I don't really understand what is the difference between Liverpool pre 2015 and United? Did Liverpool showed consistent progress before Klopp?
How do you convince players who are enjoying a very comfortable living, to care about winning trophies again?
- Thread starter fastwalker
- Start date
I don't really understand what is the difference between Liverpool pre 2015 and United? Did Liverpool showed consistent progress before Klopp?
Prior to Klopp's arrival, in trophy-winning terms, both United and Liverpool were both under-achieving relative to expectations. But that is not the predicate of the OP. Whatever might have happened prior to Klopp's arrival has changed in the years since his arrival. Specifically, he has built a side that seems to be hungry for and capable of winning trophies and in recent years that side has fulfilled its potential, whilst United have continued to struggle in relative terms. In United's case, investment in player recruitment appears to have produced little material improvement in performance.
You are just deforming what I am saying. If you don’t think this behavior has nothing to do with mentality then we agree to disagree. What is revelant is that they don’t care about losing.
The dressing room is in turmoil because Pogba once danced!
We haven't won anything in 9 years because recruitment has been awful and we lacked anything resembling structure, not because Pogba and Lingard once had fun whilst getting changed.
Ridiculous.
The structure don’t play the game. The players are responsible for performance. This kind of players would have never get a free pass under Fergie.
What makes you think that United underachieved relative to expectations?
Take it this way. Since 2013 United have not had a top manager, one could easily argue that United hasn't had one of the 10 best manager in the world* and United clearly haven't had one of the top squad in the world, as I said earlier for the most part United haven't had a bonafide world class player in his prime since RVP and prime Carrick, outside of De Gea.
When you combine these two realities, why do you expect more than finishing second twice, winning the FA-EFL cup and the EL? What makes you think that the players and coaching staff that United actually had underachieved?
Just to highlight my point since 2013 Manchester United have been managed by Moyes, LVG, Mourinho and Ole, none of them were top managers when we got them. Our best defender has probably been Smalling, our best midfielder would be Carrick, our best attacker a declining Ibrahimovic. Our issue is and has always been a lack of quality, you can only expect to win many titles if you have a very good squad and a very good coaching staff but even if you have that, under Klopp Liverpool didn't actually won a lot more than United, you put them in a totally different world for good reason but they only won 3 cups(EFL, EL, CL) and 1 league title while United won 3 cups(EL, FA cup, EFL).
*It's arbitrary, I don't really know if the gap between the 5th or 25th best manager is that large.
Last edited:
@JPRouve I agree with the gist of your points here. Really what people mean is underachieving relative to a clubs reputation - but that means absolutely nothing. Jack Walker spent millions to get Blackburn a trophy. They didn't "overachieve" exactly - they assembled a better squad than anyone else through his millions and won a trophy. Manchester United have spent the second/third most in the premier League (maybe the most now) in the last five years and have only finished second twice. But that said, the club that spent more ... Manchester City.... Won the league. And in 5-10 years, when Newcastle United are up there, if we are spending less than them, we will "underachieve" again. It's part of my general disillusionment with football that KGB thugs and states are allowed to run football clubs, it sends our fans a little bit insane.
Last edited:
On average we've finished between 4th and 5th in the post-SAF era.
Based on average wages paid in the same period, it should be between 1st and 2nd.
So (see above) it isn't just that we have underachieved based on reputation - we have done so based on the money we've spent, clearly and badly so. This is - objectively - the case. It has nothing to do with unrealistic ambitions. On the contrary, it is very much realistic to expect a team with our kind of wage bill to do (significantly) better.
This is ultimately on the owners, obviously: they pay the wages.
Based on average wages paid in the same period, it should be between 1st and 2nd.
So (see above) it isn't just that we have underachieved based on reputation - we have done so based on the money we've spent, clearly and badly so. This is - objectively - the case. It has nothing to do with unrealistic ambitions. On the contrary, it is very much realistic to expect a team with our kind of wage bill to do (significantly) better.
This is ultimately on the owners, obviously: they pay the wages.
I think this is right but I would also ask this question.
In the post-SAF era, how many of those seasons would you say we had the 1st or 2nd best manager in that particular season?
I thin ultimately the money has been spent terrible on both playing staff and football staff. We have given the wrong players big money, but those players have also had the wrong coaches who were given far too much time.
Over the last few years we brought into the belief that giving the manager time was all that was needed, not the quality of the manager and his staff. We believed promoting from the academy would give us players the quality of the class of 92. We believed assembling big names regardless of system and style of play would see us ok.
Literally every footballing decision has been wrong over the post 3 or 4 years. The money spent is only a small part of it.
It's not about motivating players. The right players don't need different motivation based on their earnings. They have a will and expectation to win. Our group think they have made it because they walk into Carrington.
I suggest you take a step out of this thread for a bit.
You think Fergie was successful because he didn't let people dance?
He was successful because he built a winning culture, and that took time and structure.
Yes, discipline and hard work were a big part of it, but to claim that people dancing in the changing rooms is proof to people not caring about winning or not trying hard is churlish and frankly ridiculous.
The structure of the club is imperative to create a winning mentality.
Look at City, Liverpool, Bayern, all have a culture built up around the club because of their structure.
We have lost that since Sir Alex left because we haven't continued that same structure, we've lost our way.
Nothing to do with people dancing in the changing rooms, it runs a lot deeper than that.
OK so there is a lot to unpick and unpack here.
As a United fan, since the departure of Sir Alex Ferguson, I would have expected United to be competing for and winning trophies. Even to the extent that, that success would not have been at the level of the Ferguson years, I would not have expected the level of drop off to be where it is. Not only that but I do not think that at the time of Sir Alex's departure there is a single United fan that would have expected the club to have gone nearly a decade without a PL title and four years without any trophy whatsoever. Do you?
That said, you make a good point about the coaching staff because we have made a number of poor appointments due to negligent due diligence like Moyes and Ole. But even here, we recruited two managers in Louis Van Gaal and Jose Mourinho who were proven winners of multiple league titles and Champions Leagues. Even if the expectations of Moyes and Ole were lower, would it have been unreasonable to expect Van Gaal and Jose to meet the reasonable expectations of success?
However, where I disagree with you strongly is with regard to player value. In my opinion I cannot accept that the current United squad is not good enough to be competing for trophies at the highest level. For me that is an easy out for players who are playing well below their potential. It was not that long ago that United fans were comparing Maguire to Van Dijk, that Luke Shaw was being described as the one of the best left backs in the country, that Bruno was being eulogised as one of the best midfielders in Europe, that Jesse Lingard had revived his England career following his loan spell at West Ham. I could go on and on. Even with inflated transfer fees, the failures here are not due to player quality but rather consistency, coaching and culture.
Taking the earlier comparison with Liverpool, how is it that with the exception of Van Dijk and Allison, Klopp has managed to take a clutch of c£40m players and turn them into PL and CL winners? Salah was a Chelsea reject, Andy Robertson was a no name from relegated Hull, Diogo Jota was a journeyman pro from Wolves. The argument that the players at United's disposal have not been good enough to be more successful, when the likes of Klopp has achieved more on a lower gross and net spend simply does not wash. Lest we forget in the time since we last won the PL title, Leicester managed to achieve that accolade on a shoestring.
On a final note, you rightly point out that both clubs have won three trophies since 2013/14. However, to be honest whilst they are the same in terms of quantity, there is a false equivalency in terms of quality. The Europa League and the Champions League and the FA Cup and the Premier League title are not the same. Yes, success is absolutely relative.
I swear this question was internally mulled over by SAF every season since about 1999. I guess the way to do it is to look for the right personalities to have in the squad. The best player in the world could have won it all but he wouldn’t be too bothered about doing it again. Meanwhile this less talented player next to him could have all the energy in the world and his determination can offset his lack of ability, as well as having more talented teammates around him and he drives on those talented teammates who may have that desire but it’s not as strong or they need to be influenced and motivated in a way that makes them want to do it again.
First, I do not base expectations on my feelings or wishes, I look at where the club and competition are, so no I didn't expect us to win more or better. In fact the moment we announced Moyes, my expectation was for us to not win the League until at least 2020-2022, my expectation was a couple of national cups and maybe the EL. That in itself means that my view will be extremely different from some fans, I have never been naive about sport and football.
Secondly, you are rating players fairly poorly if you think that at any point Maguire was close to Van Dijk, Shaw was rated as a prospect but he never confirmed the early promises which is true for most promising players and Bruno has only been eulogised as one of the best midfielders in Europe among some United fans, he is rightfully a bench warmer for Portugal and his best achievement outside of a cup of Portugal is EL runner-up.
Thirdly, unlike what some of you seem to think 40m is a lot of money in Football and spending money doesn't mean that you actually have quality. Talking about money is only interesting from a resource management standpoint but it's absolutely useless when it comes to judge the quality of a player, because the reality is that the price of the player reliesmore on context then anything else, it depends on who is the selling club and the contractual situation of the player. That's why for example Fabinho will cost you 45m€ while Naby Keita will cost you 60m€. Or why Arrizabalaga cost you 80m while Edouard Mendy costs 24m€. For your point to be correct you have to accept two premises, first that you evaluated players perfectly and secondly that you know the market perfectly or even just adequatly which are both bold claims even for very competent clubs.
So net and gross spendings are meaningless in this conversation, as I said earlier they are only useful in the context of evaluating the club management of resources, but it doesn't allow you to determine the actual quality of these resources.
Finally the trophy comparison wasn't an equivalence but a comparison, I clearly stated that you righfully put Liverpool above United. The point was that you consider that Liverpool are the model but the model didn't actually won that much more, they won better competitions. And that point is in my opinion key to your OP because the reality is that Liverpool players aren't prolific winners but they have been better winners and it makes sense Liverpool have a better team and a better manager but they haven't won that often which makes sense since the higher you go, the more difficult it is to win.
If you want to win better competitions you need better players and management, by better I mean better than the competition can offer. If you have neither of these things you have no reason to expect more or better, and basing anything on spendings would be like expecting to win a race because you have more expensive shoes.
But you have actually made my argument better than I could make it myself. By saying that following David Moyes appointment, you did not expect United to win another Premier League title for another ten years, by your own admission you are describing yourself as a outlier. As an outlier therefor you are untypical of the average fan in terms of your expectation. Perhaps this would be best resolved with a poll asking respondents whether, following Sir Alex's departure, they expected that United would not win another Premier League title for at least another ten years. Frankly I would be astonished if the proportion indicating that they did expect this to be higher than 10% of respondents. Whether or not your expectation may have proved correct, over time, notwithstanding, it certainly does not reflect the views of United fans that I have heard.
As for what I base my expectations on, it is not feelings, it is evidence! Don't forget, the team that Sir Alex handed over to David Moyes had won the Premier League title the year before. They were not a team full of spotty trainees and academy graduates. They were full of Premier League title winners, including multiple Premier League title winners and Champions League winners (De Gea, Ferdinand, Evra, Vidic and Rooney amongst them). There was every reason to believe that a side, packed full of serial winners, could still be competitive. This is not the eternal and emotional optimism of Liverpool fans who flying in the face of facts to the contrary always seemed to believe that "next year will be our year".
Again, I hate to press home the point here but yes, there are a number of commentaries about Maguire being comparable to Van Dijk. Just do a Google search of 'Maguire is better than Van Dijk' and you will find them. Similar evaluations have been made about the aforementioned Luke Shaw and Bruno Fernandes. The fact that you do not rate them as players does not invalidate the fact that these are players who in the recent past, have enjoyed positive coverage for their strong performances. Likewise, your comment about spend also totally misses the point. In the first instance, spend is critically important because it affords a club the ability to compete not just in terms of transfer fees but also personal terms. However, it is your second predicate that I take issue with which is that no matter how much money United have spent, the players we have bought are essentially not good enough to win the major prizes. As previously advised, I fundamentally disagree with that predicate. Yes, United has overpaid for talent, of that there is no doubt. However, as I previously stated, I believe that the issue here is one of under-performance not lack of quality. Are you seriously saying that the current United squad is playing to its fullest potential? And that its fullest potential is 22 points of the top? Is that what you want to be believed?
Too easy I think to throw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater when a team is under-performing and say that the players are not good enough. As I previously stated this is a group pf players who have the quality but who have woefully failed to fulfill their potential.
@fastwalker I'm an outlier because I used logic not feelings. It doesn't make your argument better unless you think that feelings are more relevant than logic.
Let me make it perfectly clear, you are wrong on all your points and I already told you why.
Let me make it perfectly clear, you are wrong on all your points and I already told you why.
But that is a protest not an argument. I have countered your protest with facts and even invited you to reference and research for your own assurance. Protestation no matter how fervent can never replace facts. As for logic, especially conventional logic, I totally support its application. But do keep in mind, it was once thought logical to believe the earth was flat. Some people still do.....
I know, but my point is if the current bunch of prima donnas were paid by results, maybe the teams results would improve. Of course it will never happen as the players these days have all the power, but one day the bubble will burst, clubs will go to the wall and owning a Premier League club will no longer look quite as attractive and the ridiculous transfer fees and high wages we see now will stop.
What facts are you talking about? You think that at any point Maguire was factually as good as Van Dijk? There isn't a point wher Shaw was considered as a top fullback in fact he struggled to get into the english side and Bruno isn't a starter for Portugal and has never been considered one of the top midfielders in Europe before joining United.
But even if it was the case, what makes you think that these evaluations are correct? Keep in mind that for example Maguire never played in a continental competition(EL or CL) before joining United.
Do you think that an average F1 driver would perform better if he was paid less or paid by results? Do you think that he would outperform top F1 drivers?
I get annoyed by the simplistic "we haven't had a top coach since Fergie left". Its unbelievably shallow.
Since Fergie left these have been our problems:
1. A CEO with no top club football experience.
2. A CEO more interested in the commercial side of the game than on pitch results.
3. A CEO eager to prefer his own counsel to that of actual football people.
4. 4 changes in footballing direction in 8 years. I don't care how good your players are. No coach nor group of players can succeed under such circumstances
5. Increased player power. Players being sided with over coaching prefferences by the CEO. (I.e martial vs Mourinho)
6. Haphazard recruitment. Switching back and fourth between targeting galacticos and up and coming players due to repeated changes in footballing direction
7. The stupid policy of "protecting value" rather than getting rid of unhappy, underperforming or want away players. Resulting in uncessesary and in earned contract renewals.
8. A 3 year delay in recruiting a director of football to chart the new permanent direction and structure of the club.
9. No long term strategic planning. Instant success has been chased constantly
10. Poor coaching recruitment. You don't go from Moyes, to LVG, back to Mourinho to Ole. That is 4 entirely different coaching styles and directions. At a club that thrived best under one coaching and footballing direction for 25 years.
Since Fergie left these have been our problems:
1. A CEO with no top club football experience.
2. A CEO more interested in the commercial side of the game than on pitch results.
3. A CEO eager to prefer his own counsel to that of actual football people.
4. 4 changes in footballing direction in 8 years. I don't care how good your players are. No coach nor group of players can succeed under such circumstances
5. Increased player power. Players being sided with over coaching prefferences by the CEO. (I.e martial vs Mourinho)
6. Haphazard recruitment. Switching back and fourth between targeting galacticos and up and coming players due to repeated changes in footballing direction
7. The stupid policy of "protecting value" rather than getting rid of unhappy, underperforming or want away players. Resulting in uncessesary and in earned contract renewals.
8. A 3 year delay in recruiting a director of football to chart the new permanent direction and structure of the club.
9. No long term strategic planning. Instant success has been chased constantly
10. Poor coaching recruitment. You don't go from Moyes, to LVG, back to Mourinho to Ole. That is 4 entirely different coaching styles and directions. At a club that thrived best under one coaching and footballing direction for 25 years.
What has F1 got to do with football?
With the benefit of hindsight, the answer is none.
(The most damning fact of them all is that we haven't even challenged for the league once - not even close if we're talking about a genuine challenge. We've finished 2nd twice - both times hopelessly behind the winners, and hardly anyone would claim we had the 2nd best manager in those seasons).
As you say, the money has been (very) poorly spent. That is the main problem with the people in charge of United: not that they have spent too little to keep up with the opposition, but that they have spent a huge amount of money with little or no direction.
As long as Fergie was around, the owners didn't have to worry about direction. When he retired, they completely failed to hire the right people to deal with the - obvious - problem of replacing him: or rather replacing what he offered (replacing him, directly, was always impossible - multiple people were required, covering different aspects of running a successful football club).