Improving structure of the club affects manager succession, meaning we shouldn't be hearing nonsense about giving managers 3 years and hundreds of millions to rebuild the team. Improving club structure should mean we're not giving managers free reign to sign dross like Antony, Hojlund and Mount.
However how does it explain a manager/coach being unable to coach his players to a decent standard? How does it explain being tactically outwitted? How does it explain falling out with players? How does it explain poor in game management? How does it explain getting thrashed 7-0? Or scoring a pathetic 18 games in 16 games?
No doubt our club is run by morons and it's shite. No doubt we have infrastructure in need of modernisation. But anyone waffling on about structure as a way to absolve the manager of blame for failing as a manager, is frankly talking out their arse. Ironically if our club had a better structure in place we'd have probably sacked Ten Hag by now because we'd have already had a list of suitable replacements
I've yet to see anyone actually argue that Ten Hag should get three years and hundreds of millions, but plenty that wanted him out two games into the season just pretended that's what was being argued when anyone expressed some sympathy for the situation and didn't call for his immediate firing. I agree, a proper structure stops those transfers and possibly even identifies a different manager entirely.
Tactics are an issue, as is game management, as is our blunt attack (although that can probably be included with tactics).
However, I'm not going to get too hung up on one freak result, or him falling out with a petulant idiot like Sancho who has barely ever performed for the club, and has a history of acting the cnut. Nor do I care too much about the rumours of a falling out with Varane, who is regularly injured, has been shite when he's played, and has apparently been eyeing up a move to Saudi since he was dropped.
The coaching thing is something I don't believe to be a fair criticism. People expect too much improvement from players who simply aren't good enough. Dalot and AWB, while still ineffective, have looked better for ETH than previous managers, Lindelof has arguably been steadier, and Ten Hag has managed to get Maguire and McTominay performing, despite their obvious shortcomings and obvious unsuitability to his system (however flawed that system may be).
People bring up Klopp and Liverpool, like they weren't still shite the season he joined, and not too hot until a few seasons after when they'd replaced half the squad and spent record fees on a goalkeeper and defender. People also like to bring up Newcastle, ignoring the massive amounts they've spent signing a whole starting line up of new senior players, and as if the "improved" players aren't the first ones used as excuses when Newcastle lose.
The ineffectiveness of the likes of Antony and now Hojlund are bigger concerns than average players that he inherited remaining average players, and that's more of a transfer issue than a coaching one, because you can at least see that they're doing what's asked of them (aside from scoring and creating goals).
He'd have probably had more success if we'd had a proper structure, although a club with a proper structure probably avoids hiring any of his predecessors, and of course, doesn't just sign the first player the manager names, for a daft fee, when looking at transfer targets.
There's probably not many that would be against firing him now, and even fewer if we lose to Liverpool next weekend.
