Erik ten Hag | 2022/23 & 2023/24

[King Azaz the Unabridged]

A lower win rate is understandable if there are good reasons for it. There are. One big reason is Højlund bedding in and not scoring for five months. There are multiple other valid reasons.

Win rate of Ten Hag in PL in 2024 is 62.5%, which coincides with Højlund finding his feet and some players coming back from injury.

If you think another manager might have done better dealing with all the stuff we are going through this season, you may be disappointed. Proven PL managers struggle too like Klopp did last year.

I think Ten Hag will be more than fine when the squad settles, we plug holes in summer and improve the club structures. I don‘t see any evidence to the contrary. Until then I‘m firmly Ten Hag in.

That's because, with respect, you have a very different interpretation of "evidence" than the many users disagreeing with you on this topic. And when you're given evidence for why not everyone else is as firmly Ten Hag in (for example, again, we've won league games in 2023/24 at just about the same rate David Moyes did the season he was sacked, and our underlying metrics are more or less midtable - that's shambolic no matter how many games Shaw/ Martinez / Casemiro miss), you explain it all away by saying there are valid reasons for the crap performances. And then you say anyone who thinks another manager might have done better "may be disappointed"... that's not saying anything.

I've seen the Klopp comparisons dozens of times now and I know loads of other users before me have already explained they're irrelevant in our case - when a manager with Klopp's track record has a shite season like he did last season and in 2021, the reason he gets leeway is because he's earned goodwill by smashing the league and delivering 90+ points the season before, so you have faith that he can do it again. Barely any other managers in the league, and definitely none of our managers since 2013, have done anything to earn that kind of slack.

I like Ten Hag, I really enjoyed our football for most of last season, and I really want him to succeed. I'm not convinced a good (not great) 10-game run since the new year means he's earned our backing for another season - like I said before, make it a great 20-game run, finish on 70+ points, and then we can talk.

 

[Matt851]

This is actually a good point. There were so many games last season and we could possibly be seeing the repercussions of that this season. Although part of the issue is also because ETH did not use his squad well last season - he kept playing the same players game in game out without rest.

Ten hag basically to think that momentum would carry us through last season and fatigue wouldn't be a factor. This led to him playing the same players in a ridiculous amount of games, it was naive at best

The thing with liverpool struggling last season is that klopp had enough credit in the bank to show that he could recover from it, ten hag doesn't and liverpool finished the season looking much better tha us

 

[NLunited]

That's because, with respect, you have a very different interpretation of "evidence" than the many users disagreeing with you on this topic. And when you're given evidence for why not everyone else is as firmly Ten Hag in (for example, again, we've won league games in 2023/24 at just about the same rate David Moyes did the season he was sacked, and our underlying metrics are more or less midtable - that's shambolic no matter how many games Shaw/ Martinez / Casemiro miss), you explain it all away by saying there are valid reasons for the crap performances. And then you say anyone who thinks another manager might have done better "may be disappointed"... that's not saying anything.

I've seen the Klopp comparisons dozens of times now and I know loads of other users before me have already explained they're irrelevant in our case - when a manager with Klopp's track record has a shite season like he did last season and in 2021, the reason he gets leeway is because he's earned goodwill by smashing the league and delivering 90+ points the season before, so you have faith that he can do it again. Barely any other managers in the league, and definitely none of our managers since 2013, have done anything to earn that kind of slack.

I like Ten Hag, I really enjoyed our football for most of last season, and I really want him to succeed. I'm not convinced a good (not great) 10-game run since the new year means he's earned our backing for another season - like I said before, make it a great 20-game run, finish on 70+ points, and then we can talk.

I think your expectations are a bit high considering we have too many lost games already to expect a 70+ point finish.

With your reasoning you would have sacked Klopp, Arteta, Ferguson before they could have built a consistent side.

We have had a Frankenstein of a squad, which needs sorting out. Chopping and changing like Chelsea does is not going to do us any favours.

 

[hobbers]

I think your expectations are a bit high considering we have too many lost games already to expect a 70+ point finish.

With your reasoning you would have sacked Klopp, Arteta, Ferguson before they could have built a consistent side.

We have had a Frankenstein of a squad, which needs sorting out. Chopping and changing like Chelsea does is not going to do us any favours.

The Frankenstein squad where 16/25 were either signed by ETH, brought from the academy by ETH, or given new contracts by ETH.

 

[Member 58925]

The Frankenstein squad where 16/25 were either signed by ETH, brought from the academy by ETH, or given new contracts by ETH.

Between Arsenal, City and Liverpool, there may not be a total of 9 players that their manager did not buy or promote.

 

[Amir]

Between Arsenal, City and Liverpool, there may not be a total of 9 players that their manager did not buy or promote.

Irrelevant considering the fact their managers have been in place for quite a few years.

A more relevant question may be how many players from previous regimes did Klopp and Pep had when their teams started to look real good and succeeded.

 

[hobbers]

A more relevant question may be how many players from previous regimes did Klopp and Pep had when their teams started to look real good and succeeded.

Exactly.

And at least as far as Klopp and Arteta are concerned, the answer is a lot more than Ten Hag. But that's what happens when you have good managers making constant progress vs an incompetent one who went backwards rapidly.

Pep is harder to call because he got to spend with reckless abandon in the same way ETH has.

 

[Alex99]

Irrelevant considering the fact their managers have been in place for quite a few years.

A more relevant question may be how many players from previous regimes did Klopp and Pep had when their teams started to look real good and succeeded.

Barely any for Klopp.

13 players made 20 or more starts across all competitions in 2018/19, 10 of which were signed or promoted by him (the ones that weren't were Henderson, Milner and Firmino).

I'm not sure it's a fair comparison with City, given they were prepping for Guardiola's arrival and were among the best sides in the league anyway.

 

[Leftback99]

We shouldn't have judged previous managers until they had their own 25 man handpicked squad. We can't judge the next guy either.

 

[Member 58925]

Irrelevant considering the fact their managers have been in place for quite a few years.

A more relevant question may be how many players from previous regimes did Klopp and Pep had when their teams started to look real good and succeeded.

The fact that their managers have been in place for years furthers my point. Thanks!

 

[VP89]

We shouldn't have judged previous managers until they had their own 25 man handpicked squad. We can't judge the next guy either.

I love it when posters exaggerate the points being made to them to mask they don't have a point of their own.

 

[Member 58925]

We shouldn't have judged previous managers until they had their own 25 man handpicked squad. We can't judge the next guy either.

When you have no answer save an inference you 100% made up and add some snotty 12 year old snark to it I know I made a good point. I do enjoy when you think you’re smart though as far as entertainment value on the caf goes it’s right at the top of the list

 

[Leftback99]

When you have no answer save an inference you 100% made up and add some snotty 12 year old snark to it I know I made a good point. I do enjoy when you think you’re smart though as far as entertainment value on the caf goes it’s right at the top of the list

You've never made a good point in your life.

 

[hobbers]

The fact that their managers have been in place for years furthers my point. Thanks!

And they were in place for years because they were on a constant curve of improvement and kept on validating the trust placed in them. Which trumps your point.

Those noticeable improvements in results and performances all coming despite them having squads that were majority not of their choosing.

 

[VP89]

You've never made a good point in your life.

I mean he's not wrong. You've just gone and made shit up sarcastically because you don't have an actual point to make of your own.

 

[VP89]

And they were in place for years because they were on a constant curve of improvement and kept on validating the trust placed in them. Which trumps your point.

Those noticeable improvements in results and performances all coming despite them having squads that were majority not of their choosing.

Constant curve of improvement? Arteta finished 8th back to back and had football worse than ours.

 

[hobbers]

Constant curve of improvement? Arteta finished 8th back to back and had football worse than ours.

Groundhog day with you three.

 

[VP89]

Groundhog day with you three.

Answer the question - how did Arteta present a constant curve of improvement when his levels actually dropped in season 2 and his league finishes were 8th, back to back

 

[bond19821982]

Give him one more season under the new structure and signings by them. Let's see where we stand next Christmas and then , pull the trigger.

 

[mu4c_20le]

I mean he's not wrong. You've just gone and made shit up sarcastically because you don't have an actual point to make of your own.

Because

The fact that their managers have been in place for years furthers my point. Thanks!

isn't a point worth responding to.

 

[VP89]

Because

isn't a point worth responding to.

That's a nice way of saying "I don't actually have a case of my own".

Good work.

 

[hobbers]

Answer the question - how did Arteta present a constant curve of improvement when his levels actually dropped in season 2 and his league finishes were 8th, back to back

Arteta's work at Arsenal is something to compare with a learn-on-the-job type manager, like Ole. Not a seasoned CL standard continental manager.

He finished 8th in both of his first two seasons and won the FA cup. He improved their points haul in season 2 compared to season 1. Then improved it again in season 3. There was clear progression

He had one summer window between finishing 8th and 8th again. He only signed Gabriel and Partey for a combined £68m.

The comparisons between ETH and Arteta are so fecking dumb. He hasn't justified them keeping him at all yet. He hasn't won anything more. What he has done is made it easy for them to decide to keep him at each evaluation point.

Further context - He only took over in December, finished on 56 points and won the FA cup. First full season finishes on 61 points and doubles the GD.

This thread is on intellectual life support at this point.

 

[mu4c_20le]

That's a nice way of saying "I don't actually have a case of my own".

Good work.

It's not though

 

[VP89]

Arteta's work at Arsenal is something to compare with a learn-on-the-job type manager, like Ole. Not a seasoned CL standard continental manager.

He finished 8th in both of his first two seasons and won the FA cup. He improved their points haul in season 2 compared to season 1. Then improved it again in season 3. There was clear progression.


The comparisons between ETH and Arteta are so fecking dumb. He hasn't justified them keeping him at all yet. He hasn't won anything more. What he has done is made it easy for them to decide to keep him at each evaluation point.

This is quite flawed and guilty of astounding revisionism. There was near unanimous feeling toward Arteta in season 2 to actually want him sacked, because there was no tangible style of play, there was no direction and there was chronic underperformance throughout season 2.

Even when you actually consider him "learning on the job", he had a grace period of learning on the job half way through the season, and having his own room for error, but still mustered only 56 points (!) and finishing 8th. Even for a manager 'learning on the job' its pretty sackable. Then, going into his 1st full season he managed to finish 8th, again. Being 4-5 points better than the season before yet finishing in the same place isn't clear progression. It's actually insane how you can market it in this manner. This is before you consider that the same manager still finished outside of top 4 in season 3.

Ten Hag surpassed estimations in year 1 with both his finish and his cup runs. To suggest that he should then do more than that, or else he's a failure, in season 2 - is a pretty limited view on how squad rebuilds actually work.

By your logic, if Ten Hag finished 8th last year with 55 points and 5th this year say 66 points, thats clear progression? No, that logic is clear bollocks. No manager at the club here gets 2 seasons without Champions League football, regardless of how much of an improvement season 2 is on the failure of season 1.

Back to Ten Hag though - no one is denying he's underperformed in this season so far. I'm in agreement with this. My point is that progression generally is not going to be linear and the mitigating circumstances need to be noted. Also you have to consider where he'll actually finish this season, and where his cup runs will be before trying to pawn him off as some cemented failure. If he finishes top 5 or top 4 and reaches an FA Cup final, it's actually crazy how one can suggest the underperformance is 'material' compared to the season prior.

 

[hobbers]

Even when you actually consider him "learning on the job", he had half a season headstart over Eric Ten Hag, joining mid way through the season, but still mustering only 56 points (!) and finishing 8th. Even for a manager 'learning on the job' its pretty sackable. Then, going into his 1st full season he managed to finish 8th, again. Being 4-5 points better than the season before yet finishing in the same place isn't clear progression. It's actually insane how you can market it in this manner. This is before you consider that the same manager still finished outside of top 4 in season 3.

Ten Hag surpassed estimations in year 1 with both his finish and his cup runs. To suggest that he should then do more than that, or else he's a failure, in season 2 - is a pretty limited view on how squad rebuilds actually work.

You are the one trying to get away with judging that half a season headstart as if it was a full season with 2 full transfer windows to support it(!) Do you even review this drivel before you post it?

He took over a club in dire straits and had no transfers to turn it around, so wherever they finished in that half season is irrelevant. And with their poor finances at the time he only got to spent £68m on two players in his first transfer window. But they still got more points, scored more goals and conceded fewer goals in his first proper season.

Moronic to compare him to Ten Hag because 1. They're in two very different phases of their career. 2. They came into clubs at totally different situations, only one got a full pre season and £220m transfer window. The other had to wait 2-3 seasons before even spending that amount. And 3. Only 1 oversaw their team lurching violently backwards.

These constant rehashed debunked arguments are so fecking boring.

 

[mu4c_20le]

This is quite flawed and guilty of astounding revisionism. There was near unanimous feeling toward Arteta in season 2 to actually want him sacked, because there was no tangible style of play, there was no direction and there was chronic underperformance throughout season 2.

Even when you actually consider him "learning on the job", he had a grace period of learning on the job half way through the season, and having his own room for error, but still mustered only 56 points (!) and finishing 8th. Even for a manager 'learning on the job' its pretty sackable. Then, going into his 1st full season he managed to finish 8th, again. Being 4-5 points better than the season before yet finishing in the same place isn't clear progression. It's actually insane how you can market it in this manner. This is before you consider that the same manager still finished outside of top 4 in season 3.

Ten Hag surpassed estimations in year 1 with both his finish and his cup runs. To suggest that he should then do more than that, or else he's a failure, in season 2 - is a pretty limited view on how squad rebuilds actually work.

By your logic, if Ten Hag finished 8th last year with 55 points and 5th this year say 66 points, thats clear progression? No, that logic is clear bollocks.

Back to Ten Hag though - no one is denying he's underperformed in this season so far. I'm in agreement with this. My point is that progression generally is not going to be linear and the mitigating circumstances need to be noted. Also you have to consider where he'll actually finish this season, and where his cup runs will be before trying to pawn him off as some cemented failure. If he finishes top 5 or top 4 and reaches an FA Cup final, it's actually crazy how one can suggest the underperformance is 'material' compared to the season prior.

There was nothing wrong with he said, Arteta had no managerial experience and was thus learning on the job. ETH has a decade head start over him. Also why are you even comparing the two clubs? What were Arsenal's expectations when he took over? You make dumb comparisons and then expect people to argue, and when they don't , claim they don't have a case of their own.

 

[Member 58925]

You've never made a good point in your life.

A cause for concern would be if you did think I make good points.

 

[Member 58925]

There was nothing wrong with he said, Arteta had no managerial experience and was thus learning on the job. ETH has a decade head start over him. Also why are you even comparing the two clubs? What were Arsenal's expectations when he took over? You make dumb comparisons and then expect people to argue, and when they don't , claim they don't have a case of their own.

What were United’s expectations when Ten Hag took over?

 

[VP89]

You are the one trying to get away with judging that half a season headstart as if it was a full season with 2 full transfer windows to support it(!) Do you even review this drivel before you post it?

Head start is the wrong wording, I've amended the post. I should clarify that he was given room for error under context of joining half way and needing to stabilise the team, learning on the job and making his own mistakes - but was broadly still quite poor.

He took over a club in dire straits and had no transfers to turn it around, so wherever they finished in that half season is irrelevant. And with their poor finances at the time he only got to spent £68m on two players in his first transfer window. But they still got more points, scored more goals and conceded fewer goals in his first proper season.

Ultimately he took over a club with better resources and a better squad than to finish 8th back to back, and was capable by year 3 to make top 4. He actually underperformed these benchmarks back to back for 3 years until he got things going in season 4. The "but he's learning on the job" argument doesn't quite cut it there.

Moronic to compare him to Ten Hag because 1. They're in two very different phases of their career. 2. They came into clubs at totally different situations, only one got a full pre season and £220m transfer window. The other had to wait 2-3 seasons before even spending that amount. And 3. Only 1 oversaw their team lurching violently backwards.

I think what is moronic is throwing money spent around when we both know Ten Hag works for clowns that overpay almost every transfer by 30-40%. Moreover, you want to consider Arteta's lack of support and ignore that when Ten Hag joined we had global scouts sacked, no real structure in place to challenge his own suggestions and an academy player's brother brought in as an emergency to negotiate contracts for new signings. This affects transfer windows too. It's a bit weird for you to talk about Ten Hag's backing in absolute sums, and not actually dive into anything about the structure.

These constant rehashed debunked arguments are so fecking boring.

You actually haven't debunked anything - you keep hiding behind this "Arteta is allowed because he's learning on the job" without actually considering that the expectation on him was to do better than 8th twice and 5th for his first 3 seasons, even when considering him learning on the job.

You've tried to pretend that Arteta has shown clear progression since he joined year on year which is such frankly, nonsense. How one can say a manager finishing 8th back to back with 4-5 points between the two seasons is "progression" is beyond me. As I said, if Ten Hag finished 8th in season 1 and 6th this year, he'd get sacked quite quickly, despite showing "improvement" by your own logic.

 

[VP89]

There was nothing wrong with he said, Arteta had no managerial experience and was thus learning on the job. ETH has a decade head start over him. Also why are you even comparing the two clubs? What were Arsenal's expectations when he took over? You make dumb comparisons and then expect people to argue, and when they don't , claim they don't have a case of their own.

A decade, please. Ten Hag was managing in completely different leagues and had limited exposure to European competitions up until his stint at Ajax, which itself is still a different ball game to managing in England.

Despite this, as already addressed, "learning on the job" doesn't excuse back to back 8th finishes and then a 5th placed finish for a club like Arsenal. He had 2 full summers + 3 winter windows by that point and only achieved an FA Cup from his Debut year in that time.

"Learning on the job" is a fair point in general, but it doesnt cover 3 seasons of under performance. What has actually happened, as the documentaries and lookbacks showed, is that the owners put faith in his process and understood it will take time and extended rough patches to get to where it needs to be.

 

[mu4c_20le]

A decade, please. Ten Hag was managing in completely different leagues and had limited exposure to European competitions up until his stint at Ajax, which itself is still a different ball game to managing in England.

Despite this, as already addressed, "learning on the job" doesn't excuse back to back 8th finishes and then a 5th placed finish for a club like Arsenal. He had 2 full summers + 3 winter windows by that point and only achieved an FA Cup from his Debut year in that time.

"Learning on the job" is a fair point in general, but it doesnt cover 3 seasons of under performance. What has actually happened, as the documentaries and lookbacks showed, is that the owners put faith in his process and understood it will take time and extended rough patches to get to where it needs to be.

Ultimately he took over a club with better resources and a better squad than to finish 8th back to back, and was capable by year 3 to make top 4. He actually underperformed these benchmarks back to back for 3 years until he got things going in season 4. The "but he's learning on the job" argument doesn't quite cut it there.

Don't agree with this part unfortunately. He took over an aging squad in need of rebuild, but the club was either in denial or unable to fund it. They signed a bunch of frees for him in his first full season. I'd even argue that the back to back 8th finishes caused the board to splash the cash to back him. ETH did better in his first full season but he was fully backed, that's why despite it being a good season i find it hard to call it an overachievement.

 

[Leftback99]

A cause for concern would be if you did think I make good points.

There's no danger in that from me or anyone else.

 

[VP89]

Don't agree with this part unfortunately. He took over an aging squad in need of rebuild, but the club was either in denial or unable to fund it. They signed a bunch of frees for him in his first full season. I'd even argue that the back to back 8th finishes caused the board to splash the cash to back him. ETH did better in his first full season but he was fully backed, that's why despite it being a good season i find it hard to call it an overachievement.

Ten Hag took over a squad that essentially had no striker outside an egotistical legend who couldn't accept the game has passed him by (Which presented a whrilwind of problems of its own), he had no DM, he needed to fix the defence, and he had various other holes in the team to consider too.

Both managers had rebuilds, there's no denying that. But you are seriously underplaying Arteta's shortcomings in season 2 - he had a squad that was easily capable of doing better than 8th place (again), and he underperformed again. By season 3 he could have made a better push into top 4, and he failed there too. Ten Hag meanwhile didn't just do better than Arteta, he objectively surpassed most people and pundits expectations of where we'd be in season 1 even after the transfer window was complete.

By the way, Arteta's initial struggles were fine for me. If you dig back to the early Arteta posts in his managerial thread, I was backing him early doors to be given time and thought he had potential despite underperforming so drastically. I also think the same about Ten Hag now.

My view is that open heart surgery on squads aren't linear progressions and tend to almost get pretty ugly before they get better. It requires a lot of patience from fans for extended periods before showing the fruits. Short bounces are easier to get, by just getting a manager in to put arms round players and get them perky for a few months, perhaps even 1 season, but they never last because the discipline and mentality is not embedded in the roots of the squad.

 

[hobbers]

You actually haven't debunked anything - you keep hiding behind this "Arteta is allowed because he's learning on the job" without actually considering that the expectation on him was to do better than 8th twice and 5th for his first 3 seasons, even when considering him learning on the job.

You've tried to pretend that Arteta has shown clear progression since he joined year on year which is such frankly, nonsense. How one can say a manager finishing 8th back to back with 4-5 points between the two seasons is "progression" is beyond me. As I said, if Ten Hag finished 8th in season 1 and 6th this year, he'd get sacked quite quickly, despite showing "improvement" by your own logic.

Stop all this desperate flailing around from argument to argument, it's just sad. You're still trying to compare Arteta's "first season" (from December, no pre season, no transfers) with Hag's (from July, full pre season, £220m summer window) Even after it's been painstakingly pointed out to you how fecking moronic that is.

I haven't even touched on the fact that Arsenal and United have/had very different expectations. Arteta has raised Arsenal fans out of their "happy to maybe get top four and win a cup every decade" stupor. ETH is clearly doing the opposite, following the Glazers blueprint of the last decade in demolishing demands and expectations.

 

[Zed 101]

OK, but here's the rub - if he plays pragmatically with the squad he has, everyone moans that they either don't like his style or the direction he's headed, and he doesn't make any progress to where he wants to be. I actually like the fact that the hill he wants to die on is playing the style he's trying to implement. Either give him the players he needs or fire him.


Would City or Pool have the status and standing they currently have if Pep or Klop didn't have the world class players they have? Their benches are full of world class players. If one falls out of form, they have another to back them up.

So here's the thing, everybody on here ETH pros and Ericxiters and those rare impartials recognise that we have had injuries, and that we do not have the strength in depth of City, nor the perfect profile of players for ETH to execute his preferred tactics.... So when you say he would be criticised for playing pragmatically (putting words in mouths) I think you are wrong, I think everyone would recognise a manager adapting to put his best squad available out in the best way to get a result... yes if plan A was long ball and deep defence we would be moaning, same as if we were playing 90% possession 0% inspiration, but for short periods then hell no you got to do what you got to do, if you park the bus, you park the bus.... it is only a problem if that is your long term plan... so please I for one can say with 100% sincerity I would rather a manager playing with common sense than one with reckless abandon.

And as for world class squads, name a (normal) match this season where even with injuries we have not been fielding 8 or even 9+ full current international players! with more on the bench, not saying we have the greatest squad but come on some people talk like we are fielding a league one squad, the players are good enough to have done much better

 

[Alex99]

Further context - He only took over in December, finished on 56 points and won the FA cup. First full season finishes on 61 points and doubles the GD.

This thread is on intellectual life support at this point.

He averaged 1.6 points per game for both the period he managed during the 19/20 season and for the entirety of the 20/21 season.

You were literally predicting he'd be sacked by Christmas that summer.

You would think he'll be sacked at the same time as Arteta, probably by christmas.

He lost 13 games in 2021/22, which was actually one more than our shambolic team.

 

[VP89]

Stop all this desperate flailing around from argument to argument, it's just sad. You're still trying to compare Arteta's "first season" (from December, no pre season, no transfers) with Hag's (from July, full pre season, £220m summer window) Even after it's been painstakingly pointed out to you how fecking moronic that is.

I don't need to compare Arteta's first season alone. I'm happy to also compare Ten Hag's 1st season to Arteta's 2nd, heck even 3rd seasons. You can talk all you want about money spent from Arteta but ultimately he had a squad capable doing better than 8th in season 2 and he fecked it. By season 3 he also had a squad capable of finishing top 4, and he fell short (again).
Ten Hag's 1st debut year alone was better than Arteta's attempts in 3 seasons, and you can only hide behind the "learning on the job" excuse for so long. It's moronic you want to apply that for 3 seasons, and claim improvement in back to back 8th place finishes in the process.

I haven't even touched on the fact that Arsenal and United have/had very different expectations. Arteta has raised Arsenal fans out of their "happy to maybe get top four and win a cup every decade" stupor. ETH is clearly doing the opposite, following the Glazers blueprint of the last decade in demolishing demands and expectations.

ETH has come out every presser and said our expectation is to win every game. He has come out front and center and said we havent done that this season and we need to do better. He makes his expectations clear, and we as fans know that we should have built domestically from last season, but for various reasons that did not happen this season.

However, he is still a winner and thats reflected by potentially 3 wembley finals in 2 years in the process, even at his absolute lowest. This idea that he lowered our expectations is as you say, moronic. I am a fan of Ten Hag and I accept that we are performing below expectations in the league. Don't make things up.

 

[miliebrowndivorceattorney]

Head start is the wrong wording, I've amended the post. I should clarify that he was given room for error under context of joining half way and needing to stabilise the team, learning on the job and making his own mistakes - but was broadly still quite poor.

Ultimately he took over a club with better resources and a better squad than to finish 8th back to back, and was capable by year 3 to make top 4. He actually underperformed these benchmarks back to back for 3 years until he got things going in season 4. The "but he's learning on the job" argument doesn't quite cut it there.

I think what is moronic is throwing money spent around when we both know Ten Hag works for clowns that overpay almost every transfer by 30-40%. Moreover, you want to consider Arteta's lack of support and ignore that when Ten Hag joined we had global scouts sacked, no real structure in place to challenge his own suggestions and an academy player's brother brought in as an emergency to negotiate contracts for new signings. This affects transfer windows too. It's a bit weird for you to talk about Ten Hag's backing in absolute sums, and not actually dive into anything about the structure.


You actually haven't debunked anything - you keep hiding behind this "Arteta is allowed because he's learning on the job" without actually considering that the expectation on him was to do better than 8th twice and 5th for his first 3 seasons, even when considering him learning on the job.

You've tried to pretend that Arteta has shown clear progression since he joined year on year which is such frankly, nonsense. How one can say a manager finishing 8th back to back with 4-5 points between the two seasons is "progression" is beyond me. As I said, if Ten Hag finished 8th in season 1 and 6th this year, he'd get sacked quite quickly, despite showing "improvement" by your own logic.

On top of that. Arteta first full season had 8 losses in the first 14 games of the PL season. His second full season Arteta saw 6 losses in the first 15. Ten Hag this season has a similar stat, 6 losses out of the first 15.

Arteta had more losses in a row though. 5 losses and 2 draws from 8-11-20 to 26-12-20. Started 21-22 PL season with another 3 game loss run. One of Ten Hag's traits is he's only lost 2 games in a row in the PL so far.

It's fair to say Arteta had several bad runs, worse than Ten Hag ever produced. Arteta actually had runs that gets most managers sacked. Sticking with him - a manager you believe in, it does work.

 

[VP89]

On top of that. Arteta first full season had 8 losses in the first 14 games of the PL season. His second full season Arteta saw 6 losses in the first 15. Ten Hag this season has a similar stat, 6 losses out of the first 15.

Arteta had more losses in a row though. 5 losses and 2 draws from 8-11-20 to 26-12-20. Started 21-22 PL season with another 3 game loss run. One of Ten Hag's traits is he's only lost 2 games in a row in the PL so far.

It's fair to say Arteta had several bad runs, worse than Ten Hag ever produced. Arteta actually had runs that gets most managers sacked. Sticking with him - a manager you believe in, it does work.

Yes, and I agree that Arteta should have been backed.
However I find it crazy how the same posters wanting to claim terrible injuries hampering Ten Hag in one season is just an "excuse" to hide behind, are themselves trying to hide behind Arteta's case being different because he was just "learning on the job" for 3 seasons.

 

[BelfastRed2021]

0-0 draw at Anfield and Klopp and Van Dijk accuse us of parking the bus and the media lapped it up and we had a show on talksport about it. It doesnt matter what Ten Hag does because the media have been out to get him since day one and half our moronic fan base are lapping it up hook line and sinker. some players like Maguire, Lindelof, Mctominay etc where never good enough and fans have been wanting them sold for years and now they wonder why we havent been at our best when these players have been featuring quite alot this season due to injuries how do you expect the manager to make these players who fans said arent good enough into better players? I see far to many hypocrits in here this is a process that is going to take a few years, last year we did more than decent for his first season this year we havent been as good but teams like Spurs Villa and of course Liverpool have greatly improved and spent well so its been no shoe in for top four with our poor form. I'd much rather we finish the season off get in some more players and under the new ownership and structures give the manager another season sell some of the players that shouldnt be here and who have been through several managers only two i would keep is Dalot a player who has been massively improved this season and Bruno for one more season and then rest can go as they symbolise failure look at Liverpool, City and Arsenal there are basically no players from previous managers at any of those clubs other than players who came through the clubs acadamies now and thats the way it should be here, Lindelof, Maguire, Mctominay, Shaw, Rashford and Bruno, Dalot. After this is there is no style of play and we dont improve then yes he should go and if he does then a manager must come in who can manage the group of players that are already here and not any tom dikc or harry. Also im not saying hes made mistakes as the manager certainly has especially in the transfer market and obviously some of the tactics and in game management have been strange but i am happy to write this season off and continue the process and give him more time. And i wouldnt be suprised to see a Spurs or Villa meltdown and we could win a cup again deffo not something improbable.