I think a couple of Ajax fans tried to warn us, they weren't regulars though. But yeah, we all thought he was a genius who knew what he was doing.
All managers post Fergie weren't good enough
- Thread starter Amar__
- Start date
But you are in hindsight mixing the concept of a manager being "good" with the results they ended up having and the latter involves a lot more than their quality alone.
Mourinho and Ten Hag were good appointments in theory, Mourinho had a big pedigree and even with the second stint collapse at Chelsea he had been champion the year prior and Ten Hag had done a very good job in Ajax.
Both failed (imho Mourinho wasn't that bad but ignore it for this discussion) but that doesn't mean it retroactively turn them into bad managers, bad results aren't their responsability only (you have squad, structure, etc).
The fact that they didn't have good jobs after can be a wake effect from the bad Utd stint as well, but that depends on the circunstances of each one of them.
If the structure is bad then what manager would be good enough for that next level? Do you think Klopp, Guardiola or Ancelotti would be successfull in those Utd stints in the same situation?
I don't think they would be successfull or at least bringing tons of titles as they did in their clubs, and that wouldn't be only their fault nor would that turn them into bad managers.
If the structure is bad enough then no manager would be good enough, and that is my point - if Utd doesn't improve their own structure it will never work out because I think some managers Utd had were good enough in my opinion.
I don't know how people can argue until they're blue in the face about the structure, the board, the incompetence of everyone at the club, and then seriously claim that the manager, who was hired by these very same people, is a top bloke and really, really good at his job. Which one is it lads?
Moyes, LvG, Ole and Ralf were absolutely horrible appointments. Ole was a cracking caretaker option but in no world should he have been given the permanent gig.
Tbf, both Jose and ETH felt like good appointments at the time, and at least they made some sort of sense. However, it's clear that both were poor appointments.
Tbf, both Jose and ETH felt like good appointments at the time, and at least they made some sort of sense. However, it's clear that both were poor appointments.
Last edited:
While the problems amount to more than one thing you’re basically saying the role of manager is worth next to nothing. Of course we’d be in a better position with a better manager.
I think the same.
Do fans here think a Klopp United reign would yield United getting Salah for 35 million ? Not just that, Klopp actually wanted a different player but the Liverpool structure overruled and got Salah. Do people think Woodward would have chosen Salah ?
That’s only one thing. United have consistently spent more , given bigger contracts, sold poorly and struggled to sell players. How would that have impacted Klopp , particularly stuck with the likes of Martial and a sick note Jones taking up a spot.
I think people have low standards when they pine for some great manager to come in and sort out United. Given uniteds spending, every single manager we have hired and any manager half decent , should be making top 4 every season. There’s so many average managers who have won things at top clubs in England and Europe. Pep and Klopp aren’t the only managers to win things.
Madrid , Bayern, Barca and city have won trophies with managers who either didn’t go on to bigger things or weren’t exactly considered world class.
The ONLY reason United NEED some magical manager , that nobody really knows exists, is to compensate for the uniquely incompetent way that the club is being run. Like Boehly at Chelsea, a shite owner can spend a fortune and at the same time undermine a manager/squad if there is no meaningful plan and no culture of excellence.
The United appointments were destined to fail. It does not mean “they were good enough”. But I don’t think fans targets and glazers targets ever matched up. If we had a season like Jose’s 2nd he’d be manager for life under glazers , that was never enough for him or us. Incidentally, Jose was a busted flush after United, I don’t understand how anybody can delude themselves to think that pretty much most signings and managers form/careers collapsing after United was just an unfortunate coincidence.
How United was being run was and has been the problem. Managers simply the scapegoats.
Exactly, it's pretty simple logic that many seem to struggle understanding for some reason, and simply want to blame everything on the structure.
Yeah, that's fair.
They have spent less than us I think and won far more. They have also reached knockouts every year, and few semi/quarter finals. It's not trophies, but it's not getting knocked our of group stages either to be fair. But they are irrelevant anyway, you can argue that they are equally bad as we are.
Regarding Liverpool, this is where I disagree. Liverpool's starting position is probably worse than ours, they had far worse team, and their budget was miles lower than us, and they still won CL, PL, and were strong favourites for couple of more. That's infinite times better than we did, especially when you account their budget, which is the main thing.
I seriously doubt we would win anything in these past 10 years if we didn't have that much money. We had some of the best talents playing for us for some ridiculous money that only one or two clubs in the world could match. Even with hundreds of millions spent, people still say this is not Ten Hag's team for some reason. One could argue that that was one of our biggest problems too(signing expensive flops), but it's mostly those managers who agreed with these transfers.
Regarding last thing about structure, I agree, but also you cannot make perfect scenario for every manager, we look to be in some decent direction at the moment, and until next year I believe we will be more than okay(hopefully). City were far from perfect when Pep took over.
On the original version of his autobiography (which I've read) SAF said that there wasn't even a discussion for the manager and Moyes was the only choice, a kinda unanimous decision. That book came shortly after SAF retired.
He might have updated it since the chosen one became the wrong one though. But by all accounts, we never contacted any other manager, except SAF having a chat with Pep when SAF hinted that he will retire, which to Pep in hindsight it was SAF checking if Pep would want the job (but Pep at that stage had already accepted the Bayern job).
I might be misremembering, but in the updated version that came out after Moyes, I'm sure there's a bit clarifying that Moyes was the only one actually approached with a firm offer, but was one of a number of names on the shortlist.
It's been the best part of a decade since I read it so I may be wrong.
I have not read the updated version, but originally the song (and Fergie's autobiography, the original version) was that we only wanted Moyes. We didn't offer the job to Pep, we didn't contact Mourinho despite that he wanted the job, we didn't contact Klopp (we contacted him after we sacked Moyes though but he didn't want to leave BVB and thus we hired LVG), and as far as I am aware, we didn't contact Ancelotti.
The new song that we tried to hire any decent manager alive, and failed at that, thus we had to give the job to Moyes is a bit of history rewriting after Moyes' appointment showed to be a disaster. But there is not much evidence that this is true, and a ton of evidence that we wanted Moyes (hardworking Scottish manager, who would continue the legacy of Busby and SAF). It was a braindead appointment made somehow even worse by giving him full power at the club.
There was definitely a whiff of "oh no, this wasn't Plan A" about it, but Guardiola was already committed to Bayern before Fergie had told the club, and I think it was hinted that Ancelotti had committed himself to Madrid too.
I don't think it actually named who the alternatives were, or indeed what level of contact we'd had. I think it just said Moyes was one of five or six on the shortlist (with the implication he wasn't first choice).
We know Sir Bobby vetoed Mourinho, so I suspect he was one name.
Who the others were is anyone's guess.
Ultimately, I think we were woefully unprepared for Fergie's departure and gave his nomination far too much weight, which essentially made Moyes the first (and possibly only) choice.
Apart from Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Real Madrid who have hired Van Gaal and Mourinho of course?
Jose wins the league with Chelsea, joins United less then 12 months later and is “a busted flush” apparently. I can’t get my head around that logic.
People really are deluded to how uniquely dysfunctional the club has been. Players, managers , Chevrolet head guy sacked after getting United Sponcorship, pretty much anybody and anything that has joined United since 2013 hasn’t ended up better as a result. The problem isn’t everybody else, how hard is that to grasp ?
United find themselves leaping from manager to manager , putting things right that once went wrong and hoping each time that the next manager will be the GOAT manager. United have literally been using the opening monologue to quantum leap as their entire club philosophy.
Before us? You missed the part about them being past their best, no one argued they were never in their life top managers.
It was one year or even whole two years before us. Ancient history.
If manager didn't win treble year before us, he is in decline apparently.
I was replying to your opening post in which you said none of our previous managers were good enough to begin with, in bold font no less, and then that no top 8 club in the world would touch any of them with a stick.
A dysfunctional organisation cannot by fixed by a brilliant individual in the modern game. It simply isn't possible and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Even Fergie, the greatest ever, couldn't cover for the clusterfück that began to unfold the day the Glazers took over - there were plenty of mistakes and blunders made while he was still furiously papering over the cracks.
You can argue that none of our managers since him were the right fit at the right time, and I'd agree with you on some of them - but that is only further evidence of a dysfunctional club and structure. The same clown show that hires the wrong managers, will get the medical setup wrong and the scouting system wrong and the recruitment team wrong.
I'd maintain that Van Gaal and Ten Hag, within a functional organisation geared towards success, could have been successful.
No doubt the right way to do it but I don’t think anyone would have gotten away with implementing it in the great man’s swan song period
The way I look at it, the first manager post Fergie was always likely to be a burner so why not give it to to someone who was gonna naturally burn it anyway but hand us a title at the same time.
Yes Mou was on the way down but this was just after Real and he had enough fire in his belly to prove a point winning Chelsea another title so he would have done the same with us I think.
Do I think this would have been the best course for future planning for United? Of course not, but I also think getting the albatross from around our neck of having a title winning manager post Fergie right away might have eased the pressure on the next managers after that so whose to say how differently things might have gone then because of it.
Anyway it’s all ifs and buts and hindsight is 20-20
That seems like the case now yeah. I just admit I was convinced he's the guy who at the very least will bring some good football to the table.
He still has a reputation of being a good coach despite all the evidence against it.
We have not recruited well and structure and all those buzz words but the fact remains, all the managers we have brought are just not good enough. We are all football fans and we can see logical football with our eyes. The closest we have to a tactical coach with convicton on how we wanted to play was LVG.
We have suffered enough, we need a rub of the green, hoping we stumble upon a good one soon
We have suffered enough, we need a rub of the green, hoping we stumble upon a good one soon
Fergie wrote in his 2015 book Leading:
"I asked Pep to phone me before he accepted an offer from another club but he didn't and wound up joining Bayern Munich in July 2013.
"When we started the process of looking for my replacement, we established that several very desirable candidates were unavailable.
"It became apparent that Jose Mourinho had given his word to Roman Abramovich that he would return to Chelsea and that Carlo Ancelotti would succeed him at Real Madrid.
"We also knew that Jurgen Klopp was happy at Borussia Dortmund and would be signing a new contract.
"Meantime, Louis van Gaal had undertaken to lead the Dutch attempt to win the 2014 World Cup."
"We chose David Moyes. He had been consistent in his job at Everton, had a good spell there - 11 years - and showed appetite.
"Unfortunately, somehow it didn't work out for David. The process was perfect. It was a good process.
--
Personally I'm struggling with the idea that you're looking at the likes of Pep, Mourinho, Ancelotti, Klopp and LVG - and the next on your list is Moyes. Very inspiring.
I reckon it was Moyes all along.
The OP is right, all managers post Fergie aren't good enough for United, because the thing we have needed for 10 years is not a coach, it's a coach/manager/DoF/head of scouting/liason with the youth team/CEO all in one. Which is why the first thing Sir Jim has done is to start creating a proper structure that relieves the coach of all responsibilities except coaching tactics into the first team/squad.
None of our managers we've appointed have been perfect. They have their various flaws, some bigger than others. I'm also sure that almost all of them would have done better at different clubs, where they for one were not allowed to do transfers.
None of our managers we've appointed have been perfect. They have their various flaws, some bigger than others. I'm also sure that almost all of them would have done better at different clubs, where they for one were not allowed to do transfers.
This pretty much aligns with my memory of it.
I think others were on the shortlist, but Fergie suggested Moyes so they weren't really considered with any seriousness and he was always the prime target.
Guardiola has also said that Fergie never asked him to call him about his next move, so that and the fact Moyes was presented very much as the number one choice makes me think there's an element of revisionism.
I do think it's not too daft for Moyes to have been 6th or 7th choice, but at the same time, you also wonder if we wouldnt have been better giving it to the likes of Giggs or Solskjaer, even in the short term, once it was clear we weren't getting any of Guardiola, Ancelotti, etc.
This ignores his 3rd season at Chelsea and his catastrophic showing in the Champions League against PSG with 10 men the previous season.
And it ignores the general decline in him following Real Madrid.
And it ignores what he's done after United
No one is saying the managers are the main problem, but they've been a huge problem too.
Came to say this.
Even Pep would struggle here. The manager is but a part of the system and it all needs to work together to see success.
I think if Mourinho had have followed Fergie straight away, he would have done better straight away, than he did do after Van gaal. I agree overall though that we are doing a Liverpool and hopefully we find our Klopp, sooner rather than later.
Simply the bitter truth we have to accept, that none of the managers hired post Fergie were good enough, not even EtH.
But we also have to accept the fact that the ownership is what caused us never having a good manager post Fergie
But we also have to accept the fact that the ownership is what caused us never having a good manager post Fergie
In a poll created 6 months before Jose Mourinho becomes Manchester United manager @Amar__ votes “yes” to the question “should Jose Mourinho be the next Manchester United manager?”
2022 @Amar__ claims that finishing in the top 4 would mean that Ten Hag has performed a “miracle” - this is backed up in February 2023 when he affirms that Ten Hag has performed miracles on our players
2024 and @Amar__ claims “none of our managers was good enough to begin with”
Not an attack on you @Amar__ but it’s all so easy in hindsight. At the time most people thought these were top appointments and the correct ones. Including yourself. These are the only two managers I quickly checked your historical opinions on too. Would probably find similar sentiments for others if I’d have checked
2022 @Amar__ claims that finishing in the top 4 would mean that Ten Hag has performed a “miracle” - this is backed up in February 2023 when he affirms that Ten Hag has performed miracles on our players
2024 and @Amar__ claims “none of our managers was good enough to begin with”
Not an attack on you @Amar__ but it’s all so easy in hindsight. At the time most people thought these were top appointments and the correct ones. Including yourself. These are the only two managers I quickly checked your historical opinions on too. Would probably find similar sentiments for others if I’d have checked
It's a bit of a perfect storm really, wrong managers,. and poor recruitment, at a period where Liverpool and City managed to get both right.
Yeah, I obviously mean since around and after the period in which they have signed for us. Not even Chelsea want Mourinho anymore. Or do you seriously think I didn't know that they were managers of those teams in the past?
Based on what?
What has stopped van Gaal from playing decent football in his last season, because it certainly weren't Glazers fault that his football was shite and boring. Same goes to Ten Hag, there is absolutely nothing with structural organisation that makes you play shite football and lacking basic knowledge that you can't play football in which you don't even try to control the game but play gung ho all the time.
You are missing the point here. I am not criticising the choices we made at that time, I am saying that in hindsight those managers were not good enough based on what they did with us and their future appointments. I am actually being captain hindsight and using it as future reference and argument.
No doubt the right way to do it but I don’t think anyone would have gotten away with implementing it in the great man’s swan song period
The way I look at it, the first manager post Fergie was always likely to be a burner so why not give it to to someone who was gonna naturally burn it anyway but hand us a title at the same time.
Yes Mou was on the way down but this was just after Real and he had enough fire in his belly to prove a point winning Chelsea another title so he would have done the same with us I think.
Do I think this would have been the best course for future planning for United? Of course not, but I also think getting the albatross from around our neck of having a title winning manager post Fergie right away might have eased the pressure on the next managers after that so whose to say how differently things might have gone then because of it.
Anyway it’s all ifs and buts and hindsight is 20-20
I fully agree that the first manager post SAF was going to be a burner. There are two main reasons to that. The first one is pretty obvious ie SAF was Manchester United or at least the football structure of it. Secondly though is far more devious. United were in its decline. Players were growing old and there was no decent replacement for them, the likes of Ronaldo, Vidic and Rio were being replaced by Valencia, Jones and Smalling etc. RVP was a desperate signing meant to keep the old machine kicking for its lasts hooray. RVP was injury prone, he was old and the price tag didn't make any sense for a club who was building for the future. But the worst thing is that Manchester United were marching happily to its demise. There was a certain arrogance at the club (and among the fanbase) that we could defy logic and time, the few that talked about United's decline were shut down while sentimentality around certain LEGENDS were heightened so that no one would dare asking the tough questions about their replacement. It would take the usually blunt Scholes who finally pointed at the emperor with no clothes when he said that there's something really wrong in a team whose best CMs are at the wrong side of their 30s. So whoever marched into SAF's office would have to face a ridiculous situation were on one hand he would have an ageing squad that SAF had brilliantly squeezed every inch of juice out and on the other hand a club who arrogantly thought that a club could keep winning without them having to spend too much in players, academy etc. Ultimately it was that arrogance that lead the club not trusting the club to Mourinho. According to them we didn't need a great manager.
Mou would certainly do better then Moyes. He knew how to win the EPL, his reputation would have pushed the club to spend more and his tactics, while not being the cutting edge tactics they once were were still half decent and were more in tune to an ageing squad then the way modern football was going to. However there's also the ugly side of Mourinho. First of all he was never the kind to build for the future which means that the club would spend silly money on old players, Mourinho trusted. Secondly most of that team was in decline and had already won everything that need to be won. Many people underestimate how difficult it is to ask a 33+ year old player to keep going. First of all his body can't take too much pounding, secondly these players has been around football for enough time to know how their body work and which training regime can feck them for good. At that age most players's priority shift from that of winning more trophies to ending the career without an injury that can feck their standard of living permanently. Therefore if you combine the two (Mou's bad loser/destructive attitude + a squad whose not particularly motivated to risk everything to keep winning) then there's a recipe of a disaster especially since Mou doesn't build for the future and Woodward would not be able to support the huge overhaul in terms of players turnover that the club needed.
Ole and ETH were good appointments that could've done better with good owners.
Moyes, LVG and José all horrible appointments for slightly different reasons.
Moyes, LVG and José all horrible appointments for slightly different reasons.
Agreed, as much as our footballing structure has been criticised for signings the same level of criticism should go to the managerial appointments. I think on paper, ETH made the most sense out of all our appointments, however the structure around him has hindered him, particularly in the transfer market. I suspect that ultimately he may be viewed a bit like Emery in the future, a good manager but one that perhaps sits at the tier below the top sides. I think enough has been said about the others, Moyes was a huge gamble, LVG was effectively a decade on from his peak, Jose was on the decline and it's only got worse for him and Ole was basically a panic signing.
I think there does need to be an acceptance that sometimes managers don't work out for one reason or another and that's okay. Just like you can't get every signing right means you can't get every managerial appointment right either.
I think there does need to be an acceptance that sometimes managers don't work out for one reason or another and that's okay. Just like you can't get every signing right means you can't get every managerial appointment right either.
I really don't agree. If you look at what Klopp's done, I don't think one player who was in the squad when he started is still there. So he's completely rebuilt that team over the last 8 years. Despite that, even with the players he had at the time, you could see the progress right away. It took time to adapt and get the right players but you could at least see the direction it was taking.
As for Pep, true he started with a better team and I think Stones and KDB were two players he inherited. Still he's mostly rebuilt the team since he arrived and I just think he would have gravitas and personality to impose his will on whichever club he goes to. I don't think he would just take whatever players are suggested by the sporting directors. He would sign the right players for the football he wants to play.
Anyway point is getting the right manager is the critical first step. If Liverpool or City hired any of those managers the OP mentioned, and especially any combination of them consecutively, they would not have been nearly as successful. Jose is maybe the odd one out who I think could have been a success, but maybe he only works well at certain clubs like Inter or Chelsea and only for a 3 year period. Certainly wouldn't have been a success at City or Pool. If it's clear you don't have the right man steering the ship, you might as well just cut your losses and try again.
You want to say that Moyes and Solskjaer were material for United manager? Even players knew that they are out of depth. Everton manager who won nothing in his career and former Cardiff (which he got relegated) and Molde manager were defo not good for United.
Van Gaal. Guy who won multiple trophies in his career including building best Ajax team in history maybe.
2010 - won double in Germany and played CL final. 2012-2014 managed Holland with which he finished 3rd on World cup with playing good football. Then we hired him. How he wasn't top manager even then?
Mourinho. Won everything in football. Between 2010-2016 (when we hired him), won treble with Inter, won La Liga with Real, won PL with Chelsea (less than a year when we hired him). Washed up? Give me a break.
So, do please explain to me what was wrong in my post?
Our problem was that Woodward was calling a shots regarding transfers. Better football setup and Jose and Lvg would be success. Same can be said probably for Erik.
Last edited:
This.
By what criteria on earth Solskjaer was good appointment? Pl experience was relegating Cardiff and in second season in Championship he was doing also bad.
Won 2 titles in 6 years in Norway league (which is, with all due respect to them, tier 4 Euro league). Manager with that kind of CV is a good appointment for Man Utd?
Klopp said the Liverpool scouts wouldn't get out of his ear about Mo Salah, which led to Klopp doing his homework and then deciding to sign him. He was initially skeptical but after watching a lot of games gave the green light.
It's not like Klopp said this lad is rubbish and I don't want him, and Liverpool signed him anyway. He said he wasn't sure about Salah's physicality but then was eventually convinced after watching games and meeting him.
It's not a bad thing to be skeptical toward potential transfers. You have to be close to 100% sure about what you're getting. If you just rubber stamp what scouts recommend then that's when money starts being wasted.
Yes, they absolutely would be more succesful, there is no doubt in my mind. We had the best manager the game has ever seen, if there's any fanbase that should know what difference a manager can make it should be us.
Mourinho did have a big pedigree but he was also sacked by Chelsea prior to joining us. Ten Hag had good results with Ajax. So did De Boer. None of the managers we've sacked have done anything of note after leaving. Perhaps that would be a good sign it wasn't really just a case of great managers being held down by a bad structure. More like bad structure appointing not good enough managers.