This whole 'in-game management' myth really needs to be put to bed now. There is simply no justification for it other than 'he's not making subs when I think he should be making subs' which if course is not an argument at all. What are the parameters that can be used fairly to judge this anyway? In-game management after all is surely just an adjustment made - be it tactical, with substitutions, or a half time motivational discussion - that helps a team deliver a result during a match, right?
Well, currently points gained from a losing position looks like this:
United - 21
Liverpool - 10
Leicester - 8
Chelsea - 7
Spurs - 6
City - 2
Arsenal - 1
So there's that.....
We are also ranked 2nd in goals scored in the second half. Our goal difference in the second half is also ranked 2nd. In fact, in pretty much every metric we are ranked very high in terms of second half performance.
If we looked at these statistics from a neutral viewpoint, in another circumstance, and without bias or agenda we would conclude that this manager is actually the best in the league at so-called 'in-game management'. There are other factors too of course. It would be remiss not to give our players equal credit, but ultimately something is happening in our dressing room at half-time that is producing an improvement.
So much in football is random and unpredictable though. Last season we only conceded 17 first half goals all season. This season 15 already. Last season we scored 11 goals in the last 15 minutes. This season 10 already. Its really quite pointless reading too much into these stats and concluding anything unless those statistics are constant, and very few things in football are ever constant. All that matters is how many points you are winning.
It does mean though that the on-going criticism of Ole in this area isn't really based on anything other than a feeling, and that feeling originates (IMO) from certain peoples on-going reluctance to let themselves believe that Ole belongs at this level, but that's a different conversation.