In no particular order.
Matt Busby, rebuilt Manchester United from the ashes of Munich, and conquered Europe, as well as winning titles and the FA Cup.
Billy Nicholson, took Spurs from bottom of the table to the Double within two seasons, plus back to back FA Cups and European glory within five seasons.
Alf Ramsey, took unfashionable Ipswich from the 3rd division to league champions within five seasons, plus of course won England the World Cup
Bill Shankly, took Liverpool from the 2nd division to league title winners in three seasons, plus won Liverpool their first ever FA Cup.
Don Revie, took Leeds from the 2nd division to win league, FA Cup and European titles all within a few seasons.
Jock Stein, took Celtic to a European Cup success.
Brian Clough, took Nottingham Forest from the 2nd division to win the title and back to back European trophies, all within five seasons.
Alex Ferguson, won three league titles in Scotland and a European trophy with Aberdeen. And of course his stint with Manchester United, although that was a tad easier.
and an honourable mention to Claudio Ranieri, took Leicester from near on relegation to their only League title.
Not included the likes of Pep Guardiola, because he has only basically managed clubs at the very top of their league or financially doped clubs like Manchester City. So has not had to work hard at all for success.
Not sure anyone can argue with those. All took teams from the bottom to the top over a very short period of time.
Best post war managers
posted on 18/5/23
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
And the notion that taking a team from the bottom to top is the only measure of greatness of a manager is dumb. Sustaining one's success is much harder. That's what makes the likes of Fergie greats of the game. And why the likes of Billy Nicholson aren't in that class.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferguson managed a team of 11 men, 1 referee and 2 linesmen, the amount of bias his team enjoyed was off the scale
posted on 19/5/23
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 10 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 25 minutes ago
And the notion that taking a team from the bottom to top is the only measure of greatness of a manager is dumb. Sustaining one's success is much harder. That's what makes the likes of Fergie greats of the game. And why the likes of Billy Nicholson aren't in that class.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was much more competitive bsck in the 1960s. Eight different league winners, eight different FA Cup winners. Absolute impossible for one club to Hoover up trophies like in the modern era.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Real Madrid won 5 European Cups consecutively between '55 and '60. Nothing "impossible" about dominating the English game at the time. That no team were doing it was because no team was good enough, and too many teams were yoyoing up and down the table, season to season. Had diddly squat to do with how "competitive" the English game was then. If a truly great team like the dominant Real Madrid, or Bayern, or Liverpool, or Milan, or Ajax teams of the past were active at the time, they'd have dominated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a fact though, pure supposition. If my auntie had balls, she would be my uncle.
The English league was absolutely competitive back then, and you cannot disprove it even with your silly what if theories. EIGHT different league winners and EIGHT different FA Cup winners proved indisputably how it was not possible for any one team to dominate, like in the financially doped modern era.
posted on 19/5/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 10 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 25 minutes ago
And the notion that taking a team from the bottom to top is the only measure of greatness of a manager is dumb. Sustaining one's success is much harder. That's what makes the likes of Fergie greats of the game. And why the likes of Billy Nicholson aren't in that class.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was much more competitive bsck in the 1960s. Eight different league winners, eight different FA Cup winners. Absolute impossible for one club to Hoover up trophies like in the modern era.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Real Madrid won 5 European Cups consecutively between '55 and '60. Nothing "impossible" about dominating the English game at the time. That no team were doing it was because no team was good enough, and too many teams were yoyoing up and down the table, season to season. Had diddly squat to do with how "competitive" the English game was then. If a truly great team like the dominant Real Madrid, or Bayern, or Liverpool, or Milan, or Ajax teams of the past were active at the time, they'd have dominated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a fact though, pure supposition. If my auntie had balls, she would be my uncle.
The English league was absolutely competitive back then, and you cannot disprove it even with your silly what if theories. EIGHT different league winners and EIGHT different FA Cup winners proved indisputably how it was not possible for any one team to dominate, like in the financially doped modern era.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, old boy, it's not a "supposition" given that 1 team literally won 5 European Cups in a row while the representatives of the most "competitive league" repeatedly flopped. Seems like common sense that if you hypothetically transplanted the Real Madrid team of Di Stefano and Puskas to England in the period to a league of yoyoing teams, they'd have dominated the league. It's no wonder that none of those English sides yoyoing up and down the table were European Champions till Man U managed it in '68.
posted on 19/5/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 45 minutes ago
I'd also argue Stan Cullis as one of the greats.
You might say they were already a top team before the war, but it was only when Cullis took over as captain that their rise began. Before he established himself, they'd had the same manager for yonks and really hadn't been up to much. Knowing how much of a role captains played back then, I think it's quite likely that Cullis was already pulling the strings whilst still a player.
3 league titles, 9x top 3 finishes (3 more whilst still playing) and 2 FA Cup titles for a team like Wolves I think makes him deserving of a place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Cullis had crossed my mind, and I was going to include him. But I think Wolves were in pretty good shape when he turned up. But stand to be corrected on that one. He did win three titles and the FA Cup in the 1950s, so may include him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose we'd need a proper expert on Wolves' history here, but their competitive record tracks perfectly with his presence.
They'd been absolutely nowhere for an absolute age, and the same manager had been in charge for a decade until Cullis was named team captain.
The same year he was made captain they shot up the table to 5th, which was their first top half finish in more than 30 years, and they stayed on the upper rungs of the league ladder for as long as he was a player and then assistant manager.
It just looks like too much of a coincidence, really.
An a related aside, it was the English press proclaiming Cullis' Wolves the "best team in the world" after beating the Hungarian champions in a friendly that spurred Gabriel Hanot and Jacques Ferran into creating the European Cup.
posted on 19/5/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 11 hours, 54 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 29 minutes ago
Spurs were 2nd in 56/57, and 3rd in 57/58, so there was obviously a fundamentally good team struggling in 58/59 that needed to be revitalized by the right manager, so saying Billy Nicholson took over the team at the bottom in 58/59 is obviously misleading. One minute, Sandy wants you to think the players in Spurs '60/61 team were the bestest players ever: the next he wants you to believe they were a bunch of relegation fodder who were only driven to success by the genius of Billy Nicholson. Depending on the day's argument, issues must be skewed to fit the narrative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and 18th in 1958/59 the season Nicholson took over. Not very good on facts are you. Spurs were bottom at one point that season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bit mean, the article is interesting and written in good faith 5 stars from me
posted on 19/5/23
8 different teams winning titles within a span of a decade isn't evidence of how "it was not possible for any one team to dominate". That's just rubbish. It means none of the sides was good enough to dominate. Simples. We've had this "debate" before. Just because the sprints now are harder to predict than the era of Usain Bolt doesn't mean it's somehow more "competitive" or somehow harder to dominate. It just means no one is as good as Bolt was to get a decisive advantage over the field.
posted on 19/5/23
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 55 seconds ago
No, old boy, it's not a "supposition" given that 1 team literally won 5 European Cups in a row while the representatives of the most "competitive league" repeatedly flopped. Seems like common sense that if you hypothetically transplanted the Real Madrid team of Di Stefano and Puskas to England in the period to a league of yoyoing teams, they'd have dominated the league. It's no wonder that none of those English sides yoyoing up and down the table were European Champions till Man U managed it in '68.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do realise that domestically, Real Madrid only won the Spanish title twice in the five years their European reign lasted?
English teams at the time were held in very high regard indeed. Bernabéu himself was very public about his admiration for the English game, and went to all kinds of lengths to help Busby rebuild United after the Munich air disaster.
posted on 19/5/23
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 55 seconds ago
No, old boy, it's not a "supposition" given that 1 team literally won 5 European Cups in a row while the representatives of the most "competitive league" repeatedly flopped. Seems like common sense that if you hypothetically transplanted the Real Madrid team of Di Stefano and Puskas to England in the period to a league of yoyoing teams, they'd have dominated the league. It's no wonder that none of those English sides yoyoing up and down the table were European Champions till Man U managed it in '68.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do realise that domestically, Real Madrid only won the Spanish title twice in the five years their European reign lasted?
English teams at the time were held in very high regard indeed. Bernabéu himself was very public about his admiration for the English game, and went to all kinds of lengths to help Busby rebuild United after the Munich air disaster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There has always been plenty to admire about the English game by any country. Not always true about English teams.
The point is the notion espoused by the likes of Sandy that unpredictability is only attributable to "competitiveness" is just nostalgic BS. A number of English teams have had long periods of dominance, and in the very era he speaks of, one team won 5 European Cups in a row. That this wasn't replicated in England in the decade span he speaks of could owe just as much to the reality that no side had the quality to really raise the bar beyond the rest of the competition.
posted on 19/5/23
Bob paisley for me all day long 👍
posted on 19/5/23
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 55 seconds ago
No, old boy, it's not a "supposition" given that 1 team literally won 5 European Cups in a row while the representatives of the most "competitive league" repeatedly flopped. Seems like common sense that if you hypothetically transplanted the Real Madrid team of Di Stefano and Puskas to England in the period to a league of yoyoing teams, they'd have dominated the league. It's no wonder that none of those English sides yoyoing up and down the table were European Champions till Man U managed it in '68.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do realise that domestically, Real Madrid only won the Spanish title twice in the five years their European reign lasted?
English teams at the time were held in very high regard indeed. Bernabéu himself was very public about his admiration for the English game, and went to all kinds of lengths to help Busby rebuild United after the Munich air disaster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There has always been plenty to admire about the English game by any country. Not always true about English teams.
The point is the notion espoused by the likes of Sandy that unpredictability is only attributable to "competitiveness" is just nostalgic BS. A number of English teams have had long periods of dominance, and in the very era he speaks of, one team won 5 European Cups in a row. That this wasn't replicated in England in the decade span he speaks of could owe just as much to the reality that no side had the quality to really raise the bar beyond the rest of the competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well of course Sandy's argument is BS, but the example you gave does little to support your point because, a) because Madrid themselves weren't as dominantly domestically as they ought to have been in order to sustain that the same would've held true in England, and
b) because even 70 years later, those 5 in a row are still the high water mark of European football dominance. You're basically saying the English league wasn't that competitive because if you'd dropped arguably the most dominant European club side ever into it, they'd have won it.