Erik ten Hag | 2024/25

[In Rainbows]

Got some new defenders back, still Ten Hag doesn't value compactness. It will never work with him in charge when he doesn't value it.

 

[Berbaclass]

Got some new defenders back, still Ten Hag doesn't value compactness. It will never work with him in charge when he doesn't value it.

Oof

 

[Zumbi]

If you sack him, you have to replace him, unless you're suggesting going manager less will improve things? If so, you need to provide your reasoning. Same with Ruud, what reasoning do you have to think he'll do a better job? Saying he couldn't be any worse is just irrational, as that's an obvious falsehood.

From the names you listed, all have question marks. Xavi and Potter are the only ones that really fit the kind of proactive football we want to play. Tuchel has question marks given he finished second in a one horse race in Germany last season, and Zidane is interesting but it's unlikely he'll come here.

The reasoning is that Ten Hag is shit, and his team consistently plays like shit, and many of us are at the point where we’d rather risk watching a new person, whoever that is, being shit in a different way than watching Ten Hag be shit in the same way again and again and again.

Because as a possible bonus, the new person might not even be shit. They might like having a functional midfield. Or they might coach our team to not haemorrhage goals in injury time. Or they might figure out a way for our attackers to pass to each other and then kick the ball in the net. All things that have proved mysteriously elusive so far for Ten Hag.

As for the rest, it’s just laughable. “Tuchel has question marks given he finished second in a two horse race”. Can you even hear yourself? We finished 8th with a negative goal difference after spending hundreds of millions of pounds. You don’t think that’s a much bigger question mark? Jesus wept.

 

[Lentwood]

Got some new defenders back, still Ten Hag doesn't value compactness. It will never work with him in charge when he doesn't value it.

I'd love to sit down with him and get an insight into what he thinks he knows about football that literally everybody else on the planet doesn't.

It's really difficult to work out what he's trying to achieve...is the theory that if we stretch the game we can isolate our better quality players against weaker opponents?

 

[AneRu]

If you sack him, you have to replace him, unless you're suggesting going manager less will improve things? If so, you need to provide your reasoning. Same with Ruud, what reasoning do you have to think he'll do a better job? Saying he couldn't be any worse is just irrational, as that's an obvious falsehood.

From the names you listed, all have question marks. Xavi and Potter are the only ones that really fit the kind of proactive football we want to play. Tuchel has question marks given he finished second in a one horse race in Germany last season, and Zidane is interesting but it's unlikely he'll come here.

We are not at the level of scoffing at a second place finish and a CL semi finalist in a most recent assignment. We could take a decade to match that achievement. We are rock bottom.

What he has done in his career to date suggests that he will be a massive improvement on ETH and his brainless tactics. At times that's all you need for a while. Tuchel can come in here, play basic but solid football and help us creep up the table maybe to a top 5 finish and an EL deep run which could earn us CL football, if PL sides do well in Europe overall. That will be good enough for our needs.

What is unacceptable is to waste another season in the hope that Ten Hag will turn it around or waiting in vain for the nonexistent super manager.

 

[lex talionis]

It's probably safe to assume that there is no top manager waiting in the wings for United to come calling. So it's either ETH or Ruud. I would give ETH one more match but if we can't beat Southampton then that has to be that and we turn to Ruud.

The bandage had to be ripped last summer but we had sociopaths like "Mark Goldbridge" (which is not his real name...it's only a stage name) who whipped up hysteria against INEOS for doing what it knew had to get done but it didn't have the balls to do it.

 

[Lentwood]

If you sack him, you have to replace him, unless you're suggesting going manager less will improve things? If so, you need to provide your reasoning

This is logic that is typical of a portion of United fans who think every managerial appointment has to be guaranteed to be here for three decades and win everything for it to be worth changing managers.

It's flawed logic to say "yes this chap is an abject failure but who's to say the new chap won't be?". That implies it's never worth doing anything unless you can absolutely guarantee a desired outcome and thats not how people live their lives in reality.

I'm sure you don't go about saying "what's the point in putting new brake pads on your car, they could still fail to stop you in-time to avoid a deadly collision. What's the point in giving up smoking, you might still get cancer. What's the point in wearing a helmet when skiing, cycling or driving, Schumacher still ended up with life changing injuries?"

The reality is no other club makes such a meal of changing managers. If a manager underperforms, they sack them and bring a new one in. If they fail, they sack them again, rinse repeat until you land on a decent one!

 

[glazed]

Yes and he didn't sign said contract, so that would mean he still has his transfer powers agreed with the previous regime then yes?

Yes I believe that's the case. But I also doubt he would be throwing his weight around too much given his precarious position. He needs to be able to blame somebody else.

 

[SparcMac]

Got some new defenders back, still Ten Hag doesn't value compactness. It will never work with him in charge when he doesn't value it.

MEDIA=twitter]1831035820524114218[/MEDIA]

Spurs will concede 100 goals if the keep this up.

 

[Jim Beam]

It's probably safe to assume that there is no top manager waiting in the wings for United to come calling. So it's either ETH or Ruud. I would give ETH one more match but if we can't beat Southampton then that has to be that and we turn to Ruud.

The bandage had to be ripped last summer but we had sociopaths like "Mark Goldbridge" (which is not his real name...it's only a stage name) who whipped up hysteria against INEOS for doing what it knew had to get done but it didn't have the balls to do it.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

If you sack him, you have to replace him, unless you're suggesting going manager less will improve things? If so, you need to provide your reasoning. Same with Ruud, what reasoning do you have to think he'll do a better job? Saying he couldn't be any worse is just irrational, as that's an obvious falsehood.

I think it helps to distinguish between a manager getting a poor but passable grade, and the manager getting a failing grade.

If they are barely passing then yes, it might be a risk to replace them with someone who will fail. If they are failing then that's not as important.

 

[The Hilton]

And I think everyone’s point that’s arguing with you is that there’s a high probability of a number of managers, interim or not, improving things over what current performances and results have been for almost 18 months now.

And I'm asking for some reasoning behind that. If the probability is really that high, it should be very simple to make a case for someone, rather than having to rely on an ethereal replacement.

 

[The Hilton]

The reasoning is that Ten Hag is shit, and his team consistently plays like shit, and many of us are at the point where we’d rather risk watching a new person, whoever that is, being shit in a different way than watching Ten Hag be shit in the same way again and again and again.

Because as a possible bonus, the new person might not even be shit. They might like having a functional midfield. Or they might coach our team to not haemorrhage goals in injury time. Or they might figure out a way for our attackers to pass to each other and then kick the ball in the net. All things that have proved mysteriously elusive so far for Ten Hag.

As for the rest, it’s just laughable. “Tuchel has question marks given he finished second in a two horse race”. Can you even hear yourself? We finished 8th with a negative goal difference after spending hundreds of millions of pounds. You don’t think that’s a much bigger question mark? Jesus wept.

You've demonstrated my point really well, your preferred approach is based entirely on "might". I "might" win the lottery every weekend for the rest of my life. It isn't a good idea to base the success of a football club on such shallow gambles.

As I've said so often, if Ten Hag is so bad it should be really simple to make a case for an available manager. Being unable to do so is indicative of taking a poorly thought out position.

 

[The Hilton]

I think it helps to distinguish between a manager getting a poor but passable grade, and the manager getting a failing grade.

If they are barely passing then yes, it might be a risk to replace them with someone who will fail. If they are failing then that's not as important.

That's fair, but failing or not things can get worse. Ole was failing, but still had the dressing room, Rangnick took over and within 45 minutes he didn't even have that. The famous "vibes" we had were replaced with an openly insubordinate dressing room that was split down the middle that took until this transfer window to properly deal with.

 

[Leftback99]

You've demonstrated my point really well, your preferred approach is based entirely on "might". I "might" win the lottery every weekend for the rest of my life. It isn't a good idea to base the success of a football club on such shallow gambles.

As I've said so often, if Ten Hag is so bad it should be really simple to make a case for an available manager. Being unable to do so is indicative of taking a poorly thought out position.

Do you honestly believe that Ten Hag is the best manager we could get right now?

 

[In Rainbows]

That's fair, but failing or not things can get worse. Ole was failing, but still had the dressing room, Rangnick took over and within 45 minutes he didn't even have that. The famous "vibes" we had were replaced with an openly insubordinate dressing room that was split down the middle that took until this transfer window to properly deal with.

Yeah, but that's why you get rid of the guy that made it worse.

 

[Woodywizz]

The reasoning is that Ten Hag is shit, and his team consistently plays like shit, and many of us are at the point where we’d rather risk watching a new person, whoever that is, being shit in a different way than watching Ten Hag be shit in the same way again and again and again.

Because as a possible bonus, the new person might not even be shit. They might like having a functional midfield. Or they might coach our team to not haemorrhage goals in injury time. Or they might figure out a way for our attackers to pass to each other and then kick the ball in the net. All things that have proved mysteriously elusive so far for Ten Hag.

As for the rest, it’s just laughable. “Tuchel has question marks given he finished second in a two horse race”. Can you even hear yourself? We finished 8th with a negative goal difference after spending hundreds of millions of pounds. You don’t think that’s a much bigger question mark? Jesus wept.

Excellent post. Spot on

 

[The Hilton]

This is logic that is typical of a portion of United fans who think every managerial appointment has to be guaranteed to be here for three decades and win everything for it to be worth changing managers.

It's flawed logic to say "yes this chap is an abject failure but who's to say the new chap won't be?". That implies it's never worth doing anything unless you can absolutely guarantee a desired outcome and thats not how people live their lives in reality.

I'm sure you don't go about saying "what's the point in putting new brake pads on your car, they could still fail to stop you in-time to avoid a deadly collision. What's the point in giving up smoking, you might still get cancer. What's the point in wearing a helmet when skiing, cycling or driving, Schumacher still ended up with life changing injuries?"

The reality is no other club makes such a meal of changing managers. If a manager underperforms, they sack them and bring a new one in. If they fail, they sack them again, rinse repeat until you land on a decent one!

It isn't flawed logic to have a good reason to expect a replacement to do a better job before replacing the incumbent. I've never said guaranteed, that's a tired strawman, and your examples are false equivalences. Given your car one, a more accurate one would be "my engine is struggling, and I can't take it out and be without an engine, all the top engines I'd want long term are currently in other cars, so what engines are out there that I can reasonably expect to be better than my current one". Still not ideal, but closer than your strawmen.

Every hiring manager around the world will look at skills and experience to inform the likelihood that a candidate can do a job. The same is true of football management. Clubs don't just throw random managers at the job, they appoint managers that they reasonably expect will do a better job. If you can make a case for an available manager to take over immediately, please do so, I'm open to be convinced, but so far folks have only advocated for firing having not thought any further, which is irrational.

 

[Teja]

Got some new defenders back, still Ten Hag doesn't value compactness. It will never work with him in charge when he doesn't value it.

It doesn't say anything about compactness - Look at each of the axes independently and reason about them. Think about what useful information being left out and not just what's presented (e.g., does this system lead to more fast breaks? xG? What's being ignored here?)

Pressing intensity is being defined as # of seconds to disrupt a possession chain. We take a long time because our "press" is ineffective and allows too many open easy options. It doesn't say anything about the root cause of why there are so many easy options. Many reasons some of which are:

1. Pressing scheme is new (codeword for crap). We're piloting this new system from the end of last season where the two people that press are the #10 and the CF instead of the winger and the CF. Bad execution leads to too many open passing options for defenders.
2. Our players are lightweight and we lack physicality. Bruno gets swatted away by basically any CB in the league when he's huffing and puffing about.
3. Small sample size

All put together, even with the players running around like maniacs (what you commonly imagine when someone says pressing intensity), you don't register a high score here if you don't actually disrupt the possession chain.

Average defensive line height: This is as it sounds but is still misleading. The most common interpretation is that our defence doesn't push up high when we have the ball and that's just false. Basically every PL side pushes up fairly high (with CBs way beyond the half way line) when they are attacking. The decision point is when they choose to drop deeper. Immediately after loosing the ball? Or super late continuing to stay up and support the press? We do have an issue with our defence dropping fairly quickly despite instructions to stay high but that's not what this is showing.

My take is that we rely on fast transitions and don't build play up patiently. If you rely on fast transitions, you loose the ball more frequently in your own half and your defence has to stay deep and your average line height comes down. Remember that it's the average line height. So if you're defending deep and in your box for 80 minutes in a game and have your CBs super high for 10 minutes a game when you have possession, your average defensive line height will still be crap. This is also why the line height for Pool / Newcastle is middling.

Combining the two things above, we also intentionally go into a mid block as soon as we take a lead. That means as soon as we loose the ball, we don't press up high and the defence has license to drop to a deeper line immediately. All of these factors will reduce the average defensive line height.

 

[The Hilton]

Are you new to football or something? First season watching maybe?

“Unavailable” managers will happily leave clubs for new opportunities if the right offer is made. Clubs sack managers mid season and manage to find replacements mid season, every single season. The idea that this is somehow beyond Man Utd and Ineos is laughable. You’re delusional if you really think they wouldn’t be able to lure a replacement if they really went after one. The idea that this change has to wait until the end of the season is just nonsense to anyone who knows anything about the managerial merry-go-round that is football. And it’ll be proved as such if Ten Hag fails to get this team playing very soon, because if he doesn’t, Ineos will take action long before then. We’re three games in and the pressure is already building.

But as I predicted, this is just a disingenuous distraction tactic that aims to deflect from the real question about whether Ten Hag is the right man whilst picking holes in any names put forward. It’s a bad faith argument that everyone you’re engaging with can see coming a mile away.

Changing an underperforming manager for a new one is not change for change sake. It’s specifically and deliberately done in an attempt to improve the performance of the team. You keep dodging that point but incessantly repeating a cliche doesn’t lend it any credence.

No manager in the world, whatever their CV or experience, is guaranteed to succeed, so yes, every new appointment is a roll of the dice to some extent. Welcome to football. But sticking with a manager who keeps setting new records for terrible results is also rolling the dice. You’re just knowingly rolling a dice that has a history of rolling ones and twos.

That's an unnecessarily catty opening to your post, it may have sounded witty but really it's just puerile. I'm happy to continue this discussion, but only if it's an adult conversation.

You're also flat wrong about my intention. I've stated multiple times that I'm open to changing Ten Hag, I'm no longer convinced he's the right man, and that there are multiple managers I'd happily swap him for. None of them are available at the moment, and I think it would be very unlikely we could get them to move to us mid season while we're struggling.

If you're convinced he should go now, name who you think should replace him and why they'd be better. It should be awfully simple if there's loads of better managers out there.

 

[stevoc]

You have evidently lost track of the debate - so let me remind you.

You claimed most the signings were Ten Hag's pushes, and bucketed De Ligt and Zirkzee into that. You were then reminded about how De Ligt was actually an INEOS signing, per multiple tier one reports and Ten Hag's own words - but chose to bury your head in the sand because you know - dutch innit.

Then you were reminded Zirkzee was a 2nd choice behind Sesko, and actually fits the Ashworth mould more than the Ten Hag one. But you ignored that and claimed it has to be Ten Hag's choice because you know - dutch innit.

This isn't feuding by the way - I just called out your lack of proper foundation and cited multiple sources that pointed to the contrary. And you've called these sources "waffle", suggesting you must be right because, well, dutch innit.

Anyway lets draw a line, your reasoning makes me chuckle and that's about all I can say.

The only thing you've reminded me of is how tedious a conversation with you can be. And all that bolded shit is not necessarily fact, you certainly don't know that it is.

I'm not feuding, it's you that tries to start arguments with people if you perceive them to be in some way denigrating your hero. My post wasn't even criticising Ten Hag and it still upset you.

And you've called these sources "waffle"

There you go making shit up again. In the process proving that it's you that spouts waffle as I said.

 

[Jim Beam]

If you're convinced he should go now, name who you think should replace him and why they'd be better. It should be awfully simple if there's loads of better managers out there.

What Tuchel did tactically with Chelsea was a transformation never seen before or after in football.

 

[The Hilton]

Yeah, but that's why you get rid of the guy that made it worse.

According to many on here, we got rid of the guy that made it worse and replaced him with a guy who made it worse still. So the "throw managers at the problem" approach everyone is advocating for clearly doesn't work.

All I'm advocating for is that this be a decision that has some thought put into it, but I'm being piled on by posters who are offended at the idea of having to put some thinking behind their opinions rather than sticking to shallow opinions that don't have any thought beyond a reflex reaction.

 

[In Rainbows]

It doesn't say anything about compactness - Look at each of the axes independently and reason about them. Think about what useful information being left out and not just what's presented (e.g., does this system lead to more fast breaks? xG? What's being ignored here?)

Pressing intensity is being defined as # of seconds to disrupt a possession chain. We take a long time because our "press" is ineffective and allows too many open easy options. It doesn't say anything about the root cause of why there are so many easy options. Many reasons some of which are:

1. Pressing scheme is new (codeword for crap). We're piloting this new system from the end of last season where the two people that press are the #10 and the CF instead of the winger and the CF. Bad execution leads to too many open passing options for defenders.
2. Our players are lightweight and we lack physicality. Bruno gets swatted away by basically any CB in the league when he's huffing and puffing about.
3. Small sample size

All put together, even with the players running around like maniacs (what you commonly imagine when someone says pressing intensity), you don't register a high score here if you don't actually disrupt the possession chain.

Average defensive line height: This is as it sounds but is still misleading. The most common interpretation is that our defence doesn't push up high when we have the ball and that's just false. Basically every PL side pushes up fairly high (with CBs way beyond the half way line) when they are attacking. The decision point is when they choose to drop deeper. Immediately after loosing the ball? Or super late continuing to stay up and support the press? We do have an issue with our defence dropping fairly quickly despite instructions to stay high but that's not what this is showing.

My take is that we rely on fast transitions and don't build play up patiently. If you rely on fast transitions, you loose the ball more frequently in your own half and your defence has to stay deep and your average line height comes down. Remember that it's the average line height. So if you're defending deep and in your box for 80 minutes in a game and have your CBs super high for 10 minutes a game when you have possession, your average defensive line height will still be crap. This is also why the line height for Pool / Newcastle is middling.

Combining the two things above, we also intentionally go into a mid block as soon as we take a lead. That means as soon as we loose the ball, we don't press up high and the defence has license to drop to a deeper line immediately. All of these factors will reduce the average defensive line height.

It does say something about compactness. The two are related. Our pressing suffers from not having compactness because having more space for the opposition to work with, means it's more difficult to win the ball back. There is more space to run to, and the opposition has more space to play with.

The part about when United are dropping deep is an assumption on your part on what I believed the chart stood for. The complaint is about the opposition having too much space to work with, and making it much more difficult for our defenders and midfielders to defend. Therefore, it's about when we're trying to win the ball back.

 

[VP89]

Our midfielders

I h

The only thing you've reminded me of is how tedious a conversation with you can be. And all that bolded shit is not necessarily fact, you certainly don't know that it is.



There you go making shit up again. In the process proving that it's you that spouts waffle as I said.

So the tier one sources and ten hags own words isn't credible? This is a simple yes or no question.

 

[Zed 101]

It isn't flawed logic to have a good reason to expect a replacement to do a better job before replacing the incumbent. I've never said guaranteed, that's a tired strawman, and your examples are false equivalences. Given your car one, a more accurate one would be "my engine is struggling, and I can't take it out and be without an engine, all the top engines I'd want long term are currently in other cars, so what engines are out there that I can reasonably expect to be better than my current one". Still not ideal, but closer than your strawmen.

Every hiring manager around the world will look at skills and experience to inform the likelihood that a candidate can do a job. The same is true of football management. Clubs don't just throw random managers at the job, they appoint managers that they reasonably expect will do a better job. If you can make a case for an available manager to take over immediately, please do so, I'm open to be convinced, but so far folks have only advocated for firing having not thought any further, which is irrational.

Well I just wish I could be as shite at my job as ETH is at his and not get fired.

I am trying to believe that you are not on a colossal wum but given your blind defense of ETH I wonder.

None of us have to suggest a different option to put forward to argue that ETH is not good enough to keep his job. None of us are responsible for hiring a new guy, but I have every confidence that any of the other premier league managers could get our team playing better football and getting results..... Shite I would drag Warnock out of retirement and he would do better, literally drawing a face on a pink balloon pretending ETH had not left and just letting the players sort themselves out would be an improvement!

Tbh I would jump at Bruno player managing, feck me I would take Eric the Red over the bald clown we have in charge, I would literally rather have anyone at this point simply because they could not be a worse, stupid manager than ETH is.

 

[stevoc]

Yes I believe that's the case. But I also doubt he would be throwing his weight around too much given his precarious position. He needs to be able to blame somebody else.

Are you sure he went into this season thinking he was in a precarious position though?

Won the Cup, thinks injuries and players not following instructions are the reason his tactics didn't work last season, didn't get sacked, then got his contract extended.

He always seems quite sure of himself, there must be a reason he didn't sign the new contract. Maybe it's because he wanted to keep his transfer powers.

 

[The Hilton]

What Tuchel did tactically with Chelsea was a transformation never seen before or after in football.

That seems somewhat exaggerated, but in fairness Tuchel is clearly a top candidate. There are definitely question marks against him though - it's highly unlikely he'd be willing to come in as a caretaker, as a permanent appointment his pragmatic football doesn't seem to align with the direction we're trying to head in, preferring to adopt a more proactive setup. On top of that, he managed to finish third (I've been corrected) in a one horse race in Germany.

I'd probably take him until the end of the season, as he'd get a new manager bounce and make us more solid, but I don't think he's the right man to take us forward longer term than that, and evidently neither to the club after deciding against him in the summer.

 

[The Hilton]

Well I just wish I could be as shite at my job as ETH is at his and not get fired.

I am trying to believe that you are not on a colossal wum but given your blind defense of ETH I wonder.

None of us have to suggest a different option to put forward to argue that ETH is not good enough to keep his job. None of us are responsible for hiring a new guy, but I have every confidence that any of the other premier league managers could get our team playing better football and getting results..... Shite I would drag Warnock out of retirement and he would do better, literally drawing a face on a pink balloon pretending ETH had not left and just letting the players sort themselves out would be an improvement!

Tbh I would jump at Bruno player managing, feck me I would take Eric the Red over the bald clown we have in charge, I would literally rather have anyone at this point simply because they could not be a worse, stupid manager than ETH is.

If you actually read my posts, you'd know that the part in bold is absolutely false. I've stated several times I'm open to him going, and who I'd like as replacements.

The rest of your post has demonstrated my point wonderfully. It's just an irrational reflex at this point, Ten Hag must go and any potential consequences can be damned.

 

[The Hilton]

Do you honestly believe that Ten Hag is the best manager we could get right now?

I don't know of any available managers that would be willing to come in as a caretaker that I think would provide much of an improvement, and the managers I think could provide a temporary improvement (Tuchel for example) would only take the job long term, and in that case I don't think they're good enough for us to tie ourselves to them for multiple years when we could likely get a much more suitable candidate in as a replacement for Ten Hag in the summer.

 

[Jim Beam]

That seems somewhat exaggerated, but in fairness Tuchel is clearly a top candidate. There are definitely question marks against him though - it's highly unlikely he'd be willing to come in as a caretaker, as a permanent appointment his pragmatic football doesn't seem to align with the direction we're trying to head in, preferring to adopt a more proactive setup. On top of that, he managed to finish third (I've been corrected) in a one horse race in Germany.

I'd probably take him until the end of the season, as he'd get a new manager bounce and make us more solid, but I don't think he's the right man to take us forward longer term than that, and evidently neither to the club after deciding against him in the summer+

His stock fall after managing Bayern. But he made Chelsea one of the best sides in Europe.

Dominating City in CL final as well. Just look at thoughts while he was Chelsea manager.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/thoughts-on-tuchel-as-a-potential-united-manager.469314/

 

[In Rainbows]

According to many on here, we got rid of the guy that made it worse and replaced him with a guy who made it worse still. So the "throw managers at the problem" approach everyone is advocating for clearly doesn't work.

All I'm advocating for is that this be a decision that has some thought put into it, but I'm being piled on by posters who are offended at the idea of having to put some thinking behind their opinions rather than sticking to shallow opinions that don't have any thought beyond a reflex reaction.

How much more thought is needed to suggest Ten Hag isn't good enough? There's more thought being put into that opinion than those who defend him with "needs more time." That's just a blanket statement that has no logic to it other than time might make it work out after clear obvious signs that it's not working. There are numerous examples just within the last 2 years of PL managers not needing this amount of time and clearout to make things look better.

The "throw managers at the problem" approach is what every club uses. Every club. For some reason United fans think United are special and have figured out how to solve the same problem every club has to deal with, that is with "time." United have actually been far more lenient than other clubs with failing managers, and so that approach is actually making things worse. This is another sentiment United fans think United have acted like. To be clear, it's the sentiment "we're tired of the revolving managers approach." That is the complete opposite of what United have been like.

The only evidence that favors the "time is a better strategy" is, Arteta? Arteta is probably the only example that has worked out in that manner. Who else? Fergie?

 

[The Hilton]

We are not at the level of scoffing at a second place finish and a CL semi finalist in a most recent assignment. We could take a decade to match that achievement. We are rock bottom.

What he has done in his career to date suggests that he will be a massive improvement on ETH and his brainless tactics. At times that's all you need for a while. Tuchel can come in here, play basic but solid football and help us creep up the table maybe to a top 5 finish and an EL deep run which could earn us CL football, if PL sides do well in Europe overall. That will be good enough for our needs.

What is unacceptable is to waste another season in the hope that Ten Hag will turn it around or waiting in vain for the nonexistent super manager.

I'd be OK with Tuchel until the summer, but he is incredibly unlikely to accept that. I think he's a poor long term choice and would rather wait until the summer for a better permanent replacement.

 

[Garnacho Libre]

This thread, with all due respect....has become ridiculous.

Look at page 1 of this thread. Full of confidence in the manger. The last pages since Liverpool game, he's the worst manager in history. It's amazing that losing to Liverpool, a side much better than us for years now, can influence a 360 degree change of opinion.

Most comments aren't logical, full of contradictions. Some are so far deep into why they want Ten Hag sacked they no longer listen to reason.

A big clear-out was made, new signings came in. It is only the start of the INEOS era, they are not going to sack him in the foreseeable future. The club has hit restart, it is a new project. You don't sack your leading man after 3 weeks. Absolutely madness some comments in this thread.

 

[RedSky]

I'm pretty sure we could employ a number of Managers and they would be able to have a better Win Rate than 50% over 55 games. That's where we're at with Ten Hag, we're utter garbage.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Look at page 1 of this thread. Full of confidence in the manger.

I think this thread was started because the old one was quite negative.

 

[The Hilton]

How much more thought is needed to suggest Ten Hag isn't good enough? There's more thought being put into that opinion than those who defend him with "needs more time." That's just a blanket statement that has no logic to it other than time might make it work out after clear obvious signs that it's not working. There are numerous examples just within the last 2 years of PL managers not needing this amount of time and clearout to make things look better.

The "throw managers at the problem" approach is what every club uses. Every club. For some reason United fans think United are special and have figured out how to solve the same problem every club has to deal with, that is with "time." United have actually been far more lenient than other clubs with failing managers, and so that approach is actually making things worse.

Arteta is probably the only example that has worked out in that manner. Who else? Fergie?

You're misrepresenting what I mean by "throw managers at the problem". Clubs won't fire managers without any thought as to what to do afterwards, or who to appoint. At least not well run clubs (we did that under the previous regime, and we all know how badly it turned out). I'm not defending Ten Hag, but we have to replace him with someone if we fire him, last time we replaced a manager with a caretaker it went horribly wrong.

Let me quote another recent reply to explain what my position is at the moment:

I don't know of any available managers that would be willing to come in as a caretaker that I think would provide much of an improvement, and the managers I think could provide a temporary improvement (Tuchel for example) would only take the job long term, and in that case I don't think they're good enough for us to tie ourselves to them for multiple years when we could likely get a much more suitable candidate in as a replacement for Ten Hag in the summer.

Do you disagree with that?

 

[stevoc]

So the tier one sources and ten hags own words isn't credible? This is a simple yes or no question.

I suspect your definition of what a credible journalist/newspaper is and mine are somewhat different. You seem to think everything reported by the Athletic is fact.

The Athletic is credible in so much as they for the most part only print information they are given/find out first hand. A figure within football can tell them something directly and they can print it knowing they haven't made it up like other outlets. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the person who gave them the information was telling the truth or at least the whole truth. People within football brief all sorts of rubbish to push narratives. And remember at no point have I said I know for certain what's going on behind the scenes at United or who actually identified which targets, I just don't believe in coincidences. If you are honest with yourself you will realize you don't know for a fact either what's went on.

And Ten Hag (like most football managers to be fair) spouts shit regularly so no. I haven't seen that interview in question and at this point I tend to not put too much stock into anything he says.

 

[Zumbi]

You've demonstrated my point really well, your preferred approach is based entirely on "might". I "might" win the lottery every weekend for the rest of my life. It isn't a good idea to base the success of a football club on such shallow gambles.

As I've said so often, if Ten Hag is so bad it should be really simple to make a case for an available manager. Being unable to do so is indicative of taking a poorly thought out position.

No manager is guaranteed to be a success. We cannot see into the future. However, we already know how Ten Hag is doing and it’s not good enough. Why do you keep ignoring this point?

Likening the odds of a new manager improving our performances to that of winning the lottery every weekend for the rest of your life? Seriously? Can you even keep a straight face typing this stuff? Are you Ten Hag?

People have made cases for various managers. And all do is dismiss each and every one as if it’s impossible for the club to find anyone better, and then dishonestly pretend like noone’s even made a case.

 

[RDCR07]

This thread, with all due respect....has become ridiculous.

Look at page 1 of this thread. Full of confidence in the manger. The last pages since Liverpool game, he's the worst manager in history. It's amazing that losing to Liverpool, a side much better than us for years now, can influence a 360 degree change of opinion.

Most comments aren't logical, full of contradictions. Some are so far deep into why they want Ten Hag sacked they no longer listen to reason.

A big clear-out was made, new signings came in. It is only the start of the INEOS era, they are not going to sack him in the foreseeable future. The club has hit restart, it is a new project. You don't sack your leading man after 3 weeks. Absolutely madness some comments in this thread.

So if you were in charge when exactly would you sack him? How many results have to go south for you to change your mind? And I’m not coming at you or anything just genuinely curious to hear the other side.