How have Manchester United become a club full of people 'learning on the job'? | The Athletic

[devilish]

fyp

Sir Alex created no mgmt structure at Utd. (nor did Gill). He wanted Moyes, who didn't know what to do with the existing cadre of winning coaches and players so he fired them all.

The whole idea is that the backrooms of Utd keeps recycling the same good old boys and rewarding failure. Have you ever wondered why Utd players who go into coaching are so mediocre?

I think that's endemic to the EPL as a whole. EPL simply do not develop coaches and managers as they should. I was listening Stephen Howson not that long ago and he was describing how gruesome the Italian coaching badges are. Basically every wannabe manager/coach has to utilize every formation possible and come with a dissertation on their formation of their choice. Which kind of explains why the Serie A keeps producing top managers while the EPL is producing, well, the likes of Southgate and Gary Neville

 

[steffyr2]

I think that's endemic to the EPL as a whole. EPL simply do not develop coaches and managers as they should. I was listening Stephen Howson not that long ago and he was describing how gruesome the Italian coaching badges are. Basically every wannabe manager/coach has to utilize every formation possible and come with a dissertation on their formation of their choice. Which kind of explains why the Serie A keeps producing top managers while the EPL is producing, well, the likes of Southgate and Gary Neville

Maybe. When Sir Alex was in charge, the idea was that he just couldn't compete in Europe.

 

[R'hllor]

We did the right thing hiring Ole full time. Results were good and playstyle was easy on the eye. What happened after is a disaster and could have probably happen to another manager.

Ole made some disasterous decisions afterwards and that is on him not on those who hired him.

He was given an opportunity of a lifetime and he blew it. He is a nice, but weak man. Being a manager of a top club requires much much more.

Nope we didnt, plan was till end of season and review it after with new DoF. Results were still holding at the time, eve thoo they dropped after too but playstyle was already in downspirale because it was sacrficed for results = gave more chance to get permanent job.

 

[11101]

And the point is, WHO are they actually learning from, because the only experienced head I see is Phelan.
So when we say 'learning on the job' what we really mean is "fumbling about in the dark, and hopefully learning from their own mistakes"

Exactly. It's all well and good learning on the job, but who is teaching them? There isn't a single person in our setup who is qualified for that, not even Phelan with his career post Fergie.

 

[Walters_19_MuFc]

Because the experienced people failed?

 

[Champ]

The point is, you bring individuals into a structure where those around them know their job and are not also learning as they go. The whole club is being run on this basis. The point being made is absolutely spot on. What other club in world football is run like this?

Its really not at.

 

[Bastian]

I'm glad this is being discussed. We're back to square one really, which is professionalising the club, not giving it a facelift, but hiring a DoF of high pedigree and leave the footballing side to footballing people.

That is our #1 requirement.

 

[UnitedFire]

And the point is, WHO are they actually learning from, because the only experienced head I see is Phelan.
So when we say 'learning on the job' what we really mean is "fumbling about in the dark, and hopefully learning from their own mistakes"

3 years in my biggest concern is that there is no 'learning' on the job. The basics of 'learning in absence of a clear plan or experience is trial and error and I don't see anything particularly new being tried.

Same players over played, no run of games for developing players, no tactical changes.

Same shit for 3 years....counter attacking football waiting for an opportunity to open up. If it doesn't open up there is a high chance of failure.

This is the main reason I've lost faith in Ole and the coaching staff....where is the evolution? Where is the indication of improvement? Where is even the slightest sniff of hope that we can improve on what has mostly seemed like luck and individual moments of brilliance.

 

[Cassidy]

Love to know what Begiristain was doing at Barca when he got appointed, if not learning on the job, or Van Der Sar at Ajax, or Rummenigge at Bayern etc etc.

The Athletic are beginning to be the biggest trolls in modern football journalism, what with their obsession with poor Tifo videos and podcasts deliberately designed to ruffle the feathers of fans.

Pretty sure most of them had alot of experience around them at the club in other positions.

 

[RedRover]

Exactly. Any qualified individual should've able to fit into that structure. There's so much wrong with club, Barcelona with their debts are renovating the Camp Nou and surrounding area. They'll spend a billion but expect a £200m returrn annually...Real similar yet we're archaic for top to bottom.

Sir Alex ran the club from the footballing side, but the game has changed and that’s half the problem. The club is a billion pound plus business, and the game is bigger than it ever was. Quite simply, those running it have been left behind.

United are stuck where Liverpool were in the early 90’s, harking back to the boot room days and past glories.

The club is packed with ex-players, internal appointments and old faces. The “United way” which bread success was actually the Fergie way and not only has he gone, the modern game is entirely different.

There needs to be a cull. Root and branch. Or things won’t improve.

 

[RedRover]

Its really not at.

So who, in the key positions has the experience and pedigree to be in that role?

Feel free to correct me.

 

[RedRover]

Yup, indeed. Fergie for example could have afforded some newbie coach under him, cause he had the likes of Queiroz and later Maulensteen. Carrick and McKenna have each other. To be fair, it is a fecking disgrace that Ole does not do coaching (the main job of the manager), but that is for another matter.

Arnold is learning under Woodward. Who was a total failure.

Fletcher is learning under Murtough. Whose experience was running the academy and the women's team.

it is fecking absurd. No person in the hierarchy is anywhere remotely near qualified to do the job they are doing.

Correct. Not a single person with any quality, pedigree or reputation in the game.

 

[Abraxas]

He was never fit for the job. His only stint in the PL was shambolic. Why is anyone surprised how this has turned out?

Lets be honest. United should never have appointed a manager who'd had limited success in Norway and had previously been relegated from the Premier League. The fact that he played under Fergie and "knows the club" is absolute nonsense. The club needs to look forward, not back or they'll continue making the same mistakes again and again.

I agree, he didn't have the qualifications in terms of a winning track record at a comparable level and I don't think he would have been a natural pick for anybody until we got carried away with his caretaker tenure.

However I don't think it's quite the same as him learning on the job, he still had plenty of games behind him as a football manager. It might be a lower level but it's still football management with many of the same elements, and ultimately he had the advantage of knowing the club and the standards that should be set which is an advantage. So it wasn't as if he was completely blind to life at this level.

Even more so at this point, I don't think one of the fundamental reasons we are struggling is because the manager is learning or lacks experience. It seems to be a matter of quality.

It might be the case with our footballing structure, though. Because they're the ones with no footballing background, they appoint these guys, they set the expectations, the budgets etc. That's where "learning on the job" seems more applicable.

 

[Champ]

So who, in the key positions has the experience and pedigree to be in that role?

Feel free to correct me.

Your statement was 'the whole club is being run in this basis', implying the whole club is being run by amateurs, by people who are learning as they go along.
Inherently incorrect and I've spelt out why in my other posts.
McKenna several years of coaching experience, Carrick likewise, Arnold been involved in the club for years, Ole been in management for years, now in his third season at United.
Fletcher got the job due to a recruitment process which means he was the best for for the role according to the board.

I find it bizarre that some on here can post stuff like United coaching staff are learning on the job, Ole is learning on the job, the recruitment team and footballing directors are learning on the job, yet people then want Graham Potter as manager, or Ten Hag and Van Der Sar as manager and footballing director, managers who have just as supposed 'little' experience as Ole, and a director who 'learnt on the job' at Ajax.

I think my issue here really is the double standards the media, especially The Athletic who are desperate for subs, and some United fans have towards United as a club and the way it's run.

 

[OmarUnited4ever]

You make a good point, but I'd counter that with saying Ole isn't learning on the job (albeit a manager learns all the time but you can understand what I mean), Carrick and McKenna are qualified coaches with years of experience.
Fletcher would have been interviewed, without doubt, and I know some on here may not believe that!
Arnold is involved in the club already and has been for many many years. So again, he may be learning different aspects of work, he knows what needs to be done.

Its not as of every person we have onboard is a complete novice!!

Carrick never had any experience coaching a first team footballers before Mourinho hired him as a coach, McKenna only coached at youth level before Mourinho brought him in, so basically both had zero experiences in terms of coaching a first team PL level footballers before becoming coaches for the first team at Man United, even Eric Ramsey doesn't have that much of experience, which consists of being an assistant manager at league 2 club, and Chelsea's under-23 coach, only Mike Phelan has the experience of being a first team coach, and a very good experience as he was SAF's assistant.

So, I would say yes, there are few novices in the coaching staff, novices as in never worked with PL level footballers before becoming football coaches at Man. United.

 

[Ixion]

I hated that we forced Van Gaal to have Giggs as his AM. Having to deal with interference from above from day one so Giggs can learn on the job.

 

[Lentwood]

Any well run club would never have hired Ole permanently in the first place. It's that obvious. He was hired because the power people in the club (SAF included) have deluded themselves into living in the past whether they legitimately think it's the best way (SAF) or because it appeals to the fans which earns them more money (rest).

Not really...he was hired because the club went on an unbelievable run during his interim period. Had you asked this forum after PSG, "should we give Ole a permanent contract", I think you would have got an overwhelmingly positive response.

Again, I will repeat, Ole needs to go - but I am going to keep pulling people up when they try and re-write History and make everything out to be doom and gloom.

 

[Champ]

Carrick never had any experience coaching a first team footballers before Mourinho hired him as a coach, McKenna only coached at youth level before Mourinho brought him in, so basically both had zero experiences in terms of coaching a first team PL level footballers before becoming coaches for the first team at Man United, even Eric Ramsey doesn't have that much of experience, which consists of being an assistant manager at league 2 club, and Chelsea's under-23 coach, only Mike Phelan has the experience of being a first team coach, and a very good experience as he was SAF's assistant.

So, I would say yes, there are few novices in the coaching staff, novices as in never worked with PL level footballers before becoming football coaches at Man. United.

Carrick had been learning 'on the job' for years before retiring, and has been a coach since 2018, so hardly inexperienced now,

McKenna has been a coach since 2015, hardly inexperienced, the easy retort will be to say 'but not at United level', but again he has been at the club for years, has been now in his postion for the same amount of time as Carrick, so has three years of experience behind him now.

The Athletic podcast and some on here are suggesting that the reason we are in this slide is due to people 'learning on the job', this isn't the case, whilst I'll agree that experience is always a good thing with regards to coaching and the footballing side of the board room, we are far from having a bunch of amateurs in charge, every coach, every person in board room footballing related matters has experience be it of the club, of procedures or of both.

People are discussing the coaches from three years ago, suggesting they have no experience, Three years have passed since then, three years of experience, three years of learning, they are not inexperienced now!

 

[Sky1981]

Don't worry. They are all working very hard, so hard in fact that it is affecting their personal lives. And they won't stop until they've rectified all their mistakes with new mistakes.

They worked so hard they dont even have the energy to stand up during match... poor boys

 

[RedRover]

I agree, he didn't have the qualifications in terms of a winning track record at a comparable level and I don't think he would have been a natural pick for anybody until we got carried away with his caretaker tenure.

However I don't think it's quite the same as him learning on the job, he still had plenty of games behind him as a football manager. It might be a lower level but it's still football management with many of the same elements, and ultimately he had the advantage of knowing the club and the standards that should be set which is an advantage. So it wasn't as if he was completely blind to life at this level.

Even more so at this point, I don't think one of the fundamental reasons we are struggling is because the manager is learning or lacks experience. It seems to be a matter of quality.

It might be the case with our footballing structure, though. Because they're the ones with no footballing background, they appoint these guys, they set the expectations, the budgets etc. That's where "learning on the job" seems more applicable.

I disagree that he had the necessary experience. Managing in Norway isn't even comparable to the Championship. The pressure and scrutiny at the top level is completely different from anything he's experienced. He's never managed players of that quality.

In my view he never had the tools to do the job. With "experience", he has only looked more and more out of his depth. It's madness that he ever got the job on a full time basis.

 

[OmarUnited4ever]

Carrick had been learning 'on the job' for years before retiring, and has been a coach since 2018, so hardly inexperienced now,

McKenna has been a coach since 2015, hardly inexperienced, the easy retort will be to say 'but not at United level', but again he has been at the club for years, has been now in his postion for the same amount of time as Carrick, so has three years of experience behind him now.

The Athletic podcast and some on here are suggesting that the reason we are in this slide is due to people 'learning on the job', this isn't the case, whilst I'll agree that experience is always a good thing with regards to coaching and the footballing side of the board room, we are far from having a bunch of amateurs in charge, every coach, every person in board room footballing related matters has experience be it of the club, of procedures or of both.

People are discussing the coaches from three years ago, suggesting they have no experience, Three years have passed since then, three years of experience, three years of learning, they are not inexperienced now!

You make it seem that just by being a player at the club qualifies you to be a coach, that's not enough, if a retiring footballer joined as a rookie football coach, he will need to learn from someone with experience or be part of an existing setup that has experienced coaches in it, for example if Milner today announces he will retire and become a football coach at Liverpool, he will be working with an experienced coaching staff led by successful manager in Klopp, we don't have that experienced staff as coaches except for Phelan and Ole, Ole himself never managed in a top league before coming as interim here, so he should have sorrounded himself with experienced coaches at the very least, not novices like Carrick and McKenna.

Look at Pep, he had and has very experienced coaches with him, Brian Kidd, very experienced, and even the current one, has 20+ years of experience, that's Pep, one of the most successful managers in world football, what's Ole doing with "novices" like Carrick and McKenna??

Btw, at the club we do have a football structure, and yes, Fletcher though inexperienced/new, he works with experienced people like Murtough and the recruitment team that is full of highly experienced people but all that structure does not impact the football played on the pitch by the first team directly, the reason for that is the first team coaches, who are not good enough or not experienced enough to lead and manage a team of the size and expectations of Manchester United.

 

[RedRover]

Your statement was 'the whole club is being run in this basis', implying the whole club is being run by amateurs, by people who are learning as they go along.
Inherently incorrect and I've spelt out why in my other posts.
McKenna several years of coaching experience, Carrick likewise, Arnold been involved in the club for years, Ole been in management for years, now in his third season at United.
Fletcher got the job due to a recruitment process which means he was the best for for the role according to the board.

I find it bizarre that some on here can post stuff like United coaching staff are learning on the job, Ole is learning on the job, the recruitment team and footballing directors are learning on the job, yet people then want Graham Potter as manager, or Ten Hag and Van Der Sar as manager and footballing director, managers who have just as supposed 'little' experience as Ole, and a director who 'learnt on the job' at Ajax.

I think my issue here really is the double standards the media, especially The Athletic who are desperate for subs, and some United fans have towards United as a club and the way it's run.

Whatever your view on the media, the Athletic or the Journalists involved, in key positions, the people making the key decisions lack experience and they very much appear to be learning as they go. Their sole qualification appears to be having "been involved in the club for years".

Appointing a former player as a coach, or promoting a coach from the youth team is one thing - if you have an experienced and established coaching team alongside, or an experienced, elite manager who is heavily involved in coaching. United have neither.

What is more bizarre for me is the clubs inability to build an overall structure which works in the modern game and the apparent inability to make decisive calls. The Director of Football farce went on for an age until, in the end, Darren Fletcher was appointed to what appears to be that role - a former player with little to no experience. You would think that a club of United's stature and resources could have gone out and appointed any one of a number of more qualified people for that job. In fact, to a certain degree, they could have cherry picked anyone in the footballing world.

It all smacks to me of those running the club not wanting to bring someone in with more knowledge of the game and specifically the administration aspect who will start asking difficult questions, or make demands that actually highlight the fact that change is needed and that the ways things have been done, isn't good enough. Far easier to give the job to someone "in house" who won't rock the boat.

At the end of the day, whether you agree with what the media are saying or not, clearly whatever the club are doing now, isn't working. Hundreds of millions have been spent and this year, world class players brought in and on the pitch, we're a shambles.

For me, someone external needs to come in and make huge changes, root and branch. The "United way" nonsense is simply being used to justify jobs for the boys and the acceptance of mediocrity, and it's lead to a place where the team, and worse, the club appears to be completely directionless.

 

[youmeletsfly]

Don't matter if you're learning on the job or not as long as the company's culture and strategy is totally off center and the key decision makers are the same, or worse, they interfere where they shouldn't.

You could say that X is responsible for going into a different direction, Y is responsible for coming up with a different sporting plan, etc, but, without knowing the ins and outs, it's guesswork. Maybe the guys there already tried the change and the key decision makers came up with a flat "no" answer.

As we know, to kill the dragon you need to cut off its head. ED is leaving, seemingly the head being close to gone. The question is if he was actually the head or not or if there are any other heads to be cut off, above him.

Articles like the one in the OP should be always taken with a pinch of salt.

The most important thing in an organization is mentality at the top of its structure. No matter how many changes you make at middle level, if the top level has the wrong mentality and a lack of proper culture, it will never work out, especially long term. However, in United's case, we did get rid of ED and appointed two guys in key positions (Murtough and Fletch) which, in 9 out of 10 cases should be seen as a good change at least from the "bringing in fresh blood and a new mentality" angle.

The Atheltic's article is the usual journalism these days, a bit off guesswork, a bit of shit that seems rather logical and a lot of BS. This covers all types of fans, the idiot, the smart and the blind follower so it's good for discussion ; basically, the Athletic spouts some shit around, makes sure to package it properly to look and sound professional and then it sticks with most supporter types.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

It's such stupid as feck talking point it actually hurts my brain. Here's some people who've received great plaudits:

CEO's/top men:
VDS learnt on the job at Ajax.
Laporta first learnt on the job at Barca.
Peter Moore came from EA Sports to Liverpool, to "learn on the job".
Guy Laurence came from telecommunications to Chelsea.

Nedved is vice Chairman of Juve, learning on the job.

Assistant managers:
Pep hired Arteta to learn on the job and about a thousand other managers have appointed ex players to do the same.

DoF:
Overmars learnt on the fecking job
Michael Edwards went from geeky "sporting analyst" at Pompy and Spurs with Harry fecking Redknapp of all people, to land a job as DoF at Liverpool and "learn on the job."

Manager:
McKenna is proof we're stupidly run yet Pep & Zidane both learnt from similar positions, not just to coach but directly to first team managers of Real and Barca.

 

[Drainy]

It's really easy to happen within any organisation with a culture of promoting from within.

Important to get experience from outside, but challenging to balance.

 

[Champ]

Whatever your view on the media, the Athletic or the Journalists involved, in key positions, the people making the key decisions lack experience and they very much appear to be learning as they go. Their sole qualification appears to be having "been involved in the club for years".

Appointing a former player as a coach, or promoting a coach from the youth team is one thing - if you have an experienced and established coaching team alongside, or an experienced, elite manager who is heavily involved in coaching. United have neither.

What is more bizarre for me is the clubs inability to build an overall structure which works in the modern game and the apparent inability to make decisive calls. The Director of Football farce went on for an age until, in the end, Darren Fletcher was appointed to what appears to be that role - a former player with little to no experience. You would think that a club of United's stature and resources could have gone out and appointed any one of a number of more qualified people for that job. In fact, to a certain degree, they could have cherry picked anyone in the footballing world.

It all smacks to me of those running the club not wanting to bring someone in with more knowledge of the game and specifically the administration aspect who will start asking difficult questions, or make demands that actually highlight the fact that change is needed and that the ways things have been done, isn't good enough. Far easier to give the job to someone "in house" who won't rock the boat.

At the end of the day, whether you agree with what the media are saying or not, clearly whatever the club are doing now, isn't working. Hundreds of millions have been spent and this year, world class players brought in and on the pitch, we're a shambles.

For me, someone external needs to come in and make huge changes, root and branch. The "United way" nonsense is simply being used to justify jobs for the boys and the acceptance of mediocrity, and it's lead to a place where the team, and worse, the club appears to be completely directionless.

I'm not taking this any further other than this post, as I think everyone on here including yourself has very valid points and are making them constructively which cannot be said to much recently on here, so thank you for the constructive discourse.

I don't believe the sole qualification is 'been at the club for years'
All of them have high level UEFA qualifications, they also in the case of Carrick, have learnt under top quality managers (Sir Alex made sure his senior players learnt). In the case of McKenna he has been involved in top level coaching for nigh on 6 years.

Fletcher's role interests me, he is actively on the training ground often, which a usual director of football or equivalent isn't. He acts more of an middle man between the first team/Ole and the recruitment team.
Again, saying he doesn't have experience in this role is very valid, but it doesn't sound like a role that a standard footballing/technical director could partake in. So it's difficult to say he doesn't have experience in comparison to anyone else, as it sounds like a rather niche role.

Personally I don't believe the issue is with lack of experience across the board at the club, moreso with a lack of cohesiveness across the board. That's something that these new positions have been designed to improve, and hopefully they do improve fortunes sooner rather than later.

 

[RedRover]

It's such stupid as feck talking point it actually hurts my brain. Here's some people who've received great plaudits:

CEO's/top men:
VDS learnt on the job at Ajax.
Laporta first learnt on the job at Barca.
Peter Moore came from EA Sports to Liverpool, to "learn on the job".
Guy Laurence came from telecommunications to Chelsea.

Nedved is vice Chairman of Juve, learning on the job.

Assistant managers:
Pep hired Arteta to learn on the job and about a thousand other managers have appointed ex players to do the same.

DoF:
Overmars learnt on the fecking job
Michael Edwards went from geeky "sporting analyst" at Pompy and Spurs with Harry fecking Redknapp of all people, to land a job as DoF at Liverpool and "learn on the job."

Manager:
McKenna is proof we're stupidly run yet Pep & Zidane both learnt from similar positions, not just to coach but directly to first team managers of Real and Barca.

Is the point not that those people arguably went into jobs in organisations that were sufficiently robust, and with a sufficient structure to allow them the support to gain experience and to develop without the club falling down around their ears?

Clearly everyone starts somewhere, but don't the examples above just prove the point? Those clubs are pretty much all well ran clubs with a clear direction. The structure of the club allows them to nurture and develop talent and grow into a job. I suspect there is experience all around them at senior levels in the club, helping them out when things get tough. Who's doing that at United?

United's footballing operations were, it seems ran almost top to bottom by Sir Alex and that's the problem. Since he left, the club hasn't been able to put in place the proper structures that modern clubs have and we've been left behind.

 

[Lecland07]

Love to know what Begiristain was doing at Barca when he got appointed, if not learning on the job, or Van Der Sar at Ajax, or Rummenigge at Bayern etc etc.

The Athletic are beginning to be the biggest trolls in modern football journalism, what with their obsession with poor Tifo videos and podcasts deliberately designed to ruffle the feathers of fans.

Bayern Munich have the luxury of being the most dominant side in their league. There is not a team that can compete with them financially nor challenge them for transfers in the Bundesliga. It is pretty much a monopoly. This means any mistakes can easily be rectified and brushed under the rug.

Manchester United do not have that advantage. Manchester City and Chelsea, in particular can match everything that they do in both of these areas. Liverpool are also far bigger than any other German club, outside of Bayern Munich. The circumstances are not at all similar.

You are also looking at players that took on these roles when the clubs were much smaller. Rummenigge joined in 1991. Hoeness joined as a commercial manager in 1979. These players have had a long time to adapt and learn in an environment where there is little risk of failure.