Sir Alex Ferguson vs Pep Guardiola: Tactics
Pep Guardiola’s Manchester City side is on the verge of genuine greatness. They are just a few games away from achieving something that no other manager except Alex Ferguson has achieved in English football.
Guardiola is already amongst the pantheon of greats. He’s won everything in club football, and for many, he’s the most influential manager of this century because he has shaped the way football is played across the globe.
Just like Sir Alex Ferguson.
Now, this sounds strange. You don’t always associate tactical gameplay with Fergie.
And one of the reasons we don’t is we football fans have fickle memories.
There is no denying that Pep Guaridola’s footballing philosophy has revolutionized the game, but Alex Ferguson, against all odds, was always ahead of his time.
Let’s go back in time.
Circa 1992–93. Almost every English team played 4–4–2 with speedy wingers who could cross.
In comes Eric Cantona. Probably English football’s first no 10. A fiery Frenchman who can play in between the lines.
And in doing so, he and Alex Ferguson completely transformed English football. The opponents were not structured to stop a no 10 in the withdrawn role.
Later, this made every club search for their Cantona equivalent, and build their steam around a no 10. Arsenal got Bergkamp, and Chelsea got Zola. Middlesborough signed Juninho (who won the world cup with Brazil), and City signed Kinkladze.
How is this for a tactical revolution?
But despite Cantona’s genius, winning the first title since 1967 was not easy. There was a must-win game against Norwich, who started April 93 at the top with Man United a point behind.
Michael Cox, a football writer famous for his tactical analysis, gives an account of this game in his brilliant book, The Mixer.
United appeared to be wobbling; winless in four matches, and without suspended centre-forward Hughes. It was widely anticipated that Ferguson would introduce veteran Bryan Robson in central midfield, with Brian McClair returning to the striking role he’d played before Cantona’s arrival.
Instead, McClair stayed in midfield alongside Paul Ince, and Ferguson deployed three natural wingers at Carrow Road, with Andrei Kanchelskis in the same team as Sharpe and Giggs, who essentially played as a centre-forward in advance of Cantona. The outcome was a quite astonishing spell of counter-attacking football, with Norwich dominating possession but United scoring on the break three times in the first 21 minutes.
Cox further adds:
The counter-attacking looked so simple; United simply waited for Norwich to push forward, then attacked into space with frightening speed. Each time they broke in behind with multiple players, each time they took Gunn out of the game before converting into an open goal.
A minor tweak in the formation. As I mentioned earlier, Ferguson was ahead of his time with his tactical nuance despite not being born in any school of philosophy.
Then in 2005, he deployed Ruud van Nistlerooy as a lone striker.
The entire Old Trafford hated it. They chanted “Four-Four-Two” in disproval.
Ferguson didn’t care. He sensed the tactical shift, deployed this to his team, and stuck with it until he realized that Ruud was making the team one-dimensional.
Nobody in England played with a lone striker. Now almost everyone does. How is that for tactics?
Then comes his League-UCL double-winning team of 2008.
For me, it was Ferguson’s tactically most astute and flexible team. Probably, my favourite United team of all time.
The team could transition between 4–4–2 to 4–5–1 or 4–3–3 in a flash. It was a fluid system with Rooney-Ronaldo-Tevez combining beautifully, at times, Rooney and Tevez sacrificing their ability to get the best out of Ronaldo in rotation with Evra, Park, Nani, and Giggs.
It was beautiful to watch. The first time I saw a genuine world-class attacking transition on display.
Nowadays, it is common to watch a team transition into different shapes in a game. But in 2008, it was a big deal.
As I said earlier, Fergie was ahead of his time.
Then there’s playing Giggs as the 10 in Turin to rip Marcello Lippi’s brilliant Juventus to shreds or playing Scholes in the hole behind Ruud during 2002-03 (Scholes finished the season with 16 goals).
And playing Giggs in the midfield with O’Shea after Scholes’ eye injury in 2005 or unleashing Park on Pirlo to mark him out of the game.
So many that I lost count.
There is a clear difference in the approach of Fergie and Pep, and that’s for a reason. Both are products of their respective environments.
Pep Guardiola was a product of La Masia, football’s most coveted academy enriched with wisdom from Cruyff and the Dutch philosophy. He was born and brought up in a system that he later perfected. The players in La Masia were coached to follow the Barca way (or later with Bayern and City, he could sign anyone he wants).
Whereas Fergie was never a system manager. Man United was never a system club. Of course, it’s a great club known for emphasizing youth and positive attacking football since Matt Busby’s time.
But there’s a difference between growing up in an environment to play in a certain way and creating an environment with a winning culture.
Fergie falls under the latter category. His innovation was not just limited to tactics. Apart from tinkering and experimenting constantly to find new and more pragmatic ways of playing before anyone else in England, he was single-handily running the club.
This is not to downplay Pep’s achievements. He has cemented his place in history.
But if you are downgrading Fergie’s tactical nous (a lot of people in the media are), you are living in cuckoo land. He influenced football tactically a lot more than it’s led on. If you don’t think that’s the case, you need to look carefully.
