Have we significantly improved since we got rid of LVG?

[Robbie Boy]

Over the course of two seasons that’s fairly significant. We’ve also qualified for the Champions League both years under Mourinho, won more trophies, scored more goals and gone further in cup competitions. Mourinho has managed 20 more matches. He’s won every single one of those extra 20.

Mourinho didn’t have the benefit of no European Football distracting from league form in his first season. Despite this Van Gaal still only managed one point more than Mourinho’s worst season. Van Gaal didn’t have to compete with this Man City or a vastly improved Liverpool. In Van Gaal’s time Leicester won a league title.

I think we've improved to an extent but nowhere near what I expected.

As I said in another thread, the year LvG left, 81 points was enough to win the league while that would have only gotten you third the following season. Ffs, I mean 66 points was enough for CL qualification that year, it was a serious anomaly with Leicester winning the league. Since then, teams have won the league with 93 and 100 points. I think the top four, in general, are now garnering more points and winning the league is more competitive. I don't think Mourinho averaging 7 points more per season, on average, given what he's spent is a significant improvement. In saying that, anything after LvG's last season was an improvement so it's a shite barometer, hence why he got sacked.

 

[acnumber9]

I think we've improved to an extent but nowhere near what I expected.

As I said in another thread, the year LvG left, 81 points was enough to win the league while that would have only gotten you third the following season. Ffs, I mean 66 points was enough for CL qualification that year, it was a serious anomaly with Leicester winning the league. Since then, teams have won the league with 93 and 100 points. I think the top four, in general, are now garnering more points and winning the league is more competitive. I don't think Mourinho averaging 7 points more per season, on average, given what he's spent is a significant improvement. In saying that, anything after LvG's last season was an improvement so it's a shite barometer, hence why he got sacked.

I’d say we’ve improved quite a bit in the face of increased competition. Just not to the extent that we would like or expect. I think the points total in intself doesn’t give the full picture either. We pretty much gave up on the league towards the end of Mourinho’s first season and the competition wasn’t as strong. Had Mourinho been in charge then I think we would’ve won the league. None of that means that he can’t and shouldn’t be doing better though. But this thread is about whether we’re better now than we were under Van Gaal and I’d say we are comfortably better but still not good enough.

Mourinho hasn’t helped himself by being unnecessarily negative at times and some poor signings. I think he’s working with his hand tied behind his back with Woodward seemingly deciding he knows better and our inability to get rid of the shockingly bad players Van Gaal signed.

 

[MUFC OK]

Some of you have memory of a goldfish, maybe you need to replay November to December in 2015 to see how bad things were. We failed to get out of a group of PSV, CSKA and Wolfsburg. In December we failed to win a single game and scored 2 points out of possible 15. Not to mention the wide array of shit van Gaal bought during his tenure which to this date we are unable to get rid of and he did that while gutting our squad to that extent that we had to play likes of Tyler Blackett and Donald Love in the Premier League.

If Mourinho were to walk today, next manager would have a significantly better base to build his team. Van Gaal left behind nothing but shit.

/Close thread. OP must be a child who's asking because he genuinely doesn't remember. Moyes was a terrible fit for us, it all went wrong, we then gave the reins to the wrong man to rebuild in LVG. We have proverbially been cleaning up the sh*t ever since he left, but retain some of the problems dating back to Moyes in terms of first team players who are not good enough.

 

[Robbie Boy]

I’d say we’ve improved quite a bit in the face of increased competition. Just not to the extent that we would like or expect. I think the points total in intself doesn’t give the full picture either. We pretty much gave up on the league towards the end of Mourinho’s first season and the competition wasn’t as strong. Had Mourinho been in charge then I think we would’ve won the league. None of that means that he can’t and shouldn’t be doing better though. But this thread is about whether we’re better now than we were under Van Gaal and I’d say we are comfortably better but still not good enough.

Mourinho hasn’t helped himself by being unnecessarily negative at times and some poor signings. I think he’s working with his hand tied behind his back with Woodward seemingly deciding he knows better and our inability to get rid of the shockingly bad players Van Gaal signed.

I agree the points total can be used on either side of the argument. In fact, the only reason I even brought it up is because people in the 'Mourinho in' thread were using last seasons points total to prove our huge improvement, whereas I feel it has to be contextualised.

Again, I agree that he came into a shitshow of a squad but for me, he's been here long enough and spent enough to have A) Improved the players he has to work with B) Build a system with some semblance of cohesion, and finally C) To make significant changes - transfer wise - to have us looking far better than he has done to-date.

Each to their own, but for me, I can see this ending in tears for Mourinho. I would be absolutely stunned if he turns this around. Under LvG we were so bad, that the barometer is extremely low so Mourinho has gotten a pass from some. It was like the barometer Moyes set was so shite that LvG could do nothing but improve on it. Football is drastically changing and Mourinho either gets his shit together or he'll be gone by next season.

 

[MUFC OK]

LVG's biggest mistake was Rooney. To rely on a massively declined Rooney up front was a recipe for a disaster. Had LVG (invested in) a top striker like Zlatan/Lukaku, his points total wouldn't be worse than Jose's. And Jose had also Pogba and Matic in midfiled last season.

Basically, LVG was a failure in the transfer market whereas Jose is a failure in bringing the best out of his players.

He signed Falcao, remember that? He also bemoaned not having a 'world class winger like Di Maria' then signed him, quickly dropped him for Ashley Young and sold him the following summer. I would dread to think where we would be had LVG remained our manager to this point.

 

[bosnian_red]

It's a weird one because I think the effect of Van Gaals coaching was much more visible. His style and ideas got through to the team and we were playing how he wanted, it was just brutally boring to watch. He also could only transmit his ideas to younger players, so our team was very average by the end and probably did about as good as you can expect with those players. Finishing 4th and then 5th but level in point with 4th, with an FA Cup win, was pretty much the level where you would think those players can reach. So in a way, LvG did okay, but then his signings were mostly average, and better players wouldnt listen to him.

Mourinho on the other hand can just buy a squad of better and more experienced players so at the very least, we have a much higher ceiling. But whatever hes been doing in training really isnt working, as we look dreadful in every department and just like we dont know what we're doing most of the time.

Overall, after 2 seasons, I really dont think it's clear cut. This season so far is obviously brutal, but ignoring it and focusing only on the first 2.... a 6th place finish, Europa league and league cup trophy, then a 2nd place finish and nothing, compared to a 4th place finish, then 5th and an FA Cup.

Succes/results wise, Mou wins, but LvG did his with a young squad so the expectations werent as big and we at least were happy with players like martial, rashford and lingard starting pretty much every week (and Shaw before leg break). Mourinho has had mediocre results with tons of money spent on big names, and pushing out what were our most promising players in favor of older players. So long term, Van Gaals tenure was probably more beneficial to the club, while Mourinhos is more ready for someone to take over short term but need a rebuild pretty soon.

 

[Lentwood]

I never advocated getting rid of Van Gaal. Believe me, I know better than most how dull the football could be as I sat in the East Stand that season and counted a run of ten home games where we didn't score a goal that side, so this is not rose-tinted glasses

Under van Gaal, I felt I could see a plan developing which was predominantly let down by poor players. I also remember how good we looked in the big games. I've never seen us dominate at Anfield like we did when we won there 2-1.

IF we want to sign and develop young players then I think we should have stuck with van Gaal or a coach like Van Gaal. As both pro and anti Jose sides argued at the time of his appointment, if you are going to appoint Jose you have to accept that he will want to very quickly assemble a team of experienced pro's and play dull but effective football

None of these things should be a surprise to our Board as like I say both sides of the Jose argument acknowledged this 3yrs ago.

 

[Kag]

He's just another philosophy supporter who was irked by LvGs sacking. I thought they'd all gone into hiding but its amusing they've now come out the woodwork to fight LvGs corner.

Nice story.

I would have sacked Van Gaal the day Mourinho became available. I said as much at the time. Quite funny, actually, when you consider how woeful we are now. Van Gaal was as dead as a door nail even back then, just like Mourinho now.

I've been very vocal in saying that I think our football is worse than when under Van Gaal for months now. It's got sod all to do with the couple of games we've had this season.

The difference between the two, however, is that I could appreciate what Van Gaal was trying to do here. He actively sought to dominate possession and take it to top opposition. He got two thirds of it right, and the most important third terribly wrong. But I could empathise slightly. With Mourinho, we don't dominate possession, we don't take it to top opposition and we don't get it right going forwards either. All that with better players all over the park. Pathetic by comparison, really.

 

[Smores]

Nice story.

I would have sacked Van Gaal the day Mourinho became available. I said as much at the time. Quite funny, actually, when you consider how woeful we are now. Van Gaal was as dead as a door nail even back then, just like Mourinho now.

I've been very vocal in saying that I think our football is worse than when under Van Gaal for months now. It's got sod all to do with the couple of games we've had this season.

The difference between the two, however, is that I could appreciate what Van Gaal was trying to do here. He actively sought to dominate possession and take it to top opposition. He got two thirds of it right, and the most important third terribly wrong. But I could empathise slightly. With Mourinho, we don't dominate possession, we don't take it to top opposition and we don't get it right going forwards either. All that with better players all over the park. Pathetic by comparison, really.

Apart from last season we did take it to top opposition and we scored more and created more chances than under LVG. You're just chatting bollocks.

LvG spent 285 million during his tenure during a time of smaller fees and he didn't even need to replace our striker or carrick within that. Let's not pretend he operated on pennies

 

[Aloysius's Back 3]

I never advocated getting rid of Van Gaal. Believe me, I know better than most how dull the football could be as I sat in the East Stand that season and counted a run of ten home games where we didn't score a goal that side, so this is not rose-tinted glasses

Under van Gaal, I felt I could see a plan developing which was predominantly let down by poor players. I also remember how good we looked in the big games. I've never seen us dominate at Anfield like we did when we won there 2-1.

IF we want to sign and develop young players then I think we should have stuck with van Gaal or a coach like Van Gaal. As both pro and anti Jose sides argued at the time of his appointment, if you are going to appoint Jose you have to accept that he will want to very quickly assemble a team of experienced pro's and play dull but effective football

None of these things should be a surprise to our Board as like I say both sides of the Jose argument acknowledged this 3yrs ago.

This in my opinion is why I suspect our next bout of dominating success is going to come from a home-bred manager. People can say what they want but ultimately football in terms of how it is played needs an identity and a manager can understand that much greater if he has played for that team before.

An ex player like Carrick, Butt or Giggs has the potential to link footballing techniques together having being involved or understanding both because as @Kag said LVG got 2/3rds of how we should play right whilst arguably the most important but last third wrong - I'd argue that adding Jose's counter attacking and efficient ability in to LVG's possesional gameplay is the key to getting the best out of the player we have.

I look at the 352 Jose played against Spurs - but more prominently; the 352 Jose played against chelsea - where players like Rashford, Lingard, Herrera - nearly everyone in the team knew their identity on the pitch - what they were supposed to do, when they were supposed to do it. We looked much less like a counter attacking team and more a team with a shape known at the back of the heart. We played a good balance of possession yet counter attacking football when the time arrived. To this day we play sidewards/baclwards passing like we did under LVG but much more proficiently; just to give you an example. I don't think an ex player manager would find it too hard to blend LVG, Jose, SAF theories and types of players in to one whilst adding their own sweet touch.

I reckon that is what we will see in the next 2-3 years time; but it requires a manager who is open to work with what has already been used at United - rather than go on another new shopping free where they replace rubbish players with more players that only that manager likes.

I have a feeling it's going to be Carrick; maybe Butt if he has done well in the reserves. They

 

[fergies coat]

Does nobody remember how bad it was under Van gaal? All the nil nils at half time we wasn’t great. He wasted a lot of money on mediocre players.

 

[langster]

I never advocated getting rid of Van Gaal. Believe me, I know better than most how dull the football could be as I sat in the East Stand that season and counted a run of ten home games where we didn't score a goal that side, so this is not rose-tinted glasses

Under van Gaal, I felt I could see a plan developing which was predominantly let down by poor players. I also remember how good we looked in the big games. I've never seen us dominate at Anfield like we did when we won there 2-1.

IF we want to sign and develop young players then I think we should have stuck with van Gaal or a coach like Van Gaal. As both pro and anti Jose sides argued at the time of his appointment, if you are going to appoint Jose you have to accept that he will want to very quickly assemble a team of experienced pro's and play dull but effective football

None of these things should be a surprise to our Board as like I say both sides of the Jose argument acknowledged this 3yrs ago.

This.