How can people not believe there is a "United way"??? Do you even understand why support United???
To help you out, it's NOT just about winning!
To help you out, it's NOT just about winning!
Does having 'united DNA' matter in management selection? If so, what is it?
- Thread starter fastwalker
- Start date
Utd DNA? Fast paced attacking wing play?
Average age of our forward line today:35
No of wingers:0
Yep Ole has it nailed.
Spend 3 years "building" a system. Jobs under pressure so totally abandons that system to get a result. Its completely illogical and again raises the question of what our intended system or style has supposed to be under Ole?
Are we going to finish the rest of the year with 3 generational English talents rotting on the bench because we have a manager who doesn't know how to set up a team to utalize them.
If Jose or LVG benched Sancho, Rashford and Greenwood for 2 lads in their mid to late 30's there'd have been riots. Ole does it and all is OK.
Oh and lads, it was only spurs!
Average age of our forward line today:35
No of wingers:0
Yep Ole has it nailed.
Spend 3 years "building" a system. Jobs under pressure so totally abandons that system to get a result. Its completely illogical and again raises the question of what our intended system or style has supposed to be under Ole?
Are we going to finish the rest of the year with 3 generational English talents rotting on the bench because we have a manager who doesn't know how to set up a team to utalize them.
If Jose or LVG benched Sancho, Rashford and Greenwood for 2 lads in their mid to late 30's there'd have been riots. Ole does it and all is OK.
Oh and lads, it was only spurs!
I think it's pretty fair to say that Ole has failed his own brief.
Without getting into debates in this thread about Ole, the United way should be to be playing attractive attacking football, with a blend of youth and experience! Doesn't necessarily have to be with wingers.
The United Way is basically playing attacking football and developing youth. And yes, I would rather any incoming manager to have those principles.
It is basically this. Ole and pals. Woodward and pals. Glazer clan. Just a big old white boys club.
When used other than the context of promoting youth, it is for dinosaurs who dont like change or fear being found out of depth to modern ways of playing, coaching or management.
Yeah I totally agree. Doesn't have to be wing play, just needs to be good football. For the amount of money spent in the past decade there's no excuse for us to be unable to play a balanced attacking side who can defend adequately enough to make sure our forwards are afforded the chance to out score the opposition.
I'm beyond frustrated with the current set up and watching a player we chased for 2 years sit on the bench week in week out. Why wasn't that money spend on a Rice or similar who walk straight into the team.
All I will say is this....
10 of the last 16 Champions League trophies have been won by managers who played over 100 games for that particular club.
Whatever you want to call it, whether it's culture, style, DNA, philosophy or mindset, understanding the club you are managing and having the respect of fans/players definitely helps.
That doesn't mean just anybody can do it and it doesn't mean you can't find managers from "outside" who perfectly reflect the values and History of your club (i.e. Klopp at Liverpool) but what I would say is, it almost always ends in disaster if you bring in someone who doesn't understand or adhere to the club's principles.
10 of the last 16 Champions League trophies have been won by managers who played over 100 games for that particular club.
Whatever you want to call it, whether it's culture, style, DNA, philosophy or mindset, understanding the club you are managing and having the respect of fans/players definitely helps.
That doesn't mean just anybody can do it and it doesn't mean you can't find managers from "outside" who perfectly reflect the values and History of your club (i.e. Klopp at Liverpool) but what I would say is, it almost always ends in disaster if you bring in someone who doesn't understand or adhere to the club's principles.
We might as well abandon it because it’s clear over 50% of this fan base don’t understand it anyway. Amazes me really that people are just happy for us to become another soulless club and for what?
THis is lazy criticism. Do you understand it, can you define it? Does anyone posting on here see the Busby babes, can you tell me what style of football they played? Does it matter? Pre-Ferguson what was the United way? You need a strong football structure that can survive changes in management, that is the way the best run clubs like Bayern and Ajax operate. It also means not tolerating failure or living in fantasy land. Yes we want youth players, but how often has that worked? Champions league final we had 2 youth products on the pitch. What exactly is a 'souless club'? I would argue that is exactly what we are, due to the Glazer ownership and the muppets they put in charge to run the club. They dont care about tradition or history, just shirt sales, twitter follows and the share price.
Ole tried to play the United way. It was a disaster so he had to retreat to what has worked for him before but what works for him is not going to keep the fans happy.
A few thoughts:
1. It’s obviously a metaphor. DNA is a name for coding that brings about the re-creation of biological patterns, so I take the metaphor to mean ‘anything that brings a cultural coding re-creating good or useful cultural patterns’ at the club.
2. What is deemed ‘good and useful’ at Man Utd, and who deems it? Those who work there? Those who followed the club for generations? Those who put more effort into the club? Are every opinion to be equally weighted?
3. Some might say ‘winning mentality’, another ‘connection to the community’, a third might say ‘attacking with speed’, a forth ‘The Babes’ etc. Does that mean that we can strike all of these by exclusion, since none are unanimous? Or does it mean everyone should have a voice in the matter?
4. If Steve Bruce has played for Man Utd, but as a manager does not help to produce neither ‘winning mentality’, ‘attacking by speed’, ‘community connection’ nor ‘belief in youth’, how much ‘United DNA’ can he be said to express? Culture is not genes’, it is learnt rather than inherited. Maybe Jürgen Klopp expresses as much United DNA as Steve Bruce? He did say he was deeply inspired by Alex Ferguson at one point.
I think even a ‘winning culture’ depends on how many cultural factors play together. If you have, like United in the 90’s and 10’s, a winning culture cultivated on family ethos, youth identity, equalitarian thought, links to local fans and community and exciting football, then one or other of these can vary and flicker without the whole culture getting lost. Newness and change is also important for re-creation. But if you bring in a manager who decides everything, brings his own people, wants to focus on old players, safety first, don’t care wether he’s in Manchester or Rome, excludes half the club from the premises and wants a strict hierarchical tone, that might work at another club, but it will bring problems on many levels at this.
It was a lovely tonic after the mess Jose left, but long term we’ve got to stop being Liverpool of the 90s and move on.
It's another way of saying they want another Fergie as manager. Combining attacking play (sometimes pragmatic too), with youth and most importantly winning trophies. A bygone era where the manager was in charge of everything and did all those things.
We have managers who can do one or two of those things. But not all. And it will always be that way, except for very rare circumstances.
It's wierd that people want someone who's already affiliated with the club, when our most successful manager ever, had literally no such affiliations before joining.
More recently, it's just an excuse for being ambitious and winning things. An easy myth for the club management to hide behind. And most fans lap it up like crazy.
We have managers who can do one or two of those things. But not all. And it will always be that way, except for very rare circumstances.
It's wierd that people want someone who's already affiliated with the club, when our most successful manager ever, had literally no such affiliations before joining.
More recently, it's just an excuse for being ambitious and winning things. An easy myth for the club management to hide behind. And most fans lap it up like crazy.
Thanks Grande; that was a really good read. By the looks of things, 'United DNA' or the 'United Way' seems to mean different things to different people or in some cases nothing at all to others. At best it is a euphemism for the style of football, team culture and discipline that was exemplified under Sir Alex. However, for various reasons including managerial competence and the changing nature of modern day football, with the proliferation of 'galactico' personalities, I am not so sure that there is a specific United DNA any more. Today I think it is more of a nostalgic throwback to a bygone era, when whatever United represented was all conquering and all successful. Those days are long gone.
Your second point stands on quite feeble ground. Manchester United was never anything like Atalanta or Brighton (or City, or Barcelona). In fact, it was, almost at every iteration, synonymous with great wing play and great counter attacking, which is why Scholes et al. have to make such a labored argument in reminding everybody that we were also good in possession (and we were). But we were, mostly against weaker opponents. Our style during the Fergie era can best be described as a good mix.
If you look at any of the relevant data on the number of counter attacks executed, and/or possession tables, you'll find that Solskjaer's United is also quite a mixed bag.
The alleged stylistic difference is more apparent than real. In fact, if anything, Solskjaer is trying to replicate a lot of Fergie's tropes, from overloading the box with throwing more attackers on the pitch, to late comebacks, to even the neglect of midfield. He is the ultimate tribute act. There are certain quirks where he deviates, like yesterday's formation (which you won't remember Sir Alex trying very often), but in the main, the difference in style nowhere near as big as you are trying to paint here.
'DNA' of course is just a metaphor, that connotes all the things you've listed (and some you haven't); and it should rightly count as a plus, but no more than that. It's neither necessary, nor a sufficient condition for being a manager at United, but that's not to say that it's meaningless or that it shouldn't count.
Well, can culture be specific? Think of it this way - when Solskjær came, one of the first things he did was go talk to the desk lady who’d worked there for ages. This was in stark contrast to the way Moyes, Van Gaal and particularily Mourinho treated the members of the club that weren’t eligible for the next league game. Many people at the club had been there long enough to know how Sir Alex always treated her with the same level of respect and interest as he did star players and board members. Small things like these add up, and help knit bonds that will be important when the going gets tough. Ferguson himself did almost the same, when he came to the club he studied everything about United history, and everything about Sir Matt Busby. He knew the deeper knowledge was part of the bigger picture both of what dreams may thrive in the corridors of such an institution, and what practices may need to be developped - at many levels.
Sir Alex was close to the sack several times during the first six years. One may ask if the people who didn’t sack him really where so prescient about how his methods would inevitably turn things around, or wether how he respected the culture of both the club and the people working at it buy him time, acceptance and support at the club, making him survive where anyone else would’ve been axed.
As for Solskjær, there have been several rounds when his head has been called for. People assume he is tacticly weak, inexperienced as an elite coach, too soft, etc. And entertain this: If he is indeed behind so many in coaching methods and tactics - how has he managed to keep the job for three years, to get pros and stadium fans to get behind him and stay behind him, to get capitalist speculants to inveat money for good players for him, and to steadily increase the points tallies, heighten the league placings and deepen the cup runs - is he a much better manager than credited, or does the fact he knows and respects culture embedded in the club (among board members, functionaries, players and coaches, fans, community people and even a lot of expert commentators, old buddies so to speak) actually help him in getting the job done, not having to work against people, moods, traditions, habits, not having to reimplement a thousand things every week anew, and having people fight for him after each set back, despite doubt, despite critics in the press and SoMe, despite 20 players in the squad who play less than they think they deserve.
There is a lot of culture living in the people connected to Man United today, and the stories of Sir Matt, The Babes, working class railwaymen, Georgie Best and Sir Alex form helix strings within that culture, making it easier for anyone who can sail with it and harder for anyone aiming to go against it.
The ONLY reason I support this club is because of DNA.
Based purely on what our manager says and does;
United DNA is playing defensive football, waiting on counter attacks, giving possession to opposition, aiming to be in top 4, no ambition to win trophies, playing on desire instead on system and giving advantage to players with less skill but more passion.
I am maybe wrong though
United DNA is playing defensive football, waiting on counter attacks, giving possession to opposition, aiming to be in top 4, no ambition to win trophies, playing on desire instead on system and giving advantage to players with less skill but more passion.
I am maybe wrong though
Sometimes it's okay to adopt.
Exactly. Good managers are good managers. It's irrelevant how much they know about what the club was like in the 60s. It's sentimental and nostalgic garbage trotted out by some pundits and fans to defend mediocrity.
Well no it’s not and it doesn’t have to be at all. Again if we all accept that the Utd way means three things:
1- Having a top class academy and providing clear pathways into the first team for youth players.
2- promoting a positive, attacking style of football.
3- Promoting a family culture around the club that is linked to players and managers not only understanding, but fundamentally buying into our history and ethos.
Those are the values that represent Manchester Utd, they are the reason I support this club and not some other plastic club. They are the reason we should never be hiring a Mourinho with his bollocks “heritage” speech and they are the reason I’m more than dubious about appointing another negative manager in Conte. Having clear cultural values should never be linked to mediocrity, no, instead point the finger at the lack of forward planning at the top of the club. But it’s become an easy target to look at the ‘nostalgia’ and believe we can no longer maintain our values, that couldn’t be further from the truth. I think Ole has taken us as far as he can, but what is fundamental is making a positive managerial change and getting in someone who can understand and continue to implement those values which Ole has at least promoted.
It’s not at all but fair play for believing the myths.
Exactly and personally if you don’t get that as a Utd fan you need reminding about our great history.
Great post, agree 100%
What a strange and stupid post.
No. It's a silly buzzword which you can give whatever meaning you want
to quote myself.
Okay, but these "traits" you speak of are not unique to United, as any self-respecting football club that's been in existence since the game began, or thereabouts, would naturally possess them.
So why do we call it United DNA?
Just out of curiosity why do you find Conte negative ?
It’s a metaphor. Tbh no ‘traits’ of your literal DNA is unique to you either. A trait is a kind of generalisation. It’s the particular composite of genes that is unique. As a metaphor, that holds for United as well. Zambia’s olympic team was once killed in a plane crash. The accident that killed and injured half The Busby Babes is not unique as a plane crash in general. But it’s importance for Man United history is both real and unique. Some like to dismiss it as ‘irrelevant’ or ‘sentimental’ (particularily City fans). Yet there is no debating the fact that it was one of the factors that contributed to a city not among the world’s 100 biggest cities, now have the world’s most followed sports team going by various metrics.
A silly example to make the point clear - a new manager coming in and declaring that ‘to be more successful, Man Utd should forget all about The Busby Babes because sentiments and history makes you vulnerable’ would have as much chance of success at Man Utd as Brian Clough had when he told the Leeds players they should ‘toss their league winners medals cause it was won cheating’.
The point is that all the tidbits making out Uniteds particular culture is nothing abstract, and history and valuesare concrete parts of what makes United tick one way and not the other.
Dave Sexton and Jose Mourinho will never be remembered in this club the way Tommy Docherty and Ron Atkinson is, mostly for this reason.
I would argue they are completely unique to Utd. No club in English football has a record like ours when it comes to youth players and their pathway into the first team. Even those that don't make it are taught good values that should set them up well wherever they end up which is again part of the reason we have the most academy players throughout the English football pyramid. I mean until recently Chelsea would never have used a youth player and City have shown they have the grand total of 1 decent player in Foden. Even Liverpool who has many similar values to Utd haven't had a history with youth players like ours.
Attacking football should indeed be a prerequisite for every top team in existence, however, that isn't the case. Atletico has done fantastically well with Simeone but that football wouldn't fly at a club like Utd. Similarly, I have never looked at Chelsea and seen a team that plays particularly exciting football. When I think of the great Chelsea side under Mourinho I saw an almost machine-like, robotic club that would score goals but brought very little flair or excitement. They were very much a club built on defensive stability first and foremost and again I don't think that's what Utd are about. There are different ways to skin a cat and I get that, both Klopp and Guardiola play different styles of attacking football but first and foremost a Manchester Utd manager should be thinking about how we can hurt our opponents rather than looking at how to nullify their threats.
Finally, the history Utd possess is unmatched. Through the ups and downs of the club, the Munich Air disaster and its roots as a socialist, working-class club, Utd has a unique link to the city of Manchester and to many of the fans. Obviously, many of those roots have been removed in modern football, but I think any prospective manager worth his sorts should be able to understand our heritage and use that to our advantage. It's what makes this club special personally.
Anyway part of the issue with the 'Utd way' is the amount of ambiguity surrounding the term (or phrase) but I think intrinsically they are our core values and they should be maintained at every level of the club. Some may disagree but once you take the romanticism out of the club in all capacities then you are just left with a plastic shell akin to Chelsea or City and I don't see any reason why I'd support Utd over them at that stage.
Great post, couldn't agree more.
Because I think fundamentally he plays a game that sets out to nullify his opponent's strengths more so than capitalising upon his own team's threats/advantages. Conte is a world-class manager I wouldn't doubt that, but I just think on a fundamental level he doesn't match the core values this club should maintain that I set out in the post above.
The ‘DNA’ at times these days has meant Did Not Attack. I used to watch United in the 60’s with the legends playing and it was attack minded. I remember Steve Coppell was asked when he played how he got his crosses to be so accurate and he replied ‘ I just smash it across and expect someone to be there’. It wasn’t as technical back in the day other than kick their best player and run at them. Too complicated today. You can‘t score by passing the ball sideways in your own half. I often wonder how the old formation would fare in todays game. Five forwards, a right half, centre half, left half, two full backs that never went over the halfway line.
Well said...I have to admit that during Van Gaal and Mourinho period the mood around the club was very difficult to accept...the feel good factor of OGS taking over from Mourinho was similar to when when Darth Vader was put to rest in Star Wars..pun intended. OGS has clearly turned the atmosphere around at the club BUT as much as I like the guy I´m afraid he´s does not have many chances left but I would none the less love if he would silence doubters like myself and prove us wrong. There is no club that can match United´s record of promoting youth and that is for me the main aspect of what we are as a club. Looking at the current squad one could argue that the impact of McTominey,Rashford and Greenwood has surpassed many of the stars bought at a heavy price by the club. Hopefully we will take steps to in the future to continue this trend despite who the manager is.
What United DNA did SAF have? He has never played or coached in England. Probably never ever been to OT before.
Would get taken apart like Liverpool did to us.