hutton who blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 1,624
An accurate synopsis, a journalist from the other side of the world states it as it is.
hutton who blue said:An accurate synopsis, a journalist from the other side of the world states it as it is.
Nicky D said:Hello all, just thought you might enjoy this perspective on Ferguson by an Australian sports writer:
FINAL WORD
Enough of the haggis-ography. Sir Alex Ferguson was manager of Manchester United for 27 years, during which it won the English league 13 times, but just two European championships, an underachievement, and sundry other baubles.
He was also a bitter, rude, graceless, humourless bully with a vile temper who held a position of singular privilege and influence in world sport and failed utterly to use it in any greater cause than his club's and his own. This is a view from afar, but if it was any different close up, it was wholly missed by a media that seemed to take a masochistic delight in his glares, snubs and insults. Ferguson once boycotted the BBC for seven years because of a personal feud. Even the announcement of his resignation was made by statement, with no press conference.
Ferguson's churlish hallmark was his open and unrelenting contempt for referees. United, in his time, never actually was beaten, just sometimes sabotaged by officials. Five times, he was given touchline bans because of critiques of referees - including calling one fat - and these sanctions were only the tip of an iceberg, when even generally passive administrators could take no more.
His overbearing attitude worked. The record shows that in soccer's peculiarly imprecise manner of timekeeping, referees added more time to the end of games in which United was trailing than they did for any other club. Notwithstanding, when Manchester City pipped United for last year's EPL title, Ferguson sneered: ''City did it against 10 men for half an hour and with five extra minutes to help them.''
He then did what he always did in such a spot - went out and paid whatever it took to buy out another club's captain and best player, in this case Arsenal's Robin Van Persie, club and player both making pious declarations about their mutual thoughts on ambition, style and fit, as if this was anything other than a business deal. Ferguson's coup was again acclaimed as a feat of football management instead of what it was, a hostile takeover. United won again.
Indisputably, Ferguson was a standover man. The best-known United player in his time was David Beckham, who in his autobiography described his relationship with Ferguson as love/fear. Ferguson disapproved of Beckham's marriage, punished him for missing a training session to be with a sick child, questioned his loyalty to the club when he accepted an invitation - as England captain - to go to Buckingham Palace and once made a paranoid phone call to Beckham, accusing him of being in Barcelona when in fact he was in a Manchester shopping mall.
Most famously, he once threw a boot at Beckham and struck him. I say famously because somehow, in the obsequious spirit of Ferguson-fawning, this is celebrated rather than reviled.
Ferguson was a modest player with a good soccer brain and a driven temperament who in time proved himself to be an adept manager, but that by itself is an unremarkable CV. At United, he inherited some youthful talent and developed others, but these alone would not have won him the games and championships that bought him the time to rebuild the team over and over.
Rather, he raided other clubs, repeatedly breaking records for transfer fees, also the hearts of rivals with no hope of competing: Keane, Cantona, Ferdinand, Yorke, Sheringham, Veron, van Nistelrooy, Rooney, Ronaldo, Tevez, van Persie. Reportedly, teenager Ronaldo was more taken by Arsenal and Arsene Wenger but United's money was irresistible.
Ferguson's time at United more or less coincided with the emergence of the Premier League, which is a glorious spectacle, but misnamed as a football competition. Nineteen of the EPL's 21 titles have been won by the three biggest and best resourced in the land. The biggest by far is United, because of a cachet and worldwide following that long predated Ferguson, but was massively exploited in his era. Now owned by the Glazer brothers, American tycoons with at best an affected interest in soccer, United scarcely has been a model of propriety; it was described on Friday as a ''debt mountain''. Yet when City won last year's title, Ferguson harrumphed about how City would continue to ''pay stupid money, pay silly salaries, and all that''.
Ferguson seemed never to understand either his luck or his obligation to the game, as did two Australian near-contemporaries in their localised code. It is hard to remember a contribution from him to the greater discourse, a la Kevin Sheedy. About his widest offering was to accuse UEFA of fixing the Champions League draw in favour of continental teams. The late Allan Jeans once said that a man only discovered whether he could coach or not when he was in charge of a team on the bottom. Ferguson never had that perspective. He never had any perspective.
Ferguson kept a martinet's grip on a good job for a long time, then one day noticed that he had grandchildren, his hip was hurting, and he stopped.
Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/fergie-the-ultimate-red-devil-20130510-2jdgw.html#ixzz2Sy9YZEKY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/f ... z2Sy9YZEKY</a>
Nicky D said:Hello all, just thought you might enjoy this perspective on Ferguson by an Australian sports writer:
FINAL WORD
Enough of the haggis-ography. Sir Alex Ferguson was manager of Manchester United for 27 years, during which it won the English league 13 times, but just two European championships, an underachievement, and sundry other baubles.
He was also a bitter, rude, graceless, humourless bully with a vile temper who held a position of singular privilege and influence in world sport and failed utterly to use it in any greater cause than his club's and his own. This is a view from afar, but if it was any different close up, it was wholly missed by a media that seemed to take a masochistic delight in his glares, snubs and insults. Ferguson once boycotted the BBC for seven years because of a personal feud. Even the announcement of his resignation was made by statement, with no press conference.
Ferguson's churlish hallmark was his open and unrelenting contempt for referees. United, in his time, never actually was beaten, just sometimes sabotaged by officials. Five times, he was given touchline bans because of critiques of referees - including calling one fat - and these sanctions were only the tip of an iceberg, when even generally passive administrators could take no more.
His overbearing attitude worked. The record shows that in soccer's peculiarly imprecise manner of timekeeping, referees added more time to the end of games in which United was trailing than they did for any other club. Notwithstanding, when Manchester City pipped United for last year's EPL title, Ferguson sneered: ''City did it against 10 men for half an hour and with five extra minutes to help them.''
He then did what he always did in such a spot - went out and paid whatever it took to buy out another club's captain and best player, in this case Arsenal's Robin Van Persie, club and player both making pious declarations about their mutual thoughts on ambition, style and fit, as if this was anything other than a business deal. Ferguson's coup was again acclaimed as a feat of football management instead of what it was, a hostile takeover. United won again.
Indisputably, Ferguson was a standover man. The best-known United player in his time was David Beckham, who in his autobiography described his relationship with Ferguson as love/fear. Ferguson disapproved of Beckham's marriage, punished him for missing a training session to be with a sick child, questioned his loyalty to the club when he accepted an invitation - as England captain - to go to Buckingham Palace and once made a paranoid phone call to Beckham, accusing him of being in Barcelona when in fact he was in a Manchester shopping mall.
Most famously, he once threw a boot at Beckham and struck him. I say famously because somehow, in the obsequious spirit of Ferguson-fawning, this is celebrated rather than reviled.
Ferguson was a modest player with a good soccer brain and a driven temperament who in time proved himself to be an adept manager, but that by itself is an unremarkable CV. At United, he inherited some youthful talent and developed others, but these alone would not have won him the games and championships that bought him the time to rebuild the team over and over.
Rather, he raided other clubs, repeatedly breaking records for transfer fees, also the hearts of rivals with no hope of competing: Keane, Cantona, Ferdinand, Yorke, Sheringham, Veron, van Nistelrooy, Rooney, Ronaldo, Tevez, van Persie. Reportedly, teenager Ronaldo was more taken by Arsenal and Arsene Wenger but United's money was irresistible.
Ferguson's time at United more or less coincided with the emergence of the Premier League, which is a glorious spectacle, but misnamed as a football competition. Nineteen of the EPL's 21 titles have been won by the three biggest and best resourced in the land. The biggest by far is United, because of a cachet and worldwide following that long predated Ferguson, but was massively exploited in his era. Now owned by the Glazer brothers, American tycoons with at best an affected interest in soccer, United scarcely has been a model of propriety; it was described on Friday as a ''debt mountain''. Yet when City won last year's title, Ferguson harrumphed about how City would continue to ''pay stupid money, pay silly salaries, and all that''.
Ferguson seemed never to understand either his luck or his obligation to the game, as did two Australian near-contemporaries in their localised code. It is hard to remember a contribution from him to the greater discourse, a la Kevin Sheedy. About his widest offering was to accuse UEFA of fixing the Champions League draw in favour of continental teams. The late Allan Jeans once said that a man only discovered whether he could coach or not when he was in charge of a team on the bottom. Ferguson never had that perspective. He never had any perspective.
Ferguson kept a martinet's grip on a good job for a long time, then one day noticed that he had grandchildren, his hip was hurting, and he stopped.
Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/fergie-the-ultimate-red-devil-20130510-2jdgw.html#ixzz2Sy9YZEKY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/f ... z2Sy9YZEKY</a>
(Alex Ferguson's churlish hallmark was his open and unrelenting contempt for referees.)
The football-related media is in a frenzy of mourning today after the announcement that Sir Alex Taggart has decided to step down as Supreme Dictator of the FA Premier League. Who will follow him, they ask, tearing their hair and wringing their hands in distress. Chelsea fans may be surprised to hear that Bridge-bound Jose Mourinho is being mentioned as inheritor of the poisoned chalice that is the hot-seat at the Theatre of Hollow Myths. Yet Jose is surely too fly and savvy to "do a McGuinness" as the task of following a long-serving Man U manager is known in the game. Everton fans too may be wondering whether David Moyes will be offered the chance to step into the role of "Premier League's Token Grumpy Scotch Git." Whoever ends up in Mr Ferguson's gout-adapted tartan slippers has a job on his hands alright, and will need urgently to review the manual on "How To Bully and Intimidate For Personal and Professional Gain".
The sense of loss for the media will be acute. Hacks as a breed dearly love the cosy familiarity of a tyrant at the top of the game, someone who is an outlet for all of their natural tendency to fawning sycophancy, a figurehead over whom they can compete to praise in the most glowing terms whilst neatly overlooking the glaring flaws of a man who has been a study in coarseness and choleric wrath when things even threaten to go other than as he would like. The newspaper journos will miss "S'ralex" - he represented continuity for them, an opportunity to trot out well-worn cliches and perpetuate comfortable myths. Now they may even have to think before starting another Man U piece - it will be a shock to be so brutally jolted out of a 26 year comfort zone.
Ferguson has his place in the history of the game. He will serve as the biggest negative example of how to ruin the previously positive image of a historically-respected football club, making of them a byword for arrogance and the tendency to ride roughshod over the rules and conventions of the game. He is there as a useful comparator for the true greats of football and how they went about their business, with humour, humility and a sense of their own fallibility. The likes of Busby, Shankly, Revie, Stein, Nicholson et al are all part of the rich fabric of the game, all lost to us now, but all clearly capable of favourable assessment in the light of the Ferguson legacy; none will suffer in comparison with the man from Govan.
People will point to his record of success - and sycophants and revisionists will hastily gloss over his difficult early years at Man U when the home crowd called for his head and despaired of ever being able to aspire to the levels of Liverpool and Everton, great clubs run properly. The re-organisation of the game and its finances when the Premier League came in was highly opportune for Ferguson, and he certainly made hay while the sun shone; it shone for him for the bulk of the remaining 20 years of his career. Ferguson suddenly found himself in charge of a racehorse competing in a donkey derby, the interests of consumers suddenly paramount, the need to sell satellite dishes and replica shirts in hotbeds of Man U support like Devon and Milton Keynes emphasising the commercial importance of a successful Man U team.
All of a sudden, the top players wanted to go to Salford, all of a sudden the statistics of the game tilted heavily in Ferguson's favour. Penalties against them had never been plentiful, now they were as rare as a rosebush in the desert. Ferguson's natural personality came to the fore; his tendency to bully and to rant began to produce real results in terms of the attitude of the media and of the game's officials, both on the field in the shape of cowed and terrified referees, and off it with the administrators unwilling to court commercial unpopularity by waving the rule book under that purple nose. The most familiar sound-bite emanating from Lancaster Gate was suddenly "The FA can confirm that Alex Ferguson will face no disciplinary action for (insert example of blatant disregard for the rules here.)"
Referees became aware of the fact that those of their number who made a decision not to the liking of Ferguson tended to wait a very long time before selection for another fixture involving Man U. These are high profile games, and referees increasingly had to look to their own career prospects as their role assumed more of a professional profile. So they tended to knuckle under, perhaps only subconsciously, but the effect over many years has been enough bizarrely ridiculous decisions in favour of Man U to spoil the digestion of many a football fan who remembers fairer days pre-Murdoch, pre-Man U dominance.
Given this decided slope of the playing field in Man U's favour, the wonder of it all is that they haven't won more. There have been years when the Title has gone elsewhere; remarkable this, in a game of fine margins where one study exposed as fact that 88% of all 50-50 decisions went the way of the Salford Franchise. This is the measure of Ferguson's failure; a manager who was also a good coach would surely have cleaned up in such a very favourable environment.
So what now for Man U? To be honest, I can see their domination continuing. It's likely that the public image of the club will be enhanced under a manager who does not represent quite so many of the negative personality traits exhibited by Ferguson. It will certainly be interesting to see if a world-renowned coach - if appointed - can improve on their patchy record in Europe, where Ferguson's habit of intimidating refs has not been such a marked advantage to them. Two somewhat lucky Champions League wins is a poor return for twenty years of almost unlimited opportunity and a better man in charge might perhaps improve on this and finally give Man U more justification for their laughable claims that they have "knocked Liverpool (Five European Cups) off their perch."
The question will be asked next season "Who's the greatest manager in football now?" The answer will be the same as this season: choose any one from Mourinho, Wenger and Hitzfeld. All the propaganda in the world cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.