There are grounds for sacking him. We have an expectation of where we want to go to as a club. There are question marks about if he would take us there as performances haven't given a good indication of that. We aren't creating good enough chances, our movement is poor, pace of play is slow and physicality lacking; whilst he's spent up to 400m on transfers. We're also close to being out of the champions league, despite being much stronger than Galatasaray and Copenhagen.
At this moment, I would want to see how he navigates this, but saying there are no grounds is completely wrong. As a club, after a year and a half, we have a right to question where he is taking us. The football on the pitch should be telling us this, but it's currently not. The aim as a club is not simply to get top 4 at the end of the season, but to get back to being at the top of the english game and be one of the top teams competing for the Champions League every year. The question here is can he take us there? The football doesn't say that.
The second reason I disagree with the notion is why the excuses for him exist. Players are blamed. The board is blamed. People want them replaced or sacked. TThey believe that Ten Haag is mostly operating properly and that everyone else is underperforming. Nonetheless, it is expected of him to be accountable for these on-field performances. Why should Mount's value be diminished just because a team purchased him without a defined vision of how to use him effectively? Despite scoring 30 goals the previous season, Rashford is under scrutiny, but nobody is criticizing the strategy or system for not giving him the chances to perform as well as he did. We are questioning Bruno, who has been essential to us, when he is being shuffled around the pitch in games and isn't being put into positions where he can create. Varane and Casemiro are under scrutiny because ETH's strategies have left them exposed to defensively in every game this season.
Every other person at the club is being questioned, yet the person who sees the whole pitch, trains the players and communicates these tactical instructions should be absolved. We have no clue what he's saying or doing that could be creating this mess. There could be clear communication gaps on his end. His tactics may simply be failing due to the differences in the league. Yet fans are willing to question the intelligence of the players in these circumstances, and not the manager's ability to institute the tactics.Those players were also successes elsewhere. Antony and VDB were considered good players at Ajax. Yet we can all acknowledge the difference in the pace and quality of the league, but can't use the same anology for the manager.
Then we get to senior management. For me, this is even worse. Arnold and Murtough have been hung out to dry. People don't have any idea of what goes on behind the scenes concerning transfers. All we know for sure is that Murtough was able to get a notable amount of players into the squad, with all indications suggesting they were requested and approved by the manager. Casemiro was praised by ETH and the media for being world class on so many occassions. Eriksen was praised as a good free transfer and Malacia was a good Shaw back up. We also know that ETH made the request for Antony, which the football operations team made happen despite the hefty fee. The same thing occured this summer with Mount. We replaced De Gea as fans also wanted us to do. In addition a good young striker was bought.
Yet all of a sudden, now that things on the pitch aren't working out and Ten Haag's system to use Mount has failed, its senior management's fault again. "Sack Arnold and Murtough", " I feel sorry for ETH and all he has to go through". Why? He's the manager. He's been supported financially. In terms of player relations, part of his job is managing those situations. Managers granted far less money have to sit with squads, whilst not liking the abilities of 90 percent of the squads they have. Yet can still put out good football. Season to season, I don't think United fans understand how many injuries other clubs have to go through and how dependent lower teams are on those starting players. What do you think managers that don't have 400m over two seasons in spending have to deal with? Yet those managers are expected to perform, avoid relegation and handle team incidents in house.
Yet somehow the people who are not on the training ground or on the touchline area are at fault for this (Murtough and Arnold). Noone cares that they also have careers, that they also have families, that they may also want the best for the club, when making the evaluation to let them go. Yet they consider so many factors for Erik Ten Haag. You could make the argument that Murtough has only been in that role for 3 transfer windows, so deserves more time. Yet why is no one saying the same for Murough? Understand, this isn't me simply defending Murtough and Arnold. It's me trying to highlight the hypocrisy in not putting a heavy spotlight on Ten Haag for current failings.
For me, the scary thing is, how long can we perform poorly before people shine a spotlight on him. The players can always be used as a screen when things don't go well on the pitch. Senior Management can always be used as a screen for transfers. So what's his actual responsibility?
Last edited:
️