Should United be expected to compete with City in Pep era.

Trex

Full Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
3,169
Location
Nigeria
I was reflecting on united place in football at the moment especially post SAF. My thought process was why do united fans expect united to better every team in England. Fact is we're one of a couple of teams with the resources to get the best people from playing and coaching staff so we're rightly suppose to be one of the top side, and already we're actually one of the very best. We finished third in the league last season won the league cup, and got to the cup final.
In the last four seasons we've been 3rd, 2nd, 6th and 3rd. We have failed to win the league and make a mark in the UCL. But how high is the ceiling of United really. The team who have dominated the league in recent years City have done so largely due to their "all time best contender" manager Pep Guardiola raising their ceiling. When we dominated it was because of our "all time best contender" manager as well. Should we expect ETH to match the heights of Pep. A manager like Pep and SAF are so rare that even with all the resources in the world you don't get one. Pep I think have won the league 11 out of 14 times in his career. Aside the first year at City when he was still putting his side together only Mourinho 100pts Madrid and Covid season Liverpool have beaten him to league titles.
Should we come to the realization that due to Pep presence we can only hope but not expect or feel entitled to united reaching the height City play at.
A more realistic aim would be to better the likes of Arsenal, remain ahead of Liverpool, Newcastle and Chelsea and improve our showing in the UCL hopefully till Pep F*cks off or have a uncharacteristic poor season. I think judging United by City standard is maybe a bit reaching unless you have a Pep clone.
 
Last edited:
Did any of our rivals have this mentality at our peak during the Fergie years? Unfortunately this is the mentality and mindset of our ownership, no bother competing with city who are on top. We absolutely need to try and cause a dent in the Pep era and compete for titles.
 
Klopp almost did it, in a less kind world he would have had 3 plus by now.

So why not.
 
Giggsy13 said:
Did any of our rivals have this mentality at our peak during the Fergie years? Unfortunately this is the mentality and mindset of our ownership, no bother competing with city who are on top. We absolutely need to try and cause a dent in the Pep era and compete for titles.
Click to expand...
Yes we can attempt to but should the fanbase be toxic for not reaching knowing just much of a task it is?
 
You play City twice a season ffs.

Everything Outside of those 2 games has nothing to do with City.

You could lose those 2 games every season and still compete with them for the PL.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
You play City twice a season ffs.

Everything Outside of those 2 games has nothing to do with City.

You could lose those 2 games every season and still compete with them for the PL.
Click to expand...
You'll need to pick points at a similar/higher rate to them. Its quite a task. They're hitting points tallies every season that's among the EPL all time record.
 
The issue isn't whether we should, it's simply not possible. We haven't the personnel, infrastructure or funds to do so. In order for this to change, our whole club would have to completely change (if the Glazers had actually been serious about selling for example).

As it stands, they will never employ the right people in the right areas. We'll not have a serious DoF, a top level scouting department or a top class youth academy. Without any of these things, it's incredibly difficult to get in the right players from any avenue. We continue to get a mish-mash of players that managers at the time quite fancied instead.

A club like (for example) Brighton could conceivably 'do a Leicester' and have a great season resulting in a title challenge, but that's because they have at least one of the above structures in place. They have a philosophy as a club and know what they need. We don't have that and never will. The club is the body. It has history and a big following, but the owners are the head, and everything comes down from there.
 
Trex said:
I was reflecting on united place in football at the moment especially post SAF. My thought process was why do united fans expect united to better every team in England. Fact is we're one of a couple of teams with the resources to get the best people from playing and coaching staff so we're rightly suppose to be one of the top side, and already we're actually one of the very best. We finished third in the league last season won the league cup, and got to the cup final.
In the last four seasons we've been 3rd, 2nd, 6th and 3rd. We have failed to win the league and make a mark in the UCL. But how high is the ceiling of United really. The team who have dominated the league in recent years City have done so largely due to their "all time best contender" manager Pep Guardiola raising their ceiling. When we dominated it was because of our "all time best contender" manager as well. Should we expect ETH to match the heights of Pep. A manager like Pep and SAF are so rare that even with all the resources in the world you don't get one. Pep I think have won the league 11 out of 14 times in his career. Aside the first year at City when he was still putting his side together only Mourinho 100pts Madrid and Covid season Liverpool have beaten him to league titles.
Should we come to the realization that due to Pep presence we can only hope but not expect or feel entitled to united reaching the height City play at.
A more realistic aim would be to better the likes of Arsenal, remain ahead of Liverpool, Newcastle and Chelsea and improve our showing in the UCL hopefully till Pep F*cks off or have a uncharacteristic poor season. I think judging United by City standard is maybe a bit reaching unless you have a Pep clone.
Click to expand...
I don't think the issue is competing with Pep but rather competing with their owners. It's not difficult to scout and sign the best talent imo as long as there's alignment between the recruitment heads and head coach and the rest of the footballing structure.

Most of the players City have signed are obvious signings imo, which I myself would've signed. And even with all the mistakes Txiki has made he had the benefit of Abu Dhabi absorbing the hit of poor transfers and cheating the system. Chelsea are now doing the same.

If we want to compete with them, then there's two options. 1. You show patience and build/develop a squad for a defined way of playing the game like Arsenal have done with Arteta where they've finished 8th, 8th, 5th. 2. You have a ownership that provides the sums required to sign the players needed in one window. Currently option 1 is our best bet to challenge in the mid to long-term imo.
 
Trex said:
Yes we can attempt to but should the fanbase be toxic for not reaching knowing just much of a task it is?
Click to expand...

The toxicity happens when we're failing to even get top 4, not because we're failing to compete with Man City. it's when we're failing to compete the other 3 clubs below them. When we get humiliated 4-0, 5-0 and 7-0 by Liverpool despite having spent more money than them,
 
Skills said:
The toxicity happens when we're failing to even get top 4, not because we're failing to compete with Man City. it's when we're failing to compete the other 3 clubs below them. When we get humiliated 4-0, 5-0 and 7-0 by Liverpool despite having spent more money than them,
Click to expand...
We still bettered most teams last season and won a trophy. We failed to make top four once in the last four season.
This season it's just way to early to talk about top 4.
 
Adnan said:
I don't think the issue is competing with Pep but rather competing with their owners. It's not difficult to scout and sign the best talent imo as long as there's alignment between the recruitment heads and head coach and the rest of the footballing structure.

Most of the players City have signed are obvious signings imo, which I myself would've signed. And even with all the mistakes Txiki has made he had the benefit of Abu Dhabi absorbing the hit of poor transfers and cheating the system. Chelsea are now doing the same.

If we want to compete with them, then there's two options. 1. You show patience and build/develop a squad for a defined way of playing the game like Arsenal have done with Arteta where they've finished 8th, 8th, 5th. 2. You have a ownership that provides the sums required to sign the players needed in one window. Currently option 1 is our best bet to challenge in the mid to long-term imo.
Click to expand...
Arsenal still didn't beat city to the league and its questionable if they'll get better.
 
We are currently a football club running as a money making machine for a bunch of Americans whose aim is nothing more than to put as little in as possible for the maximum return. No we should not expect to compete with an Arab nation whose sole intention is to make their club successful to sportswash their image.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
They were gifted their last PL title by an Arsenal capitulation.

Liverpool have been a point away from them numerous times.
Click to expand...
City threw the last 2 games because they already won it. They likely would have finished on 94 points if pushed to the end. A lot of people didn't even have Arsenal top 4 in their predictions and somehow they were meant to then go get 90+ points to win the league.

There's no world where a team gets ~94 points in a league season and it be considered a "gift". They accumulated an amount of points that the other teams didn't have the quality to achieve, it's that simple.
 
Trex said:
Arsenal still didn't beat city to the league and its questionable if they'll get better.
Click to expand...
Arsenal didn't beat City to the league but the opportunity to beat them was there. But the point is that they put themselves into that position by having a longer-term plan which saw them progress from finishing outside the top 4, three times under Arteta before competing with state backed Man City.

We're up against wealth funds and we'll see the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal etc from time to time challenge for the league but it won't be sustained over a longer period of time. And the clubs who will be able to sustain success over a longer period of time, will be those clubs who will be able to rectify problems and mistakes in one transfer by absorbing the hit of a failed transfer and going back in to the transfer window for solutions.
 
As someone said, Klopp almost did it, if he had anywhere near the same level of funding to come closer to City's squad depth (particularly in attack) then two of those 1 point behind finishes likely would've been wins. That one season they were playing Mane, Jota and Salah every game, then in Jan signed Diaz for some rotation and won almost every game.

For us it's a question of recruitment. We have money, but we let the manager waste it all on crap, so over a 5 year period we don't improve.
 
Of course.

Liverpool did it. Arsenal would have had Saliba not got injured. With the right transfers, we could have competed with ten Hag but we've butchered this season already.

Sort out our terrible transfer approach, and there's no reason we can't do what Liverpool did and Arsenal almost did.
 
Skills said:
The toxicity happens when we're failing to even get top 4, not because we're failing to compete with Man City. it's when we're failing to compete the other 3 clubs below them. When we get humiliated 4-0, 5-0 and 7-0 by Liverpool despite having spent more money than them,
Click to expand...
Still finished the season ahead of them by a bit to spare and I'd take that every season over a one off result. As for expecting to compete Man City I for one don't as it's rare a poorly ran club (like United currently are) are able to compete for major honours.
 
Its funny that people think arguably the biggest club in the world (the one club who makes a boat load of money with or without trophies, 10 years without a league title or even CL football) should lower their standards because of a really good team. Our ownership has destroyed this club. We are so big, the worms have been eating our giant corpse for 15 years now. Woodward, the Glazers, Arnold, the over paid players who just see this as a cash cow, the managers. We are fecked until we are sold. If we dont get sold, it'll get worse and worse. Its depressing. Shit players on massive wages, a stadium falling to pieces. If this football club was in the right hands, every player in the world would be knocking on our door. This club is like the 3rd movie, but without Scorsese directing and instead of Al Pachino, we have Bobby Davro doing a funny voice.
 
Adnan said:
Arsenal didn't beat City to the league but the opportunity to beat them was there. But the point is that they put themselves into that position by having a longer-term plan which saw them progress from finishing outside the top 4, three times under Arteta before competing with state backed Man City.

We're up against wealth funds and we'll see the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal etc from time to time challenge for the league but it won't be sustained over a longer period of time. And the clubs who will be able to sustain success over a longer period of time, will be those clubs who will be able to rectify problems and mistakes in one transfer by absorbing the hit of a failed transfer and going back in to the transfer window for solutions.
Click to expand...
City had this funds pre-Pep and spent it. It only resulted in 2 league titles in 8 years if I'm not mistaken. Under Pep its 5 in 7 years. He's that good a manager.
 
FujiVice said:
Its funny that people think arguably the biggest club in the world (the one club who makes a boat load of money with or without trophies, 10 years without a league title or even CL football) should lower their standards because of a really good team. Our ownership has destroyed this club. We are so big, the worms have been eating our giant corpse for 15 years now. Woodward, the Glazers, Arnold, the over paid players who just see this as a cash cow, the managers. We are fecked until we are sold. If we dont get sold, it'll get worse and worse. Its depressing. Shit players on massive wages, a stadium falling to pieces. If this football club was in the right hands, every player in the world would be knocking on our door. This club is like the 3rd movie, but without Scorsese directing and instead of Al Pachino, we have Bobby Davro doing a funny voice.
Click to expand...
What resources do we have that Chelsea don't? Liverpool pay bog fee for Nunez and were willing to do same for Caicedo. Arsenal purchase a DM for 100m. We compete in a very wealthy league. We don't have SAF anymore but City have Pep.
 
Trex said:
City had this funds pre-Pep and spent it. It only resulted in 2 league titles in 8 years if I'm not mistaken. Under Pep its 5 in 7 years. He's that good a manager.
Click to expand...
City were never going to win the title straight away after taking over from the previous owner with the amount of investment that was required to challenged for the league whilst also having to put in place the structures at all levels of the club for future success. It just wasn't going to happen.

But within three years of Brian Marwood joining from Nike, City had won the league. They repeated the same feat in 2014 and Guardiola arrived in 2016. Guardiola is a great manager but he's always had the benefit of joining teams/clubs that were already packed with talent.
 
Pep will keep winning leagues at a rate of 70-80% until he retires.
If he stays 20 more years at city they will likely reach 25 PL before us.
 
Maybe it isn't possible to reach City's heights in the current circumstances. But you don't need to do that to compete with them, or be successful in your own right.

Liverpool under Klopp won a league, won a CL and finished runners up in both competitions within a three year period, before again making a CL final appearance a couple of seasons later. This despite the fact that City were obviously still the better team across that period, winning the PL in four of those five seasons.

Whatever about City, there's no reason we shouldn't be as good or better than every other team in the league and a threat to every other team in the CL. And we've been very, very far from that over the last decade. Let's meet that expectation first and then worry about City.
 
Adnan said:
City were never going to win the title straight away after taking over from the previous owner with the amount of investment that was required to challenged for the league whilst also having to put in place the structures at all levels of the club for future success. It just wasn't going to happen.

But within three years of Brian Marwood joining from Nike, City had won the league. They repeated the same feat in 2014 and Guardiola arrived in 2016. Guardiola is a great manager but he's always had the benefit of joining teams/clubs that were already packed with talent.
Click to expand...
We'll only know when he eventually leaves if he's the main factor or if its city structure. His track record over multiple leagues means I believe its more him than the structure just like it was more SAF than the structure at united. We even go for similar target Sanchez, Maguire, Fred, Bailly are some we beat them to yet their success with signings are at a very high rate. It reminds me of when SAF use to win the league with not so great players like a welbeck or cleverly.
 
Liverpool's problem now is that they can't just go to a Southampton, Hull, Newcastle etc and sign the likes of Mane, Robertson and Wijnaldum for reasonable sums without having serious competition from rival clubs. Liverpool in Klopp's early tenure would've been able to sign Lavia on their terms but in the current EPL that isn't possible due to a higher level of competition for the same players hence in their desperation they offered Brighton £110m for Moises Caicedo.
 
sullydnl said:
Maybe it isn't possible to reach City's heights in the current circumstances. But you don't need to do that to compete with them, or be successful in your own right.

Liverpool under Klopp won a league, won a CL and finished runners up in both competitions within a three year period, before again making a CL final appearance a couple of seasons later. This despite the fact that City were obviously still the better team across that period, winning the PL in four of those five seasons.

Whatever about City, there's no reason we shouldn't be as good or better than every other team in the league and a threat to every other team in the CL. And we've been very, very far from that over the last decade. Let's meet that expectation first and then worry about City.
Click to expand...
I agree we can be better, judging by last season we're not so far behind the top other top sides in Europe. We beat the side who dominated LA liga and I don't think Madrid or Bayern were much better.
My issue is the response United fans have shown after our first two league games.
We haven't been great but it so early in the season. The reason you get this kind of uproar is expectations. Maybe some hope we match on this season to win/compete with City. I think its probably the hardest thing to do in football at the moment.
 
I'd be happy if we just played attacking football again. The points will come with consistency.
 
Trex said:
We'll only know when he eventually leaves if he's the main factor or if its city structure. His track record over multiple leagues means I believe its more him than the structure just like it was more SAF than the structure at united. We even go for similar target Sanchez, Maguire, Fred, Bailly are some we beat them to yet their success with signings are at a very high rate. It reminds me of when SAF use to win the league with not so great players like a welbeck or cleverly.
Click to expand...
I think when he leaves the EPL, the EPL will be even stronger than it is now, with possibly United having a non Glazer ownership which will make the league even stronger. So I would expect the next guy in at City to find it more difficult due to a even more competitive league at the top.

I don't know if the players you've listed were actual City targets. But I can't believe Bailly being a City target. I don't believe that's true.

SAF was a great manager and he even won trophies with Aberdeen. And his Aberdeen team is still the last team to have won the league title outside of the old firm. He also won a European trophy with them beating Real Madrid in a final.

The difference between Fergie and Guardiola is that Fergie was put into positions where he had to fix big problems within a squad. When he took over at United, we hadn't won the league for nearly two decades and the squad he inherited had a alcohol problem. Guardiola has inherited a brilliant squad at every club he's been at and I don't see him leaving Man City anytime soon due to the backing he gets from the state of Abu Dhabi.

Guardiola is like a great racing car driver who has the added advantage of having the best car in the race.
 
I don't see it as United vs. Pep. I see it as Abu Dhabi with a best in class people within their hierarchy and a bottomless pit of money against United's cnut owners who have squandered billions of pounds on transfer fees and wages with incompetents at the helm.

A well run United would have been strong competition for City and anyone else over the last 10 years, but the club has been recklessly mismanaged.
 
mu4c_20le said:
I'd be happy if we just played attacking football again. The points will come with consistency.
Click to expand...
Came to say pretty much the same. It would just be nice to watch us play good football consistently, with good football & our resources results will come.

I’d argue we’ve pretty much done as bad as we possibly could post-Fergie.

The aim should be to get our house in order, we keep trying to claw back nearly 2 decades of poor management of the club as a whole in 1 Summer transfer window instead of putting together a plan over multiple. People were begging for us to spend whatever on Kane thinking we are 1 player away when our midfield can’t even cope with Wolves.
 
Silly question. Of course I expect us to compete with City regardless of whether the manager is Pep Guardiola, Vince Lombardi or -- the greatest coach of all time -- John Wooden.
 
Yeah we should be expected to compete with them. We've spent just as much money as them. We can attract big names; managers, players, sponsors. We have had all the resources available to win league titles. Unfortunately we've had and continue to have incompetent bellends working at the club
 
After the amount of money we have spent? Uhhh yes? The lowest we should ever be finishing is 2nd. We have blown so much money its sometimes difficult to believe when you see how horrendous our squad is.
 
I think there are two sides to it.

Should United be expected to compete with City under the current ownership? The answer is a resounding no. Based on history. They don't have what it takes to put together a team of people that are best in class. That makes it near impossible, you would need extraordinary strokes of luck where they just happen to make the right choices for the club and in transfers. Problem is, luck isn't a big part of the equation - competence, skill and experience are. That's why we're consistently bad and they're consistently good.

Is it theoretically possible to compete with the current resources and expenditure? Of course. People always throw out the stats around our spending and that's because it sticks out like a sore thumb relative to results. It would certainly help if we had an ownership prepared to invest their own money into infrastructure etc, undoubtedly. We're swimming upstream in those departments.
 
Should? Yes. Will we? Probably not. Not to be a downer on ETH but we're yet to see what he can bring and he may do well. But if we had Klopp when he went to Pool, with the money we've spent I reckon we'd have competed regularly with City. Poor choices have led us to where we are but I'm still optimistic with ETH if he can survive this season.
 
Absolutely not, it's not even to do with managerial pedigree it's the proposition of how to run the footballing operational capacities. I know City certainly have a big smudge to their credibility due to the lack of legitimacy with the revenue disclosure but if you discount that and go on the basis of the football aspects alone they have been exemplary.

It's never addressed but United were run as a better business when SAF / Gill were in charge ten years ago. That's with less resources and less accessibility mind you. That had a domino effect in propelling various areas of the clubs functions. Behind every successful club the foundation is not the quality of players but the professionalism, prudence and diligence of the leadership. United are where they are not because of money, commercial entities or some other monetary means it's the wrong people in all the right places.

And while we as fans look at the bottom up approach which is team first, coaching, manager etc objectively it should be a top down approach which is a reason I feel Newcastle are more of a guarantee to be successful in the long-run, the leadership is what sets the precedent and that reverberates throughout the entire club.

The biggest hope that Manchester United have is that the new owners don't have the idea of spending a fortune but rather knowing how to get the business right. United are such a powerful vehicle commercially it's basically an owner's dream because the prestige, heritage and culture accommodates itself but the entire hierarchy needs to be ripped apart and reshaped cohesively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.