You're cherry picking stats there, why does the last 10 games matter? They also won 12 of the last 18. Took over with them in 19th place in November and finished 11th. They had one win in that first half of the season and ended up with their best points tally in 10 years. And the difference he made to their football was clear straight away, even if results didn't immediately follow. He made great improvements to their existing players, many who still play now. Shar, Joelinton, Almiron etc. They took that form into last season and finished top 4, not signing the likes of Casemiro etc for huge money but good signings for Newcastle nonetheless.
You talk as though ETH hasn't been backed, but really he's been so shit he's signed players he's worked with previously and it turned out he misjudged most of them and they aren't good enough. Something he himself insisted on to take the job. So should we have just not appointed him?
It's such a stupid argument because you're implying Ten Hag is the best manager around and nobody could have done better. Any sound minded person knows that isn't true.
How am I cherry picking stats? You said, and I quote:
they had the best form in the league for the rest of that season.
How can that possibly be true when their results under Howe that season were P27, W13, D5, L9 for a total of 44 points?
In the same time frame:
Manchester City: P27, W22, D4, L1 for a total of 70 points
Liverpool: P27, W22, D4, L1 for a total of 70 points
Tottenham: P27, W17, D4, L6 for a total of 55 points
Arsenal: P27, W16, D1, L10 for a total of 49 points
Chelsea: P27, W13, D9, L5 for a total of 48 points
It's impressive that they had the 6th best form, but 6th isn't "the best".
Howe has done a good job with Newcastle, but he's not an example of a manager working with a "shit CEO, shit DoF, shit scouts and weak squad mentality. Whilst needing to win and challenge for top 4 and cups from season 1" which you claimed him to be.
His goal for season one was keep them up. His goal for season two was a top half finish. He'll likely get away with finishing outside of the top four this season. He's already working without the same results-based pressure Ten Hag has.
When Howe came in, it was with a completely new structure (CEO, DoF, scouts) and he was afforded four first team players, at a cost of £90 million in the January window, as well as a fifth on loan.
To quote you again:
Eddie Howe. Because he did it at Newcastle who were in turmoil before even spending a penny, therefore all those aspects didn't come into play.
Not suggesting we appoint Howe, but there you go.
Howe's record "before even spending a penny" was P8, W1, D3, L4. Extending that to the end of the transfer window makes it P10, W2, D4, L4. They ended the transfer window still in the relegation zone.
It's almost like he needed to spend "a penny" or two before he was able to stop the "turmoil".
Then there's the small matter of a further £168 million being spent on another five first team signings last season, and another £128 million so far this season. All of this done within a proper transfer structure, which Ten Hag doesn't have.
Newcastle might not have "signed the likes of Casemiro" but they've spent £40 million on Guimaraes, £35 million on Botman, £63 million on Isak, £45 million on Gordon, £55 million on Tonali, £38 million on Barnes, and £35 million on Livramento, so it's not exactly like they've been scraping around the bargain bin.
Howe has done well to get a tune out of the likes of Almiron and Joelinton, but let's not pretend he hasn't been able to surround them with practically an entire new team, which will have certainly helped matters.
To requote a specific bit:
You talk as though ETH hasn't been backed, but really he's been so shit he's signed players he's worked with previously and it turned out he misjudged most of them and they aren't good enough. Something he himself insisted on to take the job. So should we have just not appointed him?
Properly backing a manager doesn't mean giving him free-reign to spend whatever he likes on whoever he likes. In fact, doing so is a sign of a shite structure and a complete lack of proper support. It's this lack of structure that prompted the other poster to bring up the CEO, DoF and scouts.
It's pretty much complete bollocks that he wanted total control over transfers. He just didn't want to be part of a club where players could be signed without his input. The rest of the quote, that is always conveniently forgotten, is: " I don't want to be the sole ruler, I stand for cooperation"
He's part of the process, and it seems a near certainty that we've given him too much power in that process, which is just another example of how shit the system we have in place is.
Even to humour you and agree that he did insist on full control, we absolutely shouldn't have appointed a manager that wanted that much power, and if we have, it is a sign of a shit structure that isn't set up to support the manager.
It's such a stupid argument because you're implying Ten Hag is the best manager around and nobody could have done better. Any sound minded person knows that isn't true.
And here we reach the issue with a good chunk of the Ten-Hag-Out brigade. I don't think that Eddie Howe at Newcastle is a comparable situation to Ten Hag at United, and that means I think "Ten Hag is the best manager around"?
How you've reached the conclusion that I think "Ten Hag is the best manager around and nobody could have done better" from a post pointing out that Eddie Howe isn't working in the same conditions as Ten Hag is, frankly, mental.
I'd be very surprised if he's still our manager in the new year given our performances so far this season and the run of games we've got coming up. There are definitely things he could have done better (and that includes whatever contribution he's had to our recruitment), but there have also been a number of things pretty much actively hindering him (again, including the recruitment structure) and will continue to hinder whoever replaces him unless things are allowed to drastically change. These things include implementing a proper footballing structure to get a proper handle on recruitment and being allowed to gut the squad of the players that aren't good enough and/or have a weak mentality.
It can be simultaneously true that Ten Hag hasn't been given the tools to succeed whilst also not necessarily being up to the task.