stevoc
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 22,847
How can you fairly judge a manager at a badly run club ?
Because said badly ran club hired him?
How can you fairly judge a manager at a badly run club ?
Because the club spent nearly half a billion on the players he wanted?How can you fairly judge a manager at a badly run club ?
Quite possibly but they are two sides of the same coin. Yes we've been poorly run laughably so in fact and the biggest aspect of that has been instead of any sort of footballing structure we've basically just given a succession of average or past it managers free reign to build squads and identify a load average players that largely because of this structure we've had to pay over the odds for (and yes the managers dont decide fees but their decisions do affect them). Not least in every season we've been without CL football and had to pay huge fees and wages to attract players. And this of course compounds as we end up with loads average/past it/unsuited players we cant shift etc etc. You know the rest.
I think we're all well aware of our myriad of problems. Now ultimately we know who the real culprits are but the managers themselves have to take a very large chunk of responsibility for this decade of clusterfeckery also. They have to, they took the job, they took the huge wages, they accepted or indeed wanted to act as their own DOF. And one after another they've largely spunked the best part of 1-2 billion on mostly let's be honest shite.
In the case of Ten Hag I happen to think he's a decent manager. But clearly he's out of his depth at United/PL and has lost his way. He just seems a bad fit on just about every level, the longer he's been here the worse we've got. Nothing against the guy he's tried his best and I wish him luck in his career after United.
Because said badly ran club hired him?
This seems an odd question if I’m honest. What is the threshold or qualifying criteria for allowing a manager to do his job?Why do you think Ten Hag is good enough to deserve that?
Because the club spent nearly half a billion on the players he wanted?
Right, we should have keep Moyes then. Less turnover, the better.
This is such a dumb argument to discount a manager, I'm sorry. The problem is that we don't have a proper structure to say no to a manager and trust their own scouts and recruitment process.Because the club spent nearly half a billion on the players he wanted?
I'm sorry but I don't understand the question.
Maybe the club really wanted him to be successful and to provide him with the players to realize his visionWhy did the club do that ? Because he demanded it ? So why did the club say yes if that’s not worked for 11 years ?
I actually think it's the exact opposite, that supporting the manager and giving him what he wants instead of saying no is now a bad thing and the clubs fault. It's like the guy came out of an asylum and we should've known better.This is such a dumb argument to discount a manager, I'm sorry. The problem is that we don't have a proper structure to say no to a manager and trust their own scouts and recruitment process.
This has been the case for a decade before Ten Hag and would have been the case after him if INEOS didn't shake things up.
I’m so sick of hearing this. Ten Hag didn’t ask the club to spend that money, there was no gun to anyone’s head.Because the club spent nearly half a billion on the players he wanted?
Well no, he saw the shit show that the club was in, the global scouts were also sacked and wanted more control.I actually think it's the exact opposite, that supporting the manager and giving him what he wants instead of saying no is now a bad thing and the clubs fault. It's like the guy came out of an asylum and we should've known better.
Better run clubs replace under performing managers quicker seems to be the consensus. They also do an awful lot more things right then United that means the squad is in a position to quickly adapt.
Why do you think it’s fair to compare United with better run clubs as if just sacking managers faster would work for us? I think some of you are selective in comparisons. If Klopp was managing United the last 6 years it would wouldn’t of made Woodard any better at signing players , getting value , not giving stupid contracts etc.
Bingo.I see, no one told you that ETH should be sacked because better run clubs do it faster and that it is a miracle solution. ETH should be sacked because his tactical setup is boneheaded, it was boneheaded during preseason and he hasn't adjusted it which has led to an abject season.
A well run club would sack him because his responsibility and stubbornness are obvious and poorly run club will make the strangest excuses to justify their appointment.
The harm is, we could give him 20 new players and he still persists with this notion of playing without a midfieldI don't see the harm in keeping him, as long as the recruitment is handled well and the team is built properly. I think he can succeed with the right tools, and if he doesn't, then we will be in decent shape for someone new.
Spot onI see, no one told you that ETH should be sacked because better run clubs do it faster and that it is a miracle solution. ETH should be sacked because his tactical setup is boneheaded, it was boneheaded during preseason and he hasn't adjusted it which has led to an abject season.
A well run club would sack him because his responsibility and stubbornness are obvious and a poorly run club will make the strangest excuses to justify their appointment.
This seems an odd question if I’m honest. What is the threshold or qualifying criteria for allowing a manager to do his job?
It’s never been a question of immediate success. It’s not realistic to expect that, even SAF wasn’t an instant hit.
Ten Hag was a hot property this time 2 years ago, europes up and coming management prospect. The Caf was largely begging for him to join us after Ole/Rangnick and up until the LC final he was the messiah.
Now his tricky second album isn’t the hit that the first one was we want to throw him in the trash?
I see, no one told you that ETH should be sacked because better run clubs do it faster and that it is a miracle solution. ETH should be sacked because his tactical setup is boneheaded, it was boneheaded during preseason and he hasn't adjusted it which has led to an abject season.
A well run club would sack him because his responsibility and stubbornness are obvious and a poorly run club will make the strangest excuses to justify their appointment.
This seems an odd question if I’m honest. What is the threshold or qualifying criteria for allowing a manager to do his job?
It’s never been a question of immediate success. It’s not realistic to expect that, even SAF wasn’t an instant hit.
Ten Hag was a hot property this time 2 years ago, europes up and coming management prospect. The Caf was largely begging for him to join us after Ole/Rangnick and up until the LC final he was the messiah.
Now his tricky second album isn’t the hit that the first one was we want to throw him in the trash?
There seems to be this bizarre phenomenon where people can’t comprehend that both upper level management/structure can be poor while the manager is also poor. It doesn’t have to be this “players are fine, manager is shit/manager is fine, players are shit” dichotomy so many fall into.
Why would sacking managers of made things better the last 11 years ? Answer the question.
I already answered that question, it's in the post that you quoted, the first sentence. I also told you why he deserves to be sacked, it's due to his coaching and lack of adjustment for an entire season.
Your question would make sense if the reasoning was that sacking someone for the sake of it was somehow a solution to an unnamed issue. But here I told you the issue and I told you who is responsible for it, so unless you believe that someone else is supposed build, coach and adjust a tactical setup, I will put it on the head coach/manager.
Jesus how do all of ye not get tired of the same arguments with each other all the time? It's absolutely crazy that ye have the energy, nevermind the time, for these countless posts rehashing the same shite over and over.
I had big doubts last season. The football is so bad I don't see why he deserves more time than our previous better managers.Flipping the question, this is Ten Hag's first poor performance in management. He had a good first season and a bad second season with us - what makes you so certain that Ten Hag isn't good enough to have one more season?
I would accept defeat on this debate if there was a manager worth their salt available but I'm not quite buying the argument looking at those named.
Yep for me the biggest issue there is not even a glimmer of hope of improvement. Just interview after interview of blind denial.I had big doubts last season. The football is so bad I don't see why he deserves more time than our previous better managers.
Having us perform worse than the Ole/Rangnick disaster season is reason enough.This seems an odd question if I’m honest. What is the threshold or qualifying criteria for allowing a manager to do his job?
It’s never been a question of immediate success. It’s not realistic to expect that, even SAF wasn’t an instant hit.
Ten Hag was a hot property this time 2 years ago, europes up and coming management prospect. The Caf was largely begging for him to join us after Ole/Rangnick and up until the LC final he was the messiah.
Now his tricky second album isn’t the hit that the first one was we want to throw him in the trash?
INEOs are literally putting people in place to build a squad, managers don’t do that in modern football.
In terms of the football that’s being played, there’s no point in repeating the same things that nobody has addressed anytime I’ve posted it in here. Done it 2-3 times this season and each time crickets…
Im of the same mindset as Andy Mitten on ETH. But Im not dieing on any hill for ETH. I think he’s gone in the summer.
And the same way INEOS concluded that the people above ETH failed at their job, they should consider the idea that ETH is part of the failures, especially when he had the kindness to expose it for an entire season.
Ok fair enough, so you doubted him well before this season started.I had big doubts last season. The football is so bad I don't see why he deserves more time than our previous better managers.
there is not even a glimmer of hope of improvement
The harm is, we could give him 20 new players and he still persists with this notion of playing without a midfield
Im confident they are assessing everything and if ETH is replaced as part of their long term plans then so be it. If he’s kept on I don’t imagine you will be as magnanimous.
As magnanimous as what? Whether he stays or not, it will change nothing for me.
It's ironic you say that when a lot of EtH cultists keep referring to the Arteta example who took 3 years to get much, much further away from a league title.Right but he didn't do it and fell away massively to get sacked mid season. Then he gave Leicester a big turnaround for 1.5 seasons before nosediving again.
Ah ok, you are right regardless, I will leave you to it.
No, seriously you say things that make no sense. What am I supposed to be magnanimous about?