Won't make a difference.
Erik ten Hag | 2022/23 & 2023/24
- Thread starter sewey89
- Start date
- Status
Didn’t.
I think the hesitance was implied at being the strained relationship at that point, with us having tried to sign most of their players and even poach transfer targets of theirs. According to other articles he was a huge factor in the Antony transfer.
Kinda did. For someone who will not give in, no matter how much his points are disproved, he kinda ran up the white flag with the ‘ol “this is my last response” line.
Martinez, played for him.
Antony played for him.
Onana played for him.
Amrabat played for him.
Malacia was known to Ten Hag having played vs his Ajax side
We tried to sign De Jong who played for him. Only didn't because he didn't want to move.
That's control of transfers. Who else at the club would have said "Lets sign a ton of players that have played for you previously or in the Dutch league."?
It's an interesting interpretation of that summer especially when The Athletic and Whitwell also wrote this:
Also this; The Athletic reports on Pulisic:
https://theathletic.com/3515881/2022/08/17/christian-pulisic-manchester-united-usmnt/
https://theathletic.com/3515717/2022/08/17/pulisic-manchester-united-transfer/
Yes, another alternative that was likely a ten hag suggestion. However, not a right winger, as Whitwell later clarified in the article and thus unsuitable for the position ten hag actually wants.
Are you deliberately ignoring the bit that says "I don't want to be the sole ruler, I stand for cooperation..."?
The DoF has the same veto as he does. Which basically means he has no more control than Murtough, but the latter has absolutely no clue on which alternative to go for outside of Ten Hag's suggestions, as also implied by the Athletic. The one area we gave suggestions for someone else outside of Ten Hag's known quantities was at CB in summer one and at striker in summer 2. And for both positions ten hags choice look better than what was suggested to him (Pau was one suggestion over Licha, Goncalo Ramos was a suggestion over Hojlund).
..Signed Weghorst (Dutch), would have signed Arnautovic (history with ETH and Mclaren).
Much as I thought Ten Hag was a top manager, this lazy/simplistic approach to transfers rang alarm bells early on for me, and it seems like the concerns were well founded right now.
Antony is also unsuitable to the position Ten Hag wants. But most importantly, it's highly unlikely that you will have more than one player available that plays in particular position and in a specific role. I don't know if you are being naive and thinks that clubs have lists of identical players ready to be transferred or if you are just moving the goalposts at every opportunity.
Well Ten Hag wanted a right winger and Antony is a right winger so I'm going to assume safely that he was more of a suitable pick than Gakpo.
My point is clear, clubs should be able to present their own targets to a manager and they should be agreed upon mutually. The club has failed to provide alternatives in various positions and not just that, the budgetary sign-off for Antony was made at board level and Antony was unanimously agreed upon in a structure where there is joint control, not sole control. But the entirety of the blame has been rest upon the manager.
Antony is one transfer example of why the structure is bad. The Athletic actually caveats that Ten Hag himself was hesitant to go back to Ajax for players, and yet that's where they landed. Now, I hope it's not "naieve" to ponder why that's the case, and why we chronically feck up transfers over the last two decades.
So you are saying that Antony wasn't his favored option?
Quoting that article.
"Separately, Ten Hag felt he needed an additional attacker and though he had reservations about returning to Ajax, the target to gain universal agreement was Antony."
They all agreed on Antony
Im saying he was hesitant to turn to Ajax, there were no viable alternatives presented by the club, and the decision was then made to go balls deep for him, with budgetary sign-off ratified above him, as reported.
A club that can't table their own option for a right winger despite having a global database of scouts has a serious structural problem. You could argue Arnold drew the wrong conclusions in sacking Bout and Lawler and keeping Murtough for example.
Have you considered the idea that maybe the club tabled options and the manager chose to go with his favored option?
https://www.unitedinfocus.com/news/ten-hag-says-he-insisted-on-total-control-of-united-transfers/
Here's the source for people.
Again, he didn't ask for TOTAL control.
He asked for an element of control and the veto process which is well reported is even between him and the DOF. In other words, before any budgetary sign-off, a target has to be mutually agreed between manager and Murtough.
I would say it's unlikely based on what is reported :
"Separately, Ten Hag felt he needed an additional attacker and though he had reservations about returning to Ajax, the target to gain universal agreement was Antony."
"Ten Hag undoubtedly wanted to sign Antony, but sanctioning the outlay came from above. Those with an understanding of United’s structure say several directors are involved in “checks and balances”
And the most damning bit, which is not just in relation to the decision to fall on Antony but the actual problem with recruitment :
"But ultimately the system falters because, at crucial moments, United can decide to pay over the odds for a player and break their budget. Sources insist there is nobody at the club skilled at assessing a player’s worth who also has authority on spending and can take a holistic view of squad building."
" The cost of Ten Hag’s first summer meant United were on the brink with FFP regulations and January signings were limited to loans. However, rather than delve into the scouting database for solutions, many of their transfers appeared to be coincidental"
He literally doesn't have total control. He has a veto, as does Murtough (and I'm assuming the one holding the purse). By definition, it is not total control if other people can reject his choices.
He literally begins that quote by saying he stands for cooperation, so it can just as easily be read as him not having players, he absolutely doesn't want, forced on him (which I've been led to believe is what happened with Emery and Pepe at Arse).
The fact that even if it were true, it'd still be on the club for hiring him with such stupid demands, seems to be lost on a lot of you.
He literally begins that quote by saying he stands for cooperation, so it can just as easily be read as him not having players, he absolutely doesn't want, forced on him (which I've been led to believe is what happened with Emery and Pepe at Arse).
The fact that even if it were true, it'd still be on the club for hiring him with such stupid demands, seems to be lost on a lot of you.
If ETH was in charge of that Liverpool squad today, City dominate them like they dominated us.
The mind boggles why people defend him so much. You'd think he was a SAF regen.
The mind boggles why people defend him so much. You'd think he was a SAF regen.
I want him gone.
I also want this endless, ridiculous transfer debate to end, because it's far more pertinent that our manager has persisted with a tactical setup that has long since been proven ill-suited to the players at his disposal, than whether he was the one signing off on the best part of £90 million for Antony.
Why is the crux of your argument "there were no viable alternatives presented by the club"
when there are reports of United being in for a right-winger that predate Ten Hag's appointment, there are also reports of us looking/wanting Gakpo (which you somehow out of the blue said "he was likely a Ten Hag suggestion"), and there are also reports of us being in for Pulisic?
doesn't all that debunk the whole "no viable alternatives presented by the club"?
when there are reports of United being in for a right-winger that predate Ten Hag's appointment, there are also reports of us looking/wanting Gakpo (which you somehow out of the blue said "he was likely a Ten Hag suggestion"), and there are also reports of us being in for Pulisic?
doesn't all that debunk the whole "no viable alternatives presented by the club"?
I believe the target was specifically a left footer.
I don't know where that is coming from - sources would be appreciated. Regardless, it doesn't address what I'm saying.
The crux of the argument being presented is that the club failed to present alternatives to/for Antony - when there are multiple sources (including the ones being used to validate Antony) linking us with other wide players. Doesn't that debunk the no alternatives for Antony, thing? Am I supposed to believe that the same Manchester United that's reported to have multiple dossiers on/for targets (again this is coming from the same sources used to validate the Antony links), somehow didn't present/suggest anyone else, despite being reported as exploring deals for other players in the same position?
Couldn't it just be the more simple explanation that the manager agreed/insisted on Antony - especially as The Athletic reported the manager was "eager" to sign him - and the club acquiesced, rather than the club didn't present alternatives?
Read the article in full. Murtough didn't initially have a dossier of targets, he only recently has now.
Article states ten hag was actually heaitant to go to Ajax for the forward options but Antony was the universally agreed one.
Also Gakpo in his own interviews has stated he has had close conversations with the manager who knew him well. It's quite unlikely that Gakpo was a club alternative and more likely ten hags alternative. I don't think there was an actual solution for the right wing put forward by the club, as explained in the posts above with the right article quotes.
It’s not really comparable. Liverpool had their left back healthy, we did not. They merely have some players out while we are dealing with the worst injury crisis in history of sports.
Some would say that too.Still doesn't change the fact that we're scoring about even in terms of points-per-game (1.678) with the Moyes season and the season LvG got sacked. We've bad, let's not dance around it. Very close to the likes of Luton town and Fulham in terms of league goals scored.
Even just using post-Fergie days as baseline, this will be a significantly below average season. After backing the manager with half a billion.
You do this thing where you selectively reply to some things and turn blind to everything else that goes directly against your positions - so I'll try to do this in a manner that hopefully makes it easy for all:
Now, again - with all of the above taken into consideration - couldn't it just be the more simple explanation that the manager agreed/insisted on Antony - especially as The Athletic reported the manager was "eager" to sign him - and the club acquiesced, rather than the club didn't present alternatives? They also say he pushed for a swift reunion with Antony, and that his views carry decisive weight.
I mean, you initially said "Klopp has data scientists and scouts to help with his targets and Ten Hag has feck all" - verifiably false. Now you keep saying there wasn't a solution for the right wing presented by the club. Again, verifiably false. Antony was one of three options being considered even before Ten Hag was appointed. The Athletic is also there reporting us exploring Pulisic twice. Can we stop the madness?
There is no hatred towards him from me and want us to beat the scousers next Sunday. I just can't trust a guy who suffered one of the worst defeats in our history. That's all it comes down to from my personal point of view. I will agree with his supporters on here about not appointing Potter/Southgate though. Just praying that INEOS can see candidates for our next coach outside of those two.
That's not true at all. We had amazing squad under Glazers with SAF in charge, Liverpool had completely different level of squads under same owner and different managers.
Manager elevates the squad, good one makes even average one looks good. Poor manager makes even the good squad looks average.
Superclub I'd agree with but I can see him do very well with any of the clubs I mentioned. I think that will happen and we can revisit this.
I do not disagree at all. But my point is he still has Allison, VVD, TAA, Robertson, Salah, Jota and Diaz. These players can carry a relatively weaker team on any given day. At the same time that's also where I credit Klopp cuz he has gotten the rest of the squad which is being rebuilt to perform better than sum of the parts.
As opposed to ETH, who may not be as good and also has nowhere near the level of performers in his squad as Klopp does (which is still a credit to Klopp but this is year 8 for him) while this is year 2 for ETH in a poorly run club.
I won't criticize him for the fee, but him pushing for Antony after managing him for multiple years was outrageously bad.
I don't know. When they came back to him with what they agreed to pay for Antony and what a big fraction of his budget it was, he should've gone "You wot, mate?" and vetoed it.
Lad i would promote ya immediately if I could.
Liverpool XI: Kelleher, Bradley, Quansah, Van Dijk, Gomez. Endo, Szoboszlai, Mac Allister, Diaz, Nunez, Elliott.
This is the team they went and bombarded City with. It has only 2 players from what you've listed starting with Salah and Robertson coming off the bench. At one time or another, most of those incoming transfers have been deemed: a joke (Nunez); not good enough (Gomez); overrated (Mac Allister); overpriced (Szoboszlai); decent (Endo) with Diaz probably being the one who has been given credit from the moment he arrived. There's just no way the aforementioned in your post can be credited with carrying practically a whole team when it was so sterling with the vast majority of them not there. The players have also, for the most part, arrived within the same timeframe ten Hag has been at this club
They won't be given full credit, given the rivalry, but what they did is out of this world impressive given it's a bunch of nobodies in a patchwork quilt of an XI. It's testament to coaching and the assimilation of the system played that such a thing is even possible. There is merit in the line that Klopp is X amount of years deep there, but you do not need that many years to implement what you want at a club. LVG proved this, transforming us within a preseason when first arriving, and again, having a bunch of nobodies play his system to perfection, promoting kids who had done nothing, and went on to do 'nothing' into his first team plans and cover without a bat of an eye; even Jose did the same, in his own way, having us play exactly how he wanted down to almost a man within a preseason.
Ten Hag might not be excessively long in the job now, but equally, he is not excessively short in it either; by this time, the justifiable reasons why we look like a team who have barely played with one another are simply not there - from the amount of misplaced passes, incohesive build-ups and inability to do anything collectively constructive with the ball (it's a miracle to see us complete any kind of extensive passive chain) we're not just lacking; we're at a point where it's a legitimate and fair ask to want to know what it is that we do in training to look so bad game in and game out. This notion you can only grind and get by when your starters are injured or unavailable is a memo only we seem to have. It's at a stage by now where clubs are objectively displaying that coaching and training is king, with Liverpool's decimated team putting the best of the best to the sword being a new high/low in what we can take from the disparity. When is anything we do an astonishing achievement? When do we ever look like a team greater than the sum of its parts? LVG needs to be cited once more given the hilarity and bizarreness of some of the lineups he had playing exactly how he wanted and frustrating PL teams with verifiably better players than what he would field showing what top notch coaching looks like, as well as what it achieves.
The running of any club determines the quality of what a manager gets to work with, and of course, you wish for it to be a harmonious relationship, but coaches show their brilliance by making the best lemonade from the lemons they get to work with - maximising them; optimising them; extracting every sinew from them; making them look like something to be reckoned with, even, leaving you in no doubt that with better players, the trajectory is certain and upward because the same 'trick' will be pulled again in a positive swing - it's games like yesterday's that show what Klopp brings moreso than what his sides look like at full strength; you should have that feeling about your coach more often than not, if he's good at his job; that you're likely to get a premium product no matter what is at his disposal. Results can come in and out of the picture, but overall, the feeling is this guy is getting as much as can be expected from this bunch of players the vast majority of the time.
The feeling should be that no matter whether your eyes and mind likes the product you're watching, there's no question that the coaching is on point and at the higher end of the spectrum, which is what the top coaches get paid to implement. LVG's football might not have been everyone's cup of tea, but at no point in his entire tenure could his coaching itself be questioned. I feel LVG needs to be inserted into this, just in case Klopp is looked at as some kind of freak outlier or 'generational' so not counting in the normal scheme of things. It's all the same. The crux is what their coaching brings to the table in its own right before anything else needs to be factored in.
- Status