I agree with the basic stance of the OP.
I would add, though, that in order to get to a position where you can - more or less - comfortably try out various promising managers who may or may not have that cutting edge you need in order to genuinely challenge, you need a foundation in place: you can't keep hiring managers with the job description United have operated with thus far (i.e. managers with a major influence on player recruitment and overall "philosophy").
This in itself is a reason why I'm not thrilled with the prospect of hiring Poch. He seems to want influence, part of what makes United attractive to him (compared to his current job) is - seemingly - that he'd have more control with us. Which is understandable from his point of view - but for me, we should move away from the very "model" which makes us attractive to prospective managers who fancies the idea of building a team on the grand scale.
Yeah, very relevant point. Agreed. It would be more of the same, which surely makes it less likely that Murtough and co. will be keen, let alone Rangnick.
1. I don't think Guardiola was anyway a risky appointment, he had the reputation as the top club manager when he came to City. Klopp was maybe a bit riskier as he had gone downhill in his last season at Dortmund, but his record at Mainz and Dortmund stood out. So why having a top mnager automatically includes making a risky appointment makes little sense.
2. I don't understand this bit, why would you want to wait until the summer to get your manager if a good one was available now, unless you are speaking specifically about Ten Hag. Also I haven' seen anyone yet explain the massive difference between Poch and ETH's approaches. Both like to play an attack orientated style with a high press and with high intensity.
3. Why would you become a 3rd or 4th placed side under Poch, this is written and accepted all over the forum as though it is a fact, which is bizarre. Also Poch doesn't rely on individual brilliance at all, his Southampton and Spurs teams were clear well organised units. I haven't watched enough of PSG to see exactly how they pklay, but reading about it the problem seems to be Mbappe, Neymar and Messi play as a separate unit to the rest of team despite his management, rather than as a planned part of it.
4. I'm not saying Poch would be better than ETH, but I find it odd that Ten Hag is seen as an all conquering hero, who would revolutionise United and turn you into serial winners once again while Poch will get you into the top 4, when all the evidence points to a different outcome!
1. I wasn't arguing that Guardiola was a risky appointment, or Klopp, I was arguing that there are no obvious progressive managers at their level, let alone available. Hence, if we go the route of a progressive manager, it will be more risky than going for a more known quantity.
2. I'd rather get in a manager who demonstrates an ability to consistently play progressive football than to get a manager in now who goes from one thing to another (or values pragmatism at all costs). It's not specifically about ten Hag or Poch, as such, but what they represent. Seems a lot of people disagree on what kind of manager Poch is, but that's how I see it.
3. It's not set in stone. All of these things aren't steeped in empirical evidence, as it's future oriented and that's what I'd expect, without the frills too I might add.
4. I think ten Hag would be a risky appointment for a number of reasons. I just think it's high time we evolve into a much better footballing side.
Honestly - the guy coaches at Ajax where all the players are coached in a very similar system from their youth, he has no massive egos to contend with and a very sound collaborative board/structure. They also have just one realistic rival in PSV.
I'm not a massive Poch fan, but if we went for him, I'd be very happy with that. He's walking the French league while managing the big egos up front and has qualified in a group with City and Leipzig with a game to spare. One of the games they won was a 2-0 against City by the way.
Let's be honest, aside the PSG front 3 and Veratti, the rest of the team isn't exactly bursting with quality. If you really did watch Southampton and Spurs, I can't understand how anyone could say Poch is a reactive coach. He's always been a progressive, proactive coach - he's known for that. Things only turned soar at Spurs after he made noises about wanting to leave. PSG as we know is a different beast, and is no real indicator of a coach's style. If Ten Hag went to PSG, he wouldn't turn them into a cohesive unit just like Tuchel couldn't.
I just hope whoever does come feels empowered enough to make tough calls against our biggest players if need be.
As above, I definitely concede appointing ten Hag is risky. I just think it has the potential to evolve our football much further. As for PSG, they have one of the best centre backs in Europe, a very promising left back, two top goal keepers, two work horse midfielders levels above Fred and McTominay, +Veratti, motivated di Maria, that frontline, etc. To say he doesn't have loads of quality is laughable. A good argument, and one I agree with, is that his side is lopsided because of the prime donnas up front.
I would go a little further too. In terms of what Klopp has actually delivered at Liverpool, I think United fans would be somewhat justified in being disappointed at only one league title and one Champions League, with no other major honours, in six seasons.
That may seem churlish right now in our current position, but surely the aim for any United manager has to be to make them the dominant number one side again. City are still the dominant side, despite a failure to win a CL title. I'm not sure any manager will be supported indefinitely if they continued to live in City's shadow, pinching a league and a CL here and there, whilst City were hoovering up the lion's share. There's quite a difference between what Guardiola and Klopp has delivered.
It's a long shot, but we should of course be aiming for that. In order to do so we obviously need a brilliant head coach and coaching staff, and a structure that supports them, but it's an uphill task that's for sure.
This thread is pointless and only hurts as we have the Glazers in charge. Its bloody obvious that the best road to take is Ragnick now, move him up stairs and go for Ten Hag in the summer. Van der Saar would be a nice addition as well. It will never happend though for obvious reasons.
Part one complete.
The trouble is, and I think people fail to quite grasp this point, City have advantages right now that extend beyond just 'how much' they can spend, and therefore, I see no scenario in which they are not always a top, top side for the foreseeable.
Historically, football is cyclical, great teams are assembled and they grow old together. In times gone by, one of the biggest challenges a football club faced was knowing when to start to break up a great side, but also how you went about doing that without totally upsetting the apple cart. This was something SAF was an absolute, unrivalled genius at.
City don't have this challenge. They assembled a 'super squad' in mega quick time, and arguably, as I said, it's not how much they spend in total, but how quickly they were able to spend it. By accumulating an exceptionally good squad in mega quick time, they were able to stockpile great players at the right age. That meant they could fairly easily ease out the likes of Kompany, Silva, Aguero and Toure, without the usual 'settling-in' period you get with a new signing.
See this Summer as an example. They don't need Jack Grealish, but they signed him for £100m anyway. He's absolutely no pressure on his shoulders, the team are that good that there's none of the usual scrutiny and expectation that comes with that kind of transfer fee. 2 goals and 2 assists so far in 13 matches, playing for the best club in the land....is that a return worthy of £100m? Not really. Have you read anything about it? Doubtful. It doesn't matter, because the team are relentless. In time, he'll slowly be phased in, others will slowly be phased out...you won't even notice, it'll just happen.
United's issue is that we did nothing for 5/6 years and have been chasing our tail ever since. See my point about how quickly, not how much a club can spend. We can spend as much as most clubs, over a given period, but we can't spend £500m in 2/3 windows. This is why our "What do we still need?" thread has the tagline "The Neverending Story". Just as we think we have sorted one position, a problem occurs in another, but we are on a budget. Again, City didn't/don't have that issue.
Even after all the money they spent pre-Pep, when he walked into the club they still needed a GK, a CB, two fullbacks, a CM and an AM all at once and they just went out and did it, pretty much within two seasons. Sometimes buying two players for one position, just incase one failed (see Danillo and Ake)
So the point in all of this is that City will continue to get 90+ points pretty much forever now. I don't see how that changes. That means that whichever manager comes into United has to find someway of topping that, whilst building, refining and refreshing a squad at the same time.
It's hard for some of you to take but we're never going to be dominant again. The Liverpool side of the last 4/5 years has been one of the best-run, best-managed, most talented clubs sides in the history of football...and what have they won? One Champions League and one Premier League title.
That is the challenge in-front of us people, and that doesn't change regardless of whether the manager is Ten Hag, Pochettino or Ole Gunnar Solskjaer. We might have to start re-thinking what we actually define as 'success' unfortunately...because if people think Pochettino or Ten Hag are going to walk in here and all of a sudden, we win three titles on the bounce...well I am afraid you're doomed to never be satisfied.
I'm not under any illusions that City aren't way ahead of us. But just like you say, in your - let's be honest - overly defeatist post, Liverpool managed to break it up temporarily. And who knows how this season will pan out. As it is, it's the new kid on the block leading the table, while Liverpool have their first XI back. I think City are the best coached side, by a distance, but football isn't always easy to predict and knowing that Pep is off in two years or so, who knows? I don't think they'll manage this level without, I'd bet on that.
The OP (I'm sure there are other posters demanding more) isn't about returning to our rightful throne as the dominant force in...you know. It's about acknowledging that our main rivals currently play a far superior brand of football to ourselves and it's infinitely more interesting to watch than what we've seen for years and years and years. It's more intelligent, it's more committed, it's more fluid, it's more exciting. And, I believe, long-term, it leads to more success.
With Rangnick, who likes young players who can be moulded and have the energy for a progressive style, it's also more interesting as we all want to see youth given a chance, and not a chance to show what they're made of and see if they can bail a manager out of trouble, but to actually nurture them and teach them so they develop and fulfill their potential.
I think appointing Rangnick is testament to there being some brain cells behind some levers of power at OT. Easily the most promising thing to happen at the club for 8 years.