Solskjaer's legacy and his future
- Thread starter Skills
- Start date
Aye, it's just semantics. Every single post-Fergie appointment has been a disaster, to varying degrees. Arguing over who was the 'best - which in reality, means the least shite - is all rather pointless, imo.
Ole isn't leaving any legacy whatsoever; just like none of Moyes, LvG or Jose managed to do. All their reigns are shrouded in underachievement, and dividing the fan base. I guess Jose and Ole certainly caused the most division among the fan-base, and both built up weird cult-like followings. Jose was statistically more successful, but I probably marginally 'preferred' Ole's tenure, due to the negativity that surrounded Jose.
Ole's caretaker spell was also a-bit of fun, and very nostalgic. However; giving him the full-time gig was ludicrous. A better run club would have spent his interim period looking at a proper appointment to take the reigns the following summer. I'm absolutely convinced we would be in a far better place, had we appointed a better manager and backed them to the same degree as Ole, over a 3-year period.
Either way, I obviously can't offer proof of a hypothetical scenario, so it's just my opinion. As you said; Ralf or any other post-Fergie appointment doesn't vindicate Ole in any way whatsoever. Ole is part of this underachieving cohort, and unlike Jose and LvG; yet another poor reign, doesn't even have a trophy to show for it.
I really hope we sort our shit out and can move on from 9-years of utter shite. Things are starting to look more positive now; so I'm hoping we can be successful again, and I can forget all of these failed appointments. I don't really have many fond memories of the last 9-years, and all our appointments were wrong, in hindsight. The club needs a huge cultural and structural reboot, and we really need to finally get it right.
Last edited:
Forget "legacy", I don't think there is one for Ole in a managerial capacity.
But I wouldn't half like to see him get a gig somewhere to satisfy my own curiosity. He isn't going to get a top job but if he got some middle table European side it would be very interesting to see how he did with experience under his belt.
It's strange considering how much patience he was given, but I honestly don't know how good he is. He still feels somewhat unproven. He's proven he's not Pep, and that he's not a top tier manager, but he's not necessarily shown he is a crap manager because not every period at United was an unmitigated disaster even if the ending was. Molde was good, Cardiff less good but probably a situation he wasn't ready for.
I'm leaning towards probably an average manager with significant weaknesses but maybe can work well for some periods when his matey style works for a particular dressing room dynamic.
But I wouldn't half like to see him get a gig somewhere to satisfy my own curiosity. He isn't going to get a top job but if he got some middle table European side it would be very interesting to see how he did with experience under his belt.
It's strange considering how much patience he was given, but I honestly don't know how good he is. He still feels somewhat unproven. He's proven he's not Pep, and that he's not a top tier manager, but he's not necessarily shown he is a crap manager because not every period at United was an unmitigated disaster even if the ending was. Molde was good, Cardiff less good but probably a situation he wasn't ready for.
I'm leaning towards probably an average manager with significant weaknesses but maybe can work well for some periods when his matey style works for a particular dressing room dynamic.
I was one of the people who was critical of Ole essentially from the moment he was offered the permanent contract as our manager, since I didn't believe it was the correct decision at the time and to this day I still don't believe that it was now.
With that said, I do think there is a lack of nuance lingering about when people discuss his reign here. I see people saying that we were served "three seasons of shite" under Solskjaer, and that is extremely unfair. During both of his first two seasons at the club, we qualified for the Champions League with underlying numbers to merit being one of the top four teams in the league. It could be argued that with the level of backing he received in the transfer market, this wasn't actually a majorly impressive feat, but it's worth bearing in mind that neither Mourinho nor Van Gaal managed it despite also receiving considerable backing so it cannot be said that it was simply a sure bet for a club of our wealth and stature.
The criticism that persists regarding Solskjaer is that he never won a trophy at the club. I do understand this to some degree, because the opportunities definitely were there, but I equally don't think it's a factor that single-handedly turns his entire three year reign from being "OK but with a bad ending" to being "utter crap". It is of course ifs, buts, and maybes but we were one better-timed penalty save away from winning a trophy under Solskjaer, and the simple point that I'd make would be that I don't actually think that is a particularly definitive barometer of a manager's legacy when you're only talking about a two-year period. Sure, if he'd had that level of backing for five years and never managed to win anything, I think the question starts to become a bit more valid, but in cup competitions over a two year span it doesn't take much luck to go one way or another to quite significantly alter the outcomes.
The main criticism of Solskjaer that I think is entirely valid is how he performed at the start of this season. I will be frank here, I don't think any of our managers post-Ferguson have done as bad a job of coaching the side as he did in the first half of this season. Had we kept playing like we did when he was eventually sacked I only dread to think where we'd be right now; it was comically bad. I think it exposed more than anything that he's tactically a very limited coach. I'm not saying he has no tactical nous whatsoever but it's pretty evident from how completely we failed to effectively instil a different style at the start of the season that when he is not in his comfort zone when forced to adapt his tactical approach.
Ultimately, I think he did a fairly passable job for two seasons (better than I'd have expected given his level of experience) but ultimately his shortcomings when compared to coaches who thrive at the elite level of football were exposed ruthlessly. I also think he has a lot to answer for in terms of the state the squad was/is still in following his departure. It's obviously unbalanced and incoherent right now, and again I think that speaks to a limitation on Solskjaer's part to effectively communicate a tactical vision and mould a squad around that. Do I think his time here was an utter failure? No. Do I think he should ever have been offered the role on a permanent basis? Also no.
With that said, I do think there is a lack of nuance lingering about when people discuss his reign here. I see people saying that we were served "three seasons of shite" under Solskjaer, and that is extremely unfair. During both of his first two seasons at the club, we qualified for the Champions League with underlying numbers to merit being one of the top four teams in the league. It could be argued that with the level of backing he received in the transfer market, this wasn't actually a majorly impressive feat, but it's worth bearing in mind that neither Mourinho nor Van Gaal managed it despite also receiving considerable backing so it cannot be said that it was simply a sure bet for a club of our wealth and stature.
The criticism that persists regarding Solskjaer is that he never won a trophy at the club. I do understand this to some degree, because the opportunities definitely were there, but I equally don't think it's a factor that single-handedly turns his entire three year reign from being "OK but with a bad ending" to being "utter crap". It is of course ifs, buts, and maybes but we were one better-timed penalty save away from winning a trophy under Solskjaer, and the simple point that I'd make would be that I don't actually think that is a particularly definitive barometer of a manager's legacy when you're only talking about a two-year period. Sure, if he'd had that level of backing for five years and never managed to win anything, I think the question starts to become a bit more valid, but in cup competitions over a two year span it doesn't take much luck to go one way or another to quite significantly alter the outcomes.
The main criticism of Solskjaer that I think is entirely valid is how he performed at the start of this season. I will be frank here, I don't think any of our managers post-Ferguson have done as bad a job of coaching the side as he did in the first half of this season. Had we kept playing like we did when he was eventually sacked I only dread to think where we'd be right now; it was comically bad. I think it exposed more than anything that he's tactically a very limited coach. I'm not saying he has no tactical nous whatsoever but it's pretty evident from how completely we failed to effectively instil a different style at the start of the season that when he is not in his comfort zone when forced to adapt his tactical approach.
Ultimately, I think he did a fairly passable job for two seasons (better than I'd have expected given his level of experience) but ultimately his shortcomings when compared to coaches who thrive at the elite level of football were exposed ruthlessly. I also think he has a lot to answer for in terms of the state the squad was/is still in following his departure. It's obviously unbalanced and incoherent right now, and again I think that speaks to a limitation on Solskjaer's part to effectively communicate a tactical vision and mould a squad around that. Do I think his time here was an utter failure? No. Do I think he should ever have been offered the role on a permanent basis? Also no.
You can beat top teams playing the counter attacking football and Ole did so regularly as he had the quality of players to do so. Once they got wise to this Ole could not find a way and then tried to play on the front foot and he became undone because he had no idea how to do so. Then he paid too much to get Sancho and DVB and AWB. Imagine if he had spent that money on quality midfield players? I think the second place position made him delusional about the team. There were so many short term cheap options for him to sort out the midfield instead of spending big on forwards and full backs.
Why is that more objective than trophies won? If anything, their league finishes are an idiotic way to measure their success as two of Ole's three seasons resulted in the same finishes as Mourinho's two, and then a 3rd place finish on top. You base everything on that? Meanwhile, we won two trophies under Mourinho and nothing whatsoever under Ole.
I don't think your criterion is objective at all. Mourinho finished two seasons: 6th and 2nd. Ole finished three seasons: 6th, 3rd and 2nd. Are you just adding the numbers up and arbitrarily deciding that one sum is bigger than the other, ergo a greater success? By that metric, Wenger is a vastly superior PL manager to Guardiola and Klopp because the sum total of his PL finishes add up to a greater number than either of theirs. That's literally the opposite of "objective," it's completely arbitrary and nonsensical.
I don't see how Ole is the most succesful manager we've had since SAF. The team he left behind is actively imploding. We're worse than when he arrived. He broke more than he fixed. He solved nothing whatsoever, and anyone with any sense can see that he would never have achieved any meaningful success. Mourinho might have, he has at least been a top manager in the past, and the fact remains that our best season in the last nine years happened under him, as well as two of the three trophies we've won in that timespan. He has the highest win percentage as well. Highest points tally in a season. In fact, I think he was better by every metric with which it makes sense to compare managers who were here for differing lengths of time. It makes no sense at all to compare them based on league finishes when they don't have the same amount of them and Jose's two are the same as two of Ole's three.
At the end of the day, none of them were particularly succesful, but Mourinho is the only one who actually could have led us to a real league challenge. That was never gonna happen under Ole. Neither of them were good enough, but Ole is a completely unproven manager whereas Mourinho is a proven manager with a toxic personality that ruins it for him. Whenever he's got a team that can cope with his abrasiveness, he wins trophies. It's just that this wasn't one of those clubs. Ole on the other hand has literally never accomplished anything of note as manager.
Last edited:
Come on man.
Jose beat his best ever season points wise by a distance. (81 points v 74 points).
• For Ole’s 3rd place year (66 points), Jose got more points than him again (69 points) plus won a League Cup and a Europa League. The feck are you counting that as a more successful year for Ole?
Stop talking out of your non-objective arse.
You don't understand what objective means
League position is an 'objective criteria' by any reasonable definition of the word.
Objectively finishing a league campaign with 69 points, CL qualification, a league cup win & a EL win, is clearly better than finishing a season with 66 points and CL qualification.
You can’t be “objective” and argue against that.
I suspect that he's the kind of manager who can squeeze a bit of something out of being at a club that loves him wholeheartedly (Molde, United) but won't accomplish anything at a club that doesn't collectively bend over backwards to give him wind in the sails. Being a legend and hero of the club can paper over the cracks to some extent, but he has no real managerial credentials. The Norwegian league is so minor that simply having played at an elite club will let a manager accomplish a lot there as the competitive level is so low. Bodø/Glimt have won the Norwegian league two years in a row with a manager who has literally never played senior-level football at all. They've overperformed in the Europa League lately, but Norwegian football is at such a low level that anyone who has experienced the top tier of the game can arrive with a toolkit that nobody else in the league possesses. You can attribute most of Solskjær's success there simply to the fact that he was competing against a field that only barely qualifies as professional footballers and managers. I expect Gary Neville could go there and win.
And then he got the United job, and everyone was so eager for it to work that for a time, the sheer collective enthusiasm gave the team some forward momentum. When the whole club and its fanbase utterly adores you, and your name is associated with the most iconic catchphrase in Champion's League history, you can live off of the good vibes alone for a while. But then his managerial failures became too blatant to ignore, and once it became clear that he had no positive aspects to his management besides being a likeable person, it fell apart. He had nothing to offer when it comes to tactics, lineup choices, transfers, coaching, or anything else to do with the actual football side of things. As such, once the beloved club legend aspect could no longer do any of the work for him, we were left with what we saw of him at Cardiff: nothing of note, just a rudimentary working knowledge of basic football principles required in order for you to get your coaching badges at all. He simply had the core credentials required to pass the FA Coaching Badge program, and nothing more.
I can see him doing fine in a tiny, just-barely-professional league like Norway's where the entirety of all players in the country earn less than a single PL club's squad does, but I think that's the limit of his abilities. Anywhere else, he will at best be a generic lower-mid-table manager who will probably get relegated from time to time. There are no more clubs where he will be worshipped as a hero, and without that, I don't believe he has anything to his game. I could see him going the Neville route of giving up managing altogether.
Last edited:
I get what you are saying in terms of Ole being unproven, would be interesting to see how he would do with a midtable PL club - but honestly, outside of Utd bubble he is not rated at all, and for a reason. Even his Molde spell was good only initially, he then stopped winning titles whilst having more resources than anyone else in the league. Their fans did not miss him, and they were better without him both times.
Look at betting odds for his next job - Norway, a couple of Norwegian clubs, Cardiff, Sunderland, MLS clubs. When Everton job was up for grabs, the likes of Carrick and RvN (!) had shorter odds, even given that Carrick publicly stated that he is taking a sabbatical. Of course, odds are not a perfect indicator but still a good glimpse of how outside world views Ole. And honestly, even the guys who defend him - how many fans of PL and even Championship clubs you know that would like to have him as a manager?
Cup wins and one-off games are far more prone to luck, than league finishes. Thus, league position is the most objective metric, in my book.
Where did we finish in the league when we won the Europa League? Mourinho completely focused on that tournament because we were nowhere near good enough in the league.
And to compare managers you can simply calculate average league finish, if you really want to be as stubborn as you're being with this statement.
I think every fan should think about what caused this season's misfortunes. Things don't happen without a reason. What was so different about this season that players downed tools, performances became horrible and ultimately this lead to Ole's sacking. And, notice, Rangnick did not trigger any new manager boost, instead the results have been even worse. You can believe that it was the transfers that Ole did but he finished second in the league, reaching European final with the same set of players. So, I don't buy that.
How is points total meaningful? It is totally out of context. By that logic, that second place is better than some title-winning seasons, do you honestly believe that? If yes, I'm out.Come on man.
Jose beat his best ever season points wise by a distance. (81 points v 74 points).
• For Ole’s 3rd place year (66 points), Jose got more points than him again (69 points) plus won a League Cup and a Europa League. The feck are you counting that as a more successful year for Ole?
Stop talking out of your non-objective arse.
It's meaningful because the idea that our 3rd placed season was somehow more "successful" than a season in which we ended with the same CL qualification, more league points and two trophies is so stupid and obtuse, it's makes my brain hurt. By that stupid logic, Chelsea finishing 3rd this season on less points than last season and with no trophies would somehow be more successful than their 2020-2021 season
Some seasons, the exact same results as the previous season can get you a much higher league position, it means next to feck all. Some seasons other teams have crap seasons or periods and you capitalise, take us last season, you'd have to be a complete mug to think we were better than Liverpool who after their massive injury crises almost caught us at the end and were certain to blitz us this season, or the post Lampard Chelsea team that won the Champions League.
The season Mourinho took 2nd, we had 5 PL teams on 70+ points. City, United, Spurs, Liverpool & Chelsea. Ole's point total from last season wouldn't have even gotten him top 4, in fact it wouldn't even have gotten him 5th place in the season Mourinho finished 6th, as Arsenal finished that season in 5th on 75 points.
Ole was fortunate to manage United during a period of real underachievement for Chelsea, Arsenal and post Poch Spurs. His points per game ratio wouldn't have had him top 4 even once during Mourinho's years. He was shite, and no season he had was more "successful" than Jose, who, by the way, also failed fecking miserably here.
In their best seasons, both Mourinho and Ole finished second, Jose with 7 more points than Ole. In their next best season, both qualified for the CL, and only one won a trophy, 2 of them in fact, he also finished on more points again. But please, keep telling us you're being "objective" when you suggest the non trophy and less points per game one was somehow "more successful".
Ask any football fan, player or manager in the World what they take for the next two seasons:
Choice A: Win the League Cup and Europa League, finish on 69 points in 6th. Qualify for CL. Then, win nothing and finish 2nd on 81 points.
Choice B: Win nothing, finish on 66 points in 3rd. Qualify for CL. Then, win nothing again and finish 2nd on 74 points.
Last edited:
Points give more context as the seasons were Ole finished top four were less competitive, most of the time those points wouldn't get you top 4 and there were other top teams performing significantly worse, particularly Liverpool.
That's why there's this illusion the team has regressed drastically judging by league position only but the team can still finish with the same points last season and it migh not be enough. The team was always wank under Ole and never challenged for the league and couldn't even get past group stages in the UCL.
How the feck finishing 2nd or 3rd can be better than winning trophies (which give you CL spot)? You are true member of that fraud's cult. Standards at rock bottom.
I enjoy the thought experiment of someone asking him, "mate, next season your team can win nothing, qualify for the CL and finish on 66 points, or... they can win two trophies, qualify for the CL and finish on 69 points. Which do you take?" and this bloke going, "erm, option A sounds good, I'll take that"
West Ham and Leicester will end the season in lower league positions than last, I wonder if their fans would swap a potential EL or ECL win for those few extra PL places?
Well, I think the last point is probably key. He's managed Manchester United, the club close to his heart, and he got a massive, big fat payoff as well.
So overall, it's not clear there is any financial incentive to managing, and as you allude to, perceptions around him mean he could only achieve a certain profile of job. And yeah, it could indeed be a worse job than I imagined - although if he was patient then in the right circumstances I do think he could get a top flight job. But it seems there isn't any great motivation to take a huge step down aside from wanting to test himself and loving management. But the way United went sour might have taken the wind out of the sails.
It's meaningful because the idea that our 3rd placed season was somehow more "successful" than a season in which we ended with the same CL qualification, more league points and two trophies is so stupid and obtuse, it's makes my brain hurt. By that stupid logic, Chelsea finishing 3rd this season on less points than last season and with no trophies would somehow be more successful than their 2020-2021 season
Some seasons, the exact same results as the previous season can get you a much higher league position, it means next to feck all. Some seasons other teams have crap seasons or periods and you capitalise, take us last season, you'd have to be a complete mug to think we were better than Liverpool who after their massive injury crises almost caught us at the end and were certain to blitz us this season, or the post Lampard Chelsea team that won the Champions League.
The season Mourinho took 2nd, we had 5 PL teams on 70+ points. City, United, Spurs, Liverpool & Chelsea. Ole's point total from last season wouldn't have even gotten him top 4, in fact it wouldn't even have gotten him 5th place in the season Mourinho finished 6th, as Arsenal finished that season in 5th on 75 points.
Ole was fortunate to manage United during a period of real underachievement for Chelsea, Arsenal and post Poch Spurs. His points per game ratio wouldn't have had him top 4 even once during Mourinho's years. He was shite, and no season he had was more "successful" than Jose, who, by the way, also failed fecking miserably here.
In their best seasons, both Mourinho and Ole finished second, Jose with 7 more points than Ole. In their next best season, both qualified for the CL, and only one won a trophy, 2 of them in fact, he also finished on more points again. But please, keep telling us you're being "objective" when you suggest the non trophy and less points per game one was somehow "more successful".
Ask any football fan, player or manager in the World what they take for the next two seasons:
Choice A: Win the League Cup and Europa League, finish on 69 points in 6th. Qualify for CL. Then, win nothing and finish 2nd on 81 points.
Choice B: Win nothing, finish on 66 points in 3rd. Qualify for CL. Then, win nothing again and finish 2nd on 74 points.
Your argument that less points equal less competitive season is totally opposite of reality. Teams accumulate less points because the league is more competitive and they drop more points.
I find it ridiculous to say that Ole was lucky but other clubs and managers were underachieving? What? Why? Why weren't we then?
It's meaningful because the idea that our 3rd placed season was somehow more "successful" than a season in which we ended with the same CL qualification, more league points and two trophies is so stupid and obtuse, it's makes my brain hurt. By that stupid logic, Chelsea finishing 3rd this season on less points than last season and with no trophies would somehow be more successful than their 2020-2021 season
Some seasons, the exact same results as the previous season can get you a much higher league position, it means next to feck all. Some seasons other teams have crap seasons or periods and you capitalise, take us last season, you'd have to be a complete mug to think we were better than Liverpool who after their massive injury crises almost caught us at the end and were certain to blitz us this season, or the post Lampard Chelsea team that won the Champions League.
The season Mourinho took 2nd, we had 5 PL teams on 70+ points. City, United, Spurs, Liverpool & Chelsea. Ole's point total from last season wouldn't have even gotten him top 4, in fact it wouldn't even have gotten him 5th place in the season Mourinho finished 6th, as Arsenal finished that season in 5th on 75 points.
Ole was fortunate to manage United during a period of real underachievement for Chelsea, Arsenal and post Poch Spurs. His points per game ratio wouldn't have had him top 4 even once during Mourinho's years. He was shite, and no season he had was more "successful" than Jose, who, by the way, also failed fecking miserably here.
In their best seasons, both Mourinho and Ole finished second, Jose with 7 more points than Ole. In their next best season, both qualified for the CL, and only one won a trophy, 2 of them in fact, he also finished on more points again. But please, keep telling us you're being "objective" when you suggest the non trophy and less points per game one was somehow "more successful".
Ask any football fan, player or manager in the World what they take for the next two seasons:
Choice A: Win the League Cup and Europa League, finish on 69 points in 6th. Qualify for CL. Then, win nothing and finish 2nd on 81 points.
Choice B: Win nothing, finish on 66 points in 3rd. Qualify for CL. Then, win nothing again and finish 2nd on 74 points.
Spot fecking on. The mere logic is bizarre, but trying to frame it as 'objectivity' makes it absolutely farcical.
As I said; by all means say you personally preferred Ole's tenure. That's absolutely cool and is merely an opinon. But don't try create some bizarre false narrative about Ole being better than Jose. It's not true, and Jose was the better of the two. Both were colossal failures and the only discussion is who was shitter, and that's Ole.
Liverpool had a massive injury crisis and once over that went on an incredible run, they are about to finish their 3rd season in the last 4 with over 90 points. Of fecking course they were underacheiving last season, massively.
Chelsea won the hardest trophy in football, yet managed just 67 league points due to a piss poor start from a piss poor manager. Once Tuchel came in they were a different animal altogether. They picked up 2.07 points per PL game once he came in, despite the fixture schedule that a deep run to the CL final brings, and over a season that's 78 points (so yeah, more than United). Of course they underachieved last season in the league.
This season tells you all you need to know about why many of us were correct back then that we were lucky as feck and in a completely false position. Not in a million years were we better than Liverpool or Champions League winners Chelsea.
Last edited:
And yet, people keep making it
You've had your head buried in the sand if you're seriously asking this question.
Points total is as meaningful as the league finish. It mirrors your progress and your improvement, and tells you how close to your end-goal you are or how far away from it. It helps you measure yourself against the standards you have set for yourself.
Consider what does it actually mean for us to be able again to challenge for the title? It means that we have to reach the 85-90+ points bracket. And then do it again. And again. And again. That should be the goal in a league where Pep and Guardiola are coaching. It doesn't mean that you can't win the title with fewer points. But if you can't get over that bar, your hopes of challenging for the title will never be in your hands. They will depend on how well the others are doing.
Remember when Maureen first came to the PL and raised the bar for the title to 90 points for the first time? SAF neither waited for the storm to pass, nor he attempted to sugar coat the situation (although we were on a rebuilding process). He picked up the gauntlet, instead. I still remember Giggs saying on multiple occasions that the quality is there, what we need is to raise our level of consistency.
Both Mourinho and Solskjaer were afforded time and resources to push for better things, and they both failed. Jesus Christ... eight hundred fecking million pounds in total, and here we are arguing whether two consecutive top-four finishes beats 81 points and a Europa League or the other way around.
But, let me ask you this. I am one of those who never wanted Solskjaer to get the permanent gig, but i admit that his arrival was a breath of fresh air. He didn't just lift the spirit, but also made of few tactical tweaks that helped the team in the short-term. We collapsed toward the end of his half-season and we didn't get top-four, but it was his influence on the team that put us in the conversation for a CL finish in the first place. Now, if in this contest to prove who's the least bad between Spurs, Lego Pep and us, Rangnick (who hasn't got a decent 90 minutes from this team) somehow crawls into a top-four finish, will that mean that his half-season will be better than Solskjaer's?
Consider what does it actually mean for us to be able again to challenge for the title? It means that we have to reach the 85-90+ points bracket. And then do it again. And again. And again. That should be the goal in a league where Pep and Guardiola are coaching. It doesn't mean that you can't win the title with fewer points. But if you can't get over that bar, your hopes of challenging for the title will never be in your hands. They will depend on how well the others are doing.
Remember when Maureen first came to the PL and raised the bar for the title to 90 points for the first time? SAF neither waited for the storm to pass, nor he attempted to sugar coat the situation (although we were on a rebuilding process). He picked up the gauntlet, instead. I still remember Giggs saying on multiple occasions that the quality is there, what we need is to raise our level of consistency.
Both Mourinho and Solskjaer were afforded time and resources to push for better things, and they both failed. Jesus Christ... eight hundred fecking million pounds in total, and here we are arguing whether two consecutive top-four finishes beats 81 points and a Europa League or the other way around.
But, let me ask you this. I am one of those who never wanted Solskjaer to get the permanent gig, but i admit that his arrival was a breath of fresh air. He didn't just lift the spirit, but also made of few tactical tweaks that helped the team in the short-term. We collapsed toward the end of his half-season and we didn't get top-four, but it was his influence on the team that put us in the conversation for a CL finish in the first place. Now, if in this contest to prove who's the least bad between Spurs, Lego Pep and us, Rangnick (who hasn't got a decent 90 minutes from this team) somehow crawls into a top-four finish, will that mean that his half-season will be better than Solskjaer's?
Weird one, Ole was equal parts awesome, equal parts utter dog shit that part season and achieved nada by the end. Ralf has just been "meh". People remember Ole's interim season too fondly in my opinion, Ralf would need to lose 5 of his remaining games to have as many loses as Ole managed. Our final 12 games were sackable form.
Manchester United 0:2 Cardiff City
Huddersfield Town 1:1 Manchester United
Manchester United 1:1 Chelsea FC
Manchester United 0:2 Manchester City
Everton FC 4:0 Manchester United
FC Barcelona 3:0 Manchester United
Manchester United 2:1 West Ham United
Manchester United 0:1 FC Barcelona
Wolverhampton Wanderers 2:1 Manchester United
Manchester United 2:1 Watford FC
Wolverhampton Wanderers 2:1 Manchester United
Arsenal FC 2:0 Manchester United
1.9 points per PL game Ole managed in 2018-19, Ralf is currently on 1.83, people got rosey eyed because he started great but feck me we quickly went to shit after that.
Last edited:
The problem about Ole's tenure was that some lowered our standards, and treated him as some lovely intern trying his best, and he was judged on this basis, and not how a Manchester United manager should be.
Sorry, but anyone who takes the hot seat should be judged as being Manchester United manager, and not a college graduate on a practice placement still learning their trade.
Sorry, but anyone who takes the hot seat should be judged as being Manchester United manager, and not a college graduate on a practice placement still learning their trade.
I think it was very clear most of the top teams, outside of Manchester City were having irregular seasons, Manchester United capitalised on that but you had to be very naive United was improving that much. This season they're on course on finishing on a similar points tally, the team was never good enough under Ole.
I agree with you, overall, and that's why i said i didn't want him to become the permanent manager. My question was directed to the people who use the league finishes as a way to paint Solskjaer's tenure as a success. Several among them have been laying into RR since the first day he set foot in Carrington, and they like to point out his "inability" to get a tune out of this squad and his lack of charisma. As opposed to Solskjaer, that is. My question is simple: If the improbable happens and we get top-four, will that -in their eyes - mean that RR did a better job than Solskjaer? I like RR, but i don't think that this would be the case, and i don't need the end of the season to draw my conclusions.
Anyway, i think it's a pointless discussion. Mourinho won the EL/EFL and finished 2nd on 81 points, but it was plain obvious that this was as high as he could get with us. In his infinite wisdom, he proclaimed this his greatest achievement. The sad truth is he spent as much as Pep but, at the start of their second season, Guardiola's City was already on a different level and we were just waiting for Jose to push the self-destruction button. Under Solskjaer, we may have had consecutive top-four finishes, but it was plain obvious that were very streaky and, unlike Klopp (whose first couple of seasons at Anfield were often used as proof that Solskjaer will come good eventually), never looked that we could gain that extra gear (or two) that's needed to challeng for the big prizes.
Feck it, i'll make it even simpler. We finished 6th in Solskjaer's half-season. If we finish 5th under RR, would that mean that Ralf did better?
I think using finishing second as a metric of progress is bonkers when we already have the benefit of knowing it would lead to feck all. The position is meant to be a consolation of better things to come not some end goal to be celebrated.
It made sense to use as a tool for optimism back then because we thought it was a step to future glory. With ole ending up sacked the entire cycle was for nothing.
It made sense to use as a tool for optimism back then because we thought it was a step to future glory. With ole ending up sacked the entire cycle was for nothing.
Last edited:
I don't know what his legacy will end up being. As for his future, I think Utd will end up being his biggest club by a leg and a mile. There were some links with him to the Aberdeen job and I couldn't help think that they could do better.
Same; which in-itself is fecking bonkers, considering he spent 3-years as the manager of Manchester United!
Is he a better coach than Eddie Howe?
Howe is Guardiola for Ole. For many people it is obviously hard to accept it but we had one of the worst managers in PL. And that is reality.
If Ole took the job after Bruce, Newcastle would've already been the first team to get relegated.
And his cult would say; " They would be relegated anyway. Not his fault"
I think some of them here are WUMs. Surely even a blind man can see that getting second and winning the EL and the League Cup is better than coming 2nd and 3rd in consecutive seasons. Only an idiot would insist on it.
Ole did ok. Not more not less.