This is the very definition of esoteric undefinable statements-
- It’s bringing on an attacker and not a defender in the 82nd minute at 2-2 - That has nothing to do with the 'United Way'. Thats just a more attacking manager. Or any manager based on what they define the team need. Maybe its good to get a draw sometimes. Sir Alex played for and was happy with a draw loads of times if that's all we needed. Are you saying when Liverpool sub on an attacker when they are drawing then you shout at the TV 'hey look they are doing it 'United Way!' No you dont. Why? Because it has nothing to do with it.
- It’s signing a young player that may stay forever over a player that will see out his days here. - Same as above. All teams do it so its nothing to do with the 'United Way'. Also all teams have academies. Do you think they dont wish for the youth players to end up in the first team? Of course the do. Do you not think its financially more viable to sign youth players. Of course it is. But football is not black and white. You sign who is best for the team to win trophies. Full stop. If thats an older player then thats what you do. And again Sir Alex did it loads of times - eh Van Persie? Berbatov
- It’s having players that engage with the community without reward (See Valencia vs Di Maria) - Again every single club do this. They do extensive background checks to make sure the player is not an arsehole. Sure everyone prefers a married, quiet, zen player over a a wild youtuber. But firstly thats not the age we live in anymore and secondly its just not feasible. What we gonna do? Hire from monasteries? And again Sir Alexs' players were no angels. Trust me. They weren't.
- It’s - and this has been lost - accepting that winning lots of games 3-2 is better than winning more 2-0. - See point 1. This is just an attacking manager. See Klopp. See loads of teams. This is not 'The United Way' its just football.
- It’s inviting jeopardy and embracing uncontrollable elements. - What?
This is exactly the grey nonsense that we are living in. Why are we just getting blanket statements about football and trying to live by them? Its crazy! I might as well add sht - Get the ball back. Stop the other team from scoring. Wear the official Kit. Dont sht on the pitch.
Would it come as a surprise to you if you were to learn that your genetic material is not unique to
you either? You share 50% of your DNA with your parents and your siblings. If you have blue eyes that doesn't mean no one else on the planet can have blue eyes. Barcelona's specific culture is intertwined with the idea of playing possession football (among a myriad of other things). That doesn't mean Ajax can't
also foster such a culture.
The number of people lining up in this thread to explain to everybody (as if we didn't already know) that United are not unique in any aspect is remarkable. And it's just as baffling that a metaphor which is used to connote a culture is treated as if it were a term in Analytic philosophy. A metaphor cannot be that by definition. That's why it's a fecking metaphor.
The identity of an organization is constituted by numerous
traits. Whether these traits (in isolation) are unique or not, you need to be familiar with this specific amalgam of them. Otherwise you are baffled and gobsmacked when the crowd starts chanting "attack" because you thought just having a lot of possession
is attacking, which is what happened to one of our hopeful successors. Or, you will take the team to Bondi Beach and cause complete mayhem, because you thought having the team mingle at beaches is kosher; because you've done it before at Everton. Or you'll think that "United can sign any player"; or you will go on bizarre rants about heritage and sabotage an entire season in service of your own ego.
People familiar with United are less likely to fall prey to some of these pitfalls; so
everything else being equal between two candidates, you pick the one who is, rather than the one who isn't. You can describe this familiarity in whichever terms you want, whether it's "United way" or "United DNA" or "One of us" it's completely irrelevant. People demanding precise descriptive content of the term are first demanding that it be something that it isn't, and then complaining that it isn't "Oh it's just a myth!".
Just as you would, between two footballers (all else being equal) pick the one who uses his weaker foot better. That's not to say that this is a necessary requirement, as there are plenty of one-footed footballers who are world class, nor is it to say that it's sufficient requirement, as there are plenty of ambidextrous folk who are hopeless at football. All it means, is that it's a plus for you to have this trait, and if everything else is equal that's an advantage for you over someone else who doesn't have it.
It would be the same for two managerial candidates. If they are
roughly the same according to all available objective indicators; then one being a member of the family (there's another metaphor, because belonging to a large group like that isn't a family in a denotative sense), familiar with the club, or indeed possessing 'United DNA' would have advantage over someone who doesn't.
Now we all know, that our current problem is precisely that Ole isn't
equal to his managerial alternatives. That he is in fact severely under-qualified to be at a job of this magnitude, and that this makes him the wrong choice
despite having 'United DNA'. It doesn't follow from this that we should commit complete cultural suicide.
