You say a lot of evidence is needed for improvement, would win ratio be a good metric? Also the winning standards that we need to attain, most of those managers have shown potential to improve that’s why they were given chances, for me it’s not sympathetic reasons. All of them were let go before their projects were completed.
I suppose what I’m saying is that giving managers time to succeed can’t be quantified exactly , it’s about feel. Are they building enough good to outweigh the bad? I know it sounds farcical maybe, but I don’t think we have an issue with managers time in charge, it’s more their culture and style. It’s been very contrasting recently thus players surpluses and bloated squads emerged.
Liverpool gutted their team and turned their fortunes round in three years which was a combination of very good recruitment and coaching all pulling together. That resulted in a title push and a champions league win in Klopp’s fourth season. I don’t think it’s ever been on the agenda at Utd to even attempt something similar and we just repeat the same cycle.
It's not about rebuilding, again, it's about bringing in 4 or 5 players each summer who are the right profile with the right skillset and at the same time offloading 3 or 4 players who simply aren't good enough and offer next to nothing. Easier said than done but hopefully we can offload most of Martial, Evans, Maguire, Sancho, McT and Dalot before the start of next season but it'll only happen if we've got the right people in place to do the deals and replace them with the right players. We can offload whoever we want but if the replacements continue to be overpaid and not good enough we'll just keep recycling the deadwood.
The rebuild required is in the staff on the football side, Murtough, owners etc all need to be gone.
United's managers usually last a decent amount of time, though. Moyes is the only one who got fired quickly.
The thing with Liverpool is they had substantial improvement every year. They played a CL final the season before they won it. They finished 4th and massively improved their goal difference in Klopp's first full season.
Managers at United have struggled to achieve anything like that.
You still don't get it what we mean. You are NEVER to be happy with your squad, you always look for improvements. The idea that you can have a rebuild and then are happy with your squad is what will lead to your next downfall immediately. The only long-term planning needed is that you should consider not only who has to be replaced now but also who might need to be replaced a bit more in the future so that you continuously get the right players in to improve in a sustainable way, but still you never try to stop improving your squad.A total overhaul and rebuild is required on and off the pitch.
And if you were to do that with this current squad, how long before you'd have a squad you'd be happy with?
You still don't get it what we mean. You are NEVER to be happy with your squad, you always look for improvements. The idea that you can have a rebuild and then are happy with your squad is what will lead to your next downfall immediately. The only long-term planning needed is that you should consider not only who has to be replaced now but also who might need to be replaced a bit more in the future so that you continuously get the right players in to improve in a sustainable way, but still you never try to stop improving your squad.
Yes and no. I would agree, our fans are potentially a tad too eager to see positives with new managers, probably thats down to re-inforcing that this particular manager was a good decision. Some fans are also invested in the matter because they have bigged him up earlier and so on. All very natural and understandable but I can see your point, the right balance is impossible to get because everybody has a different outlook.I think at United, this is where we've failed. Our fans and the media seem to think that recruitment is our issue and blame the club. But when you really look into it, it's the concept of time regarding our managers.
We've been really relaxed about evaluating our managers. We constantly give them the benefits of time, normally not even commenting on team performance until 8 months after the managers arrival. That's way too much time and not enough urgency from the club to ensure success. The managers are given far too much unearned trust; which in the last 10 years has proven to be a mistake each and every time.
Agreed. It should be an ongoing cycle. But at some point, it has to start. And maintaining a cycle isn't just bringing in a good player here and there. You also have to keep an eye on age structure. On form trends, upcoming talents and so. When all this is in place, yes, it should be a cycle. But to get this in place, you have to go the extrastep to set it up. Which is what many consider as the rebuild I guess (me included btw).I think that's my issue with this idea of a 3-year rebuild. It should not exist at United. We should always be evolving and trying to get better. However, we should ALWAYS be playing decent football. Every manager we hire should be able to show us almost immediately how their style can translate to us scoring goals and controlling games. There should be evidence in a lot of games that we can get to that level, and that's something none of our managers have shown.
Yes and no. I would agree, our fans are potentially a tad too eager to see positives with new managers, probably thats down to re-inforcing that this particular manager was a good decision. Some fans are also invested in the matter because they have bigged him up earlier and so on. All very natural and understandable but I can see your point, the right balance is impossible to get because everybody has a different outlook.
I wouldn't agree that effects have to be visible pretty early. I would love it if this could be achieved of course but I wouldn't use it as a potential stick. In clubs, where the manager is an important but only one of a few cogs, I'd certainly agree with you but with Man United, this doesn't seem to be the case. Look at how we swayed in terms of style during the last managers, expecting them to a) play decent football and b) bring in good results in a short period of time is very optimistic I'd say.
So all in all. It is a tricky situation right now. I hoped that ETH would bring in more visible effects, he opted to stabilize our results last season with improving the defense. This year his plans seem to be a bit more ambitious but are hampered by injuries.
So, for me personally, I wouldn't stick with him because I trust him so much but I am rather optimistic, that he has the necessary knowledge to help us as a team AND I think that letting him go would do us nothing good. We obviously could hope to bring somebody in who has a more striking effect. But how many attempts are fine? What if this perfect manager is not out there...
Agreed. It should be an ongoing cycle. But at some point, it has to start. And maintaining a cycle isn't just bringing in a good player here and there. You also have to keep an eye on age structure. On form trends, upcoming talents and so. When all this is in place, yes, it should be a cycle. But to get this in place, you have to go the extrastep to set it up. Which is what many consider as the rebuild I guess (me included btw).
It should take us 3/6 months to play coherent, modern, possession based, attacking football.
I appreciate that the expectations at United are high and that success at top clubs are just as such. So in your scenario are we going to sack the manager in November if they don’t start seeing good football? Can you provide me with evidence that either Bayern or Madrid have sacked managers after this length of time when they’ve struggled? What if we are playing good football and losing or the reverse is true? A new gaffer can come in and see immediate improvement but the context of the club they are coming into counts. Players are human and as good as they are conditioning to a new system can take time. That’s why we see a lot of our players default to instinct or previous styles of play when under pressure. I wouldn’t expect a team to keep a manager they are unhappy with, however progress can de measured differently.In terms of timescale, a manager for United should be evaluated as soon as they get the job. The microscope from the club should immediately be on them. It's a high level job and requires someone to come in ready to perform. There should be signs of good football from the very start of the season. In terms of actual style and performance, we should at the very least be seeing that by November. At United, we should be able to control and win games, creating enough chances to make that the likely outcome for each game. That, imo is good football. It doesn't have to be wing play or gegenpress or tika taka. It just needs to put our players in the best position to consistently win games. Our fans act like that is impossible to do. It's not. You don't expect Bayern to keep a manager who puts out football where the team is struggling to create. Real Madrid and Barcelona wouldn't do that either, and neither should we.
The fact of the matter is that as much criticism as United players have received in the last 10 years, our squad has always been a top six squad in the league. We play at the very least 14 teams that we should be better than every season. We then also have cup games and Champions League/ Europa League games we play too. You can't tell me that we should not be expected to play well against those other 14 teams, half of which would be home games. Showing potential in a previous job does not mean you'll be a good manager at United. Just like players, it's the potential that got them the job in the first place. Performing well is what keeps you the job, not past performances in smaller institutions. Even then, on reputation, Mourinho is the only manager that should have been given the benefit of the doubt. Van Gaal, Moyes, Ole and ETH should all have had to earn it. They weren't given chances because they showed potential whilst managing the club, they were given the chance to continue because we weren't bottom the table. These managers only lose their jobs once its impossible for them to actually keep it.
You can quantify a manager's initial success. Feel is emotional, it can be obscured by so many things and when it comes to business with fans and others around the club who have expectations, feel should never be enough. A combination of what you can see ( performances on the pitch, behaviour off the pitch) and results should be what is assessed. I'm not saying you sack a manager without context of injuries or getting familiar with the league ( which are outside factors), but even at the very beginning performances and results should always be addressed. My take is that the managers we've had and the leeway they've gotten is what's responsible for the squad profile. I've seen Mancini manage bloated disruptive squads at City during their transition to a top team. It's part of the job. Being able to communicate and manage personalities effectively. It's not an excuse. Managers at United have been using that for too long. Madrid, Barca, Bayern all have massive squads with big egos. That's part of the test.
The best managers can say they got teams to consistently play good football. Guardiola's City even in his first season played good football. United, even at our very worst under Fergie were always able to create chances. Wenger at Arsenal, despite not always winning, can say he consistently played good football. We aren't Burnley either. This is United, we outspend and have consistently outspent teams over the years. We have the resources to ensure that we play good consistent football. No matter the job, there is always an evaluation and there are standards that need to be met. You argue that the managers prior didn't get the time to complete their projects. My argument is that they didn't deserve the time to do so. The managers actually failed their evaluations and should have been let go way before the time they actually left.
There is a way to evaluate these managers: performances and results.
I beleive it can be. You can't just give someone a project and close your eyes and expect them to succeed because they told you they were going to. We are fans. We can watch a game and assess if we played well or not. You can be able to observe our ability to create chances, our ability to control games, our ability to transition, our ability to defend. This can be seen by simply watching our team consistently, the same way scouts watch players to know if they're good enough to pursue. I don't need Antony to play for me for me to know that he's not going anywhere in three years. I don't see what's hard in that. In a season, we have 45+ games. It's a large sample.
I wasn’t even arguing to give them more time really. Just querying the criteria and timeframe by which they are judged. Weirdly though I think Moyes was given more time due to how he got the job. Player power got him though.United's managers usually last a decent amount of time, though. Moyes is the only one who got fired quickly.
The thing with Liverpool is they had substantial improvement every year. They played a CL final the season before they won it. They finished 4th and massively improved their goal difference in Klopp's first full season.
Managers at United have struggled to achieve anything like that.
The target should be to build a squad now that prioritises intelligent footballers, pace, athleticism, and technical ability.
Doesn't everyone want players who have pace, athleticism, technical ability, and intelligence? Those are most of the good traits in a football player.
