Could have said the same about Moyes just before he got fired.
BBC: United hold talks with Mourinho
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
- Status
fergie was a totally different animal and can't really be used to compare with anyone as his record saw him grow to such a size as to be untouchable. No doubt he killed a few players along the way but that's different to support staff who (maybe brian kidd aside) he wouldn't publicly execute. I've no problem with mou disciplining his players at all but the doctor is something else
Why? Surely taking on the clubs majority shareholders is a far bigger problem? I only compare the two because Mourinho's behaviour over this is getting cast as some form of obvious criterion for why he shouldn't get the job and im merely pointing out that a previous very successful manager of ours acted the complete cnut with the two most powerful men on the board.
Our board consists of a bunch of Glazers and some other suits. I doubt most of them know what the United way is, let alone care about it.
Thankfully.
He is right, though the tea lady bit is stretching it, because very few managers come back from the depths Van Gaal reached on that November to December run. To me, I know I'm a bit cynical and pessimist, I knew right after the PSV game at OT that he was done. After the Norwich debacle even Warren Joyce would have been a better choice because at that point he had become a dead man walking which is why now only the kids respond to him because they would do anything for someone who is willing to give them a chance.
I understand Van Gal holding on, it being his last job and all, but the board indulging him to the extent of writing off our season is what gets at me the most. If this is the way we are going to be approaching things then I am very worried because things are going to get much worse before we turn a corner.
Is that a fact, supported by evidence? I think it's highly subjective. It's well documented SAF had a difficult few seasons in the early days. We can fall back on "those were different times" but then that's just introducing more variables that muddy the argument further. I suspect there are other examples of managers coming back from a difficult few months as well. But anyway, I can see why people didn't want to give him time but I stand by what I said before, it looks more obvious in hindsight imo that Warren Joyce would be an upgrade on Van Gaal.
Obviously there is no evidence to conclusively decide beyond reasonable doubt but I remember making a post alluding to us being on an irreversible slide down the table after we got knocked out of the CL. Reading on Van Gaal from, I think it was City's CEO, saying Van Gaal is tolerable when things are going well but when shit hits the fan he intimated that players find it difficult to stand by him so it's easy to conclude that he lost the dressing room long back but, unlike Chelsea, we were too daft to take remedial action.
It therefore follows that under those circumstances Warren Joyce would have been a better choice than the guy who is dispised by the whole squad. We should have been more proactive.
Last edited:
While they are completely clueless about football and football related matters, Ed and the glazers know business, and im sure they, like us, see that the money is coming in, but success on the pitch will yield more success off it. That should be enough to force their hands. If the summer comes and they don't act, then our club is in much more trouble than it seems.
Again, for me there is a leap here. Is he despised by the squad? Where is the evidence that? I think a lot of people on here accept he hadn't lost the squad in that conventional sense, and that players are still playing for him. Tho its all guesswork.
Listen, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying I disagree that he should have been let go in December. But I'm saying I agree with the element of hindsight. I didn't think we should sack him in December. So I understand why the board evidently felt that way too. And also the obvious point that we can never know what would have happened if Joyce had been made manager for half a season, it could have been a disaster. Obviously it suits people now to assume we would have done better than this but that's not a given at all, he is hugely inexperienced at this level. From where we stood then, with a CL to contest and top 4 to play for, Van Gaal's experience looked an asset he couldn't compete with.
I completely get where you are coming from but as I said his history suggests that, especially in his foreign jobs, that he falls with people too easily and that, as it happened at Bayern and Barcelona where he pretty much got run out of town, its his nature. I would like to think that when he is finally gone we will see the true extent of the gloom that's hung over Carrington for the last few months in some book like we did with Moyes. Te board should have extrapolated from his time in Spain and Germany that when it does go south for him there is no redemption and our own run from the start of the season to see that these players did not suddenly tun to shit. I still contend that the players just got tired of his erratic in-game tactics (do you remember the 'Oxlade Chamberlaine for Ashavin' substitution that pretty much bagged the RVP signing for us?), his refusal to take blame, abrasiveness and favouritism and simply gave up on him.
Fair enough. You're right, It'll be interesting to see how players talk about him after he's gone.
What I don't understand is people not wanting him for his style of football. I for one can't wait to see us defend well and stop conceding against absolute dross teams.
It's not the most beautiful football. But it's efficient like Atletico Madrid.. So we will see goals just not plenty of flair. But no one like this possession stuff so don't see people's problem.
People just want results now, they'll worry about pretty later now.
Not a fan of Mourinho's style of football but his teams do score goals and win matches but not in a gung-ho style of attacking play.
However, this would be a vast improvement on what we are watching now, where the least important part of the game seems to be scoring goals. The most important part being that we don't take any risk of giving the ball away to the opposition which we are not very good at.
There is some merit to this. He himself has stated that he likes playing kids because they follow his instructions to a tee.
Exactly, It's ridiculous. To be honest the way things are, People cannot afford to be picky. Jose is the best man for the job and we need to get back to the top whether that is playing nice football or his 'poor' style which is still light years ahead of this shite we have got presently.
Not sure how many pages since I posted it the last time but given that our biggest rivals will have Klopp and Guardiola next season anything else than appointing Mourinho will lead us into the next disaster.
No alternatives in sight.
No alternatives in sight.
Pretty much the end of the discussion. The summer will prove if the club is being run by utter fools or not.
That was proven to be the case long ago. Hopefully the fools make the right decision in 3 months time.
True. Better late than never I suppose.
This has always been my thought behind it too, and I'm in no way a fan of Mourinho, but certain issues have changed my tune a bit, this being a major one. I just can't imagine Giggs overcoming Klopp, Pep, Conte, Pochettino, probably Wenger, all at United's direct rivals. I can't imagine him overcoming even one of them.
I'd even think Mark Hughes would have a better shot in that battle than Giggs.
Next season will be the strongest the PL has probably ever been in terms of managers at the top clubs. It's incredibly exciting, but United need to be in the mix and the club just cannot go into this battle with a man who has never been a manager before. There's still a lot of time for Ryan Giggs to prove he is worthy of the job, but tight here and right now, surely it just has to be Mourinho.
There is a weird cult of the manager thing going on at the moment, particularly in the PL. The league can't attract the best players yet almost all of the best managers are either here or have been here.
That said, though, there's this weird view that only one of the top managers can do the jobs and to me it looks like nonsense. It just seems that clubs often want to cover up the deficiencies in the way they run the club with superstar managers.
That said, though, there's this weird view that only one of the top managers can do the jobs and to me it looks like nonsense. It just seems that clubs often want to cover up the deficiencies in the way they run the club with superstar managers.
Sounds like you are saying there is no reason United should be fixated on Mourinho, we should give it to a less glamorous manager?
I've noticed this in rugby too (union that is) There's way more focus on the coaches and less on the players than there used to be
There definitely more emphasis on managers in the Premier League but theres probably a reason for that.
In Spain Real or Barca could pretty much hire anyone as coach without it affecting their fortunes too much. I mean the likes of Luis Enrique didn't exactly pull up trees at Roma yet wins the treble with Barca.
In Germany and France it's the same PSG or Bayern could hire any competent coach and still do very well. But in the Premier League it's so competitive that teams in my opinion think that having a top coach will give them the edge over their rivals.
At the end of the day players want to play with the best players. Since 2009 you have had Ronaldo and Messi in La Liga, and also the best national team's players all play there (a lot of them). There was a power shift in league talent since the Summer Ronaldo went and although it took a couple of years, La Liga teams cemented themselves. There was a similar proccess with Bayern ans Dortmund with regard to the amazing crop of German players.
At the end of the day:
Playing with top players > playing under top managers
And if we do appoint Mourinho, the following few years will show if the majority of the fan base are fools or not.
SAF says hi.
It is. Van Gaal has been a great manager, and one of the best of his generetion. At 69, he's evidently lost his touch and well past his best. There's supposedly a big difference between him at Ajax and him at United.
It's far more simpler than that. When you have a result slump coupled with the players struggling to adapt to the manager's ideas. It is a far gone conclusion amongst fans that the "man has lost it"
Not necessarily. I suppose I'm making a broader point really. It just seems to me that we all get ourselves tangled up in this idea that only Mourinho (or whoever) will do and no one else could possibly bring success to the club. It has to be a top, top, top manager. When the reality is that the top clubs tend to recycle the top managers amongst themselves so judging them on success alone isn't necessarily the yardstick it might seem. Relying lazily on past success for indications as to future performances won't always work and causes clubs to be very narrow minded in their approach to hiring. Big clubs ideally don't want to take chances on younger, less proven managers.
For example, say we want Mourinho. You assume we have a metaphorical, subjective checklist with the things we as a club require on it. So if we stay true to our apparent ideals we have we'd want a manager who, among other things:
-has a record of success in both domestic competition and the CL
-has a good record in the transfer market and contacts with the right people
-is capable of handling the level of scrutiny that comes with being United manager
-has a good record, or willingness to bring through youth
-favours an attacking, exciting brand of football
-contributes to a positive atmosphere around the club and a good working enviromnent with both existing and new staff
-will stay at the club for a longer period than seems to be the norm now
Obviously for Jose to win out they may have to be willing to forego some of the above in pursuit of the ultimate goal of immediate footballing success (and if that's the case then that's okay, but we can't bleat on about "not being that type of club" and the "United way"). You have to be honest with yourself that you're basically trying to increase the chances of success to the highest possible degree to the potential exclusion of other ideals. But the idea that getting Mourinho, for example, would guarantee succcess is crazy. The odds might be better, but you do so having made these compromises over things that were once fundamental to you.
Equally, perhaps you could make just as convincing a case for someone like Pochettino. From the outside he fits much more closely with the ideals and style of football we're used to. To-date, he hasn't really won anything or managed a 'super club' so you take a risk on that front. But if he wins the league this season he'll probably be perceived to have moved into the top bracket of managers and Spurs will be tormented trying to hang on to him.
I suppose what I'm ultimately getting at is that I think there's a bigger pool of potential managers that can do these jobs than the clubs and the media would have us believe. Luis Enrique hadn't exactly been a roaring success until he pitched up at Barca (and even then it took time) and unless you discount his role in their successes it raises the question of whether the status of 'top manager' really tells you all you need to know. For example, Ancelotti won 1 league title in 8 seasons at Milan, 1 in 2 years at Chelsea, 1 in 2 years at PSG and none in 2 years at Madrid. He's been a manager since 99 in charge of lots of top clubs and in terms of domestic success alone, while managing really strong, often dominant clubs, he won, in a 15 or 16 year career, 3 league titles. That's not to say he's not a great manager, or that he doesn't do well in Europe particularly, but there has to be more to it. I dunno, this has been quite rambling, but I'm not at all convinced that picking up one of these managers is always worth it in terms of going against the principles you want to run your football club on. Not to even mention that the chances of them being successful aren't so much greater that it's a complete no-brainer.
On another point, the media reporting of it as a two horse race between Giggs and Mourinho is really weird. Mourinho is so many of the things that Giggs is not (at least based upon his apparent ideals and short managerial tenure previously). But then Giggs, based upon his feeling for the club, is likely to have more consideration for its long term health than Mourinho would. Those two, very different managers being the options suggests we don't have a type of manager in mind, but rather that we're being led in directions are almost diametrically opposed. For example, if you found out the shortlist was Klopp, Tuchel, Pochettino etc. you'd have an idea what we were aiming for. As it is, depending on the appointment, the way the club will be immediately run is wildly differently. That doesn't seem sensible to me at all.
EDIT: The TL;DR version is that I'm not convinced hiring outside of that top bracket of managers is necessarily the obstacle to success people see it as
I presume, in the Northern Hemisphere at least, it's an attempt to bridge the growing skill gap with the south? That and the bigger these guys get the less likely they are to rely upon skill so it's up to the manager
Last edited:
You think there is only one way a manager can be good. Van gaal will set this club on to success. Keep the school and change what they learn.
LvG has set this club back years.
Not necessarily disagreeing with your post but to be fair he's actually only 64.
On your point just to play devils advocate. Ferguson won the treble and 3 titles in a row at around 56-58 yet 6-7 years later at 64-65 he was managing a team just about making the top 4 and having the odd cup run. At that time some people said he was past it, yet he came back and won another 3 titles in a row and another CL.
Van Gaal nearly won the treble 6 years ago at Bayern, it's possible he hasn't lost it completely but has just made some very bad decisions at United and in general just isn't a good fit for the club or league. He says he is going to retire and he might well do, but if given another chance at a top club he could well be successful again. Who knows, United will be the first club he has managed ever where he hasn't won a league title.
@Brophs
The aftermath of cleaning up after a top manager isn't going to hard compared to a less experienced one. That is a huge factor in making these appointments. If the board get caught out then they can always say "look, he had the best record. But it didn't work out".Years from now, fans will hail LVG as the guy who had to mop up after Moyes.
The aftermath of cleaning up after a top manager isn't going to hard compared to a less experienced one. That is a huge factor in making these appointments. If the board get caught out then they can always say "look, he had the best record. But it didn't work out".Years from now, fans will hail LVG as the guy who had to mop up after Moyes.
@Brophs that is a wonderful, comprehensive, important post.
I see you're laying foundations for Van Gaal to take his share of credit for any future success we have. Unfortunately nobody will listen and this period will be looked upon as a complete shit fest.
- Status