Which manager gave the Blades the best football?

[GoldCoast Blade]

I think Warnock's football was a lot more entertaining (most of the time) than people give him credit for. BUT i have voted for Spackman. I often wonder how he would manage a team with more money and 25,000 fans.

 

[marshy]

I've not voted, as I only started going to the Lane under Colin's reign - so who's winning?

 

[Mojo]

It certainly was, I think we all loved that team - I believe it lined up something like this;

GK: Alan Kelly/Simon Tracey (whoever was fit)
RWB: Vas Borbokis
LWB: Wayne Quinn
CB: Paul McGrath
CB: David Holdsworth
CB: Carl Tiler
CM: Dane Whitehouse
CM: Graham Stuart/Nicky Marker
CM: Don Hutchinson
ST: Brian Deane
ST: Jan Aage Fjortoft

That team would have gone from strength to strength had it been left alone. They played the best football without doubt. Closest to it was the season of the two cup semi finals (only because of the players).

That team would have got us promoted no doubt and would have been a solid premiership side if Quinn and McGrath were replaced and Dane didnt get injured in that very season. Damn you Charles Green!

 

[happyhippy]

I think that there is a certain amount of clouding here really, especially given how long St Neil was in charge for.

The most exciting football (often a byword for the best), St Neil by a wide margin. Technically the best? Probably Kendall. Spackman reminds me of how pigs describe Francis after Atkinson, to be fair. Very good and expansive, but ultimately with nothing to show.

The main problem is that the entire era is dominated by the Warnock years, which sort of makes it a bit difficult to assess.

 

[Selly]

Interestingly, Warnock is bottom of the win % table(yes, below Heath), had some of our poorest table positions in 10th, 13th and 16th (albeit rescuing us after Heath) but obviously also got us promoted and gave us 2 great seasons of football in the champ. He was also with us the longest time and had, on the most part, the least amount of money.

Where does Warnock stand if you remove the effect of the season in the PL?

It seems somewhat unfair to use Win % as a measure and make no allowance for the fact we were playing Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool & Chelsea rather than Forest, Wednesday, Southampton and PNE.

 

[tomtheblade]

Where does Warnock stand if you remove the effect of the season in the PL?

It seems somewhat unfair to use Win % as a measure and make no allowance for the fact we were playing Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool & Chelsea rather than Forest, Wednesday, Southampton and PNE.

Well i agree, the idea behind the question was to strip out all other aspects and just concentrate on the quality of the football (which isn't measurable, i know)

So, those that say its all about results then have a question to ask themselves if they criticise Blackwell, as he is by far the best in this regard. There's no doubt that Warnock's win % would have been badly affected by the Prem, so you have to take that into consideration.

But then again you don't, because in this case it's about the football .

 

[alcoblade]

Well i agree, the idea behind the question was to strip out all other aspects and just concentrate on the quality of the football (which isn't measurable, i know)

So, those that say its all about results then have a question to ask themselves if they criticise Blackwell, as he is by far the best in this regard. There's no doubt that Warnock's win % would have been badly affected by the Prem, so you have to take that into consideration.

But then again you don't, because in this case it's about the football .

Good points Tom, but as you say quality isn't measurable. Walking out of the ground on a high thinking "fuck me, I enjoyed that" is. I did that more times during the "tripple assault" year than any other time supporting United. I rarely do it these days.

UTB

 

[tomtheblade]

yeah, i was thinking about this the other day and i agree with happyhippy and yourself, the football we played, at times, under Warnock was really exciting, where i can't put my finger on exactly why, it just was. Maybe it was because we were so unpredictable, and you always felt that we could score at any time, playing well or not.

Under Blackwell even though we do well results wise the football is more predictable, for example our comeback record under him i think is dire(particularly last season), so once we go behind there's an element of doom and gloom which arises.

I think it is those comebacks and the backs to the wall games where Jags was in net that in a way define the exciting football under Warnock.

 

[tomtheblade]

I've not voted, as I only started going to the Lane under Colin's reign - so who's winning?

I wouldn't worry about that- it's no big deal, just vote for who has been the best that youve seen, then you can see the results. Spackman currently ahead.

 

[alcoblade]

yeah, i was thinking about this the other day and i agree with happyhippy and yourself, the football we played, at times, under Warnock was really exciting, where i can't put my finger on exactly why, it just was. Maybe it was because we were so unpredictable, and you always felt that we could score at any time, playing well or not.

Under Blackwell even though we do well results wise the football is more predictable, for example our comeback record under him i think is dire(particularly last season), so once we go behind there's an element of doom and gloom which arises.

I think it is those comebacks and the backs to the wall games where Jags was in net that in a way define the exciting football under Warnock.

I think it's because Blackwell's teams go out to avoid defeat, and pinching wins is secondary though often attainable with such tactics. Warnock's tams went out to win. We were capable of "throwing the kitchen sink" in a way we just can't anymore.

UTB

 

[shorehamview]

There were certainly a good few games under Warnock when we made the opposition look ridiculous. One match against Sunderland in particular stand out - we only won one nil, but it's the biggest one nil battering I've seen. Plus the matches when we beat Wednesday, knowing it meant as much to Warnock as it did to the fans.

 

[SwissBlade]

I went for Spackman, although he was only with us a short time and has done nothing since... except out of nowhere popped up on Goals on Sunday!

Whether his brand of football was Kendall's or not is something we'll never know. I just remember the way we played against Sunderland and for the start of that season was fantastic.

Kendall of course was a revelation after years of Bassett's style it was a complete change, but it just seemed that Spackman was on to something until it all went wrong...

Warnock did get us playing exciting football at times, but whilst it was not always the best it was more often than not effective.

As for Blackie, his brand is now whatever gets results and more often than not he gets results

Perhaps Spackman can come alongside Blackie

 

[DazBlade88]

so did I. And as a critic of Blackwell that takes some explaining. As SV says, he got us promoted. On top of that, his sides knew how to attack. Football isn't just "passing" or "direct". Warnock's teams knew how to attack. Blackwell's teams don't, IMHO.

Spot on mate.

I voted Spackman because we did play some good football under him for what I can remember. He wasn't the best manager we had, but we did play some good football. Warnock is easily top of the pile for best manager since Bassett, though.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

No love for Brucie then.

If you look at the stats, it's kind of easy to see why Spackman and Kendall are winning. Their teams had some good players in them, played some nice football, but won a lot of games as well. In terms of win % of these managers, they come 2nd and 3rd respectively. Blackwell is top with 48%.

Interestingly, Warnock is bottom of the win % table(yes, below Heath), had some of our poorest table positions in 10th, 13th and 16th (albeit rescuing us after Heath) but obviously also got us promoted and gave us 2 great seasons of football in the champ. He was also with us the longest time and had, on the most part, the least amount of money.

This tells me that we really do care about good football, because Blackwell comes in for a lot of stick despite his record, but despite his win record Warnock is rated fairly well.

An interesting topic Tom but I'm not sure where you're getting your win % stats from. Based on "Soccerbase", the actual stats for all United managers are these:-

Rank Manager P W D PTS AVG Win %
1 Spackman 43 20 17 77 1.79 47%
2 Blackwell 95 43 28 157 1.65 45%
3 Kendall 82 34 27 129 1.57 41%
4 Porterfield 226 98 58 352 1.56 43%
5 Warnock 388 165 100 595 1.53 43%
6 Harris 612 258 144 918 1.50 42%
7 Davison 592 248 139 883 1.49 42%
8 Mercer 154 64 35 227 1.47 42%
9 Bruce 55 22 15 81 1.47 40%
10 Freeman 132 54 30 192 1.45 41%
11 Nicholson 1216 486 281 1739 1.43 40%
12 Robson 38 14 12 54 1.42 37%
13 Bassett 393 150 101 551 1.40 38%
14 Coldwell 23 9 5 32 1.39 39%
15 Rowley 43 16 11 59 1.37 37%
16 Furphy 80 27 22 103 1.29 34%
17 Thompson 17 5 6 21 1.24 29%
18 Mcewan 86 27 25 106 1.23 31%
19 Haslam 158 50 40 190 1.20 32%
20 Heath 22 7 5 26 1.18 32%
21 Sirrell 81 20 23 83 1.02 25%
22 Peters 16 3 6 15 0.94 19%


Spackman is easily top on both average points gained and win %. Blackwell is second on both counts. Warnock is comfortably in the top 5 and Heath is taking up his rightful position in the bottom 5.

In terms of "good football" from your list, I would say Spackman first, Kendall (05/06) second and Warnock (02/03) third.

 

[shorehamview]

I'm shocked, mainly by Heath not being the worst by a mile. If I'd had to guess I'd have said he was worse than Martin Peters, but no, he isn't. He's merely the third shittest manager we've had.

 

[dingledog]

Bassett might only be 13th but we had some bloomin good times with him. Of course to be able to make a real comparison they would need to be account taken of number of games in charge, for instance Peters was only 16 games, where as Heath had 22.

 

[alcoblade]

interesting stats, but they don't take into account of the circumstances each manager had to work with. Though Heath or McCewan are no Ferguson, they managed during terribly hard financial constraints and took over when we were in a poor state, from memory (Cue Dazzler, you know you want to.....)

UTB

 

[Guesty]

Aesthetically for me, nothing beats that Spackman team that tore Sunderland apart.

 

[Selly]

Bassett might only be 13th but we had some bloomin good times with him.

And of course 4 years were in the top flight, unlike the managers that have been around since. (and a few before as well.)

Fact is Basset took us from the bottom of the second division, when he took over, to the bottom of the second division when he left, but by god the trip was worth it!!!

 

[Revolution]

Spackman is easily top on both average points gained and win %

The Soccerbase stats do have one problem - they deal with win % and average points gained but calculate this based on all competitive fixtures, and not league games only, which to me doesn't make much sense because there are no points to be won in Cup and playoff games.

 

[dingledog]

Aesthetically for me, nothing beats that Spackman team that tore Sunderland apart.

What a game and what a start to the season, how could it all go so wrong in only 12 weeks?

 

[Revolution]

What a game and what a start to the season, how could it all go so wrong in only 12 weeks?

Injuries (Whitehouse finished, McGrath finished, Vonk finished, Ebrell, Walker and White were all done as well and never came back from the season before or played only rarely)
Sales (Deane, Fjortoft, Patterson, Hutchison, Tiler, Ward)

When those things happen all at once, it's pretty hard to stay on the right track. It was a miracle we finished as high as we did and did so well in the cup when you consider all that went wrong.

Anybody who put Kendall ahead of Spackman, btw, has forgotten about our away form in 1996-7.

It started very well: W7 D 1 L4 F21 A15

Then after Boxing Day's 2-1 win at Bradford Kendall got all defensive which saw us with this record: W0 D7 L4 F8 A14. United failed to take the lead in any of these 11 games, and of course gave a dreadful non-performance in the playoff final.

 

[DazBlade88]

Personally, I wouldn't take win percentage as the mark of who has been the best manager.

There's allsorts of things to take into account, like the division, the squad etc. so basing it on that is a little unfair to alot of managers.

 

[Darren]

What a game and what a start to the season, how could it all go so wrong in only 12 weeks?

Injuries (Whitehouse finished, McGrath finished, Vonk finished, Ebrell, Walker and White were all done as well and never came back from the season before or played only rarely)
Sales (Deane, Fjortoft, Patterson, Hutchison, Tiler, Ward)

When those things happen all at once, it's pretty hard to stay on the right track. It was a miracle we finished as high as we did and did so well in the cup when you consider all that went wrong.

Anybody who put Kendall ahead of Spackman, btw, has forgotten about our away form in 1996-7.

It started very well: W7 D 1 L4 F21 A15

Then after Boxing Day's 2-1 win at Bradford Kendall got all defensive which saw us with this record: W0 D7 L4 F8 A14. United failed to take the lead in any of these 11 games, and of course gave a dreadful non-performance in the playoff final.

The team that "tore Sunderland apart" was as follows:

Tracey

Borbokis
Holdsworth
McGrath
Tiler
Quinn

Whitehouse
Marker
Patterson

Deane
Fjortoft

McGrath played his last game in Nov, Tiler went the same month and Whitehouse suffered his injury that month. Patterson was sold in Dec and Deane and Fjortoft went in Jan, so more than half the team went in less than half a year.

To be fair though, even with the full strength team up to Nov, whilst we were doing well we weren't doing nearly as well as we did in 05-06. In early Nov 06, before all the departures, we were sitting around 4th or 5th (albeit with a game in hand, which as I recall, would have put us 2nd had we won it).

It is a bit of a myth that the early 97-98 team was a team of supermen who would have carried all before them, given the chance. As a team, they do not measure up to the 065-06 team.

 

[shorehamview]

......they do not measure up to the 065-06 team.

When? Is that the Stardate, like in that show nerds love?

"Captain's log, Stardate 065-06. Ensign Borbokis still won't go down to the planet and get etten by a big scary jelly thing, the little rascal. Have to send that Scottish one down instead."

 

[Grecian2000]

Anybody who put Kendall ahead of Spackman, btw, has forgotten about our away form in 1996-7.

It started very well: W7 D 1 L4 F21 A15

Then after Boxing Day's 2-1 win at Bradford Kendall got all defensive which saw us with this record: W0 D7 L4 F8 A14. United failed to take the lead in any of these 11 games, and of course gave a dreadful non-performance in the playoff final.

It's an interesting point and would be valid if the question had OVERALL at the begining.
I voted Kendall because of the football played in the season he took over. You are absolutely correct in the assertion that it got worse as time went on but that can't detract from the football played in his first months (although this was made to look better by the appalling stuff played in Bassetts later days).

Indeed if the question was for the worst football then Kendall would be right up there for those last 3 months in charge.

 

[tomtheblade]

An interesting topic Tom but I'm not sure where you're getting your win % stats from. Based on "Soccerbase", the actual stats for all United managers are these:-

Rank Manager P W D PTS AVG Win %
1 Spackman 43 20 17 77 1.79 47%
2 Blackwell 95 43 28 157 1.65 45%
3 Kendall 82 34 27 129 1.57 41%
5 Warnock 388 165 100 595 1.53 43%
9 Bruce 55 22 15 81 1.47 40%
12 Robson 38 14 12 54 1.42 37%
20 Heath 22 7 5 26 1.18 32%


Spackman is easily top on both average points gained and win %. Blackwell is second on both counts. Warnock is comfortably in the top 5 and Heath is taking up his rightful position in the bottom 5.

In terms of "good football" from your list, I would say Spackman first, Kendall (05/06) second and Warnock (02/03) third.

My stats were mostly from wikipedia as they list each managers win % on his page (the 'Statistics' section at the bottom of each page)


Blackwell
Robson
Warnock
Bruce

For Heath, Spackman and Kendall i used soccerbase:
Heath
Spackman
Kendall

And calculated the win % from the figures in those tables. I don't know where the differences come from, but the soccerbase stats are probably more accurate than wikipedia i'm guessing. Whether cup games are factored in will make a difference, so it might be that.

 

[Slugger]

Spackman for me. Winning matches and winning in style. I recall us finishing a game with 4 out and out strikers on the pitch in a bid to steal a result (which we did). We were the last unbeaten team in the country (Arsenal lost in Europe to give us that record) and the first defeat came in a midweek home game after Taylor (I think) had been sold that day behind Spackman's back. McGrath was magnificent (except vs Man City) between Holdsworth and Tiler with 2 wing backs Quinn and Borbokis pushing up. Never since have I seen a Blades side so full of obvious Prem quality.


I'm open to correction on any of the above as it's all from memory!!