A decade of irrelevance in the CL

[Leethal]

What the feck is this new found fad in labeling things “generational”. Sounds ridiculous.

 

[matherto]

Spot on there. Suffice to say there's 3 replies to the original post that are the typical mocking/scoffing/scornful type of response. And they all badly miss the point I'm making in their haste to reply to what I'd imagine they deem as an idiotic post.

Unlike them you've actually given it some thought and have worded it better than I could myself. I've often said that United are a badly run club that got lucky 3 times but your final sentence nails it much more precisely.

Cheers.

It's also fair to say we got lucky twice with academy products and our success is tied to whether we produce a once in a generation set of players to fill the squad.

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

I don't think it's mental, it's interesting. Because it is another point to prove that United is a club were the manager is much more important than at most other clubs. It doesn't have to be that way forever, but it explains why discussions about the manager are much tougher among United fans than among fans of basically every other club. No other big club has success so tightly related to very few managers as United. So it's fair to say that United as a club never learned or understood how to be a top club without a larger-than-life manager

Very good point.

Part of the issue with United is that we have needed a manager to be able to juggle all the other crap that comes with United job. Peps/Klopps jobs were/are primarily coaching, very little else excerpt maybe give some input into squad stuff but there were competent structures and competent professionals to help build that up over years.

Do people think Slot has taken over a similar squad that ETH originally got?

United managers were working in sub par conditions at best, with headline spending figures Used as a stick to beat them.

ETH better start getting results soon or he will be hooked , but this relentless hyper focus on managers while the clubs dysfunctional structures run rampant is frantically moving deck chairs on the titanic.

Our Longer term prognosis looks potentially far better now that professionals are in positions to make competent calls. If or when they replace ETH, I will trust the longer term progress will not be impacted. This season , I don’t feel like replacing a manager sooner or later will have a major impact long term. Originally it felt like “here we go with another reset cycle” when United managers were hanging on and got sacked. Now I feel if ETH doesn’t last the season it won’t be normal semi boom/bust cycle.

 

[Alex99]

Lads, it's still absolutely mental to disregard our objective success as actually counting as success, just because we happened to come about it under the guidance of fewer managers and/or with a crop of extremely talented academy graduates.

 

[stefan92]

Lads, it's still absolutely mental to disregard our objective success as actually counting as success, just because we happened to come about it under the guidance of fewer managers and/or with a crop of extremely talented academy graduates.

Of course it counts as success. But the point is that the club has never build structures to reliable repeat this level of success.

 

[jimmyb2000]

Liverpool have won just 1 league in 35 years though.
After 1923 they went 40 years without a title.

It almost mirrors like for like United’s barren periods.

Your point?

I mean, if more managers winning makes you more successful, who do you consider the successful clubs in English football better it’s an odd criteria?

Hi,

The point I was making would have been better understood if I'd just wrote that Manchester United have always been a poorly run Football Club. Our 3 periods of success were really down to those 3 amazing managers who virtually ran the club as well as the team.

The proof in the pudding is when you look at how badly we've done since each manager left, specifically Busby and Ferguson. SAF always vowed to not leave us in a post-Busby scenario but he almost replicated it in leaving an ageing side and OT once again becoming a managers graveyard. At least he did give space for the managers that followed him and didn't try to interfere with the team/former players etc.

As a business then yes, United have been brilliantly run (commercially rather than financially) since the Glazers scammed their way into buying us.

The Liverpool statistic is just to illustrate that I think the scousers are a better run football club than we are.....and I hate having to write that, believe me.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

.

The Liverpool statistic is just to illustrate that I think the scousers are a better run football club than we are.....and I hate having to write that, believe me.

But clearly, they were better run only in the periods in which they were winning titles. What’s the difference with us there?

Were they better run in the period where they went 40 years without a title or the period pre-Klopp where they went like 30 years without a title?

For what it’s worth, since 1990 I don’t think think I’ve seen a worse run club than Liverpool, absolutely shambolic. Just look at their spending compared to us and everyone else in that period.
Then they got lucky as feck with Klopp, the timing of that was absolutely insane.

If anything, Liverpool have been a well run when a manager has come in after a long shit period and put them on the right path, then that manager has never stayed long enough to leave them as they are about to slide.

 

[Alex99]

Of course it counts as success. But the point is that the club has never build structures to reliable repeat this level of success.

Then why did you say it wasn't mental to state that we aren't a successful club? That's literally all I took issue with. The point was only fleshed out afterwards.

I also think a lot is forgotten about how Fergie left us because Woodward allowed successive managers to completely rip it all up. Fergie was excellent at delegating. He trusted his scouting his team and his coaching staff, and more importantly he could trust Gill. He was an absolutely force of nature as a leader, but he didn't do everything himself, and his main bit of advice to Moyes was to leave all of the staff in place.

The structures were there, but they were ignored because of fundamental incompetence at the top once Gill was replaced by Woodward.

Hi,

The point I was making would have been better understood if I'd just wrote that Manchester United have always been a poorly run Football Club. Our 3 periods of success were really down to those 3 amazing managers who virtually ran the club as well as the team.

The proof in the pudding is when you look at how badly we've done since each manager left, specifically Busby and Ferguson. SAF always vowed to not leave us in a post-Busby scenario but he almost replicated it in leaving an ageing side and OT once again becoming a managers graveyard. At least he did give space for the managers that followed him and didn't try to interfere with the team/former players etc.

As a business then yes, United have been brilliantly run (commercially rather than financially) since the Glazers scammed their way into buying us.

The Liverpool statistic is just to illustrate that I think the scousers are a better run football club than we are.....and I hate having to write that, believe me.

Have they always been? Why can Manchester United simply not have been well run during the two notable periods of success? Why is it all down to the managers (as great as they both were) at United, and not during Liverpool's heyday?

You're attributing things to being well run over a period of 120 years and multiple different owners, boards, etc., when we know for a fact that Liverpool were badly run as recently as a decade ago.

Liverpool have only ever really had one period of sustained success. From Shankly's last title in 1973 to Dalglish's in 1990, the longest gap between league titles was two seasons. They went 30 more after, and before that you're including gaps of over 20 and nearly 40 years between titles.

That period also accounts for 58% of their League titles, 67% of their European titles. It even accounts for 67% of their UEFA Cup/Europa League titles. The only trophies for which that period doesn't account for the majority of their haul are the two domestic cups, and even then you're looking at it accounting for 38% of their FA Cups and 40% of their League Cups.

All in, one period of success accounts for 52% of Liverpool's entire trophy haul (excluding super cups and intercontinental/club world cups). If you extend it back to Shankly's first title in 1964, it accounts for 59% of their overall haul, and it becomes 50% of their FA Cups.

Shankly becoming manager to Dalglish leaving accounts for 30 full seasons of football. Fergie accounted for 26 on his own. Add the Busby years and you're looking at 50 seasons of football.

The difference you're arguing is that they managed to finish top of the pile on isolated occasions, in a period where 22 different clubs were crowned champions of England, and we didn't. Since Shankly's last season, only two more clubs have joined that list, with one title each (Forest and Leicester).

I could easily turn this around and say Manchester United are actually the only truly successful English club because we're the only club to manage multiple periods of relative domestic dominance alongside European success.

 

[Skills]

I don't think it's mental, it's interesting. Because it is another point to prove that United is a club were the manager is much more important than at most other clubs. It doesn't have to be that way forever, but it explains why discussions about the manager are much tougher among United fans than among fans of basically every other club. No other big club has success so tightly related to very few managers as United. So it's fair to say that United as a club never learned or understood how to be a top club without a larger-than-life manager

Tbf, it wouldn't be outlandish to say that in the grand history of professional football Sir Alex Ferguson & Sir Matt Busby as individuals are more important than Manchester United itself. Though its a bit of a chicken and egg situation.

 

[jimmyb2000]

Christ, guys relax. I dont want an argument. Too old for that.

My points are valid IN MY OPINION. If you disagree then thats fine but dont try to frame your point of view as fact when all you want to do with my point of view is deconstruct it, please.

To address a few points raised in earlier posts - even though the scouse didnt win the league for 30 years they STILL won major trophies during that period. 4 Champions leagues finals during that period are testament to that.

We've only ever got to finals (or even close) during our dominant managers periods.

But to clarify, its not an US v THEM scenario. I'm just pointing out facts...thats all.

Forest have 2 european cups. Villa have 1. Chelsea have 2. feckin Real Madrid have 15. WE HAVE 3.

If you think we're a well run club and those stats make sense to us then fine - I'm not disagreeing with you.

Please dont make a reply to this post but simply post your own thoughts independently.

Cheers

 

[Alex99]

Christ, guys relax. I dont want an argument. Too old for that.

My points are valid IN MY OPINION. If you disagree then thats fine but dont try to frame your point of view as fact when all you want to do with my point of view is deconstruct it, please.

To address a few points raised in earlier posts - even though the scouse didnt win the league for 30 years they STILL won major trophies during that period. 4 Champions leagues finals during that period are testament to that.

We've only ever got to finals (or even close) during our dominant managers periods.

But to clarify, its not an US v THEM scenario. I'm just pointing out facts...thats all.

Forest have 2 european cups. Villa have 1. Chelsea have 2. feckin Real Madrid have 15. WE HAVE 3.

If you think we're a well run club and those stats make sense to us then fine - I'm not disagreeing with you.

Please dont make a reply to this post but simply post your own thoughts independently.

Cheers

So the measure of being a well run club is how many European Cups you've won?

 

[jimmyb2000]

So the measure of being a well run club is how many European Cups you've won?

Thanks for reading my post and totally ignoring it. Its a nuanced discussion which you clearly dont want to have. Cheers

 

[Alex99]

Thanks for reading my post and totally ignoring it. Its a nuanced discussion which you clearly dont want to have. Cheers

You sparked this whole thing by saying Manchester United weren't a successful club, and have since claimed to be talking in facts.

I've not reduced your arguments to anything. Your arguments have just been nonsense.

 

[jimmyb2000]

You sparked this whole thing by saying Manchester United weren't a successful club, and have since claimed to be talking in facts.

I've not reduced your arguments to anything. Your arguments have just been nonsense.

Can I ask - were you born after 1985?

 

[Chesterlestreet]

He was an absolutely force of nature as a leader, but he didn't do everything himself, and his main bit of advice to Moyes was to leave all of the staff in place.

This has been discussed a million times before, but what you mention there is exactly the problem - or one of them - with the transition from Fergie to...non-Fergie.

There's no feckin' chance that any new manager would've succeeded just "carrying on" with Fergie's staff.

In that regard, Moyes was actually right: of course he wanted his own people, of course he didn't want to just keep the likes of Phelan and Meulensteen on in the same roles they had under Fergie.

 

[Alex99]

Can I ask - were you born after 1985?

Can I ask, do you think Manchester United are a successful club?

This has been discussed a million times before, but what you mention there is exactly the problem - or one of them - with the transition from Fergie to...non-Fergie.

There's no feckin' chance that any new manager would've succeeded just "carrying on" with Fergie's staff.

In that regard, Moyes was actually right: of course he wanted his own people, of course he didn't want to just keep the likes of Phelan and Meulensteen on in the same roles they had under Fergie.

The transition was a shambles, no denying it, and it was always going to be difficult regardless of how well we prepared for Fergie's departure, but the general point is that we had an established backroom team, and a transfer system in which the manager trusted the scouting team and relevant executives to sort deals out.

This idea that it was all Fergie is false, and the reality is that Moyes came in, scrapped whatever targets we had in favour of Fellaini and Baines, binned the backroom team, and found himself with Woodward instead of Gill at the negotiating table.

 

[lex talionis]

I'm not sure what's actually being debated here. It's universally acknowledged that United are one of the biggest clubs on the planet, arguably the biggest. It's also beyond any question that we have won more first division trophies than any other English club. And it's also beyond any question that over the last decade that United have not won a single major trophy and haven't even been close to winning one...over that decade.

The more interesting question is not what, but why. Why has many subordinate explanations (ridiculous manager appointments, starting with Moyes) but they all point back to the horrific management at the very top of the club...the Glazers.

 

[NoPace]

Poch replacing Fergie in 2013? What was Poch's reputation like when he was appointed by Southampton?

I remember I posted about him as probably being 2nd or 3rd choice and it didn't seem outlandish.

There was less stats/analytics/tacticos hype online then (and almost certainly in terms of boardroom decision making when you look at recent hires at teams like Brighton and Liverpool) but Poch had Southampton looking really good on a lot of pretty basic accessible metrics (pressing, possessionand it was the most points Southampton had in like 20 years.

So, I guess imagine if Iraola led Bournemouth to say 10th place this season and the possession and pressing numbers looked good.

Poch's Southampton team was better than this year's Bournemouth:

Rodriguez-Lambert
Lallana-Schneiderlin-Davis-Cork/Ward-Prowse
Shaw-Fonte-Lovren-Clyne
Boruc

So you'd have to say finishing 8th would be like if Bournemouth got to 10th-11th and even GD I think.

He might not be first choice on here or probably from the club, but he'd certainly be in the top 3-4 names as the most exciting young Prem manager not already at a big club, playing an attractive style.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I don’t understand this thread, it’s just a statement of fact?

 

[tomaldinho1]

I remember I posted about him as probably being 2nd or 3rd choice and it didn't seem outlandish.

There was less stats/analytics/tacticos hype online then (and almost certainly in terms of boardroom decision making when you look at recent hires at teams like Brighton and Liverpool) but Poch had Southampton looking really good on a lot of pretty basic accessible metrics (pressing, possessionand it was the most points Southampton had in like 20 years.

So, I guess imagine if Iraola led Bournemouth to say 10th place this season and the possession and pressing numbers looked good.

Poch's Southampton team was better than this year's Bournemouth:

Rodriguez-Lambert
Lallana-Schneiderlin-Davis-Cork/Ward-Prowse
Shaw-Fonte-Lovren-Clyne
Boruc

So you'd have to say finishing 8th would be like if Bournemouth got to 10th-11th and even GD I think.

He might not be first choice on here or probably from the club, but he'd certainly be in the top 3-4 names as the most exciting young Prem manager not already at a big club, playing an attractive style.

Poch and Koeman got overrated at Soton for me, their owners then splashed cash like crazy and then the club tanked. Poch timed it well, the club other managers like puel, Hughes, Hasenhuttl inherited after with other owners was shocking and staying up a major achievement each year.

 

[Alex99]

I don’t understand this thread, it’s just a statement of fact?

The general point of "it's shite and a massive indictment on the club that we've been a mere footnote on the European stage for a decade" isn't really up for debate.

The post that's stirred it here was someone saying Manchester United aren't a successful club.

 

[tomaldinho1]

The general point of "it's shite and a massive indictment on the club that we've been a mere footnote on the European stage for a decade" isn't really up for debate.

The post that's stirred it here was someone saying Manchester United aren't a successful club.

Vastly more successful than 99% of football clubs. Less successful than we were.

 

[Alex99]

Vastly more successful than 99% of football clubs. Less successful than we were.

The quote in question was "have never been a successful club".

 

[Marwood]

We were sliding before Fergie left really. The trajectory was already happening.

That brilliant back five was dragging us along.

The Nani sending off masked a few things. We weren't particularly good at that point. We scored one goal from a set piece across the two legs.

Ultimately it's not down to systems.

It's about having lots of money and getting the right manager.

We badly need managers to stop doing batshit crazy stuff and the rest will follow.

 

[tomaldinho1]

The quote in question was "have never been a successful club".

How bizarre