@Samid where’s the press conference thread
I agree but that's why I think short term this makes sense. I'd be more sceptical if he was just permanent manager and that was it but as interim I actually think it works well because he'll have some basic principles to coach into the team, his coaching team will filter in over the next few weeks/months but he's hands on right now (and he's been interim at RBL successfully a couple of times in recent memory) and by the end of the season I expect he will become a 'consultant' whatever that means with a younger, head coach coming in.
I don’t cover dead rubbers. @Sassy Colin is my deputy
The 'consultant' term is some corporate speak. It makes it sound nebulous such that there is less of a threat to the current management and coaching term. He is a change agent if anything.
Agreed. He won't operate as a mere consultant in the normal sense of the word - it would be odd to make a big song and dance about giving someone a two year contract in such a capacity.
We've hired him to bring about fundamental changes - that seems clear. And he'll be given the authority to make big decisions - no reason to think otherwise.
I feel like I can describe Ole's tactics. Stay compact, sit back and absorb pressure and don't try to pressure the attacking player. Try to play on the break on turnovers, otherwise hold the ball along the backline, with a midfielder dropping into defense to look to feed Bruno, who is looking for high risk passes to open the defense. It's seems similar to the way many teams played against us in the 10s.
I'd also argue there was a clear shift this season to *try* to play more attacking football, which was as disastrous for us as it was for Cardiff.
While I'm here, I'd like to mention that I've never forgotten an article I read about how painful it is to run as much as players do these days. And this was actually from when Evans was still with us and running wasn't as important as it is now. Evans in particular said he'd be laid up in bed the next day after games, and that over a career the toll was heavy for players.
Its asking a lot, to ask someone to do that to their body, to push them to work so hard they hurt themselves, essentially. I don't think Ole was up for that, I think the players aren't going to push themselves that hard for someone who doesn't demand it and hold them accountable. I think it's a big part of why he was so popular in the dressing room, allowing them to play at a more "humane" pace.
I feel like I can describe Ole's tactics. Stay compact, sit back and absorb pressure and don't try to pressure the attacking player. Try to play on the break on turnovers, otherwise hold the ball along the backline, with a midfielder dropping into defense to look to feed Bruno, who is looking for high risk passes to open the defense. It's seems similar to the way many teams played against us in the 10s.
I'd also argue there was a clear shift this season to *try* to play more attacking football, which was as disastrous for us as it was for Cardiff.
While I'm here, I'd like to mention that I've never forgotten an article I read about how painful it is to run as much as players do these days. And this was actually from when Evans was still with us and running wasn't as important as it is now. Evans in particular said he'd be laid up in bed the next day after games, and that over a career the toll was heavy for players.
Its asking a lot, to ask someone to do that to their body, to push them to work so hard they hurt themselves, essentially. I don't think Ole was up for that, I think the players aren't going to push themselves that hard for someone who doesn't demand it and hold them accountable. I think it's a big part of why he was so popular in the dressing room, allowing them to play at a more "humane" pace.
The hatred for McTominay here is actually ludicrous. He's nowhere near as bad as people seemingly want him to be.
We should be looking for better in the starting XI but he'll be an excellent squad player here for years and I imagine every manager will love him.
Both surely.Is it what he thought or was he simply not good enough to implement his plans?
Both surely.
He talked a lot about needing to work harder, and he was right. Sadly, he didn't seem to be able to achieve it. The obvious increase in workrate the moment Carrick was put in charge seemed to show that players will only work hard when they are given some sort of tactical plan.
Most new managers will be perceived to be better than the last (sacked) manager. It's the smugness of 20/20 hindsight commentaries whether on forums or media.
I think the buildup/expectations to Rangnick are unrealistic especially within his remit of 6 months. But I am also assuming that there is some written or understanding between Rangnick and the BOM that if they see the progression of his methods/systems and philosophy, he will get another year and heavy say in the next manager -- and he continues to (re-build/) modernise other parts of the United organisation similar to what he did at RB insync with the 1st team's progression.
If anything, the stats that were analysed show the exact opposite - the only 2 areas where we did worse in Rangnick's first game than under Ole was distance covered and sprints. Kind of shows the problem wasn't the effort, but the way the effort was being made. So yes, there does seem to have been an immediate impact, albeit minimal, and the true one will come with time and coaching. But that was encouraging.I didn't see your Palace game but even the best manager ever takes more than a few days to get their ideas over.
If there was a big improvement in just 3 days, it's because the players weren't giving it 100% under the old manager. Seen it a million times at Chelsea.
Oh absolutely. It was only towards the end of his reign that he resorted to generic "United DNA"-type cliches, but inevitably recency bias has now led to most people regarding him as not having a clue.I have a hard time considering that he has less basic understand of Football than millions of Football fans. But I can totally understand the idea that understanding something doesn't mean that you can apply at an elite level. I'm sure that if you have an actual conversation with Ole, he will show a very good understanding of what he ideally wants.
Indeed …everyone has a plan and philosophy…until they lose 3 games on the bounce ..I like how he just answers the questions clearly and explains exactly what they do.
It will be interesting to see how Ralf deals with the media during a bad patch.
the players may not do this intentionally.I didn't see your Palace game but even the best manager ever takes more than a few days to get their ideas over.
If there was a big improvement in just 3 days, it's because the players weren't giving it 100% under the old manager. Seen it a million times at Chelsea.
The entire profile tells you that he is not good at all, if you compare it to Fred it's a bloodbath. His passing stats points to an average to below average PL midfielder.
Then I think you need to look up an average to below average PL midfielder to compare him with. Which I suspect will disabuse you of that notion. His passing stats aren't worse than f.e. Declan Rice's. Fred's are markedly better, that is true, but again...."bloodbath"? Really?
Anyway, I was simply taking issue with a case of blatant and obvious hyperbole. Because I think discussion gets pretty useless when people don't bother with the difference between "not good enough" and "totally atrocious". It's not going that well, really. I've got some people who just keep on shouting "YES HE IS!!", some people arguing it makes no fecking difference if someone is useless or merely not very good and now you making happy assumptions about stats that I very much doubt you'd be able to back up.
Then I think you need to look up an average to below average PL midfielder to compare him with. Which I suspect will disabuse you of that notion. His passing stats aren't worse than f.e. Declan Rice's. Fred's are markedly better, that is true, but again...."bloodbath"? Really?
Anyway, I was simply taking issue with a case of blatant and obvious hyperbole. Because I think discussion gets pretty useless when people don't bother with the difference between "not good enough" and "totally atrocious". It's not going that well, really. I've got some people who just keep on shouting "YES HE IS!!", some people arguing it makes no fecking difference if someone is useless or merely not very good and now you making happy assumptions about stats that I very much doubt you'd be able to back up.
Yep I would think so, dependent on his success here of course. Will be interesting to see how it unfolds.I think in some report or interview he indicated that he reported to the Board of Management. So I suspect that his current 'interim' role is to assess who he keeps and what he needs within the Organisation, once he goes upstairs into the 'Director of Philosophy/Culture' role or maybe Sporting Director -- something he did at RB but across multiple locations (NYC, Austria, Germany etc.)
The 'consultant' term is some corporate speak. It makes it sound nebulous such that there is less of a threat to the current management and coaching term. He is a change agent if anything.
I have a hard time considering that he has less basic understanding of Football than millions of Football fans. But I can totally understand the idea that understanding something doesn't mean that you can apply it at an elite level. I'm sure that if you have an actual conversation with Ole, he will show a very good understanding of what he ideally wants.
You can understand what Pep does and why he does it, but it won't make you an elite manager. What's so strange about a particular manager not getting a job on merit and being completely out of depth? I very much doubt he has any deep insights.
Who said that it was strange?
Hard time considering. In any case, it's obviously very likely that Ole has more knowledge about football than a random fan, but his biggest downfall in my view, is his lack of self reflection so there appears to be no development. I mean, just because someone is made manager at a club doesn't thereby mean that they have earned it, and I think that many times for different managers (Sherwood for instance, I would actually say hiring a random gives you more of a chance). And you see that all throughout society, at every level, in the vast majority of industries.
I don't follow your point, who said that he earned anything? The point was about Ole having no plan versus Ole being not good enough to implement a plan/philosophy to the required level. I think that the latter is more likely than the former.
It's about that basic understanding of football. I think he's very lacking, but would still suspect through the mere fact he played football all his life he surely has accrued more knowledge than a random, though there might be exceptions to this rule in the world of football.
He definitely did not have the ability to implement a plan, that much is obvious, but what was his plan? Talked about pressing from the front and bought a slow defender, talked about building out from the back and bought a technically deficient full back (this is much covered territory in fairness). Did he actually have any plan?
You mean you don't prefer it when the manager says that he's not into tactics and that football is all about passion, effort and wanting it more?It is so refreshing to hear your manager talking about tactics. Love that
I don't say we should not run more.
I am just thinking that it was different due to the fact that we camped in their box more and played in a smaller area which might have effected our stats a bit.
What a nonsense argument which can be done for every shitty player we have. First of all, Fletch and Park were important players and proved their worth. Something McT has never done or shown so far, he's been poor more often than good and has never really contributed or helped us. Usually, he's one of the worst performers. O'Shea was a versatile player who never played week in week out like McT.Ridiculous.
He's gonna be here for a while whether you like it or not.
I just know you'd have been the type shitting on the likes of Park, O'Shea, Fletcher or many of the other unheralded but important pieces we'd have over the years.
I'm pretty sure that it has nothing to do with basic understanding of Football, that's the part that I believe is the least likely. Would you say that Keane, Koeman, Seedorf, Tigana or many other brilliant players didn't had a basic understanding of Footballl and that it the reason they weren't brilliant managers? Or maybe coaching a team has more to do with your ability to convey informations and teach people, being a brilliant engineer won't make you a brilliant teacher of engineering, teaching is a skill in itself.
So our new first team coach has absolutely no experience outside of the USA.
He needs to be good enough to get the lads playing in a way we can outplay Klopp and Guardiola teams.
Hell of a step up. Good luck to him.