It was clear that we had an unbelievable (unsustainable) run when he joined. He got lots of praise for that, and stupidly, even a contract for a few years.
True. As I've said many times, United should have done what they
said they'd do: assess at the end of the season and make an appointment.
Woodward made a typical, idiotic Woodward call - based on fan sentiment and "marketability".
Ole did great as an interim, on the whole. It should have ended there. I said so at the time, and I never changed my basic opinion on that during Ole's stint as non-interim manager (despite being accused more than once of being an "Ole apologist").
What I refused to do, over the next couple of seasons, was to label Ole a "fraud". Because that label had no basis in reality. You don't end up 3rd and 2nd in the PL in successive seasons if you're a "fraud".
Or, if you will, if what he did makes him a "fraud", then the implied definition of "fraud" renders the term itself meaningless: "Not great = fraud."
The very idea of a "fraud" finishing 3rd and 2nd in the league in successive seasons must be premised, to some degree, on a) the squad doing the job for him (i.e. any idiot could have done it) and/or b) the opposition being shite.
How does that stand up to scrutiny? How does it compare to his predecessors (in terms of squad strength and the strength of the opposition)?
I'll save you the bother: it's obviously bollocks. You'll have the odd LVG or Maureen fanboy telling you otherwise, but those people should be ignored per default since they're biased as feck (and all the more annoying because they're desperately pretending not to be).
Historically, Ole was neither significantly better nor significantly worse than his predecessors from an objective point of view. He was part of the Woodward era (where nothing was spot on, and the basic structure of the club on the football side was essentially fecked up), like all the others.