Who do you think is the better manager?

Pre-season thread all over it.

things are quiet, so lets start an argument


I’m inclined to say Ange, because I loved watching his team more but I don’t know if I’d say better manager. Can’t separate them really.

 

For Celtic? Rodgers.

In general? Rodgers.

Whose team did I enjoy watching more? Ange.

 

I left it just as a vague as managers, Rodgers first time here and achievements here will beat two short years too easily.

I’d have said Ange very easily up until hoe Rodgers set us up against Atalanta and how we defended. Because up until then I thought he was incapable of doing that.

 

I'd say Ange for me . That rebuild and season after losing the ten was pure hard work and I don't think Rodgers would have managed it. Ange has a better ethic and morals and I think that's important. I still don't really like Brendan

 

@Callum McGregor the enjoy watching more bit, last season we easily outscored Anges second season.

But, it doesn’t feel like we did if you didn’t have the figures. Didn’t feel as dangerous going forward. And it factually was. Weird innit

 

Ange olays a better style but its only really suited if you are the best team in the league.

Rodgers is the better manager and by a fair distance

 

Loved Ange when he was here but it's not really close for me.

 

Ange. Won trophies at every job, including international and now European level. Has a far better eye for a player and his team was way more enjoyable to watch.

Also, I seriously doubt Rodgers wins anything, never mind a double, coming into the job under the same circumstances as Ange did.

 

Big Ange for his style of football, sexy football at its best.

 

Think that's down to the amount of chances we had under ange it was more attacking...but a lot of shots were wild and off target. Didn't do the Rodgers play it into the net style

 

Not even close

 

Would love to splice the best attributes of two together.

Ange's heart, passion, positivity and eye for a player combined with Brendan's discipline, attention to detail and ability to improve players.

Technically Brendan the better coach but he lacks the character, dynamism and energy to truly inspire (or sign?) players to play the positive football he says he wants.
He's just a bit too laid back, too safe, too stable - maybe he needs a Broony as 2nd in command?

I would rather watch an Ange team all day long, high stakes football and when you also have top players - it really works.
But when you don't, it falls flat on its face....and you get Russell Martin and Southampton. Or Spurs with injuries.

Overall Ange would still sweep all before him in Scotland and it would be a blast too.
In Europe he'd bring higher highs and lower lows - fine by me if the high is a Euro final.
Brendan brings consistency, stability and success - but without the roller coaster ride at home or in Europe.

So overall, I think Brendan is just about the better manager but given a choice, I'd take Ange and strap in for the ride.
It's all about entertainment in the end.

 

rodgers totally transformed the club in his first spell in terms of fitness and culture . ange may have indirectly benefited from this years later .ange's transfer record is so much better than rodgers and he has benefited massively from that in his second spell . i think ange shades it for his succes in the transfer market

 

You might be right on Shaktar for that 1 season, but that's part of the high risk, high reward approach.
With better players, we do win both games - not because of style.

Rodgers solid but safe approach overall will consistently have us do 'OK' in UCL with the odd last 32 - but also never to a Europa final or last last 8 UCL.

I could see Ange being brilliant one season, crash and burn the next - a bit of an Atalanta.
We all remember Sevilla 2003 - didn't win a thing but the most memorable season in 21st century for many fans.
I'd take that all day long given the choice.

You also mention 'if backed' - that's such a critical point.
I'd love to know how much backing Ange would be getting if still here v Brendan.
Brendan (and fans) still clearly frustrated, would Ange have demanded it more and gotten it ?
We'll never know.

Overall tho, it's great we are even in a position to debate two such superb managers.

 

I disagree. Think rodgers would get us further than the last 8 on the europa. However hes that good we won't ever find out.

 

I thought Ange was pretty bad in Europe tbh. I know he just won the EL but only one team in the competition had a budget even remotely close to theirs and that came at the cost of an abysmal league campaign. I think if Spurs hadn't got shift they'd be tanked next season in the Champions league.

Ange had a great first season, with some amazing recruitment. I don't think all of that was down to him though, I think guys like Jota, JJ, CCV, Hart and Starfelt would all join anyway. The second season was pretty poor, Seigrist, Haksabanovic, Yuki, Bernabei and Oh. Their was Johnstone as a great replacement for JJ.

Ange could be exciting to watch but also incredibly frustrating in Europe. Embarrassingly so at times. Rodgers is not so exciting, but also quite pragmatic and I think that pragmatism enabled him to win the league despite some pretty bad recritment.

 

On the strength of what they have done at Celtic - Ange probably takes it for me. He took over in far more difficult circumstances than Rodgers. Had to rebuild the team and was generally up against a better rangers side than any of the ones Rodgers has faced. Going from finishing 20 odd points behind Rangers to winning 5/6 of the next trophies was very impressive. That takes it for me.

Overall Id say Rodgers has had a more impressive career if you include what hes done outside of Celtic.

 

Ange wasn't here long enough to go stale like Rodgers did first time round and like he has recently