Forget about 'strategic patience' at United, should we just adopt the Chelsea model?

[VivaRonaldo85]

One of the clubs many issues is the board and decision makers are not best in class. The other top clubs in the league have more proactive forward thinking boards. Ours feels very reactive to crisis rather than long term succession planning and building.

 

[justsomebloke]

Both models can work, but I feel like Man Utd's recent approach is similar to Chelsea's. Managers get given the chance, but if it isn't showing enough promise or direct results they get fired. Ole started as the latter and then showed signs of the former, but now both seem to not cut it and a firing seems close.

For a long term coach it's important to have someone who can build something up, while starting out with a strong base, but while also showing the capacity to reinvent themselves and alter their team's approach. A people's manager tends to work for a while, but not forever (i.e. Ancelotti can be great, but usually loses the spark after 2-4 seasons), a coach with a defined style seems to work for a single season or perhaps two MAX, especially in the past decade this seems to be the case to me. Mourinho or even someone like Bosz seem to be outdated if you're looking for a longterm manager, though they usually show great signs that make you think their best seasons are still in them. Wouldn't be surprised if both are out of Roma and Lyonnais sometime between the end of this season or halfway in the next.

What seems to work in an almost timeless manner is the adaptable but adamant coach. I think Ferguson was one of these, though he also had a good team around him. But even though United had a certain identity, SAF wasn't too afraid or narcissitic to tweak things when necessary, depending on the team's quality, balance, opposition and simply the nature of the current game. Nowadays there are a few as well. Klopp, Guardiola, Simeone and Ten Hag have clear views on football, but they're not as stuck to a very specific approach as people like Bosz, Koeman or De Boer (I'm Dutch so those examples get blasted in my face much more than other nation's coaches) are. Klopp has his fast-forward approach, but the way it's implemented exactly changes around every 2 seasons or so. Guardiola is more about possession and quick combinations, but during certain momentums it's a more classical 4-3-3 and other times players like Messi and Foden are strikers and Bernardo's are close to defensive midfielders. Ten Hag is somewhere in between them, and generally favors a 4-3-3 that can morph into a 4-4-2/4-2-4, but now figured an anchor man works better if you have shorter (though very talented and technical) center backs. Simeone says he bases it on the club's identity, and I've only followed him at Atleti, so I'll take that as his own identity for this discussion: he focuses on hard work and counter football with a solid defensive base, preferably in a 4-4-2 formation. However, he buys more offensively capable players every year since the Raul Garcia's and Saúls don't cut it as your offensive midfielders if you want to not just shake up the top, but become on if its members. Since last season he even implemented a much more possession based tactics (he argues to bring out the best of Suarez) and the 3-4-3s and 3-5-2s and even occasional 4-3-3s are something you couldn't imagine of him two years ago. Furthermore having players like Lemar as CM, Koke and Rodrigo de Paul as the defensive midfielders is something I didn't see coming, but it shows Simeone is willing to think about and try out alterations to his team.

All of these coaches' teams have had drops in quality for a season or so, but there were clear signs they were working on something, regardless of which players were bought or not. Last year Klopp's Lpool was rusty, but this season they're back. The season before that City was vulnerable and now they have two very solid seasons in a row. 17-18 Ten Hag was shaky, 18-19 was amazing, 19-21 seasons were a bit inconsistent and this season they seem even stronger than their 18-19 shake-up. I think I've talked too much about Simeone in the previous paragraph, but same story there (although they have lost their unsurpassable wall in defense, which I hope they can implement into this offensively very sound squad).

Ole seems to be the people manager type, especially the way he talks about his 'leaders' and the yadayada. I had faith in him, especially with the team he has behind him, but it's almost like he has a few tricks up his sleeve, but when the opponent isn't shaken, he's got nothing. You can't rely on a few tricks if you're here for the long haul, no matter how good those tricks are. You can't just keep your group of players happy and a team and then if the players are good enough that'll get you titles. Maybe that worked before, but it doesn't now. I know Ole means well, but I don't think he is a long term manager like that.

And when coaches start talking about necessary transfers instead of working with what they have... then what exactly do they add as the coach?

To be honest, I don't know which category Zidane belongs to. He did have his CL titles during his first spell and I think one LL title in the second? He did show differing tactics all the time, but general approach wise I'm still uncertain about his long term validity. Even with those titles, a lot of those seasons Madrid were pretty shaky. I don't think Rodgers is strong enough for a club as big as Utd, but he has shown more of the consistency, adaptabilty and flexibility that I think are necessary if you're thinking about long term managers. It's just that his Liverpool spell showed that he might miss the final touch that'll get you silverware instead of the silver medal peak.

So options wise I think Zidane would be a gamble, probably a better people manager than Ole, but still a risk in the position that Utd find themselves in. Ten Hag if he's a real option would be good I think, although so far his biggest club has been Ajax (if you don't count his stint at Bayern's second team, of course). But does he want to? Does he want to for a long time? Klopp, Pep and Simeone are probably not coming at all. So out of managers linked right now, I think only Ten Hag shows the promise of adapting the team and improving the players past the quality they already had when bought.

Thanks for this, that was a very interesting read.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

He wasn't around at that time, he joined in November 2013 and focused on the youth setup alongside Butt.

He’s been around the club since 2013, hardly feels like bringing in some one fresh with experience of squad to fix the obvious deficiencies of the club

Plus things are hardly going great now considering how top heavy are squad is.

 

[JPRouve]

He’s been around the club since 2013, hardly feels like bringing in some one fresh with experience of squad to fix the obvious deficiencies of the club

Plus things are hardly going great now considering how top heavy are squad is.

He was in a different capacity not directly linked to the first team and has only been appointed to his current job in March/April which means that the summer plans were most likely alread largely set without his direct input. And you want good ideas, it's not as if someone from the outside is going to bring particularly fresh ideas, it's also not how most clubs operate, there is a reason people generally have no idea about who DOFs are and were they come from, it's because they are generally internal appointments.

 

[wolvored]

Give a 3 year contract and financial support for transfers if we haven't won the prem by then even if we're top 4 move on to the next

 

[Redfrog]

So maybe we should aim for that model, instead of "throw shit at the wall until it sticks" model (which actually isn't a model at all)?

Yes, we should. We are wasting money right, left and center because we hire and keep managers with no plan.
Instead, we should identify a group of managers that can suit us and hire them as soon as we can and not keep the manager we have actually just because he needs time or he got the top 4 with 60 points being crystal clear he will never win the league…
That’s the way city are run. They waited Pep for a long time but hired Pellegrini who was attacking manager then sacked him when Pep was available.

 

[Abraxas]

I don't think it's to do with models, it's to do with competent decision makers.

Jose, Van Gaal and especially Moyes were sacked pretty quickly. Maybe not at the precise moment posters would want, but it did not take an inordinate amount of time. Aside from Moyes they got some time and patience but were sacked when the results were poor and/or the morale was irredeemable which I would say is the correct approach, roughly speaking. Is this indicative of a model? I wouldn't say so.

It's simply that they've decided to go down this route of patience with this manager, which if it was a model would be completely different, but it's not. It's again something we have come up with on the whims of our owners and directors who are not known for sporting acumen.

What use is a model if it is created by people that have no idea how to put one into place, or who to appoint in order to see it through? If they have no appetite to relinquish a certain amount of decision making power to a sporting director etc, then does it even matter how we describe the model? It could be the manager making strategic decisions or a footballing director but the owners have to see the woods for the trees for anything to work as they have the ultimate power at the club.

 

[bonothom]

Both Chelsea and City have won multiple titles with different managers while United hang on to this ridiculous notion that giving a manager more time will inevitably mean he'll get it right eventually. If United do sack Solskjaer (a big IF) then the next manager should only get an 18 month deal like Conte at Spurs. Knowing United they'll give him a 6 year deal and it will have gone pear shaped within 6 months.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

He was in a different capacity not directly linked to the first team and has only been appointed to his current job in March/April which means that the summer plans were most likely alread largely set without his direct input. And you want good ideas, it's not as if someone from the outside is going to bring particularly fresh ideas, it's also not how most clubs operate, there is a reason people generally have no idea about who DOFs are and were they come from, it's because they are generally internal appointments.

In fairness none of us have a clue whether Murtough is or wood be good at his job without the people around him or not, but clearly the perception is as it’s just an internal appointment and the football side of club has been a mess the whole time Murtough has been at the club then it doesn’t inspire a lot of faith in from the fanddom or media
And since he has been in charge the squad has become more imbalanced rather then less.
So this is why people write him off. Saying nothing that has happened is his fault seems a bit too easy on him.

 

[Tacitus56AD]

the chelsea model aka "appointing a real coach".

 

[Lee565]

Have we not already adopted the chelsea mode?

4 managers in 8 years. We are just doing what Chelsea do, but badly.

Not really as we allow managers to out stay their welcome until they either mathematically don't qualify for the precious champions league money or become absolutely toxic and low down in the table.

Also chelsea are realistic about any manager they hire being a long term and will be decisive to upgrade or move on from a manager if they believe there is a better option available to hire.

We seem to cling onto to managers in purely that they will be a successful long term appointment with little proof to indicate so.

 

[JPRouve]

In fairness none of us have a clue whether Murtough is or wood be good at his job without the people around him or not, but clearly the perception is as it’s just an internal appointment and the football side of club has been a mess the whole time Murtough has been at the club then it doesn’t inspire a lot of faith in from the fanddom or media
And since he has been in charge the squad has become more imbalanced rather then less.
So this is why people write him off. Saying nothing that has happened is his fault seems a bit too easy on him.

This makes little sense, the club changed its structure in March-April 2021, Murtough and Fletcher have been in their current jobs for 6 months, these positions are generally focused on mid to long term affairs which isn't in line with the current 6 months timeframe. And there is one small issue, due to the fact that Ole was hired with a traditional manager mandate, it seems that short terms decisions are still in his hands, at least that's what we have been led to believe and it makes sense anything else would mean that Ole has been demoted.

So since I don't know the inside out of what has been going on in the past 6 months in the DOFs office, I have to give them the benefit of time and at least a full year and also go by what I know from other clubs and there is little chance that Murtough/Fletcher led the recruitment for this summer, it was already in motion for months and there is little chance that Ole has been demoted, in theory the next manager will be a head coach and will have less power than our previous managers which is in line with what has been leaked to the press regarding certain candidates.

What is easy is to succumb to frustration and not use sound logic, there isn't a line of work or even any other clubs for which you would somehow ignore context and jump to conclusion that you admitted were based on no clues. The clues that you actually have tell you, to be fair and give time to people that barely started their current job and didn't do anything wrong because if we are serious for one second the team imbalance predates March 2021 and is seemingly on Ole's decisions.

 

[Dancfc]

There has to be a balance though.

For example, take Ancelotti's time at Chelsea. An established elite level manager, having already won a Serie A title and two CLs. Wins a league title (while scoring over 100 goals) and FA Cup double in his first season at Chelsea. Fired in his second season for the crime of finishing 2nd in the league and exiting the CL in the quarter-finals against a Manchester United side good enough to be CL finalists and PL winners.

I'm not saying you should hang on to a manager like that no matter what but if we were that trigger happy I would think we were deranged. And I definitely wouldn't hold up the Villas Boas > Di Matteo > Benitez sequence of managers that followed Ancelotti as a sign that it was the right move at that point for Chelsea, even though some trophies were won within that flurry of change.

Ancelotti's sacking wasn't as close to harsh as the media made it out to be (the way it was done was awful granted).

The double was great but the performances in the second season despite finishing 2nd were utterly joyless and lethargic, best way I can explain it to a United fan is to compare it to your second season under Mou, good results on paper but something was clearly a miss and not getting better.

If anything Ancelotti is the perfect case study of "if a successful manager stagnates move on and win again". Us, Real and Bayern have all benefited from that approach with the guy, and he benefites himself aswell.

 

[Eurotrash]

Rather than asking questions like ”does Ole deserve to stay” or ”who is best manager” - we should always be asking ”what does the club need right now?”. It is perfectly possible for a manager to do a fantastic job for three years, but not be the right choice for the following season.

 

[laughtersassassin]

Managerial appointments are easy. You hire and fire until you get it right and only hang in when you do

If that means you got to fire a manager ins 4 months then so be it

 

[laughtersassassin]

Have we not already adopted the chelsea mode?

4 managers in 8 years. We are just doing what Chelsea do, but badly.

Nit even close. If Chelsea where as bad as us between 2013 and 2021 they would have had 8+ managers.

We should be firing them much sooner

 

[dove]

Yes... While we are still wasting time hoping for some miracle to happen, Chelsea hired their own version of Ole, sacked him, hired another manager, won the CL and are now favourites for the title. We could have easily been in the same position now if we acted but instead we choose to cling on to our values which are clearly holding us back. We have a very good squad and every good manager will be able to do something with it. The big difference between us and Chelsea though is that we seem to shop for the managers in the different markets. Chelsea are always looking to get the best manager they can attract. Meanwhile we shop in either a dinosaur market (LVG, Jose) or... I don't even know how to call that experiment with Ole. Now of course the logical step is to replace Ole with Rodgers who will again be a level below our rivals.

 

[SirReginald]

I don’t think copying anyone is a good idea. Actually the biggest thing that your club needs is a complete and utter culture change. From board to playing staff.

You hold yourselves back because you believe in “the United way”. The pride associated with this is killing you and the very vagueness of the United way is causing your club to make poor decisions.

Sacking a manager doesn’t increase your odds of winning a title, a unified and clear direction is the basis for success.

Your club needs to revolutionize its way of thinking. Stop trying to be this club that sets standards to which you think all clubs should adhere to and be the club that you are supposed to be.

 

[11101]

Is that true though? To me it seems that our managers have been the de facto DOFs and they all happen to be not very good at it.

We haven't had one, trying to split it between Ed and the manager. Managers in the modern game can't do the DoF job aswell as manager, and Ed has no clue about football matters yet continually got involved. We've now appointed somebody with no experience and who seems to have done very little so far.

I don't know why the club is so reluctant to bring in people from outside to do these key roles.

 

[JPRouve]

We haven't had one, trying to split it between Ed and the manager. Managers in the modern game can't do the DoF job aswell as manager, and Ed has no clue about football matters yet continually got involved. We've now appointed somebody with no experience and who seems to have done very little so far.

I don't know why the club is so reluctant to bring in people from outside to do these key roles.

Clubs don't often bring someone from the outside for these jobs, it's one of the few things that United has done recently that isn't surprising at all.

 

[Hammondo]

I don’t think copying anyone is a good idea. Actually the biggest thing that your club needs is a complete and utter culture change. From board to playing staff.

You hold yourselves back because you believe in “the United way”. The pride associated with this is killing you and the very vagueness of the United way is causing your club to make poor decisions.

Sacking a manager doesn’t increase your odds of winning a title, a unified and clear direction is the basis for success.

Your club needs to revolutionize its way of thinking. Stop trying to be this club that sets standards to which you think all clubs should adhere to and be the club that you are supposed to be.

Great post, 100 percent agree.

 

[roonster09]

It's not the 'Chelsea model'. It's the 'most clubs in the world model'.

Fixed.

 

[Bestietom]

The model of what constitutes success for elite level clubs has changed. It is generally accepted that the days when a club could have one manager for a quarter of a century like SAF are long gone. Yes, SAF set the standard in terms of the benefit and value of 'keeping the faith' and the belief that given time, it will all come good. However, it is a proven fact that in football the model of 'strategic patience' is not a requirement for sustained success.

Take Chelsea as the case in point. Since 2003 when Roman Abramovich took over, the club has won 18 major honours including five Premier Leagues, two Champions Leagues and two Europa Leagues. Over the same period Chelsea appointed 14 managers (eight of whom won major honours at the club). The manager with the longest tenure and also the most successful, in terms of the number of trophies won, is Jose Mourinho (3 years and 3 months). Nine of the managers appointed during Roman's tenure, lasted less than a year in charge including Di Matteo, Benitez, Sarri and Hiddink, all of whom won at least one trophy during their short tenures.

Since the departure of SAF, United have appointed four managers and won 1 Europa League, 1 FA Cup and 1 EFL Cup. Over the same period, Chelsea have appointed five managers and picked up 2 Premier League titles, 1 Champions League, 1 Europa League, 1 European Super Cup, 1 FA Cup and 1 EFL Cup.

The point to make here is that Chelsea have suffered greater managerial upheaval than United and still enjoyed greater success in terms of trophies won. Whilst the constant comings and goings may not always make for the best optics, there is no denying that the sheer brutality of the Chelsea model produces results. It could even be argued that the 'trading room floor' type culture at Chelsea has actually caused some managers to perform better than they would, if they believed they had relative security of tenure.

Is this a model that United should ever adopt? What do others think?

If we had an owner like Abramovich we would probably have won a lot more and changed our managers more, but we are stuck with these Glazer Leeches, and until they sell we will always have a Yes manager.

 

[WeePat]

The funny thing is, apart from Scolari, Mourinho 2.0 and Conte, I've either been totally against or somewhat not ready for each managerial sacking.

Totally against; Mourinho 1.0, Ancelotti, RDM.
Knew the the situation wasn't ideal but not quite ready to call for their heads: AVB, Sarri, Lampard.
Openly advocated for them to be sacked; Scolari, Mourinho 2.0, Conte.

 

[Maticmaker]

The question of what model United might adopt, should perhaps be really determined by asking (or rather correctly answering) the question "Where is Professional football heading?"
Some elite European clubs have recently sought to establish a Super League! Yes, its been 'binned', for the time being, but does anyone seriously doubt, that like Arnies character "..it will be back?

Professional football, especially CL and EPL are big business now especially with blockbuster film producers like Amazon, Netflix, Disney+ etc. all showing interest in getting involved and these have already 'dipped a toe in the water'. United are of course already big business, with sponsors and such like business interests, but a 75,000 live audience per home game, is nothing compared with a potential TV/film audience of 75,000,000-100,000,000 punters world wide, in terms of turning the game really, into the 'Cash Cow' of all 'Cash Cows'

I suspect the 'Theatre of Dreams' will in reality become effectively an auditorium, or at least part of the studio set, and that our future managers will have assistants who include not just football coaches etc. but also specialist film directors/editors, who will weave the 'off-the- field' lives/antics of the footballers into the fabric of their final product.

Football is becoming a 'three-ringed' circus, and the management model adopted will have to suit.... some might argue with the Glazer's in charge that's what the club has already become, shirt sales first football second... will we become first in line to break down the barriers, join the 'Super-duper' League, just as Sir Matt Busby did when taking us into European competition in the late 1950's.

Arghh... its all right just woke up from my nightmare!

 

[Wolf1992]

The fact Bayern have won their (highly uncompetitive) league for nine consecutive years may have something to do with no-one mocking their strategy.

Bayern has reached 8 out of 10 UCL semifinals in the last decade.
They are always fighting for UCL, i doubt someone would take them seriously if they only win their league, and then do nothing relevant in Europe like Benfica in modern times, literally only Real Madrid outperforms Bayern Munich in the UCL, in terms of matches won and semifinals appearance...which is why their "model" isn't questioned, even though there isn't a "model", it's just common sense.

Plus there wasn't a Fergie model or Wenger "model", those are anomalies...clubs have always sacked managers if they underperform, even in the 70s and 80s.
I don't know where people get the idea that old school football gave more chances to managers.

 

[largelyworried]

Our fetish for long-termism has made us the most turbulent and short sighted club of the lot. When pretty much any other club hire a manager, its assumed they'll have to get the best out of what they find, and then make an addition or two every year to tweak the team like they want it. If they can't work with what they find, well, they just don't get hired.

At United, we delude ourselves into thinking that every manager will stay long term and thus let them rip up the squad and start again. The never ending transition period means we come up short against our more settled rivals, the manager gets fired, and we're back to square one with another manager ripping up the team.

Ironically if we just got in two or three managers in a row who just went with the players they found, we'd probably be a lot more stable.

 

[Idxomer]

The funny thing is, apart from Scolari, Mourinho 2.0 and Conte, I've either been totally against or somewhat not ready for each managerial sacking.

Totally against; Mourinho 1.0, Ancelotti, RDM.
Knew the the situation wasn't ideal but not quite ready to call for their heads: AVB, Sarri, Lampard.
Openly advocated for them to be sacked; Scolari, Mourinho 2.0, Conte.

Did Chelsea sack Sarri or did he just leave to manage Juve?

 

[Skills]

Our fetish for long-termism has made us the most turbulent and short sighted club of the lot. When pretty much any other club hire a manager, its assumed they'll have to get the best out of what they find, and then make an addition or two every year to tweak the team like they want it. If they can't work with what they find, well, they just don't get hired.

At United, we delude ourselves into thinking that every manager will stay long term and thus let them rip up the squad and start again. The never ending transition period means we come up short against our more settled rivals, the manager gets fired, and we're back to square one with another manager ripping up the team.

Ironically if we just got in two or three managers in a row who just went with the players they found, we'd probably be a lot more stable.

This

 

[WeePat]

Did Chelsea sack Sarri or did he just leave to manage Juve?

I used the word sacking a bit too loosely there to be fair. He wanted to leave and Chelsea let him. He made it easy on the club, perhaps he saw how deeply unpopular he was with the fans. I think he chose to jump before he was pushed out.

 

[stefan92]

Our fetish for long-termism has made us the most turbulent and short sighted club of the lot. When pretty much any other club hire a manager, its assumed they'll have to get the best out of what they find, and then make an addition or two every year to tweak the team like they want it. If they can't work with what they find, well, they just don't get hired.

At United, we delude ourselves into thinking that every manager will stay long term and thus let them rip up the squad and start again. The never ending transition period means we come up short against our more settled rivals, the manager gets fired, and we're back to square one with another manager ripping up the team.

Ironically if we just got in two or three managers in a row who just went with the players they found, we'd probably be a lot more stable.

This is absolutely a key point causing United's issue.

United signed Mourinho after van Gaal, totally different style of play, completely different requirements for their squads.

For comparison it has been confirmed that Mourinho was interested in signing for Bayern at some point in time (that wasn't confirmed). But Bayern considered him to be a bad fit for their squad and established style of play (which dates back to van Gaal), so they signed someone else and generally over the last decade stayed true to their style and only allowed their managers to evolve it and the squad, not to completely rebuild everything.

Kovac may have been a mistake and exception from that rule, but at least he also wasn't allowed to rebuild the squad, so that Flick could quickly return to a more typical Bayern style when he took over.

 

[roonster09]

Kovac may have been a mistake and exception from that rule, but at least he also wasn't allowed to rebuild the squad, so that Flick could quickly return to a more typical Bayern style when he took over.

What does that mean? That Bayern knew Flick would be manager when Kovac was the manager?

 

[stefan92]

What does that mean? That Bayern knew Flick would be manager when Kovac was the manager?

Bayern had and have a squad for possession play with an emphasis on their wingers as playmakers and key attackers.

They know that this is their basic style and will only allow slight evolution of that. They did of course not know that they would have Flick replacing Kovac, but they knew they would always get a manager who would have his team play such a style, because this is how Bayern play.

 

[adexkola]

Our fetish for long-termism has made us the most turbulent and short sighted club of the lot. When pretty much any other club hire a manager, its assumed they'll have to get the best out of what they find, and then make an addition or two every year to tweak the team like they want it. If they can't work with what they find, well, they just don't get hired.

At United, we delude ourselves into thinking that every manager will stay long term and thus let them rip up the squad and start again. The never ending transition period means we come up short against our more settled rivals, the manager gets fired, and we're back to square one with another manager ripping up the team.

Ironically if we just got in two or three managers in a row who just went with the players they found, we'd probably be a lot more stable.

There is nothing long with long-termism. As long as it is someone suitable for the long-term. Fetishing short-termism for short-termism sake is just as asinine. Because there is nothing efficient about throwing shit at the wall until some sticks. Yes, fire a manager not a second too late... but no club should be applauded for firing bad managers quickly... Why is there a long string of bad managers then?

I know Chelsea is held up as the "model" here, but can anyone estimate how much money they've thrown away in severances? Have they really made the best of their resources? Once can most certainly say that they have underperformed in terms of trophy count, especially in the last few years, despite the chopping. This is also a huge example of the exception to the rule, because as far as I'm aware many other clubs hire and fire machine gun rate and it yields minimal results.

And short termism doesn't even apply to Chelsea above the coach level. They have management structure there that has stood for many years. Bayern is glacier like at the management level.

So yes, fire bad managers. Also stop fetishizing short-termism (aka, stop hiring bad managers, just because you can fire them 3 months later).

 

[JPRouve]

There is nothing long with long-termism. As long as it is someone suitable for the long-term. Fetishing short-termism for short-termism sake is just as asinine. Because there is nothing efficient about throwing shit at the wall until some sticks. Yes, fire a manager not a second too late... but no club should be applauded for firing bad managers quickly... Why is there a long string of bad managers then?

I know Chelsea is held up as the "model" here, but can anyone estimate how much money they've thrown away in severances? Have they really made the best of their resources? Once can most certainly say that they have underperformed in terms of trophy count, especially in the last few years, despite the chopping. This is also a huge example of the exception to the rule, because as far as I'm aware many other clubs hire and fire machine gun rate and it yields minimal results.

And short termism doesn't even apply to Chelsea above the coach level. They have management structure there that has stood for many years. Bayern is glacier like at the management level.

So yes, fire bad managers. Also stop fetishizing short-termism (aka, stop hiring bad managers, just because you can fire them 3 months later).

Surely you don't think that they hire "bad" managers on purpose? One of the issue when it comes to top level management in Football is that there is a scarcity of managers that can sustain success, in fact I would say that it's true in all sports, so more often than not clubs have to deal with managers that are somewhat unknown quantities/potentially top managers, if you take someone like ten Hag he is probably worth the risk but he is a risk because what he has had at Ajax is a team that is has largely been developed in-house who already know how to play the Ajax way when they reach the first team, he also had an actually large budget and a budget that is almost double of their direct opponents in the league.

That's the reality of top level Football, most top clubs have to deal with prospects when it comes to managers. You give a chance to someone that is at a lower rank and only few actually make it.

 

[groovyalbert]

The model of what constitutes success for elite level clubs has changed. It is generally accepted that the days when a club could have one manager for a quarter of a century like SAF are long gone. Yes, SAF set the standard in terms of the benefit and value of 'keeping the faith' and the belief that given time, it will all come good. However, it is a proven fact that in football the model of 'strategic patience' is not a requirement for sustained success.

Take Chelsea as the case in point. Since 2003 when Roman Abramovich took over, the club has won 18 major honours including five Premier Leagues, two Champions Leagues and two Europa Leagues. Over the same period Chelsea appointed 14 managers (eight of whom won major honours at the club). The manager with the longest tenure and also the most successful, in terms of the number of trophies won, is Jose Mourinho (3 years and 3 months). Nine of the managers appointed during Roman's tenure, lasted less than a year in charge including Di Matteo, Benitez, Sarri and Hiddink, all of whom won at least one trophy during their short tenures.

Since the departure of SAF, United have appointed four managers and won 1 Europa League, 1 FA Cup and 1 EFL Cup. Over the same period, Chelsea have appointed five managers and picked up 2 Premier League titles, 1 Champions League, 1 Europa League, 1 European Super Cup, 1 FA Cup and 1 EFL Cup.

The point to make here is that Chelsea have suffered greater managerial upheaval than United and still enjoyed greater success in terms of trophies won. Whilst the constant comings and goings may not always make for the best optics, there is no denying that the sheer brutality of the Chelsea model produces results. It could even be argued that the 'trading room floor' type culture at Chelsea has actually caused some managers to perform better than they would, if they believed they had relative security of tenure.

Is this a model that United should ever adopt? What do others think?

I think what's worth pointing out too is that, since SAF left, we've almost certainly outspent Chelsea in every department despite the minimal comparative success.

For anyone dismissing Chelsea's way of doing things as being short-termist/flippant - we have been way worse than them in this sense for almost a decade now.

 

[largelyworried]

There is nothing long with long-termism. As long as it is someone suitable for the long-term. Fetishing short-termism for short-termism sake is just as asinine. Because there is nothing efficient about throwing shit at the wall until some sticks. Yes, fire a manager not a second too late... but no club should be applauded for firing bad managers quickly... Why is there a long string of bad managers then?

I know Chelsea is held up as the "model" here, but can anyone estimate how much money they've thrown away in severances? Have they really made the best of their resources? Once can most certainly say that they have underperformed in terms of trophy count, especially in the last few years, despite the chopping. This is also a huge example of the exception to the rule, because as far as I'm aware many other clubs hire and fire machine gun rate and it yields minimal results.

And short termism doesn't even apply to Chelsea above the coach level. They have management structure there that has stood for many years. Bayern is glacier like at the management level.

So yes, fire bad managers. Also stop fetishizing short-termism (aka, stop hiring bad managers, just because you can fire them 3 months later).

This doesn't follow. The whole point is that if you appoint a manager long term, then you judge them on what they achieve long term, and back them until then. You can't tell if a manager is a bad long term manager until they've been there long term. All you can tell until then is if they're a good short term manager, which you didn't ask them to be. So the idea of not sacking them a second too late makes no sense. Wait 5 years and then sack them promptly?

 

[JPRouve]

This doesn't follow. The whole point is that if you appoint a manager long term, then you judge them on what they achieve long term, and back them until then. You can't tell if a manager is a bad long term manager until they've been there long term. All you can tell until then is if they're a good short term manager, which you didn't ask them to be. So the idea of not sacking them a second too late makes no sense. Wait 5 years and then sack them promptly?

I don't if that's what Adexkola meant. He essentially pointed to the fact that sacking a high number of managers in quick succession is from the outside inefficient and you could summarize his point with the question, isn't there a more efficient way to hire top managers?

 

[stefan92]

I don't if that's what Adexkola meant. He essentially pointed to the fact that sacking a high number of managers in quick succession is from the outside inefficient and you could summarize his point with the question, isn't there a more efficient way to hire top managers?

There are definitely two aspects to this discussion. Hiring the right managers is a different task than firing the wrong manager at the right time.

Arguably Chelsea is better at firing than at hiring, otherwise they would have had less managers in the last years. Liverpool or City have hired excellent managers for them, so they excelled at that and don't need to fire them so often.

Only United have been bad at hiring after SAF and while they were firing managers at the right time until Ole came in, they have become bad at firing, too.

At the same time United stopped winning anything, even the smaller cups.

 

[JPRouve]

There are definitely two aspects to this discussion. Hiring the right managers is a different task than firing the wrong manager at the right time.

Arguably Chelsea is better at firing than at hiring, otherwise they would have had less managers in the last years. Liverpool or City have hired excellent managers for them, so they excelled at that and don't need to fire them so often.

Only United have been bad at hiring after SAF and while they were firing managers at the right time until Ole came in, they have become bad at firing, too.

At the same time United stopped winning anything, even the smaller cups.

Yeah. And that's where I think there is a limit to hiring excellently, I think that it has a lot to do with timing and luck. Since there is a scarcity of top candidate, if you are not in a position to hire someone like Klopp when he is finally available then you are in the market for less reliable targets. When all is said and done there is only one Klopp and Guardiola but a dozen of clubs that want managers of that caliber.