Why on earth would his title change?
New title “bald is best”
A lot of clubs have issues, make a managerial change, see an upward trend and suddenly the 'problems' are less so. Hell even in ETHs first season people weren't talking about all these issues. Look at Villa, near relegation and Emery takes them to top 4. Ange at Spurs, who were in the doldrums and had just sold their best player without replacing him, and they look like they're well on the right path. Spurs have chopped and changed DoFs and those in these sorts of positions and it's not stopped them playing good football. And their actual squad isn't a shade on what we have. At the end of the day, things going on behind the scenes don't stop anybody from excelling on match day. Besides, it is possible to tackle multiple issues at once.
But United aren’t comparable with those clubs. What issues do city , Madrid, Barca , Bayern have with changing managers ? Why do those clubs change managers and not need entire rebuilds everytime? Why can those clubs have ok managers that still win trophies ?
Some will say, “the strength of the EPL” but that doesn’t actually explain anything. The spending United have done is a multiple of all but maybe 2 other clubs in England. Massive spending should, in theory, make it near on impossible for United to finish outside the top 4 in England with even a sub par manager. And it doesn’t explain why United can seldom get to the CL quarter finals.
Avram grant , Di matteo, pelligrini, Mancini , Ranieri, Rodgers (2nd with pool), poch (spurs). Do people honestly think any of these lads would have gotten United to the cusp of a league/CL Double, 2nd spot or a league ?
Tuchel winning the CL with Chelsea , did similar to Di matteo. Almost like the squad was strong enough on its own to achieve top things in the right conditions. Not comparing managers as Tuchel is clearly vastly superior, but why were chelsea able to win 2 European cups like that and nearly a double with Avram grant ?
It wasn’t just because they hired/fired quickly , that doesn’t explain low quality managers doing well. They had a system that worked , a Squad that was strong and a culture of ruthlessly moving on deadwood and getting in players needed. Not hanging onto players for years and forcing managers to just make it work like they do at United.
I’m not saying we should do exactly what Chelsea did under Roman, but I’m saying they had a club structure that worked under multiple managers and was setup to always maintain a strong squad. Any manager taking over Chelsea inherited a very strong squad that seldom needed full over hauls.
This is why it’s harder to judge United managers. They could walk into Chelsea , make a few tweaks and they’d be good to go. At United, they’d always have a disjointed squad , multiple positions lacking, players with long expensive contracts that the club couldn’t or wouldn’t sell, usually some drama with some players and the club struggled to get primary targets or over pats for them leaving us short in other areas.
On paper the spending migh be the same or higher then Chelsea or others “he spent 400 million” but in truth that headline figure was no comparison with the mess at United versus more settled clubs who don’t need as much squad additions for their new manager. In short; if you were taking over United the last 10 years versus any other comparable club our size, you were already at a massive disadvantage to an opposing manager.
.