fecking hell, you should have posted link to your previous post. Same points again and again when they are clearly wrong.
Good day.
The Mourinho Thread: Should he stay or go? | Sacked
- Thread starter Livewire1974
- Start date
- Status
fecking hell, you should have posted link to your previous post. Same points again and again when they are clearly wrong.
Good day.
If Im saying the same thing again and again, what do you think youre doing?
Reading nonsense again and again.
It's actually very easy to pick three duds in a row when you decide to give too much time and end up with all the upcoming top candidates already taken.
Don't even need to qualify it. Making three bad choices is pretty easy to do no matter the circumstances.
No idea why people can't square this in their mind.
I know but by qualifying it I narrow the context. If circumstances exclude the current best performing managers, you are likely to not have one of the current best manager.
It’s not that people can’t square it in their mind, it’s mainly that we’ve now gone through three managers without getting anywhere close to another PL title. You can make bad choices but still remain competitive. Chelsea seem to be able to do this routinely, Liverpool got close to a title under a few of their managerial merry go rounds and under less prestigious managers. We’ve been nowhere close. Not even last season when we finished 2nd.
The club as a whole has failed spectacularly since SAF’s retirement.
We could have had klopp if ed had pulled the trigger on moyes sooner. We could have had ancelotti if ed had pulled the trigger on lvg sooner. We could have even given the jobs to giggs, or some other up and comer. And of course the best one, we could have had pep but we got moyes. Says it all, doesnt it?
They're not necessarily duds. Just not long-term appointments.
Tbh, I don't blame Woodward for selecting Jose, because at that time nobody else was available and it seemed like a short-term fix would suit us. We gambled on the fact that Jose's second season at Chelsea was a one-off. Sadly, it seems like he really has lost something that made him so successful.
I mean that's what people are telling you, the issue was mainly timing. It's because we followed the logic of "we are not a sacking club" that we ended up with a limited amount of good candidates. Clubs hire bad managers all the time, technically Bayern are with the second bad hiring in a row if you exclude their official caretaker aka Heynckes, Dortmund hired two bad managers in a row before getting Favre, Liverpool didn't change their structure hired a plethora of duds and a favorable timing landed them Klopp, Juventus hired a lot of duds after Deschamps.
The only rule to follow is to not cling onto an under performing manager.
You can obviously get things wrong a couple of times in a row (or even three, if we blame Woody for Moyes – which is dubious), but that’s not the real issue here. There is no apparent grand scheme at United, no so-called vision: it’s all about hiring an individual who then either floats or sinks as a result of his own methods and preferences. The only semblance of an overarching “plan” in the Woodward era has been to recruit big names on insane wages. There is zero indication that anyone at the club – beyond the manager – has an idea about what sort of football we should ideally play, what type of players we should target, etc.
That’s the upside to a DoF. Not that he magically brings in better players and better football – but that part and parcel of his job is to make sure that the club’s “philosophy” comes first (not that of whoever happens to be the manager).
You need a half-decent “philosophy” to begin with, of course. But surely it can’t be impossible for United to come up with this: hire someone with ties to the club to outline a long-term policy on playing style, player profiles, etc. Then hire a DoF and charge him with carrying out said policy. It won’t guarantee a thing – but it would make some sense (unlike a scatter gun approach).
That’s the upside to a DoF. Not that he magically brings in better players and better football – but that part and parcel of his job is to make sure that the club’s “philosophy” comes first (not that of whoever happens to be the manager).
You need a half-decent “philosophy” to begin with, of course. But surely it can’t be impossible for United to come up with this: hire someone with ties to the club to outline a long-term policy on playing style, player profiles, etc. Then hire a DoF and charge him with carrying out said policy. It won’t guarantee a thing – but it would make some sense (unlike a scatter gun approach).
So we should have gotten rid of SAF in 90s then? I tired argument, I know, but still true. Why are we willing to give ed more time, but not jose? Surely a european cup win in his first year earned more good will than hiring moyes?
If your gripe is with Ed, https://www.redcafe.net/threads/ed-woodward-2018-19.440605/page-105, there's your thread.
If you have an opinion on "this thread title", post it here, rather than having a go at others and drifting the thread off topic. you have actually added nothing with regards to this thread in the last few pages.
If the board considered that he was under performing then yes, he could have been sacked. But in that context the question is ridiculous because SAF was hired in November 1986 after the sacking of Atkinson because he was under performing.
And in this thread I don't care about Woodward being sacked or not.
He was under performing. a 13th season finish in his 4th year. 11th place finish in his 3rd year. 2 years later we were winning everything and the rest is history.
I’ve said this extensively but I’ll repeat it again. As a club United have been successful (a PL title) under THREE managers in our entire history. The club has had TWENTY TWO managers in our history. How on earth can it be hard for people to understand that it is very easy to hire multiple duds in a row.
You keep distracting the thread and contribute nothing in regards to the thread. If you think Ed needs to go, then take your opinions elsewhere. You have gone as as far as saying that you don't care whether Jose stays and yet spew shit in here.
Put me on ignore mr sensitive, and be sure to print out the original post I was replying to that blamed jose for money related issues and roll up into a ball and shove up you arse. Dont want me talking about ed, dont blame jose for shit ed is in charge of.
Learn to read before you go an rant. You can say what ever you want. Just keep it in relevant threads. That's how a forum works.
The issue here is that you seem to not consider the fact that maybe SAF was the key factor, the reason he wasn't sacked was because he kept the trust of the key members of the board and his future success was down to his abilities, not time. The other issue is that you are making the point that SAF shouldn't have been hired.
Apparently its not how you work Its pretty simple, should jose go now? No, and heres why. Its relevant whether you like it or not.
Well seeing as Jose has never needed longer than a season or two to get his team playing the way he wants. Despite all that's spent Utd are 8th, worse off than even Moyes.
With Van Gaal you could atleast feel his style may of taken a few years longer and I was firmly VG Out, Jose style is the opposite it does wonders in the short term and then things always fall apart largely due to the man himself and at the fecking end of the day, what's the point in keeping Mourinho if the results aren't coming? The style of play isn't going to improve, he's not going out of his way to promote youth when most of the first teamers/ squaddies were fecking garbage.
Even if he stabilises and gets Utd consistent the drama will continue, the football will still be shite and he'll gladly sign some workhorse over any technical players.
In regards to ED, he needs to step down from the football side and hire a D.O.F or something, he's done a great job with the commercial side though.
Fab word, never heard anyone in real life actually say this, bravo
Which is it and what does it mean?
What he said means that you are talking in your sleep. What I suggested he meant, was that you were doing a monologue. From the dramatic arts (think Shakespear): soliloquy, which basically means speaking to yourself (monologue), which is for the audience as opposed to speaking to the other characters in the play (him). I mean, if you’re going to be a smartass, do it properly.
Last edited:
People complaining about us hiring just need someone/somehwere else to target for blame. The world's most successful club are that successful because they've probably hired the most duds in the history of football. Only difference is unlike us they don't keep the duds till the season ends for some stupid reason. This is fully on Ed, thought he would have learnt his lesson after the first two but apparently he hasn't. Well keep Jose till the season ends...and still sack him. It's annoying as hell
And since Jose hasnt gone yet, we can assume the same thing. It seems the conversation keeps shifting. So lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
And you could argue that he had a much better relationship with the management to get the things done that he wanted/needed. The DOF at inter gave him everything he wanted without question and look how that turned out. Ed second guesses, and IMO thats why jose should go yet.
This has been done to death in the past but it probably needs stating again: the fact that our most successful manager succeeded because he was given an abundance of time is no guarantee at all that managers who follow him will do the same. In fact I'd argue the majority of managers who don't do well a club happen to fail because they just aren't very good, not because they've not been given the time. SAF, in that respect, was an outlier. He is an indicator that football can be a surprising game and that we shouldn't make absolute presumptions, but at the same time his success after an extended period of struggling shouldn't be used to defend a manager failing currently.
Plus the game's changed. Player power is more prevalent - in the vast majority of cases I'd argue a manager who has fully lost the dressing room ultimately needs to go, irrespective of what he's done before, because there's generally little recovering after that unless you want to scrap your entire team.
And I never said anything close to that, so you are the only one shifting this conversation.
I'm not going to defend Ed here but part of why Mourinho was trusted at Inter was because he ultimately bought wisely, and won trophies. A club's obviously going to be a lot more keen on giving their manager complete autonomy when he's winning them everything. That's not been the case for Jose here. Although I do think we need to be more structured and clear in how much autonomy a manager's being given - if Woodward doesn't trust Jose to make signings, and doesn't have someone in whose job it is to make signings, I'm not sure why he persists with Mourinho as manager.
No use in keeping a manager if you are not going to back him in transfer market. It's bad management by the board more so.
There are few clubs Mourinho hasn't fallen out with someone, even Mourinhos time at Inter he couldn't stop falling out with people and lets be honest here, the Mourinho we have is far away from the Mourinho that was at Chelsea 04/05, Porto and Inter.
I'd back Mourinho if he'd gone out of his way and tried his best to make something of this season "from the start" instead of giving up, throwing a tantrum and practically sabotaging this season. Instead of attacking the youth, the Utd players, the board constantly. Gone and tried to make something of the season with what he had, if he then failed he could then go, I tried my best but ED Woodies a fecking cnut and if he had backed me, this season might of been different.
Instead this season is looking to be one of our worst despite all the money spent and having 3 years, theres virtually no progress, constant drama, shite football and results.
Picking duds is a natural consequence of the line of thinking:
"We've just had xxxxx as our manager. Next, we need to have someone completely different"
Moyes failed because he could never get the dressing room on his side. He was like your mum's new boyfriend after your dad left home. The first post-Fergie appointment was always going to be doomed to failure regardless of his pedigree. Then, following his inevitable sacking, the board picked up on the idea that Moyes hadn't won anything before and that he played a very British brand of football.
That led on to LvG - the exact opposite of Moyes - who had won a lot and played a continental brand of football. But LvG was an idealist who put his philosophy ahead of getting results and winning trophies. He eventually failed.
That led on to Mourinho - the exact opposite of LvG - who was an arch-pragmatist and a serial winner. But he's struggled to impose his style on the squad too. The question is "why?"
The answer goes back to the original problem of trying to pick a new manager based on the fact he's the opposite of the previous one. That's mental and the biggest lack of leadership from the board they could possibly have done. Moyes took on a squad and tried to mould it in a totally different vision from SAF. That was too much change. LvG tried to go from his predecessor's direct wingplay to possession based football. That was too much change. Mourinho has tried to go from his predecessor's possession based football to a compact counterattacking style with captains in all 11 positions. That also seems doomed to failure. You can't now ask the next manager to re-write the squad's DNA again.
If we're going to learn anything from the last 5 years, it's not to try and undo all the work of the previous manager. Just like Guardiola and Klopp took over squads that were suited to their own systems, we need to pick a manager who shares a philosophy with Jose. It's madness to attempt a massive over-correction with every new manager. We'll just end up taking one step back followed by one step forward followed by one step back, ad infinitum.
tl;dr someone like Simeone is the choice an intelligent board would make.
My original post was to say that Ed is in charge of making the deals that jose was being blamed for. Since then Ive had about 4 to 6 different people move the goal posts on that all over the place. Now Ive got some knob telling me "Im not being relevant" to the topic. So Ill ask you, does Jose make the deals for players? Does he set the price we pay? No, thats Eds job, right? So why am I still here taking shit from multiple different angels? People dont want to me contribute, maybe they should stop replying to me, no?
Trouble is, Mourinho style football is currently very niche. There’s Simeone and...?
Meanwhile Klopp, Pep and Sarri, and to a lesser degree Poch and Emery, could play their style of football with each other’s squads. Most up and coming managers play some variation on those themes. Strong argument then to get on that particular boat.
Cant disagree with any of that.
Sabotaging the season is a bit strong dont you think? Jose is a bad loser, we all know this. Why would he go out of his way to lose on purpose?
But dont you think the opposite is also true? Jose has blown up at almost every club in his third year, does that mean he absolutely will here? You could argue he has, but IMO hes modified himself heavily in the past month or more. Remember when everyone said he threw everyone under the bus all the time? He hasnt done that for a long time. Against city he defended the team. So whos to say he cant turn things around? Just to be clear, Im not saying he will or wont, just that he can. And seeing as theres a possabilty to turn things around, why not let him? Unless theres someone else waiting in the wings who can do a better job of course.
Got nothing?Thought so
- Status