The United DNA that nobody who comes to manage us knows what it is

I thought Ole had a good idea and did well before the decline. Ten Hag look like he was on his way to creating a new DNA before this year.
 
Certainly lots of posters have the wrong idea about United from the mid 90's on. They think its a long ball game and therefore that's what United DNA is.

Hence the calls for "progressive and modern" tactics. Which is pretty meaningless as a result.
 
Our only consistent DNA since around 2009 is being allergic to building an actual midfield.
 
Nice write up OP, although I have a real disdain for the term DNA in a footballing sense. It's just another cringey business buzzword cooked up to keep people talking & thinking we're moving towards something. 'Core club values' is probably a more apt term but it doesn't evoke the same romanticism to keep everyone believing.

Unfortunately some of the less gifted pundits clock on to these words to try and make their arguments sound thought provoking. Thus they're more & more prevalent in the mainstream and watered down to a meaningless mess of a phrase.

Other examples of this from the top of my head were everybody talking about Philosophy during LVG's time here & that period when 'The West Ham Way' was apparently a thing but no one could explain what it was.
 
It's a nonsensical term, of course.

However, it is not a myth that United were associated with certain traits in the pre-Fergie era: youth, speed, wing play, a decidedly offensive, non-cautious approach.

And Fergie's teams reflected this too - to a considerable degree when you factor in his extreme longevity and the multiple generations he managed.

However, none of this amounts to "DNA" or anything like a consistent, deliberate approach over the decades.

United's history in what you can call the modern era is shaped in the extreme by two individual managers, not by any consistent adherence to a particular "way".

ETA To be clear, there were obvious similarities between Busby and Fergie, both the men and the eras - but that doesn't mean there was a "way" they both followed.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the obsession with united and counter attacking, every good team can score on the counter, city do it, Liverpool do it, arsenal do it.

For me the closest to how we use to play under fergie is ange ball
 
BluesJr said:
Our only consistent DNA since around 2009 is being allergic to building an actual midfield.
Click to expand...
yep. Seems like forever since weve actually had a top midfield. Never really focused on building from the middle either it seems. Always just been a hodgepodge of signings/players being played there for as long as i can remember
 
If you want to follow the supposed ‘United Way’ then surely you hire a manager which plays that style of football?
 
I started watching united consistently in the 03/04 season so if you ask me what the united DNA means to me it has nothing to do with youth (and can we please stop it, it sound pretty creepy).

To me is something more like putting your max effort and not giving up, to end up winning games even when things aren't working out and maybe that you "don't deserve".
 
Spoony said:
DNA? I think it's promoting youth players. Our playing style evolved even under Fergie, so sticking to a certain brand of football isn't what they should be concentrating on.
Click to expand...
We must be the hardest team for young players to develop at currently, have been for the last few years. We have hardly promoted anyone into first team and even the few cases we have, they've been getting limited minutes and we keep on buying new players for their positions which makes it even more miserable.
 
I always thought united DNA was winning, determination, never give up, attacking football but turns out it was mainly Fergie. Once he left we were stuck with glazer DNA.
 
Every permanent manager except LVG has made a lot of references to United's past in the post SAF era and it has become a horrible burden. There's just the sense that the club can't move on. EtH's comment about what he can and can't do here in terms of legacy and DNA has also made me think that he's not the right man for the job.

I'm a lot less annoyed by Gary Neville than a lot of the people on here but he and other United legends don't exactly help either by constantly telling us how it should be. He and Scholes ripped into LVG every week saying they don't want 'tippy tappy football' and then you had the whole thing from people like Yorke and Schmeichal saying "Ole gets the club, he has United DNA". They're paid to give their opinions which is fair enough but they're so entrenched in the good old days that it just feels we're like the Liverpool of the 90s: a club struggling with its proud history, always looking backward and never forward.
 
So apparently it doesn't exist but everyone associated with United past and present talks about it? That's strange.
 
United DNA - Passion, leave everything on the pitch and play to win. This can only happen if the players know what the heck to do. Even if you inject all the past legend's DNA's to this team they would still not know what to do.
 
Its about character and coming through to win and get the points even if you're behind late or arent playing that well. We are also used to flying wingers giving width but I think thats something people are willing to change with the times on. 3 points are still 3 points so our former players still want to see the same commitment, belief and pressure on the opposition until the very end like we used to and the "winning mentality" that led to winning titles.
 
I think everyone understands the "DNA" mantra, but no one can seem to convert their coaching style to producing outcomes that align with it.

The pressure, lack of forward planning and effective investment causes everyone to abandon their principles and become pragmatic - which causes disharmony or just causes them to make poor choices.

I'm at a bit of a loss if we need to be more dogmatic in focussing on players and a style to fit the ethos or still expect managers to be pragmatic and focus on results. I don't think we have the environment to expect both right now.
 
Agree with the opening post and agree with what others have said - the only DNA you can pin down as actually important is the pride in our youth system and wanting to win by being entertaining.

Its not exactly defining, and due to that I think Jose is the only post SAF manager where it required him to change his approach/methodology, and he didn't, and ultimately that wasn't even why he got sacked. He got sacked because he kept falling out with everyone and we looked like losing every single game.

Now ETH has been waffling about it but seems to have invented a style of play to go with it, which is basically to just go back to what Ole was doing rather than implement his own ideas, because he apparently he doesnt have the right players. This doubly makes no sense since Ole got sacked and also because ETH has signed a load of players specifically to play how HE wants the team to play. He doesn't want to play like Ajax due to having different players, but has signed multiple players who were at Ajax.

I almost feel like it's less of a burden and more of an excuse.
 
Gordon Godot said:
These threads are a waste of time, mixing all sorts of analogies. But for what its worth the long standing tradition of United back to Busby has been a belief in youth and a desire to play exciting, attacking football. Which made the appointment of the likes of Moyes, Mourinho and worst of all LVG even more baffling and none had ever done this. Its why Dave Sexton got sacked despite ending a season with a good unbeaten run, its why people loved the Doc before he was sacked for his affair. Its why Ole was given some leeway even if he refused to acknowledge the shortcoming of himself and his coaching staff. Its why ETH, clearly out of his depth with no idea what to do, will also get sacked as above all else he is serving up dire football.
Click to expand...
LvG is the only manager under whom we had a defined style of play however boring that was.
 
It’s just bullshit that the reporters feed to the new manager to big them up and then put them down when they inevitably fail to deliver on the “dna”.
 
Spoony said:
DNA? I think it's promoting youth players. Our playing style evolved even under Fergie, so sticking to a certain brand of football isn't what they should be concentrating on.
Click to expand...
This.
We had a period of 23 years where we played different styles of winning football under Fergie. I was too young to remember Busby. So Doc and occasionally Atkinson apart, we have very rarely played swashbuckling controlling football.
The Utd way is promoting youth as we have done this since 1937.
 
golden_blunder said:
Giving youth a chance and playing attacking football. It’s simple.
tactics and styles open to interpretation but producing teams who have a negative goal difference is not it
Click to expand...

This ties in with the Rashford problem though that I mentioned in another thread (I know he's not young anymore). With him being one of our own there's this pressure to give him as much of a platform for him to suceed as we can. He's now become the focal point of our team, and on the back of last season has now become undroppable. I'm pretty sure people within the club look at Rashford as the perfect example of what United is about but it's not - the player has to do their bit too.

We are basically moulding our entire style of play on his strengths, which is great when it comes off but it's fairly clear that Rashford is a confidence player and that also, teams are fairly aware at this point of his threat.

We should absolutely be giving youth a chance and you are spot on, but we shouldn't have this blind loyalty to players because they are one of our own, especially when they are part of our biggest tactical problems and heavily out of form.
 
phenry said:
I thought Ole had a good idea and did well before the decline.
Click to expand...

He shouldn't have been given the gig permanently, but Ole obviously knows something about what is required at United even if he wasn't able to deliver it himself.

(The idea - and this absolutely was an idea among idiots on here - that Ole was happy with utter mediocrity, is ridiculous.)
 
1. Attacking football.
2. Youth

Er, that’s it.

Re. 1: All our post-SAF managers have been predominantly pragmatic, as was SAF himself in his final years. That doesn’t mean that there’s been no football that’s been good to watch; even Jose managed some in his early days with us.

Re. 2: The only one to have not been afraid of playing youth was LVG, and he got generally competent performances out of a bunch of not very talented youngsters. A shame he failed at 1.
 
Woodzy said:
This ties in with the Rashford problem though that I mentioned in another thread (I know he's not young anymore). With him being one of our own there's this pressure to give him as much of a platform for him to suceed as we can. He's now become the focal point of our team, and on the back of last season has now become undroppable. I'm pretty sure people within the club look at Rashford as the perfect example of what United is about but it's not - the player has to do their bit too.

We are basically moulding our entire style of play on his strengths, which is great when it comes off but it's fairly clear that Rashford is a confidence player and that also, teams are fairly aware at this point of his threat.

We should absolutely be giving youth a chance and you are spot on, but we shouldn't have this blind loyalty to players because they are one of our own, especially when they are part of our biggest tactical problems and heavily out of form.
Click to expand...
No you’re right. The players that breakthrough need to work out for our style of play, workrate etc. if Rashford doesn’t work and is holding the team back then we need to look at a solution that would work for us
 
You must log in or register to reply here.