Ferguson driven silly by City’s relentless spending…

The most surprising aspect of Manchester United’s capture of Robin van Persie is the amount they have stumped up for his services. United have been squeezed both by Arsenal, who forced them to increase their original bid of £15 million by 9 million to £24 million before selling, and the player himself, who stands to enjoy a £50 million reward if he stays the length of his contract and millions more in bonuses should United win trophies during his time with them. For a club saddled with frightening amounts of debt, and a manager acutely aware that the largest weaknesses in his team remain in midfield, the glamour of such a move cannot entirely put to bed questions it prompts of Ferguson’s management. Is it possible that City, in the way they riled him last year through the 6-2 annihilation at Old Trafford, and tortured him with the illusion of a close-fought race before confirming the brutal truth of their superiority in the dying seconds of last season, have clouded his judgement? Reports are circling that Ferguson is planning a final stand against the new might of City over the next two years, and that the pursuit of van Persie was part of a strategy to bequeath a legacy worthy of Manchester United to his club. However, at the risk of sounding condescending, the modern-day manager has more to worry about than winning trophies at any cost, and should Ferguson’s incredulous outlay on an injury-prone player be a contributing factor to United’s continuing slide into financial trouble in the future, then his impact on the club will be up for review.

Besides, the neutral always associated Ferguson’s stature as a manager with his ability to address every one of the great challenges of their profession: from balancing the books to developing youngsters, from playing an entertaining style of football to winning trophies with tactical acumen. In his apparent desperation, it is doubtful he has even gotten that last part right: overloading his team with strikers and comparing them to the 1999 vintage overlooks the fact that his trophy-winning team were anchored by a dynamic, powerful midfield that is missing today. If reports linking Ferguson to Kaka are to be believed, then that would reassure that he has not completely lost sight of how to tackle a City team that is strong in every area of the pitch, but still doesn’t clear him of the charge of being financially negligent and strategically short-sighted. Kaka and Van Persie will both need replacing by the time Ferguson is believed to be pulling up sticks, and the perils of leaving a team’s long-term future in the vicelike grip of senior players can be seen at Chelsea, where Jose Mourinho did the same thing and cast a shadow over the club that was not fully redeemed by their negative triumph in the Champions League.

Fans are in thrall to the win-at-all costs mentality that Mourinho has spread in the game, and Ferguson’s embracing of the same approach has reduced his appeal to the neutral. Watching Manchester United sweep all before them in the most unlikeliest of fashions in 1999, through thrilling attacking play and script-defying comebacks, was a transforming experience that sparked my love of football, but Ferguson has flattered to deceive since then. His 2008 crop that repeated Champions League success owed too much to the individual talents of Cristiano Ronaldo to really extend his reputation beyond being a pure winner in the same way to a creator of great teams thrilling to the mind and soul. Some pinpoint conceding goals like a hole-filled boat against Real Madrid at home in 2003 as the moment when Ferguson sacrificed his pure attacking instincts in favour of a more pragmatic, trophy-sure approach to playing the game. Since that concession, he has also struggled under financial constraints to replicate his successes with the kind of young players he was once famed for developing. Even though fans point to Tom Cleverly and Chris Smalling, there can be no doubt that Ferguson has changed as a manager to keep up with those who splurge to win and has sacrificed some of what made him previously stand out from the managerial crowd in the process.

Robin van Persie might bring him goals and confirm his place in the pantheon of great sporting managers, but one cannot help but feel the achievements that made Ferguson a sporting icon stood for more than just winning while paying scant attention to the collateral damage.

5 thoughts on “Ferguson driven silly by City’s relentless spending…

  1. Pingback: …while Wenger mixes unswerving faith with welcome dose of pragmatism | A Sports Fan's View

    • Good point Simon Buis. I hadn’t thought of the Veron and Berbatov transfers, although this one catches the eye more because it’s probably the most expensive of the three, and most important (in the sense that neither Chelsea nor Arsenal provided quite so stern a challenge to Fergie’s rule over the Premier League as City are now posing). For those reasons, if the Van Persie move does not have the desired effect, it will be felt even more keenly than the Berbatov and Veron failures.

  2. How can you call Chelsea’s win in the Champions League as “negative triumph”? Are there any set rules in football about how a team should play? Is being defensive bad? Besides, for all of Bayern and Barcelona’s attacking gameplay, they still lost (luck or otherwise)!

    • Sorry Chirag, I think describing Chelsea’s Champions League win as “negative” was a little excessive.

      I rather meant to highlight Chelsea as an example of what can happen when a manager pays attention to his success in the here and now at the expense of the club’s long-term future. Jose Mourinho’s taste for glory meant he assembled teams at Chelsea and Inter who could bring him success straightaway, but steadily declined as a result of age and the lack of a long-term plan once he departed. For a far-sighted manager like Sir Alex, leaving United in the hands of an ageing Rooney and van Persie rather than grooming a next generation of talent would be surprisingly negligent.

      The effects of Mourinho’s ad-hoc planning at Chelsea could be seen most acutely in the way his clutch of senior players never allowed a manager who wanted to change things up and introduce new approaches to settle. People will point to how returning to the tried and tested won Chelsea the Champions League last year, and I don’t deny the defining role Mourinho and his recruits have played in Chelsea’s history. I also agree that there are no set rules on how a team should play, and Chelsea’s incredible run in the Champions League last year was just as valid as any of Barcelona’s CL successes. Nevertheless, their win merely papered over the cracks in their long-term planning, which can be seen in the way they have constantly chopped and changed managers, failed to replace senior members who are beginning to outstay their welcome and – whether you agree it needs changing or not – failed in their attempts to move on from a playing style instilled under Mourinho that prioritises success over entertainment. For these reasons, winning the Champions League trophy last year should not fully exonerate Chelsea’s senior cabal from allegations of holding the club at gunpoint, nor its hierarchy for failing to develop a long-term plan for the club.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s