalist

And keep in mind he didn't manage in the Champions League for 8 out of his 27 years as manager.

So, who are the other managers who can compete with that record?

McAgger wrote:BC shame on you for excluding arguably the greatest manager of all time in Bob Paisley.

Idk, all 4 managers I mentioned are more influential than him.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

McAgger wrote:BC shame on you for excluding arguably the greatest manager of all time in Bob Paisley.

Idk, all 4 managers I mentioned are more influential than him.

But they weren't.

Maybe you have an argument for Sacchi considering his short-lived career, Herrera, Michels and SAF definitely are.

I Have Mono wrote:

Ion Creanga wrote:if SAF is top 20 manager in UCL, where the fck should be Wenger ranked? 100-150?

Thats a little harsh, top 100 at worst. Just getting out of the group stages and losing in the round of 16 does not make someone a top manager in the competition, you have too consider everything, how many champion league title has he won ? How many times has he qualified ? Etc etc...

Woohoo we qualified, get real.

As far as Sir Alex, 2 CL titles in 27 years is not THAT impressive, but at the same time it is still 2 CL titles which is a hell of a lot better then 99% of managers would do; not enough to make him top 5 though as far as the Champions league is concerned, i do think he is the best Premier league manager ever though.

So all that matters is how much a manager won? Let's take Wenger, for example. The man has kept his club in the mix with the top teams for years, even if normally only barely, despite more restricted financial resources than any of his rivals and while spending less on aggregate than the majority of the teams that end up in the bottom half of the table or relegated. That doesn't mean a damn thing? How about how he single-handily changed the footballing culture in the league and made people realize that foreign talent could thrive and make it more exciting? Does his ability to nurture young talent into world class players mean nothing either?

For Sir Alex, the points have been touched upon, but someone not having won as many titles as someone else in a specific competition does not make them automatically inferior. In general, most managers never get the opportunities to manage super-clubs or work with the financial resources that a few privileged managers do, so restricting measures of success to trophy counts in specific competitions is too restrictive; Sir Alex was at a top club, but my point is that there are other factors to consider. Also, some managers come into jobs in which the team structure is already in place and top class players are already there - should their success be viewed under the same microscope as managers that build a club from the bottom up and make a team successful on their own? I don't think so.

Managers like SAF make their clubs successful. They don't just join at the right time with a talented squad and come along for a trophy ride that probably would have happened with any decent manager.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

McAgger wrote:BC shame on you for excluding arguably the greatest manager of all time in Bob Paisley.

Idk, all 4 managers I mentioned are more influential than him.

Like how he won more CL's in 9 years than fergie has in 27,all the while with no previous experience in Management?

Eman wrote:

I Have Mono wrote:

Ion Creanga wrote:if SAF is top 20 manager in UCL, where the fck should be Wenger ranked? 100-150?

Thats a little harsh, top 100 at worst. Just getting out of the group stages and losing in the round of 16 does not make someone a top manager in the competition, you have too consider everything, how many champion league title has he won ? How many times has he qualified ? Etc etc...

Woohoo we qualified, get real.

As far as Sir Alex, 2 CL titles in 27 years is not THAT impressive, but at the same time it is still 2 CL titles which is a hell of a lot better then 99% of managers would do; not enough to make him top 5 though as far as the Champions league is concerned, i do think he is the best Premier league manager ever though.

So all that matters is how much a manager won? Let's take Wenger, for example. The man has kept his club in the mix with the top teams for years, even if normally only barely, despite more restricted financial resources than any of his rivals and while spending less on aggregate than the majority of the teams that end up in the bottom half of the table or relegated. That doesn't mean a damn thing? How about how he single-handily changed the footballing culture in the league and made people realize that foreign talent could thrive and make it more exciting? Does his ability to nurture young talent into world class players mean nothing either?

For Sir Alex, the points have been touched upon, but someone not having won as many titles as someone else in a specific competition does not make them automatically inferior. In general, most managers never get the opportunities to manage super-clubs or work with the financial resources that a few privileged managers do, so restricting measures of success to trophy counts in specific competitions is too restrictive; Sir Alex was at a top club, but my point is that there are other factors to consider. Also, some managers come into jobs in which the team structure is already in place and top class players are already there - should their success be viewed under the same microscope as managers that build a club from the bottom up and make a team successful on their own? I don't think so.

Managers like SAF make their clubs successful. They don't just join at the right time with a talented squad and come along for a trophy ride that probably would have happened with any decent manager.

Longevity by itself means nothing to me, Pardew signed a 8 year contract ? with Newcastle, if all he does is keep them midtable should i all of a sudden rate him as a great manager because he was their manager for 10 years ? Hey he kept them from getting relegated i guess thats successful. TITLES DO MATTER.

Wenger in almost 20 years has won what ? 3 league title 3 FA cups and a few Emirates cups lol ? Has he kept them in the title hunt, not really despite the fact that they manage to get the final CL spot, doenst make them a title contender in those years.

Ask me again if he wins another 2 or 3 league titles and a champions league in the next 10 years and i will have a much different opinion.

As far as comparing Wenger to Sir Alex the only comparison is the fact that they both managed their teams for extended periods. Sir Alex won titles consistently, Wenger rarely does.

Not an easy topic.
Trophies are certainly important when we judge a manager but it's not as easy as counting who won the most and call him the greatest ever. There were coaches who revolutionized the game which is certainly important. Some took over big clubs and won trophies with them while others turned small clubs into big clubs and won some trophies though maybe not as much as those who took over the big clubs. What's "better"? And of course we have the national coaches who have a completely different job. Personally I don't really want to make a ranking as I would only be able to name my personal number one but that's it.
SAF is a great manager. Top 5? I don't know. But I think people who say he's "comfortably" top5 don't know very much about the history of football.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Maybe you have an argument for Sacchi considering his short-lived career, Herrera, Michels and SAF definitely are.

Stop buying the media bs. SAF is not better than Paisley, not as a manager nor as a coach.

Rinus Michels, Sacchi, Herrara, even Ernst Happel or Bela Guttmann I would put up there. And Paisley is among those men. He's up there with the greatest. SAF for me is behind all of those men.

I don't understand this argument. If you're going to have the viewpoint that you need to be "influential" to football, why don't you mention the likes of Chapman, Rappan, Sebes, Costa, Zubeldía, the Soviets (can't remember the names) etc when you're trying to say "X" manager > "Y" manager?

Chapman innovated a formation that was in use for 20 odd years.
Rappan created the initial verrou that Herrera used to great effect.
Sebes, Costa, and Guttmann all made their lasting influence with the 4-2-4.

A Soviet coach is credited with innovating the 4-defender system. Look how widespread the 4-defender formation is all around the world; surely this is a greater influence than almost any other innovation?

What did Paisley influence in world football? He was quoted saying multiple facets of his Liverpool side's playing style was taken from the Latin and European people. Almost everything he did as a coach, someone else did it before him. He just had the proper platform (see: Shankly) to succeed.

zigra wrote:But I think people who say he's "comfortably" top5 don't know very much about the history of football.

Seriously?   

Or ignorant, whatever. It's about the word comfortable. You could make an argument for him being top5 and I wouldn't have a problem with it though he might not be in my top5.

I Have Mono wrote:Longevity by itself means nothing to me, Pardew signed a 8 year contract ? with Newcastle, if all he does is keep them midtable should i all of a sudden rate him as a great manager because he was their manager for 10 years ? Hey he kept them from getting relegated i guess thats successful. TITLES DO MATTER.

Wenger in almost 20 years has won what ? 3 league title 3 FA cups and a few Emirates cups lol ? Has he kept them in the title hunt, not really despite the fact that they manage to get the final CL spot, doenst make them a title contender in those years.

Ask me again if he wins another 2 or 3 league titles and a champions league in the next 10 years and i will have a much different opinion.

As far as comparing Wenger to Sir Alex the only comparison is the fact that they both managed their teams for extended periods. Sir Alex won titles consistently, Wenger rarely does.

I didn't argue for longevity being a reason someone is a good manager, and I never compared Wenger to SAF; I just used them as examples because they were relevant to the conversation.

All I said was that you're looking at stats without considering the circumstances and the restrictions with which different managers operate, while not giving due credit for other things that managers can contribute on a broader scale, such as club infrastructure development, talent development, and changing the fundamental way that the game is played.

Comparing managers across different generations is impossible to do conclusively because of the grossly different environments that they have operated in over the years, so numbers cannot be the only judging criteria.