Fergie The Greatest?

if you compare liverpool's route to the 77 final it consisted of crusaders, trabzonspor, st etienne and fc zurich
-------------

Don't be ignorant. Just because teams like St Etienne aren't a force in the modern game doesn't mean they were poor outfits back then.

Don't be ignorant. Just because teams like St Etienne aren't a force in the modern game doesn't mean they were poor outfits back then.
========

apart from the 1976 final name another european cup final st etienne got to? name another final malmo got to? i think you didn't understand my point. the point is that it's harder to get to the final in today's format. firstly, you have to to play in a 6 game group stage before you get to the group stages. then if you get to the knock outstages you could play a team that could easily knock you out. in the 70's and 80's this wasn't the case. there was probably more of an imbalance in contrast to the CL. in the 70's/80's english teams won 7/8 finals in a row.

and whilst i was talking about the CL i would love to see them bring back the 2nd group stage!

apart from the 1976 final name another european cup final st etienne got to?
-----------------

I could say the same for Arsenal

Would you consider them to be a pushover ?

I could say the same for Arsenal

Would you consider them to be a pushover ?
=======

in europe yes!

also as i said previously it's harder to get to the final in CL than it was in the old european cup imo

You could look at it both ways. Take the year United first won the CL under Fergie (98/99). They finished second the season before so under the old European Cup format they wouldn't have qualified for the CL in 98/99.

However...back in the old European Cup days there is no way that Liverpool would have had a run to the final like United had in 98/99 which was:-

First Round Group Stage - Barca & Bayern Munich.
QF - Inter Milan.
SF - Juventus.
F - Bayern Munich.

Like someone said earlier...harder to qualify for but easier to win once you did qualify.

You could look at it both ways. Take the year United first won the CL under Fergie (98/99). They finished second the season before so under the old European Cup format they wouldn't have qualified for the CL in 98/99.

However...back in the old European Cup days there is no way that Liverpool would have had a run to the final like United had in 98/99 which was:-

First Round Group Stage - Barca & Bayern Munich.
QF - Inter Milan.
SF - Juventus.
F - Bayern Munich.

Like someone said earlier...harder to qualify for but easier to win once you did qualify.
======

exactly. as i was saying it's probably unfair to compare paisley's record and ferguson's record for a competition under a completely different format. don't forget there was a period in the late 90's/ early 00's where you had to play in a second group stage! man united fans could claim that had it been like the old style format in which only the champions could compete then they could have won more champions leagues to their cabinet. but we will never know

Personally, i'd just say those four - two United and two Liverpool managers are head and shoulders above anyone else in the English game and all for different reasons
=====

personally would take clough over shankly. i think when you cut through shankly's record and ignore his charisma it is more in tune with wenger's record. under shankly liverpool were one of the best teams in england but i think it's hard to argue they were the best ie leeds under revie, united under busby, everton under catterick, spurs under nicholson were all great teams in throughout the 60's. he won 3 league titles from 59-74 and 0 european cups. clough took two clubs from the lower league and made them english league champions and one of them european champions twice!

clough took two clubs from the lower league and made them english league champions and one of them european champions twice!
....

Someones changed their tune about the old European cup haven't they