I'm actually lost here. I said that I checked manually, so I did the math with easily accessible info. If for some reason you believe that I'm a liar or I made a mistake, you can check it yourself, it's not that difficult.
Last edited:
Erik ten Hag | 2022/23 & 2023/24
- Thread starter sewey89
- Start date
- Status
I'm actually lost here. I said that I checked manually, so I did the math with easily accessible info. If for some reason you believe that I'm a liar or I made a mistake, you can check it yourself, it's not that difficult.
Your attackers in a 4-3-3 shouldn’t be picking up the wingbacks in a 3-5-2. That’s the role of the fullbacks. Your wingers are the problem then for the opposition as either the wide CBs have to come across to close the gaps, leaving 1v1 in the middle, or the wingbacks have to stay back to avoid leaving the wingers unmarked. The wide forwards can then also press on the CBs, together with your CF, so you can push the whole team forwards.
Of course, your wingers can still fill in and switch to a 4-5-1 at times but if your wingers are tracking the opposition’s wingbacks then you generally have a problem having any sort of outlet.
I never said it was, and it wasn't aimed at you specifically. There's just some mental excuses going on that seem to conventionally absolve Ten Hag for every decision ever made that could attribute some blame in his direction. I appreciate the structure hasn't been the best but we purposely implemented new structure under Arnold to give the manager more of a say in how we build the squad instead of waking up one morning and finding Ronaldo on your doorstep.What are you talking about
How is my post an attempt to defend Ten Hag
I‘m not saying Ten Hag is not to blame. We looked good for 15 minutes, the rest of the game we were terrible.
Maybe he chose the wrong line up; Garnacho probably was tired. I would have started Antony.
But consider this: if we don‘t give the ball away needlessly constantly, we need to spend less energy defending.
Fair enough 50. How many of them won before 50?
I don't want to argue because generally I am in agreement, but in terms of dire need for a GK that is debateable, we let Kovar go for £5m to Leverkusen where he is effectively the no.2 and has been playing in the Europa league for them, he has 4 CS in 11 (11 in 34 the previous season), we have replaced with Bayindir for £5m (14 CS in 45), even if you forget about Henderson and Butland we could have been playing this year with Kovar and Bayindir for £10m net, not saying either has Onana's ceiling or would be a permanent 1st choice, but am questioning the dire need! in combination either would have been good enough for this season given the alternative we had to spend to get Onana (I am not hating on Onana), and who knows given the chance could have proven to be a top keep, I think we will regret letting Kovar go in seasons to come
I was mostly referring to you talking about potential getting Kim Min Jae. I think when Mount became available the club obviously liked him so pushed him on ETH a bit, he obviously agrees enthemmt to an extent. This meant we weren’t getting a CB. Add to that Maguire not leaving on the end too.
I think the club probably planned to sell Scott and Maguire and get a CM and CM but didn’t work out obviously so plugged the gaps with Amrabat and Evans.
Then due to poorly negotiating the Hojlund deal we ended up paying more. For me Onana and Mount were reasonable value.
What a stupid post.
Since 2000 / 9 for over 50 vs 15 for under 50
Last 10 years / 5 for over 50 vs 5 for under 50 - so dead even.
Brentford either play round a press or over a press, they won't try and go through. They generally work it to the keeper to hit the wing backs or hit Toney.
Our pressing structure gave them both options that they like with the added bonus of when they went long they had an overload in midfield for second balls and when the went wide they had a wide overload to get up the pitch.
So what actually were ten hags instructions play directly into Brentford main strengths? Great instruction worked really well.
And out of those ten, only three that are beyond their early 50s? Do you agree with that observation and does it match with what I said?
Also it's worth noting that only Flick wasn't a top manager in his mid 40s out of all the winners in the past 10 years.
Nice to see posts talking about the actual on-pitch issues. Kudos.
I keep asking myself that question. Also with the way players start and stop the press, I don't understand why the initial setup is a 4222 with the striker and AM pressing inside and the wingers covering from inside to outside. That way you actually take space away from the opposition.
Well no, it further proves my point really - if anything - the trajectory, looking at the last 10 years its swung to 50/50 and in the last 5 years it's 4 out of 5 winners being over 50 (Tuchel being 48yo).
So it disproves this point below:
So going by the bolded text above, in regards to just the UCL metric, the trajectory actually favours over 50's being successful. The same could be said for Premier League winners which would be well over 50yo.
Premier League https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/meistertrainer/wettbewerb/GB1
Since 2000 - average age 55yo. with 17 out of 24 being over 50yo. Surely you can see that this disproves your quote above quote right?
Last edited:
At the request of Ten Hag, too.
Pretty much sums up everything we've done on the pitch over the last year.
The thing is that you are trying to get the answer that you want by reducing the sample size, which is problematic.
And regarding the CL, SAF is a pretty obvious exception when it comes to longevity and won nearly half of the titles.
Urm what? You literally said post your own metric??? So i used yours and 2 of my own.
Yes, if you also want to exclude the others too... Wenger, Pep, Klopp, Conte, Ranieri, Pelligrini etc.. all over 50yo.
Problematic is your maths being wrong and now trying to rewrite history by excluding people. I'm not trying to get the answer i want, i found the answer. The data doesn't support your misinformation, end of story.
Last edited:
I'm so torn on EtH. I think he is a good manager, but he isn't filling me with much hope considering how bad/open we look in games. He obviously knows far more than us and any pundit who is analysing his team, but it does feel like sometimes he is watching a different game to everyone else... I and most others aren't seeing this so-called progress we are making. Rather than me trusting him to deliver, my approach as a fan right now is more of a 'devil you know' one. The potential replacements being touted right now honestly feel like they'd be worse appointments than ten Hag. So, if they are the only alternatives I think I'd rather give him a chance under the new regime with a (hopefully) solid Summer window.
One thing that is grinding on me though, is that I feel like we have appointed 'Cup Managers' for the most-part since LvG. I know some managers like LvG, Jose, and ten Hag have won League Titles, but I think we got them at a stage in their career when they were on the decline (and had become good for cup runs), or in EtH's case it was only titles won at Ajax and perhaps he isn't at the level of being able to win without having the best squad. EtH's record in cup competitions is pretty good, and you always fancied your chances of a trophy with the tactics of LvG & Jose. This definitely feels like another LvG to me though.. The performances aren't good enough but he might come away with winning us a trophy or two and probably feel hard done by.
I'm sure managing Manchester United, particularly with the new footballing department, will be an exciting prospect for any manager. However, with the potential of Liverpool, Bayern, maybe Barcelona & Real Madrid all looking at new managers, it's going to be far more difficult to land our preferred option no? Even more-so now that Alonso is staying with Leverkusen and he was definitely first choice for at least two of those.
Who can we get in the Summer and will they really be any better than EtH? We would probably get some form of new manager bounce regardless, but I'm hopeful SJR's team can execute a long-term plan and style.
One thing that is grinding on me though, is that I feel like we have appointed 'Cup Managers' for the most-part since LvG. I know some managers like LvG, Jose, and ten Hag have won League Titles, but I think we got them at a stage in their career when they were on the decline (and had become good for cup runs), or in EtH's case it was only titles won at Ajax and perhaps he isn't at the level of being able to win without having the best squad. EtH's record in cup competitions is pretty good, and you always fancied your chances of a trophy with the tactics of LvG & Jose. This definitely feels like another LvG to me though.. The performances aren't good enough but he might come away with winning us a trophy or two and probably feel hard done by.
I'm sure managing Manchester United, particularly with the new footballing department, will be an exciting prospect for any manager. However, with the potential of Liverpool, Bayern, maybe Barcelona & Real Madrid all looking at new managers, it's going to be far more difficult to land our preferred option no? Even more-so now that Alonso is staying with Leverkusen and he was definitely first choice for at least two of those.
Who can we get in the Summer and will they really be any better than EtH? We would probably get some form of new manager bounce regardless, but I'm hopeful SJR's team can execute a long-term plan and style.
Use your metric to define success. But it is problematic to make a point about tendencies and also reduce the sample, it makes the sample less reliable.
At the end I can see that for some reason you have a problem with me or something I said. So I will let you be, if you consider that I'm wrong, I'm fine with it.
Let's be Frank. Even Lampard can be better than ETH. Haha joking.
ETH won league title with Ajax and the club has gone down the drain without him.
ETH won league title with Ajax and the club has gone down the drain without him.
Last 30 (since UCL started): 11 after 50, 19 under 50. If you count distinct managers then it is 9 after 50, 14 before 50 (with those who won both before and after 50 counting in both).
Using a sample less than 30 makes no sense. So you were right.
Last edited:
I did, and also used my own - both disproved what you said. I actually increased the sample size for the full list and it wasn't in your favour.
No problem at all with you, just think you threw out something with no validity at all really - upon further research it was clearly wrong.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,534
- Supports
️
Ok but I don’t like this it’s relative because I’ll now say Ten Hag has been successful before coming to Manchester United. He’s also been successful at Manchester United in his first season.
So now how would that align with your definition of success?
As also shown below you can see most “successful” managers in the PL have been over 50 and the trend in the CL is that the over 50s are equal to the under now.
Essentially I think your analysis has been shown to be inadequate in this regard.
There is not a convincing argument to back up your hypothesis. If anything the things I’d truly care about (PL success) would suggest you need a 50+ year old.
Thank you @Laurencio for sharing.
So that’s settled then.
I don’t think it shows what you’re suggesting any more convincingly than a coin flip suggests a heads bias on an unbiased coin.
Theres no clear correlation and certainly no causation to be drawn from your suggestion.
Good point.
It’s not really problematic in the sense of we’re looking already at a small sample size if you’re looking at CL winners anyway. And this is why defining your metric of success is important.
For this to be a sensible and fair debate you need to define the terms of success. If it a CL win then you’re not correct in stating it how you have, if it’s PL success then you are again incorrect? So how have you defined success to reach your conclusion I can’t agree or disagree without a clear idea of your interpretation.
I think unless @JPRouve can explain his criteria for success and how he’s come to his conclusion then unfortunately this is the most logical answer.
If anything older than 50 is more successful in the PL and it makes very little difference in the CL (if anything I think being manager of Real Madrid is the most significant indicator of CL success in recent history)
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,534
- Supports
- ️
As 60/40 split after 30 isnt proving a point here.
For example using random.org 30 coin tosses could easily come out 18 heads 12 tails without anyone assuming bias.
Yes, ETH has been successful before coming to United and his first season could be deemed a success too. Where is the issue with that?
As example it's like stating that the most successful part of most players career tend to be the mid to late 20s and we all agree on the idea that in that context success for players is relative.
I am not sure why he is letting teams to attack us at their will by leaving so much gap between Defence and Midfield.
Talking a lot about bringing in new players but sometimes playing the right system that suits to the current players might get you the results until we build proper team.
Talking a lot about bringing in new players but sometimes playing the right system that suits to the current players might get you the results until we build proper team.
You can also look at the PL winners and it's overwhelming in favour of over +50yo. You can go back last 20/30 years, since 2000, last 5 years, since PL began etc and it doesn't support the 'over 50's managers less successful than under 50's' at all.
@JPRouve 's point is really not that controversial. All the elite managers of the last decades, Ancelotti, Mourinho, Guardiola, Klopp, and then you can add whatever names you want to that, Conte, Tuchel, Pochettino, already were at the top of their game in their mid to late 40s. Wenger and SAF too. How much they decline and how much longevity in success they have is individually different, but noone would be able to argue that any of them were better at 59 than they were at 49. Heynckes might be an exception.
So what are we arguing here? If it is that mid 40s is or isn't a good age to hire a manager, @JPRouve is right.
So what are we arguing here? If it is that mid 40s is or isn't a good age to hire a manager, @JPRouve is right.
You do realize that it's not the point that was made? The point made was that managers tend to be successful before 50 and decline in their early 50s", and I also stated that there were exceptions.
Your attempt at distorting the point is a bit strange.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,534
- Supports
- ️
Well I’m just not sure really what point you’re trying to make now in the Erik Ten Hag thread? Why is this being brought up in here?
Except it’s a false equivalence. There is a biological reason why footballers peak in their mid to late 20s and the data would back that up because it’s human biology.
There isn’t the same biological explanation that you’re attributing to managers and so in the absence of science you need to provide compelling data which as shown by PL success suggests it’s absolutely irrelevant and if anything could be argued to the contrary with equal vigour.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,534
- Supports
- ️
This would all be a lot easier if you’d just define success for me in your terms.
Are you talking early domestic titles in smaller leagues = success?
Are you talking early domestic titles in smaller leagues = success?
Someone suggested that age regarding an alternative for ETH wasn't relevant. And there also biological explanations behind a decline when it comes to jobs that induce stress or require to adapt constantly to a new context, there is a reason why managers don't last at the top in pretty much all sports.
No it wouldn't. The point is about how a manager career develops, the notion of success is relative to the manager's own career. It would be senseless to make up a narrow definition of success and it would also be pointless.
You're confusing yourself here.
You said the following:
"managers tend to have success before 50 and decline in their early 50s." You then said choose your own metric.
I posted the CL and PL lists to disprove your point. The PL ages/winners in particular are in favour of over 50's being successful. You can't say 'with exceptions' that would remove 80% of the sample size!!!
You keep trying to down play my replies, instead of reading the facts in front of you.
That's not what we're arguing, you can be just as successful at 55 as you can be at 45 - plenty of managers have proven this in the PL alone.
It wasn't the argument or the point made.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,534
- Supports
- ️
Ok so your first sentence I do think age has relevance but not because of potential for success.
If we were to sack Ten Hag I would prefer a younger manager but only because I’m assuming the 50+ year old world class ones aren’t available they tend to hold down good positions. So you have to gamble on the next generation which I think is where this weird conflation of trying to prove a point with a bit of analysis that isn’t statistically significant comes in.
If anything Ten Hag at 54 is a prime candidate for success given the available data on PL managers.
Id argue those biological factors are in no way shape or form as statistically relevant as the point you’re then trying to make would make them out to be given. In other words it’s a very weak argument with no statistical basis that isn’t easily explained away as normal everyday variance.
30 coin flips don’t always land 15/15 etc.
I find it odd that someone who usually posts a well reasoned argument like yourself has decided this is of any statistically significant consequence.
But those that are successful managers at 55 already were successful managers at 45 - if not in terms of winning the PL then in terms of doing such a good job that the title contending clubs look at hiring them..
- Status