Ole Gunnar Solskjær | 2021/22 Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
90 + 5min said:
Ole Gunnar Solskjaer win percentage is 47,52%. 1,42 in goals scored. 1,07 in goals conceded.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for this data please? I've checked using Transfermarkt and it appears your stats are wrong.

This is his managerial record in full here including his caretaker stint:

Matches W D L Goals Points PPM
42 - 21 - 9 - 12 - 65:49 - 72 - 1,71

= 50% win rate, 1.54 goals scored, 1.16 goals against, 1.71 points/match

Source
 
Ole Gunnar Solskjaer names the Manchester United risk he will continue to take

Ole Gunnar Solskjaer has admitted that he's throwing Manchester United's youngsters into "deep water" as he oversees a transition period at Old Trafford.

United have won just two of their nine Premier League games this season, but Solskjaer remains adamant that he'll keep giving youth its opportunity this season.

He's handed full debuts to Mason Greenwood , Angel Gomes, Tahith Chong, Brandon Williams and James Garner in his tenure as United boss.

And despite poor results, the Norwegian wants to continue taking a gamble on players from the United academy. The club didn't replace outgoing stars Romelu Lukaku and Ander Herrera in the summer and instead turned to their youth system.

"You have to be brave. You have to trust your players and trust the kids. We need results as soon as possible. We need a result against Norwich. But then again we are in the situation we are.

"We made the decision to start the transition and that transition period has been difficult but I think the young kids are going to learn from it."

Solskjaer has tended to hark back to the club's traditions of bringing through youth, having played alongside the famed Class of 92 under Sir Alex Ferguson during his time as a United player.

And he admits it's a tricky balancing act between grinding out results and bringing through the next generation, in his job as manager.

"You want to win, you want to win trophies and win in a certain style," Solskjaer added. "But you also want to do it with young kids.

"That's the DNA we have. We do give young players a chance and you won't really know about them until you throw them into deep water and see if they can swim. Those boys so far have done really well."
Click to expand...
 
Solskjaer insists Man Utd don't need Harry Kane because they have Anthony Martial

“Now Anthony is back, I am quite happy with the options I have in attack.

“I’ve heard what some people have said about us being short of a genuine No.9, but Anthony has absolutely everything in his locker to take that role.

“He can be a target man, he’s quick, he’s technical – and one of the reasons he wanted to stay here was because I told him I saw him as a central striker.

“I don’t think people outside the club realise how good this lad is.

“But the players in the dressing room know. When we are talking about how we are going to score goals, they say, ‘We will just give the ball to Anthony.’

“He has the confidence of his team-mates and his manager because we see him every day in training.

“What I’ve now got to do is set the team up to get the best out of him, but I think he will improve by just staying fit and playing more games.”
Click to expand...
 
Majima said:
Do you have a source for this data please? I've checked using Transfermarkt and it appears your stats are wrong.

This is his managerial record in full here including his caretaker stint:

Matches W D L Goals Points PPM
42 - 21 - 9 - 12 - 65:49 - 72 - 1,71

= 50% win rate, 1.54 goals scored, 1.16 goals against, 1.71 points/match

Source
Click to expand...
Should only count since he was perm. His temp spell is irrelevant, he played a different formation entirely. Now he plays to not lose. Ole out!
 
MrBest said:
Should only count since he was perm. His temp spell is irrelevant, he played a different formation entirely. Now he plays to not lose. Ole out!
Click to expand...
I included his total record for full transparency. I fully understand it was a totally different team back then, playing a totally different way to now. It's just easier to compare records this way isn't it?
 
Untd55 said:
Permanent manager comparisons. Who is the odd one out?

Win Rate
Solskjaer: Win Rate - 24%
Mourinho: Win Rate - 58.33%
Van Gaal: Win Rate - 52.43%
Moyes: Win Rate - 52.94 %
Ferguson: Win Rate - 59.67%

Goals scored per game:
Solskjaer: Goals Scored - 0.84
Mourinho: Goals Scored - 1.69
Van Gaal: Goals Scored - 1.53
Moyes: Goals Scored - 1.68
Ferguson: Goals Scored - 1.85

Goals conceded per game:
Solskjaer: Goals Conceded - 1.32
Mourinho: Goals Conceded - 0.84
Van Gaal: Goals Conceded - 0.95
Moyes: Goals Conceded - 1.04
Ferguson: Goals Conceded - 0.91​

I bolded them in case anyone had difficulty.
Click to expand...

So he is shite at everything. Not surprised.
 
MrBest said:
Should only count since he was perm. His temp spell is irrelevant, he played a different formation entirely. Now he plays to not lose. Ole out!
Click to expand...
For you.

Ole permanent manager stats:

Matches W D L Goals Points PPM
23 - 7 - 7 - 9 - 25:32 - 28 - 1,22

30% win rate, 1.08 goals scored, 1.39 goals against, 1.22 points/match.
 
Majima said:
Do you have a source for this data please? I've checked using Transfermarkt and it appears your stats are wrong.

This is his managerial record in full here including his caretaker stint:

Matches W D L Goals Points PPM
42 - 21 - 9 - 12 - 65:49 - 72 - 1,71

= 50% win rate, 1.54 goals scored, 1.16 goals against, 1.71 points/match

Source
Click to expand...
Come on. They count the Rochadale game as 6-5 win. It was 1-1.

42 - 20 - 10 - 12 - 60:45. That is the right record.
 
Last edited:
Has any manager talked as much crap as Ole without delivering on any of it? I can't think of much he said he's going to do then did it.
 
b82REZ said:
He chose to go into the season with those average players. Or is there an excuse for that too? If he had a budget he should not have blown 130m on two defenders. AWB was needed but Maguire wasn't the final piece of the jigsaw and that money should have been used to improve our attack or midfield.
Click to expand...

Chose and chose. We all agreed something should be done in defense and the club did something. Money don’t grow on trees and the club decided to fix that part first. We could have gone for fixing attack but it would also mean leaking goals. He would get stick either way. And for what I know Ole wasn’t the only one deciding.

Majima said:
Right... So statistically, still the worst manager we've had since SAF then?
Click to expand...

If you look at statistic and believe, the answer is yes. If my sources are correct.

Majima said:
Do you have a source for this data please? I've checked using Transfermarkt and it appears your stats are wrong.

This is his managerial record in full here including his caretaker stint:

Matches W D L Goals Points PPM
42 - 21 - 9 - 12 - 65:49 - 72 - 1,71

= 50% win rate, 1.54 goals scored, 1.16 goals against, 1.71 points/match

Source
Click to expand...

I took my data from a website below. If you believe in it and if it is correct. I haven’t dubblechecked it.
https://www.stretfordend.co.uk/menu.html
https://www.stretfordend.co.uk/menu.html
 
Untd55 said:
When the managers were permanent. Temporary manager is a different job; there is a reason so many fail after being appointed permanently even if they were successful as a temp.

I discarded the results from his temporary position. Also, they have proved to be an aberration.
Click to expand...
Haha you can't do that. Nothing fundamentally changed between him as an interim manager and him as a permanent manager, besides signing a contract. You can't make arbitrary cutoffs to make him look worse.
 
Samid said:
Solskjaer insists Man Utd don't need Harry Kane because they have Anthony Martial
Click to expand...
It's a misleading title, but can't help thinking. Why he had Rashy as main striker last season if he genuinely think Martial is all that?
 
Manager Comparisons (Including Ole's full period in charge.)

Win Rate

Solskjær: 50% Source
Mourinho: 58% Source
Van Gaal: 52% Source
Moyes: 51% Source

Goals Scored per Match

Solskjær: 1.43
Mourinho: 1.68
Van Gaal: 1.53
Moyes: 1.68

Goals Conceded per Match

Solskjær: 1.07
Mourinho: 0.83
Van Gaal: 0.96
Moyes: 1.08
 
Last edited:
If we don't win against Norwich he should resign, not get sacked. I know he won't resign but it's what he should do. People say the season is still long but if we lose against Norwich we are already 10 games in and in an absolutely disastrous position also with abysmal form in which there are no signs pointing upwards. There are only so many points we can drop before we find ourselves in an actual relegation fight with this man in charge and that is a disgrace. If he wants time he needs to start winning games it's really as simple as that. I feel like we will 100% lose against Norwich or at best get a draw.
 
Some other historical manager stats of interest, Hodgson (2010), Dalglish (2011) & Rodgers (2012-2015) records at Liverpool, Di Matteo (2012) & Benitez (2013) records at Chelsea:

Win Rate:

Solskjær: 50% Source
Hodgson: 42% Source
Dalglish: 49% Source
Rodgers: 51% Source
Di Matteo: 59% Source
Benitez: 58% Source

Goals Scored per Match

Solskjær: 1.43
Hodgson: 1.38
Dalglish: 1.59
Rodgers: 1.89
Di Matteo: 2.26
Benitez: 2.06

Goals Conceded per Match

Solskjær: 1.07
Hodgson: 0.84
Dalglish: 1.01
Rodgers: 1.33
Di Matteo: 1.40
Benitez: 1.02

Interesting to note Dalglish's stats in comparison to Solskjær, considering how comical his reign was generally regarded as. Dalglish took over Liverpool January 2011 after they collapsed into the bottom half under Hodgson.

They finished 8th place the following season under him.

Considering he managed to stabilise them in the top half, why wasn't he allowed to rebuild Liverpool for years? Surely he had earnt the opportunity?
 
Last edited:
Majima said:
Some other historical manager stats of interest, Hodgson (2010), Dalglish (2011) & Rodgers (2012-2015) records at Liverpool, Di Matteo (2012) & Benitez (2013) records at Chelsea:

Win Rate:

Solskjær: 50% Source
Hodgson: 42% Source
Dalglish: 49% Source
Rodgers: 51% Source
Di Matteo: 59% Source
Benitez: 58% Source

Goals Scored per Match

Solskjær: 1.54
Hodgson: 1.38
Dalglish: 1.59
Rodgers: 1.89
Di Matteo: 2.26
Benitez: 2.06

Goals Conceded per Match

Solskjær: 1.16
Hodgson: 0.84
Dalglish: 1.01
Rodgers: 1.33
Di Matteo: 1.40
Benitez: 1.02

Interesting to note Dalglish's stats in comparison to Solskjær, considering how comical his reign was generally regarded as. Dalglish took over Liverpool January 2011 after they collapsed into the bottom half under Hodgson.

They finished 8th place the following season under him.

Considering he managed to stabilise them in the top half, why wasn't he allowed to rebuild Liverpool for years? Surely he had earnt the opportunity?
Click to expand...
Please consider Ole's tenure when he became the manager. Its quite clear that "the new manager bounce" thing happened.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Yes, because in the world of managers, success is not about talent and quality. It is about time. You pick random manager and in 5 years he will win the league. This is how i see current opinion about Ole
Click to expand...
:lol: so true
 
Class of 63 said:
When Mourinho was sacked last season we were 11 points away from a Champions League place, we are currently only 10 points away, and we've got a game in hand on the teams in third and fourth(equal on points), so relax we've got this.
Click to expand...

Yes. But mourinho got the boot. While ole got praised and should be given 3 years contract and a 300m budget.
 
Class of 63 said:
When Mourinho was sacked last season we were 11 points away from a Champions League place, we are currently only 10 points away, and we've got a game in hand on the teams in third and fourth(equal on points), so relax we've got this.
Click to expand...

How close were we to the relegation zone when Jose was sacked?
 
Class of 63 said:
When Mourinho was sacked last season we were 11 points away from a Champions League place, we are currently only 10 points away, and we've got a game in hand on the teams in third and fourth(equal on points), so relax we've got this.
Click to expand...
Actually we haven't got anything. When Mourinho was sacked we were 11 points behind after 17 games and were 6th in the table 14 points ahead of the relegation candidates Burnley. Right now we are already 10 points behind having played 7 fewer games and are 15th in the table and are just 2 points from relegation scrap.
 
Class of 63 said:
When Mourinho was sacked last season we were 11 points away from a Champions League place, we are currently only 10 points away, and we've got a game in hand on the teams in third and fourth(equal on points), so relax we've got this.
Click to expand...
That's great, but it was in December. After 10 games we were only 5 points away from the CL spot and 12 points away from the relegation zone. So, which one is better?
 
Mainoldo said:
We didn’t win a title for 3 years. I’m not sure he was right. He managed his way out of it well though and the stars aligned for him. It was at no means a master plan. Beckham’s replacement was Ronaldinho and if Beckham never turned down Barcelona we would have got him. As pointed out we got Ronaldo in the August but Fergie was more than happy to go into the season with Solskjaer as our right winger if the players never got humiliated by Ronaldo. So in related a lot of luck came into play.

Yes we are talking about Lingard hence why I don’t get why you care so much.
Click to expand...

So we didn't win a title for 3 years and it was bad? Jesus there's a problem with your logic there, and it's not because we sold Beckham :lol: you need to revisit that era and look at all the factors. Our strength (or lack of according to you) is immaterial anyway since we are discussing whether the club had media was always slave to the media side, not whether its as good or bad that we allowed it or not.

Re Lingard, he was just one of my points which you wanted to nit pick on. I've actually provided examples of other managers who currently handle players and their media distractions better than we do. I've given examples of how the club were one of the slowest to adapt to media channels themselves (twitter and YouTube both post Ferguson). And then, I gave Lingards example.

But alas, all you can weirdly claim is that we were a brand whore before then. Which is an absolute pile of wank. Only two players really got away with it and that's because they did the business on the pitch. Ferguson was known to have an iron fist otherwise on the social media side. There's tons of articles you can dig up on the matter, so it's not even an argument at this stage.
 
VP89 said:
So we didn't win a title for 3 years and it was bad? Jesus there's a problem with your logic there, and it's not because we sold Beckham :lol: you need to revisit that era and look at all the factors. Our strength (or lack of according to you) is immaterial anyway since we are discussing whether the club had media was always slave to the media side, not whether its as good or bad that we allowed it or not.

Re Lingard, he was just one of my points which you wanted to nit pick on. I've actually provided examples of other managers who currently handle players and their media distractions better than we do. I've given examples of how the club were one of the slowest to adapt to media channels themselves (twitter and YouTube both post Ferguson). And then, I gave Lingards example.

But alas, all you can weirdly claim is that we were a brand whore before then. Which is an absolute pile of wank. Only two players really got away with it and that's because they did the business on the pitch. Ferguson was known to have an iron fist otherwise on the social media side. There's tons of articles you can dig up on the matter, so it's not even an argument at this stage.
Click to expand...

We had Nike adverts coming out of our arses, football songs you could hear on MTv, Cole had his own music video.. Giggs had personal documentaries and personalised boots like R9. What would you class as media in a world that didn’t have YouTube or twitter? Dwight Yorke was going out with a page 3 model I don’t remember that being top secret...

You’re acting like players couldn’t pass wind in the Fergie days. It’s all bs.

On the not winning a title for 3 years. Are you mad? What team was you supporting City? Those things weren’t acceptable at United.
 
Majima said:
For you.

Ole permanent manager stats:

Matches W D L Goals Points PPM
23 - 7 - 7 - 9 - 25:32 - 28 - 1,22

30% win rate, 1.08 goals scored, 1.39 goals against, 1.22 points/match.
Click to expand...
Wow 30%. Surely that is less than the Southampton boss.
 
Mainoldo said:
We had Nike adverts coming out of our arses, football songs you could hear on MTv, Cole had his own music video.. Giggs had personal documentaries and personalised boots like R9. What would you class as media in a world that didn’t have YouTube or twitter? Dwight Yorke was going out with a page 3 model I don’t remember that being top secret...

You’re acting like players couldn’t pass wind in the Fergie days. It’s all bs.

On the not winning a title for 3 years. Are you mad? What team was you supporting City? Those things weren’t acceptable at United.
Click to expand...

Sponsorships were always part of the game, and who footballers date in their personal lives is not related to the issue. The club itself has become far more commercial driven in its objectives and succumbs to media driven hype way more post Woodward, not in the Fergie days. You're basically loosening the rules to suggest anyone media related is a problem at the club.

In other words, you're completely lost. I'm sorry there's no other way to put it and it's not worth debating in an Ole thread.
 
These next five games will surely decide if he will remain in charge or not. If he manages say 12 or 13 points then I reckon he will continue to be in charge for the rest of the year.

Though if we don't win today and the one after that then I'm quite certain he'll be gone.
 
MackRobinson said:
Haha you can't do that. Nothing fundamentally changed between him as an interim manager and him as a permanent manager, besides signing a contract. You can't make arbitrary cutoffs to make him look worse.
Click to expand...

This. It's sensationalist bullshit that tabloids use and an inherently dishonest way of making a point. If you are going to make a cutoff, take his entire time here or this season alone.

Majima said:
Manager Comparisons (Including Ole's full period in charge.)

Win Rate

Solskjær: 50% Source
Mourinho: 58% Source
Van Gaal: 52% Source
Moyes: 51% Source

Goals Scored per Match

Solskjær: 1.43
Mourinho: 1.68
Van Gaal: 1.53
Moyes: 1.68

Goals Conceded per Match

Solskjær: 1.07
Mourinho: 0.83
Van Gaal: 0.96
Moyes: 1.08
Click to expand...

See this guy gets it, and he wants Ole out.
 
TrueRed79 said:
Sadly that won't cost him his job. I don't have any idea at what point the board say enough is enough. It'd be a massive embarrassment and climb down for them to do it. They are literally hoping things turn around. From that perspective it's a pathetic situation for a club of our size to be in. Shame on them.
Click to expand...

Based on the sacking of Moyes, VG and Jose I think there are only two cases:
1. When it's mathematically impossible or fail to get the top 4.
2. When it's clear that the manager has lost the dressing room.

So Ole should be safe for the now I think.
 
Hawks2008 said:
He's a Jose level shit talker, but you won't hear a word about it..
Click to expand...


He is morphing into a bag of hot air to be honest. There's a lot of talk and no action whatsoever. This has been the case since he was given the job permanently. He's talked and talked and nothing he has addressed has come to fruition, not a single thing. Transfers, replacing players, style of play, faith in youth (for the most part), 'the United way', its nothing but lip service as he limps from game to game praying something finally clicks. He's buying time and preying on the sentiments of the fanbase to help him along.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.