If that is the case, then what does that say for the 18 other managers in the league last season, or the 17 other managers the season before? Even if it is true, and tbh I don't believe it is to the extent that you hold it to be, does it actually matter? At the top level, man management goes a heck of a long way further towards having sustained success than tactical acumen does. Just look at Pep's CL record, and compare it to Zidane's: which one would you rather have? If the likes of Sancho and Varane are tempted and persuaded by the project we have (of which Ole is absolutely the sole visionary of, btw) then quite frankly who the feck are we to poo poo it? Even the very best tactical managers need the tools to ensure their systems work. Klopp's Liverpool were going nowhere and were reaching their plateau of 4th until fate intervened and Barca gave them £150m for Coutinho, which was reinvested into Alisson, VVD, and Fabinho, to add to their clever purchase of Salah, and to a lesser extent Mane (I say lesser extent, because to me, he was an obvious player to get, and I couldn't believe how many on here were turning their noses up at him when we were linked the season before). Yet, for all the good that Klopp has done, when just one or two of those important cogs were missing, his team went to absolute shit without them in circumstances that were much less trying for his team than they were for others (of which we are the best example of).
Understandable position but you just chose to decide that man management is superior to tactical acumen. Which is obviously fine but there is no right and wrong here. Plus Zidane wasn't a zero tactics-wise as well even if he clearly isn't as known for as Pep is.
I read the question "what does it say about the rest of the league" a few times. I think, this question is misleading. Look at the player pool we have. In terms of that our competitors are City, Liverpool and Chelsea - the other 14 not so much. These are the ones to have a look at because the frame factors are more comparable and individual factors therefor at least theoretically easier to dissect. Is Graham Potter tactically better as Ole? We don't know but his work with Brighton on a smaller budget might indicate something. Thats what it is, indications. Indications that get stronger the closer the player material is.
And if we still insist to have a look into that side of the store: we could discuss how Leicester with less ressources and with a few injury troubles was able to stay so close to us during most of the season, should we? I haven't seen their season praised a whole lot around here. While being fairly close to ours...
The fact of the matter is, before Ole came in to the role, we finished outside of the top 4 more often than we did in it. Our record since SAF left in the league was: 7th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 2nd. Those teams were much better than the one Ole had up until this summer. I don't think anyone can argue otherwise on that, surely? They also had managers who had much better track records than Ole. LvG was fresh off guiding Holland to the World Cup semi final in 2014, and Jose had won the title at Chelsea just one year before he joined. There was little sign of both being past it, yet the basket case that we are, we excentuated their faults and they were both gone at the point Ole is now. And Ole is the only manager who has sustained a respectable league position, despite arguably having the weakest squad of the post-SAF era at the time he started his first full season (that they are now seen as a respectable Utd side, is down to him and his coaching staff improving the like of Shaw, Rashford, McFred, and Martial).
I think, this argument has been discussed a lot. I don't think, that there are more indicators for the fact that "LVG and Mourinho were upper echelon managers" when they joined than there are indicators against. Same goes for squad quality that many (often Ole fans) see as of lower quality than others. Which again is something that never can be proven somehow so both sides have equally less substance in a debate.
Now, let's consider Ole. First summer he had in the job, he took a sledgehammer to the squad selling or letting go of Sanchez, Lukaku, Smalling, Herrera, Valencia, Darmian, Fellaini (6 months earlier). In return, he brought in 3 players: AWB, Maguire, James (followed by Bruno in January) and brought through Greenwood and Williams. It was a massive risk to go into that season without strengthening the midfield and attack when our most expensive striker and arguably best midfielder left without being replaced. When Ole came in Fred and Shaw were borderline joke figures on here. Rashford and Martial were squad players. The likes of DDG and Pogba wanted to leave. And because we didn't get replacements for the players who left, we had to put our faith in the likes of Williams and Greenwood who had the sum total of 2 appearances in the first team at the time. The fact that, that squad, which was arguably the weakest Utd squad in the PL era, was able to eke out Top 4 was a credit to the management team (no doubt helped by Bruno - but then, you have to consider, if Ole didn't already have his system in place, then no matter how good Bruno was, he wouldn't have had the influence he had from day one without it). That squad was not considered Top 4 quality at the time, and it was borne out in the BBC's pundits predictions that year, where I think it was only 3 out 24 pundits who had us in the Top 4 that season. It was horribly imbalanced, and it still was the season after. With the same 4-5 glaring holes still not filled until 2 seasons after they were first highlighted.
Rashford was a squad player under Mourinho? My memories look differently but I guess that doesn't matter. How the players were rated when Ole took over, was effected by the subsequent events. And I am sure, we agree, that Mourinho had a negative effect on almost everybody. So while I agree with you, that Ole did well to be brave and to rely on the particular players he did, I don't think, he did anything otherworldly. I mean, the players he sold were the ones most managers would have sold. I know, I would and I don't consider myself a manager
. I hadn't get rid of Smalling so fast. Surely debatable. I probably would have thought about selling Lukaku because seeing the football we played from when Bruno was introduced, I think it could have suited Lukaku pretty much. But for the cash we got, I would have sold as well. So all in all: A good job. But not an awesome job. A good job that looked great because we were used to so much worse. Which isn't a dig at Ole at all - but I am sure you agree overrating is just as wrong us underrating.
Let's consider that second season. We had a) the most number of games during project restart and the resumption of European football; b) we had the shortest break between the seasons starting; c) we had the least amount of rest between games out of every team in the league (and within Europe); d) we had the least rest period during the Xmas break; & e) we had a shockingly shit window. a) to b) ensured that we also had a poor start to the season, where we had to catch up to everyone else, while the poor window was one where we didn't improve our starting XI (other than Cavani - who didn't join up with the team until October/November and was then MIA due to injury/suspension for 2 months). If someone told you that we would be 2nd when the season started, you wouldn't have believed them, but we did, And it was under this manager during the most challenging of circumstances. Better managers, with a better recent track record than Ole, who also had better squads, didn't do as well as we did last year.
Credit where credit is due. I wouldn't want to take something away from the management team. What they achieved in the light of the mentioned events was very good. But your paragraph uses context to underline the positive achievements (rightly so) but if context is important, we have to take into account the events in other teams as well. That ManCity didn't start clicking until X-mas. That Liverpool had issues with injuries and poor management of injuries. That Tottenham imploded. Chelsea changing managers in midseason and with problems bedding in the many new players.
Context is very relevant but I think, you shouldn't stop looking only at context aspects that favour your current position (debate-wise).
He's also improved the likes of Martial, Shaw, Rashford, McTominay - all of whom have had their career-best seasons under him. He got a tune out of Fred when so many had written him off. He also got Pogba onside despite all his issues (and he also had his career-best performances under Ole). A poor manager doesn't do that, and I'd wager that he has in fact got us performing to more than sum of our parts for large portions of his reign. The issue is that as it is a young squad, it is prone to peaks and troughs in form.
Martials big hit was the season before the last, which damages your argument a bit. Last season Martial was completely shit which at least raises the question if "the player has been improved" or if he was benefitting somewhat from other teams not taking us serious enough (which is a pretty plausible explanation for coincidentally 4 out of 4 attacking players (one an 18yo) looked for so long but stopped looking so great from a certain point onwards).
Still I agree to a big extent with you, he handled the squad pretty well (but not better that I would expect it from any more-than-decent manager). The larger-than-sum part is dangerous - he certainly made individuals play better and therefor more useful to the team. But on a group level, in terms of organized moves of more than one player like in pressing or off-the ball runs, we were for the most part relatively bad which is somewhat backed (I know, only to some extent) by the xG stats that our individuals outperformed while as a team we are pretty clearly behind City and Liverpool (I think also Chelsea).
We badly needed a window like the one we're looking to have now, where our starting XI was improved, rather than just adding more squad filler. Especially after Chelsea blew everyone away with Havertz, Werner, Silva, et al. People complain about Ole's use of subs, but when you look at the bench, where are the options? When he does try and rotate, he still has to bring them on because the players who have come in have tended to shit the bed. If we get Varane, Sancho and a DM this summer, you will see a marked change in our use of subs, I'm sure. Sancho coming in means one of Martial or Greenwood will be on the bench more often than not. Varane coming in means Lindelof is a bench and squad player. And a DM means Fred or McTominay are similarly, squad players. Ole trusts those players I've named. He doesn't trust many of the others who have tended to be on the bench. Either because they are unreliable (Bailly) or too green (Williams) or a bit of both (Axel).
A fresh player still is better than burning-out a starter for 90min. Of course it is better to have more options but even if you have two world-class players in each position, you still have to keep them in form. The way Ole did this was not good in my eyes. I agree, the options aren't great but to some extent, Ole made his position even worse himself. For example in the EL Final where he easily could have had either Pogba or Rashford on the bench to bring on later to change the game.
We'll see where we end up this season, but considering his track record of the past two years with an inferior set of players, and an imbalanced squad, I'd back him to do better than what a lot of people on this forum are expecting. The expectations will rise, and understandably so, but the means of achieving that success will be much more readily available to him when previously, they simply hadn't been.
I am optimistical as well. Nevertheless, a few of the bad pre-conditions of last season will be around again as well as new ones:
"Sancho and Varane need time to bed in"
"European Cup disturbed pre-season"
"Heavy schedule"
"ManCity best squad"
"Young United team"
There are no season where the stars align before. There will always be something that blocks your path. But thats the thing - we shouldn't be expecting the team to develop only by transfers and therefor two times per year. If a manager isn't able to provide that, the club has to act. Not because of being impatient - but because our competitors assemble great teams as well plus they add great managers to maximize the effect of these players.
So next to me being interested, how the season goes (I am really buzzing to be hones) I am also curious how this place will fare and how the reactions will turn out. A few people on either side invested so much in their positions (debate-wise) I am almost certain they will not change their minds even if it is the sensible thing to do.
