Does having 'united DNA' matter in management selection? If so, what is it?

Lentwood said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but we don't have any to continue with or build on.
 
United DNA apparently is about being a crony of Sir Alex and class of 92.
 
Grande said:
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.
Click to expand...
What bad thing did Moyes, LVG and Mourinho do exactly, other than apparently not talk to the desk lady? And did Ole really go talk to the desk lady 1st thing? Does the desk lady report this to the MEN or something?
Anyway, this is an example of how the good ole boy network operates. Suddenly, it's important that the manager talk regularly to the tea lady.
 
It is easy. You can define that as the ability of a United manager to do a cultural reboot.
 
The phrase “United DNA“ or “United Way” is a way of expressing fear of change and a longing for the days of SAF when we used to win all the time. If pressed, its devotees will mention the two sacraments of attacking football and promoting youth. The current champion of these nostalgics favours a five defenders plus two DCMs counter-attacking formation and fielded two forwards with a combined age of 71 at the weekend.
 
fastwalker said:
So what exactly is 'United DNA' and does it even matter as long as we win things?
Click to expand...

Yes. It matters.

It’s not some esoteric undefinable.

It’s bringing on an attacker and not a defender in the 82nd minute at 2-2

It’s signing a young player that may stay forever over a player that will see out his days here.

It’s having players that engage with the community without reward (See Valencia vs Di Maria).

It’s - and this has been lost - accepting that winning lots of games 3-2 is better than winning more 2-0.

It’s inviting jeopardy and embracing uncontrollable elements.

I could go on. But I freely admit I didn’t like Pep Barcelona. Nor do I like Pep City. I DO like how Klopps Liverpool play football. They play the United way. It’s a gut wrenching admission but they’re the same. Their historic sides were boring as feck. They don’t have an enjoyable ‘way’ but by god they have a modern version of the ‘United Way’. It’s a bit hoofy but it’s pretty exciting. They have great players that play on the front foot. Aggressively. It’s not conservative or guarded.

We have all of the sales pitch and none of the application at the moment. We have the players but not the manager. LVG and Jose put results first. I *hope* that Ten Haag would be a halfway house Between ole and those two.

Thats it.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Yes. It matters.

It’s not some esoteric undefinable.

It’s bringing on an attacker and not a defender in the 82nd minute at 2-2

It’s signing a young player that may stay forever over a player that will see out his days here.

It’s having players that engage with the community without reward (See Valencia vs Di Maria).

It’s - and this has been lost - accepting that winning lots of games 3-2 is better than winning more 2-0.

It’s inviting jeopardy and embracing uncontrollable elements.

I could go on. But I freely admit I didn’t like Pep Barcelona. Nor do I like Pep City. I DO like how Klopps Liverpool play football. They play the United way. It’s a gut wrenching admission but they’re the same. Their historic sides were boring as feck. They don’t have an enjoyable ‘way’ but by god they have a modern version of the ‘United Way’. It’s a bit hoofy but it’s pretty exciting. They have great players that play on the front foot. Aggressively. It’s not conservative or guarded.

We have all of the sales pitch and none of the application at the moment. We have the players but not the manager. LVG and Jose put results first. I *hope* that Ten Haag would be a halfway house Between ole and those two.

Thats it.
Click to expand...

That sounds like the Alex Ferguson years rather than anything specific to United. Clubs change - as you mention, Klopp plays a more aggressive type of football than the great Liverpool sides of the 70s and 80s, while Wenger‘s teams were very different from the “1-0 to the Arsenal” sides of George Graham. I’d agree that United should eschew Mourinho-style football nihilism and try to be enjoyable to watch (although even the latter is subjective) but, beyond that, I don’t think there is much to the United Way/DNA than having the ambition, as Fergie and Busby did, to strive to win the biggest prizes. I fear we are currently a long way from that level of drive and determination at the moment with its endless “progress” under a smiling, happy to be there amateur.
 
MoskvaRed said:
That sounds like the Alex Ferguson years rather than anything specific to United. Clubs change - as you mention, Klopp plays a more aggressive type of football than the great Liverpool sides of the 70s and 80s, while Wenger‘s teams were very different from the “1-0 to the Arsenal” sides of George Graham. I’d agree that United should eschew Mourinho-style football nihilism and try to be enjoyable to watch (although even the latter is subjective) but, beyond that, I don’t think there is much to the United Way/DNA than having the ambition, as Fergie and Busby did, to strive to win the biggest prizes. I fear we are currently a long way from that level of drive and determination at the moment with its endless “progress” under a smiling, happy to be there amateur.
Click to expand...

No, I think it predates Ferguson.

I’m old as feck. Old enough to nod along as my dad told me we needed to sack that Scottish guy.

But we’ve always been a club that tries to win every match. To lose a few matches because we tried to win. That’s a baseline.

Of course Fergie got pragmatic at times. But 100% we could all agree he started the hardest matches willing to take a 0-0 but hopeful of a 1-0.

Pep is anti United DNA. Klopp embodies it. We missed out.

I’d rather keep Ole until One of Liverpool and City finish a cycle than trade out ‘Top’ managers like Conte and _____ nobody and chase.

Keep our values. Try and get Ten Haag. He can shape our team to fit his DNA. We can shape him to fit our DNA.
 
MoskvaRed said:
That sounds like the Alex Ferguson years rather than anything specific to United. Clubs change - as you mention, Klopp plays a more aggressive type of football than the great Liverpool sides of the 70s and 80s, while Wenger‘s teams were very different from the “1-0 to the Arsenal” sides of George Graham. I’d agree that United should eschew Mourinho-style football nihilism and try to be enjoyable to watch (although even the latter is subjective) but, beyond that, I don’t think there is much to the United Way/DNA than having the ambition, as Fergie and Busby did, to strive to win the biggest prizes. I fear we are currently a long way from that level of drive and determination at the moment with its endless “progress” under a smiling, happy to be there amateur.
Click to expand...
TRUTH bro sad but true. !! To hear Mr. Smiley mention "the United way" and "United DNA" makes me cringe.
 
TrustInJanuzaj said:
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.
Click to expand...

Grande said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, good posts both. Apologies for the late reply, been busy today.

Using an attacking brand of football and promoting youth is fine when it's a contributing factor to the club's success, but where do you draw the line? For example: If it becomes apparent that a more defensive, more pragmatic method is likelier to bring success on the pitch, do we immediately adopt that approach, dispensing with the fun to watch but less-successful United Way?

If Conte signed tomorrow and built a dynasty that lasted a decade or more, winning league and CL titles along the way, his brand of football would become the new United Way. The players used during those years would automatically be loved, whether they came through the academy or Cambodia. Why? Because they were quality players.

For me, people today remember the 'United Way' primarily because it brought success to the club, the attractive football on offer secondary. There would be no United DNA without a successful history to support it. How they went bout achieving that success is unimportant as, let's face it, the end justifies the means.

Just my opinion.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
No, I think it predates Ferguson.

I’m old as feck. Old enough to nod along as my dad told me we needed to sack that Scottish guy.

But we’ve always been a club that tries to win every match. To lose a few matches because we tried to win. That’s a baseline.

Of course Fergie got pragmatic at times. But 100% we could all agree he started the hardest matches willing to take a 0-0 but hopeful of a 1-0.

Pep is anti United DNA. Klopp embodies it. We missed out.

I’d rather keep Ole until One of Liverpool and City finish a cycle than trade out ‘Top’ managers like Conte and _____ nobody and chase.

Keep our values. Try and get Ten Haag. He can shape our team to fit his DNA. We can shape him to fit our DNA.
Click to expand...

In this era of 90+ and even 100 point finishes, you need to try to win every game anyway. Pep certainly does, although, like you, I prefer Klopp’s brand of football.

I think the club would best be served by an iconoclast at the moment, kind of like how Howard Wilkinson at Leeds took down the photos of the Revie team. No other club is so in thrall to a romanticised version of its own history.
 
MoskvaRed said:
In this era of 90+ and even 100 point finishes, you need to try to win every game anyway. Pep certainly does, although, like you, I prefer Klopp’s brand of football.

I think the club would best be served by an iconoclast at the moment, kind of like how Howard Wilkinson at Leeds took down the photos of the Revie team. No other club is so in thrall to a romanticised version of its own history.
Click to expand...

Liverpool were. Newcastle are. Leeds are. Villa are almost there. Arsenal fans are.

We’re only asking for front foot football. That’s it.

Edit : I’d rather finish 3rd and win a CL playing expansive football that all can enjoy, than win a League and CL double with lots of 70% possession and 2-0 football that bores people to tears.

I watch football for the enjoyment. Not the result.
 
Last edited:
TrustInJanuzaj said:
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.
Click to expand...
Conte is a negative manager... His team last season were the 3rd highest scorers in the top 5 leagues. His Chelsea team scored 85 goals on their way to the league title which Ole hasn't got anywhere near. Where is this evidence that Ole has promoted positive and attacking style of football?

Where is the evidence that Ole has promoted a family culture around the club? These are just meaningless cliches.. The players have been leaking to journalists all week that they think the coaching and management set up is a shambles, and you want to convince me Ole has instilled a family culture where the players buy into our history and ethos (whatever that means).

Ole's genuinely promoted 1 academy players to the first team in Greenwood in 3 years, which to be fair under other managers he probaby have had to wait longer to get opportunities (or gone on loan), but it's hardly an incredible record he has.

It's pure arrogance to think Tuchel and Conte can win league titles and champions leagues with Chelsea but they're not fit to do so at Manchester United. And that sort of arrogance is one of the reasons why we've been an abject failure for 9 years running.
 
Dominos said:
Conte is a negative manager... His team last season were the 3rd highest scorers in the top 5 leagues. His Chelsea team scored 85 goals on their way to the league title which Ole hasn't got anywhere near. Where is this evidence that Ole has promoted positive and attacking style of football?

Where is the evidence that Ole has promoted a family culture around the club? These are just meaningless cliches.. The players have been leaking to journalists all week that they think the coaching and management set up is a shambles, and you want to convince me Ole has instilled a family culture where the players buy into our history and ethos (whatever that means).

Ole's genuinely promoted 1 academy players to the first team in Greenwood in 3 years, which to be fair under other managers he probaby have had to wait longer to get opportunities (or gone on loan), but it's hardly an incredible record he has.

It's pure arrogance to think Tuchel and Conte can win league titles and champions leagues with Chelsea but they're not fit to do so at Manchester United. And that sort of arrogance is one of the reasons why we've been an abject failure for 9 years running.
Click to expand...
Just because I don’t want Conte doesn’t mean I want Ole either at this point.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Yes. It matters.

It’s not some esoteric undefinable.

It’s bringing on an attacker and not a defender in the 82nd minute at 2-2

It’s signing a young player that may stay forever over a player that will see out his days here.

It’s having players that engage with the community without reward (See Valencia vs Di Maria).

It’s - and this has been lost - accepting that winning lots of games 3-2 is better than winning more 2-0.

It’s inviting jeopardy and embracing uncontrollable elements.

I could go on. But I freely admit I didn’t like Pep Barcelona. Nor do I like Pep City. I DO like how Klopps Liverpool play football. They play the United way. It’s a gut wrenching admission but they’re the same. Their historic sides were boring as feck. They don’t have an enjoyable ‘way’ but by god they have a modern version of the ‘United Way’. It’s a bit hoofy but it’s pretty exciting. They have great players that play on the front foot. Aggressively. It’s not conservative or guarded.

We have all of the sales pitch and none of the application at the moment. We have the players but not the manager. LVG and Jose put results first. I *hope* that Ten Haag would be a halfway house Between ole and those two.

Thats it.
Click to expand...
The issue with these sorts of posts are they assume these qaulities are in any way unique to United, and not just natural for a top team going for trophies. Do Liverpool, Chelsea and City shut up shop at 2-2 rather than trying to get a win? Of course not, they try to win every game because that's what league winning teams managed by competent managers do. Antonio Conte hasn't won 5 league titles because he'd rather draw games than win them. He didn't get 93 premier league points with a team that finished 10th the previous seasons by playing for draws. It's pure arrogance to think United are something special compared to all the other top teams in Europe.

Ferguson went on a 14 league match clean sheet run.. Do you think he was sat on the bench at that time thinking "jeez I wish we were winning these games 4-3 instead, I'm betraying the fans and the club by not conceding any goals". Absolutely absurd that you think it's a neccessity of the club to win games narrowly by conceding loads of goals.

Our 2 big name strikers have a combined aged of 70 under a "United DNA" manager. Ferguson signs younger and older players, Liverpool sign younger and older players, City sign younger and older players, Chelsea sign younger and older players, Barca sign younger and older players, Madrid sign younger and older players, Inter sign younger and older players. There is absolutely nothing unique to United about our transfer strategy now or in the past, top clubs sign a mix of experience and youth. There's absolutely no reason for that to change if we appoint any of the current elite managers in the game.
 
Dominos said:
The issue with these sorts of posts are they assume these qaulities are in any way unique to United, and not just natural for a top team going for trophies. Do Liverpool, Chelsea and City shut up shop at 2-2 rather than trying to get a win? Of course not, they try to win every game because that's what league winning teams managed by competent managers do. Antonio Conte hasn't won 5 league titles because he'd rather draw games than win them. He didn't get 93 premier league points with a team that finished 10th the previous seasons by playing for draws. It's pure arrogance to think United are something special compared to all the other top teams in Europe.

Ferguson went on a 14 league match clean sheet run.. Do you think he was sat on the bench at that time thinking "jeez I wish we were winning these games 4-3 instead, I'm betraying the fans and the club by not conceding any goals". Absolutely absurd that you think it's a neccessity of the club to win games narrowly by conceding loads of goals.

Our 2 big name strikers have a combined aged of 70 under a "United DNA" manager. Ferguson signs younger and older players, Liverpool sign younger and older players, City sign younger and older players, Chelsea sign younger and older players, Barca sign younger and older players, Madrid sign younger and older players, Inter sign younger and older players. There is absolutely nothing unique to United about our transfer strategy now or in the past, top clubs sign a mix of experience and youth. There's absolutely no reason for that to change if we appoint any of the current elite managers in the game.
Click to expand...

Nope.

I’m anti-Ole and Pro culture. He doesn’t have the tactical acumen to retain our culture at a high level.
 
RedRover said:
Under Sir Alex, you might say that "United DNA" (if such a vacuous concept can be nailed down) was winning, not accepting mediocrity and expecting high standards. Seems its changed.

It's total and utter bollocks - just like "the United way" rubbish people trot out. It's nostalgia, looking back at what was instead of looking forward and a high handed way of suggesting that United should be ran differently from other top clubs, many of whom have at least as much history.

It's also being shamelessly used by the current manager to remind everyone he used to be popular as a player to buy him more time.
Click to expand...
Its mainly Ole that mentions 'its in our DNA' and 'United way'. Hes got the fixation with it.
 
TrustInJanuzaj said:
Just because I don’t want Conte doesn’t mean I want Ole either at this point.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, if Conte came in and got us 93 points scoring 85 goals that would be unacceptable to you because those points and goals were not acquired with "United DNA"?

If people have a good reason as to why Conte couldn't replicate his success at other clubs here, then fair enough, but I've not really heard one. Like with any manager, you need to get the players recruitment right. However, we're no more likely to get the player recruitment right under a sub-par manager, or a "United DNA" manager. So you may as well try get things right under a coach who has a track record of delivering success.
 
It is a term primarily rooted in nostalgia, which, to be fair, is a powerful force in football and sport more generally. It means having played for United during Sir Alex's time in charge and therefore having been sprinkled with the magic dust of the greatest era in the club's history.

Bruce, Ince, Blanc, Hughes, Neville, Robson, Giggs, Rooney, Phelan and Solskjaer have "United DNA".

Guardiola, Tuchel, Ten Hag, Flick, Klopp, Zidane, Conte, Nagelsmann etc do not have United DNA and are therefore completely unsuited for the job of Manchester United manager.
 
wolvored said:
Its mainly Ole that mentions 'its in our DNA' and 'United way'. Hes got the fixation with it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I think it suits him to peddle it, since his connection to the clubs last consistently succesful era is about the only thing he has which a plethora of other, more suitably qualified managers don't.
 
Dominos said:
Conte is a negative manager... His team last season were the 3rd highest scorers in the top 5 leagues. His Chelsea team scored 85 goals on their way to the league title which Ole hasn't got anywhere near. Where is this evidence that Ole has promoted positive and attacking style of football?

Where is the evidence that Ole has promoted a family culture around the club? These are just meaningless cliches.. The players have been leaking to journalists all week that they think the coaching and management set up is a shambles, and you want to convince me Ole has instilled a family culture where the players buy into our history and ethos (whatever that means).

Ole's genuinely promoted 1 academy players to the first team in Greenwood in 3 years, which to be fair under other managers he probaby have had to wait longer to get opportunities (or gone on loan), but it's hardly an incredible record he has.

It's pure arrogance to think Tuchel and Conte can win league titles and champions leagues with Chelsea but they're not fit to do so at Manchester United. And that sort of arrogance is one of the reasons why we've been an abject failure for 9 years running.
Click to expand...

Any myth around Ole is a nonsense.

Totally agree with the bold part. Conte won the league and Tuchel won the Champions League with squads no better than what United have now. The difference is they could implement and coach a system which the players not only understood, but gets the best out of them. This is where Ole is lacking. There is no style or pattern of play and it's clear the players are not being properly coached to play to a system.

We look no more organised as a side than when he arrived and he remains reliant on good players (of which we have a fair few, especially going forward) winning games with bits of individual quality. His lack of tactical ability is obvious when he fails to address glaring issues during games, which suggests he doesn't know how to make changes to change what's happening on the pitch.
 
The only part of United tradition we are currently on course to replicate is 26 years without a league title. Just get the best man available who is not a has been and back him.
 
PR term used by ole to keep himself in the job. Most of his actions are against the United way eg he usually only signs established stars vs finding potential and turning them world class or helping players step up a level, the ones he has signed in the last two categories are pretty much doomed.

Does he really develop and give youth a chance? Apart from Greenwood, nope.

Does he play attacking football? No.
 
RedRover said:
Indeed. I think it suits him to peddle it, since his connection to the clubs last consistently succesful era is about the only thing he has which a plethora of other, more suitably qualified managers don't.
Click to expand...
Yes I think he genuinely believes he will turn into Fergie mkII if given years at the club.
 
Dominos said:
Just to be clear, if Conte came in and got us 93 points scoring 85 goals that would be unacceptable to you because those points and goals were not acquired with "United DNA"?

If people have a good reason as to why Conte couldn't replicate his success at other clubs here, then fair enough, but I've not really heard one. Like with any manager, you need to get the players recruitment right. However, we're no more likely to get the player recruitment right under a sub-par manager, or a "United DNA" manager. So you may as well try get things right under a coach who has a track record of delivering success.
Click to expand...
Obviously if Conte could be that degree of good then he would clearly be playing some half decent stuff and that would potentially mitigate some of the other factors. I’d still want him to be using our best youth players though like Rashford and Greenwood and I’d want to see us implementing a clear system too.
 
It basically means providing opportunities to young talents, taking a holistic approach to squad replenishment, and playing in a way that takes it to the opposition using exciting wing play.

It doesn't need to be an internal candidate or a club legend, but getting results 'the right way' is the most important part of the 'United DNA' .
 
United seriously sometimes looks like a third world country still mesmerized by a pseudo ideology of it's founder (Fergie) and making people blindly follow some undefinable, vague objective and calling it the ultimate truth.
Sad to say, this club looks like a third world struggling country.
 
Jibbs said:
United seriously sometimes looks like a third world country still mesmerized by a pseudo ideology of it's founder (Fergie) and making people blindly follow some undefinable, vague objective and calling it the ultimate truth.
Sad to say, this club looks like a third world struggling country.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely nailed it there sadly
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
It’s - and this has been lost - accepting that winning lots of games 3-2 is better than winning more 2-0.
Click to expand...

is this a serious point? It cant be, it just cant be.

You are telling me the only team in my lifetime to lose a title on Goal Difference would rather win 3-2 than 2-0 more often than not?
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Yes. It matters.

It’s not some esoteric undefinable.

It’s bringing on an attacker and not a defender in the 82nd minute at 2-2

It’s signing a young player that may stay forever over a player that will see out his days here.

It’s having players that engage with the community without reward (See Valencia vs Di Maria).

It’s - and this has been lost - accepting that winning lots of games 3-2 is better than winning more 2-0.

It’s inviting jeopardy and embracing uncontrollable elements.
Click to expand...

To me all of that just reads as "smart and ambitious football club". The last two points were never true imo.
 
If we are having such a hard time defining it, it might just be made up and it doesn't exist.
 
TrustInJanuzaj said:
Not according to my definitions set out in this thread.
Click to expand...


TrustInJanuzaj said:
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.
Click to expand...

Barcelona and Bayern Munich do that. Most successful football clubs do that. Its not that specific. It just seems like basic requirements for long term success.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.