Some things I disagree with:
1) we had some good spells last season but some awful ones. Losing 7-0 at home to Liverpool a new low for this club.
2) Casimero is not a good signing for £60m plus huge wages when his legs were gone. He is fast becoming a liability. Antony also a waste, we hugely overpaid for him. Onana was v expensive when David Raya was half the price and a great sweeper and possibly better shot stopper. We can judge Mount as many have seen a lot of him. Dont see how he solves our big problems
3) There is no DOF, as is clear from the fact that ETH seems to have final say and most of his signings came from Ajax or had time in Dutch league
4) ARe his tactics being pragmatic or just not working? No idea. not sure anyone does, which is part of the problem. Wolves cut us apart at will. Lets not forget that
5) his overplaying of core squad last season was raised even before we got a load more injuries
Fair points, but overall I do not see so much disagreement. Just to reiterate, of course there are things to be critical about when it comes to his management. Also I want to point out that despite the threads having been merged since, my post was made in the "sack or keep ETH" thread and was most of all directed against the notion that sacking Ten Hag might be on the table, which it absolutely should not. Criticizing Ten Hag is always on the table.
1) Another poster has already pointed out the catastrophic Liverpool loss was away - not to excuse it. But despite bad spells and low points, last season was still a successful one overall and must be registered as that. Which is why it is so absolutely ludicrous to introduce the notion of sacking the manager at the start of a second season after a good first one.
Of course it is a problem that the very good spell which led to the overall success of last season has been followed by a poor spell, ending the season and then ongoing, which means there is no feeling of progress. Which is bad. But again I feel it is important to call out the elephant in the room coinciding with the bad spell: the club being put on sale and the arguable massively negative influence this has had on squad building and reinforcing since January, as well as on club atmosphere.
2) I do not believe Casemiro's legs are gone. I believe Casemiro takes his time to come into gear, he has the Real Madrid player arrogance and confidence of reserving the right to show up when it matters. Of course, at Man United now there is a stark difference to when it matters than what he had at Real. We do not have the kind of mojo Real have and which Casemiro has carried with him, with us right now it is much more of a daily struggle. But his class and quality have been vital for our team and will be again. In the squad mix, a player like him is massive. That our overall midfield is poor is not on his transfer.
I have agreed about Antony. In light of the ridiculous fee, that transfer was a blunder that is both on Ten Hag and on the club. I stand behind Onana and the decision to sign him. I am going to be positive about Mount until further notice, far too early to judge the transfer.
3) Here I have to disagree also in bold just on principle, the obvious fact is that
we have a DoF. It is curious how so many posters refuse to process this fact, and this stubbornness to find a factual basis for discussion makes me want to fight Murtough's corner, if only to stand up for his existence
In yesterday's press conference, Ten Hag has stated that transfers are 50/50 between him and the DoF, both having a veto. So on paper that is the DoF/manager balance as we currently strike it, which every club strikes in varying models. I have agreed extensively that in the sum of this balance, as we can discern it, the DoF's input comes across as lacking and the DoF does not seem strong enough. It also comes across as if Murtough is an extension of the club owners' weakness/unaccountability/disinterest/incompetence, whether by his own lack of competence and authority, or by force of circumstance, or both.
So if you want to put it like that - 'if this is what our DoF looks like we might as well have none' -, I am starting to agree.
4) I agree. I will say that the tactics are clearly working in parts of the games and then they are not. But there is only so long that Ten Hag can wring his hands about the team's inconsistency before he must find a way to fix it. Also it is problematic if the manager claims after every bad loss that the team is not following instructions. One would assume that if a player is not following instructions, you sub them right away, and I do not think I remember Ten Hag making a first half change once, for example. And if too many players are not following instructions to sub them all, repeatedly, it reflects badly on the manager's ability to do his job.
But there is so much trouble going on with the squad in the surroundings that we have to wait a while, and see. Ten Hag absolutely deserves some credit in the bank.
5) That is a problem with many top managers, most teams that are successful at top level play with a very consistent first 11, and require the consistent availability of a strong first 11 to be successful. See Klopp.
