No they didnt. There was a lot of friction reported between manager and a couple players, and the football wasnt exciting. But we didnt ride our luck as much as you're inferring.
The players he openly mugged off have also been the players who showed the most inconsistency and terrible performances post his departure.
Now I know you're making up history. We scored one of the most since SAF and ended with 81 pts and a goal difference of 40, which if I am not mistaken is one of the widest, if not the widest margin over the course of a season.
OK let's put it this way. How did he spend relative to LVG before him and Ole after him. And relatively, how successful was he after 2 seasons?He did spend $400M. I posted the TransferMarkt link and you ignored it
https://www.transfermarkt.us/manchester-united/alletransfers/verein/985
I am shifting nothing. In a 3rd season if you think having another CB after Bailey breaks his ankle is some sort of Mourinho mistake, you need to give your head a wobble. Maybe Guardiola shouldn't have been granted full back after full back before he got it right, eh?You're shifting goalposts. He bought CBs in consecutive windows and spent a good amount on them. He doesn't get a blank check to continually correct his mistakes.
Again, they didn't.Never said they rode their luck, but the results did flatter especially in the latter half of the season (see the 3-2 vs City).
Because he was at least making us relevant. Also I don't know why you keep quoting 200m eur. Even if he was granted Maguire it would've been something. He didnt even want Fred reportedly.Moreover if the football was atrocious and dull why would you allow him to spend $200M again for more of that?
No. He didn't buy Shaw, Martial, Rashford. Pogba sure.He bought most of them...
Repeating myself again, most of this was due to how they started the beginning of the season. The first 7 games of the season had four 4-0 score lines (+19 differential during that stretch)
For as long as he kept us competitive and was still our manager, yes. Sack him after season two if you think its sour but dont keep and then refuse to back. You are basically signalling to the players that hes very dispensable and the rest is history (see Pogbas antics in literally GW1 of Season 3).Astute buy? He was signed on a free transfer. Regardless, do you honestly think any of those players would have made United into title contenders? You seem to be trying really hard to save face.
Didn't back him at all? He spent $90M after the second season and still complained...
Again giving him free rein to buy as he did in the previous two seasons would have been disastrous for the club. It's crazy this is even a debate.
Ole and LVG both spent less than him in their first two seasons. It's in the same linkOK let's put it this way. How did he spend relative to LVG before him and Ole after him. And relatively, how successful was he after 2 seasons?
Then, explain the logic to not back him after two summers but back the others.
Then you get cover, not the most expensive CB in the market. City operates under a different set of financial conditions. Not even worth making that comparison.I am shifting nothing. In a 3rd season if you think having another CB after Bailey breaks his ankle is some sort of Mourinho mistake, you need to give your head a wobble. Maybe Guardiola shouldn't have been granted full back after full back before he got it right, eh?
You misremember.Again, they didn't.
B/c that's what he spent in previous windows. He spent nearly $90M in his third year. Convenient there is no mention of who he wanted instead of Fred.Because he was at least making us relevant. Also I don't know why you keep quoting 200m eur. Even if he was granted Maguire it would've been something. He didnt even want Fred reportedly.
So what's the excuse for the simply underperforming players like Sanchez? Matic? Lindeloff?No. He didn't buy Shaw, Martial, Rashford. Pogba sure.
You can also give him the chance to work under tighter fiscal constraints. This is not FIFA or Football Manager. It's illogical to spend $200M every transfer window. Players weren't given too much influence. The manager's tactics and man-management were simply poor. It was a failure of leadership on many levels but Mourinho was the worst.For as long as he kept us competitive and was still our manager, yes. Sack him after season two if you think its sour but dont keep and then refuse to back. You are basically signalling to the players that hes very dispensable and the rest is history (see Pogbas antics in literally GW1 of Season 3).
Im not saying Jose should've stayed. Im saying 1) he wasnt backed in season 3, 2) thats thick because you keep and continue the project or you sack and bring a new man for progressing beyond Jose. Consequently to how we handled the situation, 3) the players were given too much influence to revolt and things obviously turned sour thereafter.
Jesus this is becoming a completely different debate now. You're missing the actual point I made.Ole and LVG both spent less than him in their first two seasons. It's in the same link
Then you get cover, not the most expensive CB in the market. City operates under a different set of financial conditions. Not even worth making that comparison.
You misremember.
B/c that's what he spent in previous windows. He spent nearly $90M in his third year. Convenient there is no mention of who he wanted instead of Fred.
So what's the excuse for the simply underperforming players like Sanchez? Matic? Lindeloff?
You can also give him the chance to work under tighter fiscal constraints. This is not FIFA or Football Manager. It's illogical to spend $200M every transfer window. Players weren't given too much influence. The manager's tactics and man-management were simply poor. It was a failure of leadership on many levels but Mourinho was the worst.
If you didn't think he should have been sacked in the second season, by default you're saying he should have stayed...
My point is after season 2. Ole was backed to kick on despite us looking WORSE with no cups. Stop micro analysing every point and making up new arguments.
The debate weve been having has looked at gross figures. I dont think managers decide the amount as much, and they cant exactly negotiate the sales. But Ole was given 2 defenders, a winger and a midfielder in the same season.So spending 75 million under Jose means he wasn't backed, does that mean Ole wasn't backed in his second season when he spent around 75 million?
The debate weve been having has looked at gross figures. I dont think managers decide the amount as much, and they cant exactly negotiate the sales. But Ole was given 2 defenders, a winger and a midfielder in the same season.
Wan bissaka, Maguire, James, Bruno and he inherited some players from Joses time that meant he had less holes to fill in certain areas (at least in his view). Fair to say he was keen on Pogba for example, and Matic/Fred.
I think Ole was backed beyond that, in his 3rd season, when he deserved feck all. To be frank, Ole deserved no backing whatsoever and should have been out from season 1 (ideally he should have just been a caretaker).
I was referring to the season with Maguire AWB, Bruno in Jan and Dan James.We also sold/released players like Lukaku, Smalling, Herrera, Valencia, Sanchez, Darmian, Young, Fellaini in first 2 years. So there was always holes in the squad.
I don't know which 2 defenders were signed in his second season, I remember only Telles.
Ideally none of the managers we hired deserved any blind backing, just because people love some manager doesn't mean they should have been backed blindly putting club's health at risk. As it is, every single manager was backed, if any manager says they weren't then they are just making excuses for their failure.
I was referring to the season with Maguire AWB, Bruno in Jan and Dan James.
I agree. But my original point has been completey derailed from micro analysis and some tangential debates.
I think there's an excellent case for arguing that the club failed to bring in the players Jose needed to make his style of football a success. And whether he OKd certain players or not is irrelevant. Someone should have realised Pogba was a bad fit, regardless of whether Jose wanted him at Chelsea (or United).Season with Maguire, AWB was his first season. He spent just 74 million in his second season.
Anyways I don't agree with anyone who says any manager was not backed, for some weird reasons ManUtd fans have unconditional love for managers who don't even deserve it. Fact is, apart from Moyes, we spent big money under every manager, getting them new starting 11s. Every single one of them (except Moyes) were given lot of time to improve the side and challenge for the league.
The reason why we are in this shit position is not because of one person, it's because of every single manager we hired post SAF and Woodward.
I think there's an excellent case for arguing that the club failed to bring in the players Jose needed to make his style of football a success. And whether he OKd certain players or not is irrelevant. Someone should have realised Pogba was a bad fit, regardless of whether Jose wanted him at Chelsea (or United).
The thing is though that you can apply that argument every bit as much to the other failed managers. Sancho and Ronaldo were daft choices for Ole whether he wanted them or not, yet people aren't queuing up to make excuses for him on the grounds that he "wasn't backed". And he finished second as well.
Was Moyes backed by Woodward signing Mata? Was there ever a less Moyes-y player?
At least the money that's being spent this summer seems to be going to players who will suit the manager's system. Hooray!
Maybe they did. I still reckon that agents and selling clubs had a greater role in "pushing" players to United than managers or scouts had in "pulling" them. I think we'll have to disagree on that. I'm looking forward to Woodward's autobiography; it's a shame Raiola won't get a chance to write one.That's just making excuses for managers, if they wanted the player and club and manger agreed with the player, then there is no point micro analyzing which player was at which position in the list.
Just because Pogba didn't work out as expected, it's easy to say we shouldn't have signed as he didn't suit manager, and on the other hand, just because one player was not signed, people have started how manger wasn't backed. If anything club should be given credit for breaking record fee to bring the player manager wanted. With the benefit of hindsight we shouldn't have but again, it would lead to different arguments where we should argue everything based on hindsight.
You are saying Mata isn't a Moyes-y player and then we almost had a deal with Kroos and I can't think of a less Moyes-y CM than Kroos.
It's simple, Jose, Ole, Van Gaal got the players they wanted, spent lot of money on transfers and wages and didn't achieve what was expected. Only manager who didn't get time was Moyes and he never deserved it, going by how shit we were.
The main point that the Jose fans fail to grasp is that IF he wasn't "backed", neither were the others. The notion that Jose was the sole victim is absurd.
There's also the argument that whatever the signings, the style of football Jose wanted simply was never going to beat out Pep Guardiola with similar or more resources. Peps simply a better manager. Jose did well for 1.5 seasons, but he has especially shown since then that he just isn't a top manager anymore. That had started before he came to United. Spend all the money in the world, Mourinho won't be able to implement a superior system to Pep or Klopp. The exact same applies to Ole and Moyes. Van Gaal as well, he's a good coach but he also has pretty much done nothing in club football in ages. Its different to international football.I think there's an excellent case for arguing that the club failed to bring in the players Jose needed to make his style of football a success.
Oh I agree. Though I still reckon that he wasn’t helped by Woodward’s idiotic recruitment. When Jose asked for Matić, there was nobody around to say “Great idea Jose, but don’t you think he’s a bit past it? Let’s see who our scouts can suggest that’s like him but younger?”There's also the argument that whatever the signings, the style of football Jose wanted simply was never going to beat out Pep Guardiola with similar or more resources. Peps simply a better manager. Jose did well for 1.5 seasons, but he has especially shown since then that he just isn't a top manager anymore. That had started before he came to United. Spend all the money in the world, Mourinho won't be able to implement a superior system to Pep or Klopp. The exact same applies to Ole and Moyes. Van Gaal as well, he's a good coach but he also has pretty much done nothing in club football in ages. Its different to international football.
This is the key difference to Ten Hag. You want to compete with the best, then bring in a manager who is capable of it. Its simply unfair to ask Ole to compete with the 2 best in the world, he's not at that level. When the manager is more important than any single player, why cheap out on that position or bring in someone who is past it? I'm glad we went the correct route now, and I'm sure Ten Hag will show it in time.
Amazing how effective the Glazers and their media chums are at convincing people of utter tripe.Paul Pogba and to a lesser extent Jesse Lingard were the real trouble makers within the squad. Pogba was like the pied piper, and I believe that he had a clique that hung on his every word and his every action.
I know that McTominay is the United whipping boy, but I get the impression that he wasn't one of the players who was under the thrall of Pogba.
Without the bad influence of Paul Pogba, there will no rebellion. I'm positive of that.
Ten Hag will whip these players onto shape with training drills, his demands of them on the field and off and he'll get the best out of them. Those players who fail to impress will be demoted to the reserve team and replaced by a youth product, as a warning that you either match the standards set by ETH or you leave.
Amazing how effective the Glazers and their media chums are at convincing people of utter tripe.
Anyone who thinks Rashie is a good boy is hella deluded.
Amazing how effective the Glazers and their media chums are at convincing people of utter tripe.
Anyone who thinks Rashie is a good boy is hella deluded.
But according to Pogba he wanted to re-sign again 18 months ago, but the club offered him nothing. Lingard just wasnt offered a new contract.ETH vs The Players - who wins?
The players, of course!
We know for a fact that this set of players have thrown multiple managers under the bus and got the manager fired.
I'd have to be a complete imbecile to believe that the manager would win in a 'Manager vs Players' battle, given what has happened over the last 9 years.
The club side with the players, because the players are assets. In a business, you protect your assets. This is also the reason why we tend to renew contracts of players who are not good enough to play. The only time a player leaves or does not renew his contract is when that player himself makes the decision not to continue with MUFC. Pogba and Lingard are the best examples of this. If P and L wanted to renew their contracts, the club would be ecstatic.
We'll see. Ronaldo seems to be doing his best to completely disrupt managers pre-season preparations. It's not a good way to start.Maybe i'm naive but i don't think this is going to turn into Manger v. Players this time.
Pogs gone, Lingard Gone, Ronaldo probably gone - so not much player power left.
Manager doesn't take shit and he's renowned for his coaching abilities.
Difference this time is we don't have Woodward in charge who prioritized money/assets over football and was always going to choose the superstars first(in this case Pogba is gone, Ronaldo will follow and the stock of players like Martial and Maguire is critically low for anyone to side with. De Gea is the only banana skin but if Rooney can be phased out De Gea can albeit over time)It's baffling.
These people who believe that player power is over, are probably the same sort of men who have a wife who cheats on them multiple times, and they believe that she won't do it ever again.
I was not aware that it was possible for people to be so gullible.....but I've learned something new today.
ETH vs The Players - who wins?
The players, of course!
We know for a fact that this set of players have thrown multiple managers under the bus and got the manager fired.
I'd have to be a complete imbecile to believe that the manager would win in a 'Manager vs Players' battle, given what has happened over the last 9 years.
The club side with the players, because the players are assets. In a business, you protect your assets. This is also the reason why we tend to renew contracts of players who are not good enough to play. The only time a player leaves or does not renew his contract is when that player himself makes the decision not to continue with MUFC. Pogba and Lingard are the best examples of this. If P and L wanted to renew their contracts, the club would be ecstatic.
How so?Ultimately I think most probably the Glazers will be the real winners
Well irrespective of manager, players, staff, fans and even baby’s throwing shit out of their cribs - the Glazers will keep raping and pillaging the club on a bi annual basis.How so?
