Erik ten Hag | 2022/23 & 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alex99 said:
Have I mentioned interference?

He shouldn't have been in a position where is transfer recommendations held such weight. He's not a scout or director of football. It shouldn't be his job to identify players.

As always, people with no clue how a top club should be structured point at transfer fees as if the manager is the one negotiating transfers and handling the budget, and managers getting their own players as if that's not an obvious sign of a broken or non-existent recruitment structure.

As an example, Ten Hag quite clearly wanted a new centre back, but was told he couldn't have one unless Maguire left. The club then dragged out negotiations for the sales of Maguire and McTominay, chasing unrealistic fees, until the deals collapsed and we ended up keeping them and bringing in an aging Evans on a free. One of the main reasons we struggled to sell Maguire was because of his inflated wages, something Ten Hag had no say in. This is a huge restriction and entirely the fault of the Glazers.

Add in the budget restrictions to meet FFP, because of their mismanagement, that saw us scrabbling around sorting a loan for Amrabat too.

It is the Glazers' fault that Woodward was hired and kept in post for so long, and it is their fault that his replacement was his mate, Arnold. It is their fault we've been stuck with the likes of Martial, Lingard, Bailly, McTominay and Pereira, long past their usefulness.
Click to expand...
Overall you are right. But we shouldn't forget that EtH himself wanted to have this control over transfers and refused to work with Rangnick who as an advisor to the DOF would have strengthened the DOF over the manager. This is why EtH has to be held responsible for bringing in wrong players.

Signing a new good CB wouldn't have been an issue if United hadn't wasted so much money to sign Mount who isn't needed.

Freeing more transfer budget by better selling (and giving the players contracts that keep them open to be sold) would be nice, but when you are allowed to spend 200m per season and still cry about not having enough money, then you just wasted your money.
 
stefan92 said:
Overall you are right. But we shouldn't forget that EtH himself wanted to have this control over transfers and refused to work with Rangnick who as an advisor to the DOF would have strengthened the DOF over the manager. This is why EtH has to be held responsible for bringing in wrong players.

Signing a new good CB wouldn't have been an issue if United hadn't wasted so much money to sign Mount who isn't needed.

Freeing more transfer budget by better selling (and giving the players contracts that keep them open to be sold) would be nice, but when you are allowed to spend 200m per season and still cry about not having enough money, then you just wasted your money.
Click to expand...

That is just another failing of the club though. Ten Hag might not be the right man, but no manager is going to thrive the way things are.
 
Alex99 said:
That is just another failing of the club though. Ten Hag might not be the right man, but no manager is going to thrive the way things are.
Click to expand...
I agree in so far as the club should realize that giving him this power was a mistake before signing a new manager so things can go better for the next manager. Still stays EtH's fault for failing at something he apparently specifically requested
 
Alex99 said:
As an example, Ten Hag quite clearly wanted a new centre back, but was told he couldn't have one unless Maguire left. The club then dragged out negotiations for the sales of Maguire and McTominay, chasing unrealistic fees, until the deals collapsed and we ended up keeping them and bringing in an aging Evans on a free. One of the main reasons we struggled to sell Maguire was because of his inflated wages, something Ten Hag had no say in.
Click to expand...

The reports I've read are that the deal for Maguire was 30m but he wanted a 7m payoff from United. So 23m for United. Doesn't strike me as a particularly unrealistic deal.

As for Evans, not an ideal signing... but he's the fifth center back on the squad. How many center backs does United need?!?
 
ti vu said:
This is a poor argument.

While I myself excused injury crisis and inconsistency in performance thus bad result due to fatigue from last season; there is no excuse from not having an identity after over a season in charge. I also excuse him for the money spent, the profile of player (the amount because lack of support/alternative provided from the recruitment team), but not the playing style when he has enough material to work with.

After 2 summer windows signings players ETH picked to better adapt to his vision/system, we're so far from what you would expect . That's on ETH. The worst Klopp Liverpool still played like Klopp's Liverpool, but making mistake. Not that suddenly Klopp's Liverpool would play like Mourinho team. That 7-0 and late surge in form at the end last season was not some outliner even in a poorer season. Whereas under ETH we rarely have win with big scoreline, and the way we play for majority of ETH tenure can be mistaken for the worse kind of Oleball. There is a difference between expectation of result/achievement and expectation of performance/playing style. After 2 summer windows, familiar players ETH picked to better adapt to his vision/system, we're so far from what you would expect from the time given. That's on ETH.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every team under every United manager has shown glimpses of identify and reverted back to sh*te eventually. Pretty much Every player has failed after joining us. That’s not a manager issue, that’s a club issue. If the same thing keeps happening, only an idiot will continue to do the same thing, but it looks like we have a healthy amount of idiots running the club.

Why do you think every United manager since SAF has been accused of the exact same thing , including the team lacking identities only for Manchester United but the same managers have been fine at stamping their identity other clubs?

Klopp hasn’t managed our cluster f**k club so nobody knows how much he could stamp his authority with everything else that’s going on around.

I’m not saying you are one of these people, but I Honestly find it so stupid that people still think you can plonk any manager into a dysfunctional club like United and think it will work out when there’s so much evidence to the contrary..

We see lesgue winning managers sacked months after winning the league. Teams can capitulate for numerous reasons that have little to do with the manager. United is in perpetual crisis mode, every manager is our only hope of fixing all ills and if they don’t the rot within the club eventually drags everybody down.

Most agree players haven’t downed tools, they are just demoralised for different reasons. The future of United with or without ETH looks unclear, that alone would unhinge the strongest of teams.

You can’t harness excellence in , at best , an environment of mediocrity.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
The reports I've read are that the deal for Maguire was 30m but he wanted a 7m payoff from United. So 23m for United. Doesn't strike me as a particularly unrealistic deal.

As for Evans, not an ideal signing... but he's the fifth center back on the squad. How many center backs does United need?!?
Click to expand...

The club spent ages chasing much higher amounts, and the reason £30 million wasn't viable was precisely because of the structural failings that led to Maguire being signed for the ludicrous fee he was signed for, and being given the daft wages he was given. We needed to sell him for FFP, and £30 million less his pay off would have made the situation worse, not better.

Evans has been left starting games because our other options have been injured. Do you really not see how being forced to start your fourth and fifth choice centre backs (often alongside a makeshift left back) is a huge problem?
 
Alex99 said:
Evans has been left starting games because our other options have been injured. Do you really not see how being forced to start your fourth and fifth choice centre backs (often alongside a makeshift left back) is a huge problem?
Click to expand...

It's a problem, but it has nothing to do with United having a bad structure or the Glazers being bad or whatever. Most clubs don't have a fifth center back. Most clubs don't have a fourth center back who can be relied on to play often. That's why they're the fourth center back.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
It's a problem, but it has nothing to do with United having a bad structure or the Glazers being bad or whatever. Most clubs don't have a fifth center back. Most clubs don't have a fourth center back who can be relied on to play often. That's why they're the fourth center back.
Click to expand...

How can you not see that these are all part of the structural failings?

A proper structure (assuming the desired formation is a back four and not a back three/five) sees two proper starting centre backs, a more than competent third choice that can be reliably called upon as a regular rotation option, and a fourth choice that can be relied upon to provide adequate back up when needed.

It does not see the second starter (Varane) be good but not quite in the right profile, the third choice (Lindelof) not really fit it at all, and the fourth choice (Maguire) be the former captain, brought in for an eye-watering fee, and on huge wages far exceeding his status in the squad.

Maguire probably fits the bill as a fourth or third choice attributes-wise, but everything else about him (wages, historical status, etc.) is horrifically out of sync.

United started the summer targeting a new starting centre back, with the clear intention of relegating Varane to third choice, Lindelof to fourth, and selling Maguire. Multiple structural failings saw that plan scrapped.
 
ArmaDino said:
SAF struggled even against ordinary Spanish team, let alone good ones. I don't understand why this is such a controversial topic.
Click to expand...
:lol: If you're going to use this ridiculous, selective logic, ETH is struggling against even the crappiest teams he's facing. So what does that tell us about him? We beat Barca that one time in Europa league and that's somehow supposed to mean something but all the losses and humiliations supposedly don't.
 
Rista said:
:lol: If you're going to use this ridiculous, selective logic, ETH is struggling against even the crappiest teams he's facing. So what does that tell us about him? We beat Barca that one time in Europa league and that's somehow supposed to mean something but all the losses and humiliations supposedly don't.
Click to expand...

Just in case we forget so did LVG, Jose and Ole. Even Ralf did too.

That should tell you more about the players than the manager.
 
Alex99 said:
Who are these world class managers that can work through the Glazer bullshit?

Guardiola and Klopp would certainly struggle with the restrictions Ten Hag has faced. Who else is there?
Click to expand...

Guy splashed 400m in two windows and people are saying the board is restricting him.
 
el3mel said:
Guy splashed 400m in two windows and people are saying the board is restricting him.
Click to expand...

400m badly spent because of a lack of structure while being unable to replace sub-par players is very much a restriction.
 
el3mel said:
We already replied on that multiple times. If that happened, people would moan that the board is forcing players on him.
Click to expand...

The board shouldn't be deciding transfers either. A proper recruitment structure should be in place. It isn't.
 
Alex99 said:
The board shouldn't be deciding transfers either. A proper recruitment structure should be in place. It isn't.
Click to expand...

Then that proper recruitment structure would be blamed for forcing players on the manager.

Next ?
 
el3mel said:
Then that proper recruitment structure would be blamed for forcing players on the manager.

Next ?
Click to expand...
And it would be right to blame them and there would be less reason to blame EtH for the current short comings.

During his contract negotiations he obviously was able to demand certain aspects of the transfer decision process. He didn't demand a stronger recruitment team. He did demand more power for himself.

We who criticise him do acknowledge that the board shouldn't have given him this power, but it's still on him himself that he talked the talk but obviously can't walk the walk in that regard. He didn't even realize it after his first season but continued the same way in this summer, so he misjudged and he doesn't learn out of it.

That's why I agree with you that I see little hope for significant improvement under EtH
 
So the logic seems to be it‘s not Ten Hag’s fault that he made terrible transfer decisions? It’s the club’s fault for not preventing him from making those choices? Gotcha.

Next time I put on 20 pounds, I‘m going to blame my wife for allowing me to choose my own food.
 
el3mel said:
Then that proper recruitment structure would be blamed for forcing players on the manager.

Next ?
Click to expand...

The recruitment structure doesn't force players on anyone. They are the players. The manager should fit the profile to work with those players. If he doesn't get results, he'll be replaced.

If multiple managers don't, then you start looking at the recruitment structure.
 
Alex99 said:
The recruitment structure doesn't force players on anyone. They are the players. The manager should fit the profile to work with those players. If he doesn't get results, he'll be replaced.

If multiple managers don't, then you start looking at the recruitment structure.
Click to expand...

No if he doesn't get results, people like you will blame this imaginary structure for getting players for him rather than letting him choose the players that fit him. If he asks for a player and the recruitment team told him he's not good enough or way overpriced, people will riot and say the club is throwing the manager under the bus or refusing to pay money for him. Any excuse.

You're just searching for additional excuses to absolve the manager from the blame. You're literally blaming the board for getting him the players he asked for. How is that ?

Excuses..excuses.
 
el3mel said:
No if he doesn't get results, people like you will blame this imaginary structure for getting players for him rather than letting him choose the players that fit him. If he asks for a player and the recruitment team told him he's not good enough or way overpriced, people will riot and say the club is throwing the manager under the bus or refusing to pay money for him. Any excuse.

You're just searching for additional excuses to absolve the manager from the blame. You're literally blaming the board for getting him the players he asked for. How is that ?

Excuses..excuses.
Click to expand...

The structure wouldn't be imaginary. It would be real, like it is at a tons of other clubs.

With that structure in place, it'd be a lot easier to determine whether the shortcomings lay with the manager or the structure.

You clearly don't understand how modern clubs are structured and operate.
 
Alex99 said:
The structure wouldn't be imaginary. It would be real, like it is at a tons of other clubs.

With that structure in place, it'd be a lot easier to determine whether the shortcomings lay with the manager or the structure.

You clearly don't understand how modern clubs are structured and operate.
Click to expand...

I understand and I'm telling you again you're are searching for additional excuses to absolve the manager from the blame. If you we get this magnificent structure your are dreaming of and get an entire new board anyway, you will still blame them for restricting the manager and vetoing his choices. For now the board is just a ready scapegoat for the manager being shit or having awful transfer business. Get this structure and let it dictate transfers and you will still be blaming it for the manager failing.

Some of you will blame anything and anyone bar the manager.
 
el3mel said:
No if he doesn't get results, people like you will blame this imaginary structure for getting players for him rather than letting him choose the players that fit him. If he asks for a player and the recruitment team told him he's not good enough or way overpriced, people will riot and say the club is throwing the manager under the bus or refusing to pay money for him. Any excuse.

You're just searching for additional excuses to absolve the manager from the blame. You're literally blaming the board for getting him the players he asked for. How is that ?

Excuses..excuses.
Click to expand...
People are going beyond 'nuance' into defending simple contradictions in order to pre-emptively discredit or undercut any scenario where blame could be attributed to him; I don't know how much of it is contrarianism, how much is the cult of the manager, how much of it in some cases is a reaction to earlier situations where Woodward was playing head of recruitment.

The fact is, most managers aren't heavily involved in signings, beyond indicating technical preferences (where even then, SD will be involved in determining squad technical profiles, connected style of play) and then giving input when a player is decided upon. It's because we've been such a ramshackle outfit and reacted to this by appointing the manager as a kind of all-purpose saviour on the footballing side, that were in this situation now. 400 gets you less than 5 years ago, but it's still not insubstantial. He's been allowed to essentially purchase a team's worth of potential starters (Malacia and the 2nd string goalies aside) . Not being able to acquire De Jong, for external reasons, and not being able to splash another 100m on the perfect experienced striker or another, actual CM (there were a bunch available for around 50m of the up and comers, but he had to go and get Mount), isn't an excuse for this string of defeats and for the style; neither are injuries - with that kind of spend we should still be comfortably second behind Munich in that group and in 4th or there abouts, even with Licha and Shaw out, under a manager operating at 'par' level..
 
People as usual have ended up getting the wrong end of the stick with this whole structure thing now.

A structure in like in any major organisation, isn't primarily there to support it's employees. It's to support the organisation itself. It makes it easier to evaluate the performance of employees if you chop up roles into tangible functions, and you can then easily replace them.

A great DOF is good at telling whether a head coach is doing a good job with the way he's coaching the squad he's inherited. Whether the recruitment department is bringing through the right talent into the club. It's a high level job to hold the low level employees accountable and make the level below disposable at will.
 
el3mel said:
I understand and I'm telling you again you're are searching for additional excuses to absolve the manager from the blame. If you we get this magnificent structure your are dreaming of and get an entire new board anyway, you will still blame them for restricting the manager and vetoing his choices. For now the board is just a ready scapegoat for the manager being shit or having awful transfer business. Get this structure and let it dictate transfers and you will still be blaming it for the manager failing.

Some of you will blame anything and anyone bar the manager.
Click to expand...

You stating that people are looking for excuses doesn't make it true.

The reality is that we've been terribly run for at least a decade, and in all likelihood longer, it was just Fergie's brilliance masking it.

It is possible for ETH to be underperforming and for the lack of structure at the club to be a major contributing factor to that underformance. However, given we're now on our fifth underperformimg manager (sixth if you include Rangnick), it seems quite clear that the problems go beyond individual managers.
 
Skills said:
People as usual have ended up getting the wrong end of the stick with this whole structure thing now.

A structure in like in any major organisation, isn't primarily there to support it's employees. It's to support the organisation itself. It makes it easier to evaluate the performance of employees if you chop up roles into tangible functions, and you can then easily replace them.

A great DOF is good at telling whether a head coach is doing a good job with the way he's coaching the squad he's inherited. Whether the recruitment department is bringing through the right talent into the club. It's a high level job to hold the low level employees accountable and make the level below disposable at will.
Click to expand...

This is an important point, but they're two sides of the same coin.

A good structure provides an environment in which employees at all levels can thrive. As a result, it is then easy to identify where and why any failings are occurring, because no individual person/department has been left unsupported.

What is happening is a repeated confusion of what "support" means in this particular context. People think a manager choosing his own targets and having millions to spend on them is equal to proper support, when the reality is that they're an indicator of a flawed structure that's placed too much control in one area.
 
The first half against Copenhagen, we actually looked decent, with players playing with composure and good decision making, which gives me hope things will get better.

The injury situation aside, our defending has to get tighter. Players seem to switch off all the time which is infuriating.

I don’t think we can lay that on the manager’s plate, but no manager at MU will survive an extended string of losses. I expect we will improve.
 
Baxquux said:
People are going beyond 'nuance' into defending simple contradictions in order to pre-emptively discredit or undercut any scenario where blame could be attributed to him; I don't know how much of it is contrarianism, how much is the cult of the manager, how much of it in some cases is a reaction to earlier situations where Woodward was playing head of recruitment.

The fact is, most managers aren't heavily involved in signings, beyond indicating technical preferences (where even then, SD will be involved in determining squad technical profiles, connected style of play) and then giving input when a player is decided upon. It's because we've been such a ramshackle outfit and reacted to this by appointing the manager as a kind of all-purpose saviour on the footballing side, that were in this situation now. 400 gets you less than 5 years ago, but it's still not insubstantial. He's been allowed to essentially purchase a team's worth of potential starters (Malacia and the 2nd string goalies aside) . Not being able to acquire De Jong, for external reasons, and not being able to splash another 100m on the perfect experienced striker or another, actual CM (there were a bunch available for around 50m of the up and comers, but he had to go and get Mount), isn't an excuse for this string of defeats and for the style; neither are injuries - with that kind of spend we should still be comfortably second behind Munich in that group and in 4th or there abouts, even with Licha and Shaw out, under a manager operating at 'par' level..
Click to expand...

Who are they?

These are the players he's brought in. 5 or 6 players isn't a teams worth of starting players.

Potential Starters
Onana
Martinez
Casemiro
Mount
Hojlund
Antony

Frees
Evans
Eriksen

Backups
Malacia
Bayindir

Loans
Amrabat
Reguilon
Weghorst
Sabitzer
Dubravka
Butland

A lot people understand that this squad is unbalanced and for the most part lacking a lot of depth, quality and a lot more besides. It was before he came in and it still will be if he gets sacked. Not addressing the midfield area properly has been a huge let down for him as it would for most mamagers. But Ole ignored it too and so did Jose for the most part. Look where it got them.

We're looking at most of a team that wasn't good enough 3 or 4 years ago. This is how most of them have always been performing, patchy, fallling asleep at crucial moments, struggling to break teams down and general struggling against any kind of physical opposition.

Why would anyone think they'd be performing any differently now? Nothing will change unless there is a total overhaul of the squad, doesn't matter who is in charge these players for the most part aren't good enough.
 
el3mel said:
Some of you will blame anything and anyone bar the manager.
Click to expand...

Some might say that’s kind of ironic considering some of you can only see replacing the manager as the solution.

Incidentally , I haven’t read anybody say “ETH is 100% faultless”. The issue is you interpret a differing view completely wrong.

“There are structural issues at United for a decade and we are not giving our managers/players the best chance to harness a culture of success” is not the same as “The manager is not responsible for anything”.
 
Varane hasn’t played well. Sancho did not play well. Ronaldo didn’t play well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.