Time + blind faith = Sir Alex Ferguson.

[Chesterlestreet]

I don't even agree with the first notion.

Fair enough.

For me it's an absolute premise that the structure of this football club is fecked, so I think we're too far apart here.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

I don't even agree with the first notion. What specific structures have stopped United managers from succeeding. People just say it, but what exactly are they referring that they know for a fact? We buy players and spend a lot of money. We never publicly put pressure on managers. We don't sack them early. We almost always back them when theirs a conflict with a player ( Martial and Pogba under Mourinho are the only times this didn't happen). The only two hinderances I can think of are our inability to sell player effectively and preseason scheduling. For me, those two things should not be enough for a manager to fail.

I know fans don't want to admit this, but isn't there a good chance that the managers we paid well to do their jobs simply didn't do a good job. Moyes hasn't proved he's a great manager for a top club in 10 years. LVG was past his prime and had issues previously at other clubs ( Barcelona in 2003). Mourinho had just sunk Chelsea the previous season and hasn't proven anything since except that he can't adapt to modern football. Ole was a novice. Ten Haag is the only manager that his appointment should not have raised some questions marks. But factors like the size of the job, the pace of the league and the language barrier in communication have to be taken into account. I understand that it's easy to blame rich people who benefit financially from the club for it's failure, but on the pitch, with finances being readily available, I don't see how that translates. Barca and Juventus literally had criminals in senior management and still managed to do well in their leagues despite them tampering and buying the likes of Paulinho. We have maybe the most passive owners in football, yet somehow on pitch failings are their fault? Blame them for the state of old trafford and training facilities, not the football we play on the pitch.

Great post.

Many fans act like we operate in a silo where external influences only impact United.

You could argue that the scattergun composition of our squads will hold us back for sustained seasons but you’ve got moments like Sevilla last year or the Villareal final when the squad/team have quite simply been allowed to underachieve.

 

[Rista]

What I'm saying is that people who don't vote "sack him now" are more likely to be in the first category. The second category are just weird - and I personally haven't seen anyone actually arguing along those lines.

Yes, they would be more likely to be in the first category. It would be very concerning if they weren't! But the only reason I can think of why you haven't seen anyone from the second category is that you haven't participated much in these threads? I haven't really either and still have seen that line of reasoning time and time again. We shouldn't be sacking a manager because we've tried that before and it didn't work. "Sacking managers got us nowhere" etc etc.

 

[tjb]

It's blatantly obvious that the structure is fecked.

The fact that we had no one in a position remotely resembling a sporting director until five minutes ago, and even then, the people appointed are new to the role(s) and one has been on record basically admitting that he doesn't even do what practically every other person with his job title does, is clear evidence of that.

It was blatantly obvious that we had no concrete succession plan for Fergie, despite his advancing years and his rolling contract meaning he was fairly likely to announce a sudden retirement.

It's been blatantly obvious that we've had no sporting direction, which is how we've gone from Fergie to Moyes to LvG to Mourinho to Solskjaer to Ten Hag.

Transfers have been a weird mix of manager choice (Fellaini, Matic, etc.) and "god knows who" selections (Sanchez, Van De Beek, etc.), adding further evidence to how fecked the structure is/has been. The amount spent is irrelevant when it's obvious that it's been spent with absolutely no planning and forethought.

Again, how exactly does this affect the manager. The managers still were able to sign who they were appropriately able to sign. Sanchez was Mourinho's transfer, because he failed doesn't mean that wasn't true. VDB and Pogba are the only two transfers that I can definitively say were not the decision of, but were approved by the manager. Despite not have a sporting director, we signed players.

I'm not saying these decisions haven't affected Man United the club. But those structures are not affecting the managers ability to coach the team, or recruit players they ask for. Which is why managers we've had can't be said to have been dealing with structural failures when they've actually been the benefactors. They've been given space and time to manage, have been blessed with transfer kitty's no other club is giving outside of City, have been backed against players and yet have failed.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Yes, they would be more likely to be in the first category. It would be very concerning if they weren't! But the only reason I can think of why you haven't seen anyone from the second category is that you haven't participated much in these threads? I haven't really either and still have seen that line of reasoning time and time again. We shouldn't be sacking a manager because we've tried that before and it didn't work. "Sacking managers got us nowhere" etc etc.

Maybe there are more of those people than I have noticed, I will gladly admit that this is possible.

But I would suggest that maybe some of the people you place in that category actually belong to the other one, meaning: when you see someone post "sacking the manager will get us nowhere", they actually mean: "sacking the manager will get us nowhere because we have a fundamental problem which transcends the manager".

Have you seen many posters who actually, literally say that not sacking the manager is the right thing to do because...no matter who the manager is, he will eventually come good (the trick is just to let him go about his business long enough)?

I doubt that.

You may have seen (and I may have missed) posters who are convinced ETH is some sort of "saviour", who will turn the ship around regardless of the structure: as in, he's actually Fergie Mk. 2. But that too is different from being against sacking the manager on general principle - it's more of a (delusional, I would say) belief in a particular manager.

 

[Alex99]

Again, how exactly does this affect the manager. The managers still were able to sign who they were appropriately able to sign. Sanchez was Mourinho's transfer, because he failed doesn't mean that wasn't true. VDB and Pogba are the only two transfers that I can definitively say were not the decision of, but were approved by the manager. Despite not have a sporting director, we signed players.

I'm not saying these decisions haven't affected Man United the club. But those structures are not affecting the managers ability to coach the team, or recruit players they ask for. Which is why managers we've had can't be said to have been dealing with structural failures when they've actually been the benefactors. They've been given space and time to manage, have been blessed with transfer kitty's no other club is giving outside of City, have been backed against players and yet have failed.

Of course they affect the managers.

The managers shouldn't be given carte-blanche to sign whoever they want, and considering we've only just appointed a DoF (who doesn't even seem to be fully doing the typical DoF job), then who exactly was signing the other players? Multiple managers have gone on record saying they didn't get the players they wanted.

The fact is that the managers have been let down by the lack of structure. Moyes came in and the lack of structure allowed him to gut the backroom staff and bring his own people in, as well as bin the transfer targets the club had in favour of spending all summer chasing Fellaini and Baines.

LvG came in and the lack of structure saw yet another complete overhaul of staff, but also an overly ruthless gutting of the squad alongside a host of scattergun signings and a completely new style of football.

Mourinho then came in, inherited a squad made up of players signed by three different managers (and Luke Shaw and Ander Herrera who were signed when we didn't even have one) and brought with him another massive shift in style of football. Masses of money were spent on ill-suited signings, one of which we swapped for another terrible signings after a year and a half, all while Mourinho publicly complained about a) not being able to get rid of players he no longer wanted and b) not being able to sign players he did want.

Solskjaer was brought in on a temporary basis, bringing yet another lurch in style, then the obvious lack of planning saw him given the job permanently, and it's since been revealed that he also wasn't allowed to sign his own targets, and that he was limited to just three or four senior signings per season regardless of cost or the needs in the squad. It goes without saying that again, the squad has been assembled completely haphazardly under different managers.

Now it's Ten Hag, another shift in style, still no real direction despite the apparent appointments of a DoF and Technical Director, a mess of a squad, etcetera, etcetera.

These structures (or lack thereof) quite clearly affect a manager's ability to do his job properly. That's not to say we've made good appointments (which in itself is a structural issue) or that Ten Hag is indeed good enough, but to boil it down to "well they got to sign some players, didn't they?" ignores the glaring issues around recruitment and the knock on effects that has on the quality of the squad its suitability for the manager (who should at least be in the same ballpark as his predecessor when it comes to style of play). It doesn't matter how much a squad cost to assemble or what wages the players are on if they're not suited to the style of play or, in some cases, simply not good enough, which is why blindly waving in the general direction of our (ever dwindling) transfer budget is completely missing the point.

The managers haven't been "given space and time to manage" either. That's a mad argument. Moyes was gone within a season, LvG won us a cup but was binned for not achieving top four after just two, Mourinho was sacked before the halfway point of his third season, same for Solskjaer, and now Ten Hag's facing similar pressure before the halfway point of his second season.

Three of the four post-Fergie managers have been sacked mid-season, and that's looking very likely to become four from five this season. That's not "time and space to manage" at all. That's a P45 ready and waiting as soon as you slip.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I think when people talk about "the structure", sometimes they are talking about an actual structure (which is the appropriate use of the word) and sometimes they are talking about the people who are hired at the club.

I don't think the actual structure matters as much as the people hired at the club.

 

[wolvored]

It was a different time and when Fergie took over Utd were still the richest club in the country and 90% of players would have crawled to play for us. He had phenominal success at Aberdeen, bursting the big two monopoly and happened to be in the right place at the right time. It still took him a major rebuild and 4 seasons before we won a trophy.
Put it this way if Fergie was around as a young manager, anytime in the last 10 years, he would have been sacked after 2/3 seasons.

 

[T_Model101]

I was googling today about Fergies 3rd season at the club, when we finished mid table after a 2nd place finish the season before.
Obviously the game has changed, but at no point during that season were we thrashed multiple times whilst Sir Alex sold the players he knew were not up to task
It was mainly 1 or 2 goal defeats

 

[Red in STL]

It was a different time and when Fergie took over Utd were still the richest club in the country and 90% of players would have crawled to play for us. He had phenominal success at Aberdeen, bursting the big two monopoly and happened to be in the right place at the right time. It still took him a major rebuild and 4 seasons before we won a trophy.
Put it this way if Fergie was around as a young manager, anytime in the last 10 years, he would have been sacked after 2/3 seasons.

Without question and the CAF would have been on his back way before then!

 

[Alex99]

I think when people talk about "the structure", sometimes they are talking about an actual structure (which is the appropriate use of the word) and sometimes they are talking about the people who are hired at the club.

I don't think the actual structure matters as much as the people hired at the club.

They're part of the same thing. You hire people within a structure. An effective structure allows the people hired the best chance to do their jobs well. United clearly don't have that, and haven't for at least a decade.

 

[ElDiabloRojo]

August 2034 - Man Utd sign Bellingham from Real Madrid and give him a 4 year deal on 1.75m a week. " Was my dream to come here and to work with Bruno Fernandez and his coaching staff".

Joking aside, let's give ETH this season at least and decide then. No point changing manager at this stage, season is almost finished and Sir Jimmy is in the door soon and will change everything bad within the club ;-)

 

[tjb]

Of course they affect the managers.

The managers shouldn't be given carte-blanche to sign whoever they want, and considering we've only just appointed a DoF (who doesn't even seem to be fully doing the typical DoF job), then who exactly was signing the other players? Multiple managers have gone on record saying they didn't get the players they wanted.

The fact is that the managers have been let down by the lack of structure. Moyes came in and the lack of structure allowed him to gut the backroom staff and bring his own people in, as well as bin the transfer targets the club had in favour of spending all summer chasing Fellaini and Baines.

LvG came in and the lack of structure saw yet another complete overhaul of staff, but also an overly ruthless gutting of the squad alongside a host of scattergun signings and a completely new style of football.

Mourinho then came in, inherited a squad made up of players signed by three different managers (and Luke Shaw and Ander Herrera who were signed when we didn't even have one) and brought with him another massive shift in style of football. Masses of money were spent on ill-suited signings, one of which we swapped for another terrible signings after a year and a half, all while Mourinho publicly complained about a) not being able to get rid of players he no longer wanted and b) not being able to sign players he did want.

Solskjaer was brought in on a temporary basis, bringing yet another lurch in style, then the obvious lack of planning saw him given the job permanently, and it's since been revealed that he also wasn't allowed to sign his own targets, and that he was limited to just three or four senior signings per season regardless of cost or the needs in the squad. It goes without saying that again, the squad has been assembled completely haphazardly under different managers.

Now it's Ten Hag, another shift in style, still no real direction despite the apparent appointments of a DoF and Technical Director, a mess of a squad, etcetera, etcetera.

These structures (or lack thereof) quite clearly affect a manager's ability to do his job properly. That's not to say we've made good appointments (which in itself is a structural issue) or that Ten Hag is indeed good enough, but to boil it down to "well they got to sign some players, didn't they?" ignores the glaring issues around recruitment and the knock on effects that has on the quality of the squad its suitability for the manager (who should at least be in the same ballpark as his predecessor when it comes to style of play). It doesn't matter how much a squad cost to assemble or what wages the players are on if they're not suited to the style of play or, in some cases, simply not good enough, which is why blindly waving in the general direction of our (ever dwindling) transfer budget is completely missing the point.

The managers haven't been "given space and time to manage" either. That's a mad argument. Moyes was gone within a season, LvG won us a cup but was binned for not achieving top four after just two, Mourinho was sacked before the halfway point of his third season, same for Solskjaer, and now Ten Hag's facing similar pressure before the halfway point of his second season.

Three of the four post-Fergie managers have been sacked mid-season, and that's looking very likely to become four from five this season. That's not "time and space to manage" at all. That's a P45 ready and waiting as soon as you slip.

Again, every manager has to play with players signed by other managers. That's not new, every manager has to work with that. Watching City transition to Pep conflates people's thinking in regards to this. Every club hires the best manager available to them. They try to sign good players who fit the holes in their squads.

Every manager wants physically strong players with good technical ability. Acting like switching from one manager to another means you have to completely switch the profile of who you're signing isn't really honest and the idea that this completely stops you from playing good football is a joke. No manager comes in having 100 percent of the squad or profile they want. Part of their job is ensuring that they attain and train players for that purpose. it's a massive cop out that fans have allowed.

For me, I believe the poor structure is relevant when discussing the managers we hire and keep, not as much in the recruitment process. We don't evaluate managers when their on the job, give them too much leeway to do what they'd like to do and keep them long enough to see the squad completely decimated. It's the managers complaining about this that actually cause the issue in the first place. They all have the opportunity to get good players to fit their systems. There's no way anyone can believe Ed Woodward scouted and forced Mourinho to get Bailly and Lindelof. Yet the same Mourinho comes back and tells us he would have loved to have signed a defender like Maguire after he left. Van Gaal got Di Maria, treated him like crap, played him wrongly, then comes back to say he wasn't supported. I don't buy our recruitment process testing on club structures. The club overpaid to please these managers; even if we say they should not have done that, absolving the cretins that are the managers the requested those transfers in the first place should be fair. But again, it's easier to blame someone there's no connection to than a manager you see every 3 days.

 

[Alex99]

Again, every manager has to play with players signed by other managers. That's not new, every manager has to work with that. Watching City transition to Pep conflates people's thinking in regards to this. Every club hires the best manager available to them. They try to sign good players who fit the holes in their squads.

Every manager wants physically strong players with good technical ability. Acting like switching from one manager to another means you have to completely switch the profile of who you're signing isn't really honest and the idea that this completely stops you from playing good football is a joke. No manager comes in having 100 percent of the squad or profile they want. Part of their job is ensuring that they attain and train players for that purpose. it's a massive cop out that fans have allowed.

For me, I believe the poor structure is relevant when discussing the managers we hire and keep, not as much in the recruitment process. We don't evaluate managers when their on the job, give them too much leeway to do what they'd like to do and keep them long enough to see the squad completely decimated. It's the managers complaining about this that actually cause the issue in the first place. They all have the opportunity to get good players to fit their systems. There's no way anyone can believe Ed Woodward scouted and forced Mourinho to get Bailly and Lindelof. Yet the same Mourinho comes back and tells us he would have loved to have signed a defender like Maguire after he left. Van Gaal got Di Maria, treated him like crap, played him wrongly, then comes back to say he wasn't supported. I don't buy our recruitment process testing on club structures. The club overpaid to please these managers; even if we say they should not have done that, absolving the cretins that are the managers the requested those transfers in the first place should be fair. But again, it's easier to blame someone there's no connection to than a manager you see every 3 days.

The managers and players should all fit a similar profile that works towards the same footballing style/vision. This is the point you're repeatedly missing about the importance of structure.

United haven't had any clear direction. City spent years preparing for the arrival of Guardiola, and a large part of that was how they shaped the squad before his arrival. Even then, he only managed fourth on GD and third (a long way off first) in his first two seasons. A major difference is that he was allowed to bin players that weren't working out and sign replacements until they did. Our managers have repeatedly had to put square pegs in round holes.

Of course the players matter. It's why some players shine in one system and look utter shite in others.

The point isn't simply "players signed by other managers" but instead "players signed for a different system".

You also have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the recruitment process should work and are still banging on about the money spent. I don't think Woodward was scouting players, but it seems a near certainty that he was given a whiff of the availability of certain players and just went ahead and signed them, regardless of what the manager wanted. The Di Maria signing is a prime example of that.

To be clear, a good structure outlines a clear vision for the style of football the team should be playing and identifies a manager and players that are able to deliver on it.

If a manager fails to deliver, his replacement should still be within the profile outlined. This means the squad should be suitable and not in need of significant overhaul.

At Manchester United, there is no vision. There is no structure. A manager is brought in doing one thing, signing players to do that thing, fails and gets sacked, and then a replacement is brought that wants to do something entirely different. The players aren't suitable, so some are sold and some new ones are brought in, but the squad still isn't there to properly deliver. Now he's been fired and the new manager wants to do something different again. The cycle repeats. Along the way some players are brought in that no manager wanted. The squad gets more and more disjointed.

Look at Brighton. They lost a manager and didn't miss a beat. They lose key players and don't miss a beat. The football they play has barely changed, if at all. The club has a vision and a structure to support it.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

The managers and players should all fit a similar profile that works towards the same footballing style/vision.

The issue with this claim, where people have disagreements, is what "similar" means.

Samuel Eto'o won a treble at Barcelona with Pep Guardiola, and then moved to Mourinho's Inter, where he also won a treble. David Villa and Luis Suarez both won La Liga titles playing for Barcelona and Atletico. Xabi Alonso was the key midfielder in Mourinho's Real Madrid and then moved to Guardiola's Bayern. Cesc Fabregas was successful at Arsenal under Wenger, then had a good stint at Chelsea, under Mourinho iirc. There are many other examples like these.

The idea of having some kind of 'vision' is fine... the dubious part is the idea that this vision is so narrow that one manager can't use the other manager's players. That a player's skillset is so limited that there are few places they'd ever fit. It's just not true!

City spent years preparing for the arrival of Guardiola, and a large part of that was how they shaped the squad before his arrival. Even then, he only managed fourth on GD and third (a long way off first) in his first two seasons.

This example is wrong. Guardiola won the league with 100 points in his second season.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

Has anyone actually said they have blind faith in ETH? I think most people have faith in him because of his time at Ajax.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

The issue with this claim, where people have disagreements, is what "similar" means.

Samuel Eto'o won a treble at Barcelona with Pep Guardiola, and then moved to Mourinho's Inter, where he also won a treble. David Villa and Luis Suarez both won La Liga titles playing for Barcelona and Atletico. Xabi Alonso was the key midfielder in Mourinho's Real Madrid and then moved to Guardiola's Bayern. Cesc Fabregas was successful at Arsenal under Wenger, then had a good stint at Chelsea, under Mourinho iirc. There are many other examples like these.

The idea of having some kind of 'vision' is fine... the dubious part is the idea that this vision is so narrow that one manager can't use the other manager's players. That a player's skillset is so limited that there are few places they'd ever fit. It's just not true!



This example is wrong. Guardiola won the league with 100 points in his second season.

Those players you mentioned were among the best in their position in the world. They're exactly the kind of player that would be able to play multiple systems. At Man Utd right now I don't think there's a single player who is among the best in their position in the world. Players like Bruno and Rashford clearly are quite limited and most people think they're our best players!

 

[tjb]

Has anyone actually said they have blind faith in ETH? I think most people have faith in him because of his time at Ajax.

I don't think his Ajax stint should give people that much faith. Almost every manager signed at a top club was good somewhere else which is why they were hired. The Eredivisie is a much smaller league and Ajax as a club are the biggest in Holland. United and the Premier League is a much different beast

 

[Thom Merrilin]

I don't think his Ajax stint should give people that much faith. Almost every manager signed at a top club was good somewhere else which is why they were hired. The Eredivisie is a much smaller league and Ajax as a club are the biggest in Holland. United and the Premier League is a much different beast

He did it in the champions league as well but I do see your point. I also personally think last season should buy him a lot of credit with the fans but I don't think most agree with me.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Those players you mentioned were among the best in their position in the world. They're exactly the kind of player that would be able to play multiple systems. At Man Utd right now I don't think there's a single player who is among the best in their position in the world. Players like Bruno and Rashford clearly are quite limited and most people think they're our best players!

I don't think this is limited to the best in the world at their positions. Those are the easiest examples because the top level managers are more easily identifiable with styles.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

I don't think this is limited to the best in the world at their positions. Those are the easiest examples because the top level managers are more easily identifiable with styles.

Fair enough, I'm struggling to come with examples of players around Rashfords level who have thrived under two different systems. At a certain point you just need top technical ability and most players in the Man Utd squad don't have it.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Fair enough, I'm struggling to come with examples of players around Rashfords level who have thrived under two different systems. At a certain point you just need top technical ability and most players in the Man Utd squad don't have it.

It's really the bigger issue with the squad, it's just quality.

If you assemble a squad with quality then it can (mostly) resist changes in style, different ideas, etc.

 

[Alex99]

The issue with this claim, where people have disagreements, is what "similar" means.

Samuel Eto'o won a treble at Barcelona with Pep Guardiola, and then moved to Mourinho's Inter, where he also won a treble. David Villa and Luis Suarez both won La Liga titles playing for Barcelona and Atletico. Xabi Alonso was the key midfielder in Mourinho's Real Madrid and then moved to Guardiola's Bayern. Cesc Fabregas was successful at Arsenal under Wenger, then had a good stint at Chelsea, under Mourinho iirc. There are many other examples like these.

The idea of having some kind of 'vision' is fine... the dubious part is the idea that this vision is so narrow that one manager can't use the other manager's players. That a player's skillset is so limited that there are few places they'd ever fit. It's just not true!



This example is wrong. Guardiola won the league with 100 points in his second season.

I got my years wrong with Pep. The general point remains though. He didn't hit the ground running despite the club preparing for his arrival and trying to shape the squad to his liking.

As for the other bit, is it a surprise that some of the world's best players have attributes that make them capable of playing in different systems?

 

[tjb]

He did it in the champions league as well but I do see your point. I also personally think last season should buy him a lot of credit with the fans but I don't think most agree with me.

Funny enough, this is what I'm struggling with. Unlike some people here, I actually do think he made progress last season and I actually think the football was good for a lot of last season. I did see patterns of play. 3 at the back, overload linkups, switches to the flanks etc. My issue with him comes down to how and why it veered away from that.

1. Changing shape - For me, this didn't make sense. A manager coming into a tough league with a large club who managed to have some playing success should not have been so willing to switch completely. Not only did his move to a 4141 ( not a 433), he proceeded to double down on the decision by signing Mason Mount. The system he tried to use didn't work in the Premier League. There were too many gaps in midfield. Our defence was overly fluid ( which in the Premier League doesn't make sense at all given the speed of play). This is why we were so easy to counter against, yet everyone blamed the players. Those weren't structures that were in play last season, yet implementing pretty much ruined our season. The cost of the decision was that we essentially wasted an opportunity to sign someone to build on the midfield he wanted. Now Casemiro and Eriksen have had an extra season to decline, Fred has been let go, and Mount can play in the midfield 2. As a club, we're hoping for Mainoo to come and save us. Eriksen and Mctominay can't cut it with the pace and power midfield's have in the league. Mctominay is pretty much a forward thinking with midfielder with no technical ability or positional sense. Eriksen is old now. He can't hang with the pace. With the money used on Mount, knowing that Eriksen wouldn't be able to sustain energy levels, we could easily have signed a player who could play in either formation. How adaptable to the Premier League are his tactics? Why did he not see and quickly resolve the issues borne from playing with fluid defenders?

2. Urgency and Recklessness - For me, the decision above was completely reckless. Someone trying to ensure success would not have made that decision when they already had some form of success. At best, they would have slowly experimented. ETH just went full swing. In addition, knowing fully well he would be doing this, he didn't really use the preseason to get the players up to speed. Fans may blame the squad for the schedule. However, even in the games and how much time players were granted, it really felt like those games weren't taken as seriously or being used to implement tactics. Players were coming into the season seemingly gassed. Either due to overtraining or not training enough, but it's clear that the wrong training strategy was used. At the top level, you cannot afford to do that. Ole did the same thing at the start of the 20/21 season. It's amateur. And in a tough league with tough managers, you can't be caught lagging. Does he understand the seriousness of the job he's taking on? Can we trust his transfers?

3. Game Management -- Again, easy to blame the players for seemingly crumbling under pressure. I see a manager who doesn't know how to adjust quickly enough, which then translates on the pitch. The reaction to change in game is slow. Our team is constantly in the wrong shape in these instances, and the man who can see the whole pitch is responsible for that. I've seen United under Ole hold onto leads and make roaring comebacks. The truth is, at the moment, we can't even properly progress the ball up the pitch. So when fans are shocked that we aren't peppering the opposition penalty box....blame the tactics. Is this him in bad form or is this what he looks like when things don't go his way?

4. Adaptability - This was one issue we also saw last season and we're seeing it again. A player get's injured and our entire game disappears. Ronaldo is up front and all of a sudden we can't dominate games. For me, it feels like we need to be perfect to get any good football from his team and a simple incident can cause such massive damage to how we play. That's scary. Teams each season experience injuries and setbacks. How would we be able to trust him to help us win major trophies if he needs perfect conditions to play good football?

These are concerns. Concerns he can answer, but ones I feel he needs to answer quickly if he is to prove he actually is the right man for the job.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

Every manager wants physically strong players with good technical ability. Acting like switching from one manager to another means you have to completely switch the profile of who you're signing isn't really honest and the idea that this completely stops you from playing good football is a joke. No manager comes in having 100 percent of the squad or profile they want. Part of their job is ensuring that they attain and train players for that purpose. it's a massive cop out that fans have allowed.

I’m not sure how anyone can disagree with the above paragraph.

 

[Fortitude]

Very good run of posts @tjb

 

[Thom Merrilin]

Funny enough, this is what I'm struggling with. Unlike some people here, I actually do think he made progress last season and I actually think the football was good for a lot of last season. I did see patterns of play. 3 at the back, overload linkups, switches to the flanks etc. My issue with him comes down to how and why it veered away from that.

1. Changing shape - For me, this didn't make sense. A manager coming into a tough league with a large club who managed to have some playing success should not have been so willing to switch completely. Not only did his move to a 4141 ( not a 433), he proceeded to double down on the decision by signing Mason Mount. The system he tried to use didn't work in the Premier League. There were too many gaps in midfield. Our defence was overly fluid ( which in the Premier League doesn't make sense at all given the speed of play). This is why we were so easy to counter against, yet everyone blamed the players. Those weren't structures that were in play last season, yet implementing pretty much ruined our season. The cost of the decision was that we essentially wasted an opportunity to sign someone to build on the midfield he wanted. Now Casemiro and Eriksen have had an extra season to decline, Fred has been let go, and Mount can play in the midfield 2. As a club, we're hoping for Mainoo to come and save us. Eriksen and Mctominay can't cut it with the pace and power midfield's have in the league. Mctominay is pretty much a forward thinking with midfielder with no technical ability or positional sense. Eriksen is old now. He can't hang with the pace. With the money used on Mount, knowing that Eriksen wouldn't be able to sustain energy levels, we could easily have signed a player who could play in either formation. How adaptable to the Premier League are his tactics? Why did he not see and quickly resolve the issues borne from playing with fluid defenders?

2. Urgency and Recklessness - For me, the decision above was completely reckless. Someone trying to ensure success would not have made that decision when they already had some form of success. At best, they would have slowly experimented. ETH just went full swing. In addition, knowing fully well he would be doing this, he didn't really use the preseason to get the players up to speed. Fans may blame the squad for the schedule. However, even in the games and how much time players were granted, it really felt like those games weren't taken as seriously or being used to implement tactics. Players were coming into the season seemingly gassed. Either due to overtraining or not training enough, but it's clear that the wrong training strategy was used. At the top level, you cannot afford to do that. Ole did the same thing at the start of the 20/21 season. It's amateur. And in a tough league with tough managers, you can't be caught lagging. Does he understand the seriousness of the job he's taking on? Can we trust his transfers?

3. Game Management -- Again, easy to blame the players for seemingly crumbling under pressure. I see a manager who doesn't know how to adjust quickly enough, which then translates on the pitch. The reaction to change in game is slow. Our team is constantly in the wrong shape in these instances, and the man who can see the whole pitch is responsible for that. I've seen United under Ole hold onto leads and make roaring comebacks. The truth is, at the moment, we can't even properly progress the ball up the pitch. So when fans are shocked that we aren't peppering the opposition penalty box....blame the tactics. Is this him in bad form or is this what he looks like when things don't go his way?

4. Adaptability - This was one issue we also saw last season and we're seeing it again. A player get's injured and our entire game disappears. Ronaldo is up front and all of a sudden we can't dominate games. For me, it feels like we need to be perfect to get any good football from his team and a simple incident can cause such massive damage to how we play. That's scary. Teams each season experience injuries and setbacks. How would we be able to trust him to help us win major trophies if he needs perfect conditions to play good football?

These are concerns. Concerns he can answer, but ones I feel he needs to answer quickly if he is to prove he actually is the right man for the job.

That's a great post. I do agree with a lot of what you're saying. This season has not been good enough in a lot of ways.

He tried the 4141 immediately last season. We had Fred/Eriksen and Bruno bombing on ahead of McT with Shaw going into midfield and it didn't work at all. It's been clear that's the system he wants to play and it seemingly isn't going to work. It's a question of whether he adapts or remains stubborn.

I think if that style of play clicks it could be amazing to watch but I doubt it ever will.

 

[ti vu]

Great post.

Many fans act like we operate in a silo where external influences only impact United.

You could argue that the scattergun composition of our squads will hold us back for sustained seasons but you’ve got moments like Sevilla last year or the Villareal final when the squad/team have quite simply been allowed to underachieve.

Moments like Sevilla last season was highlight of our squad building issue despite previously and has still been spending a good amount of money. First leg, Rashford and Shaw were out injured. Varane injured and subbed off at half time. Martial couldn't play the whole 90 minutes. Subbed Antony, Sancho, Martial off for Pellistri Elanga Weghorst.

Second leg: Bruno was suspended. Rashford and Shaw were back on the bench. Martial started but came off injured i second half after Maguire pushed a Sevilla player onto Martial during a goal. Weghorst came on, played #9 for a bit then moved to #10 position...

Two late goals in the first leg might be unlucky especially after Martinez picked up his serious injury and we played with 10 men after he left the pitch; but the underying issue is that our squad is poorly assembled.

We could win and should have won against Villarreal but tbf, their CL run the following season made a good case that they were a capable game raising team in cup competition under cup specialist manager in Emery. We were not the same level of Liverpool to have the know how to dispatch game raisers like Villarreal. When we tried to add winners who are too demanding, there was infighting because the contrast in term of mentality.

 

[JediSith]

Of course they all need time - how much time is very subjective to each, but yeah, not blind faith. I was well and truly behind EtH last season and even during the start to this one....but I don't have blind faith. He's losing me fast/if he hasn't lost me already. So much to be concerned about.

I’m in the same boat. My confidence in ETH is diminishing. Not because of results. But because of the lack of progress in playing style and he’s in game management appears to be awful at times.

I still hope he succeeds. But I don’t feel that belief I had. I realise his had injuries to key players, Martinez being out is probably a huge miss to our style of play. But even then yesterday I was watching West Ham and it was an enjoyable football match. It’s was tactically and technically very good from both sides. With United sometimes at best it’s entertaining.. but if we’re honest never is the football any good on our end.

 

[Telsim]

The entire argument is predicated on a falsehood. You can hear many people saying we will be trying something new if we keep Ten Hag now, as if the club has been whimsically hiring and sacking managers prematurely for the past decade. Which is, of course, patently untrue, and it's strange that this narrative keeps getting pushed so. "We have tried sacking managers". Well, no, we haven't actually. I'd go as far to say that sacking him now will be a shift in the paradigm instead.

While Moyes and Van Gaal did get sacked rather quickly, maybe you could even make an argument slightly too quickly, Mourinho and Ole Gunnar Solskjaer got sacked exactly when they should have been sacked or even past that point, when their positions had become completely untenable. Unless someone suggests we should have stuck with them even longer, which would be utterly ridiculous. Mourinho stayed manager for as long as he did because of his pedigree and the fact that he actually won the Europa League and finished with 81 points. But by the end he had lost the dressing room and his fate was sealed. Solskjaer's last results were abysmal and were preceded by historical drubbings. He should have been sacked immediately after the humiliation against Liverpool, and then again after City. But he stayed on and on. We had to get demolished by Watford, who then went on to get relegated!

Furthermore, we've had less managers appointed in the past decade than clubs like Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Chelsea. Have we been more successful than them? Imagine a manager at Real Madrid or Barcelona getting shit on by the other in El Clasico, sitting dead last in a Champions League group consisting of Galatasaray and Copenhagen, and being 8th in La Liga with a negative goal difference. At any of those clubs Ten Hag would be on the brink, if not sacked already. But in this club, there’s a weird cult of the manager, where you must support him to the point of blind fanaticism and zealotry. It’s as if the manager is the club. It’s bizarre, but I suspect that stems from Sir Alex Ferguson’s time, because he actually was Manchester United. Of course, there's the matter of the non-existent structure in the club, which is a massive problem, and the owners who are the overarching villains, but at the end of the day the manager is given a lot of power and money. And as such he bears the responsibility for the successes... or the lack thereof.

Remains to be seen how long Ratcliffe puts up with this. If he actually has the power to do anything about it, that is.

 

[The holy trinity 68]

The fact Moyes, van Gaal, Mourinho and Solskjear have gone on to do nothing to demonstrate they should have had more time should really kill that argument anyway.

We were right to get rid of them. It will be the same with ten Hag.

Only Mourinho had the credentials to actually be given the Man United job. LVG hadn't had a successful club career in years and the other two had won nothing of note in their career.

ETH has better credentials than both Moyes and Ole.

 

[Loon]

I was googling today about Fergies 3rd season at the club, when we finished mid table after a 2nd place finish the season before.
Obviously the game has changed, but at no point during that season were we thrashed multiple times whilst Sir Alex sold the players he knew were not up to task
It was mainly 1 or 2 goal defeats

I think that 2nd place was why I wasn't part of the "Fergie out" brigade at that time. I don't profess any footballing foresight, but I just thought 2nd was better than we had done recently (although the Ron Atkinson steamroller season when we got off to that incredible start was more exciting [and heartbreaking]).

 

[wolvored]

The managers and players should all fit a similar profile that works towards the same footballing style/vision. This is the point you're repeatedly missing about the importance of structure.

United haven't had any clear direction. City spent years preparing for the arrival of Guardiola, and a large part of that was how they shaped the squad before his arrival. Even then, he only managed fourth on GD and third (a long way off first) in his first two seasons. A major difference is that he was allowed to bin players that weren't working out and sign replacements until they did. Our managers have repeatedly had to put square pegs in round holes.

Of course the players matter. It's why some players shine in one system and look utter shite in others.

The point isn't simply "players signed by other managers" but instead "players signed for a different system".

You also have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the recruitment process should work and are still banging on about the money spent. I don't think Woodward was scouting players, but it seems a near certainty that he was given a whiff of the availability of certain players and just went ahead and signed them, regardless of what the manager wanted. The Di Maria signing is a prime example of that.

To be clear, a good structure outlines a clear vision for the style of football the team should be playing and identifies a manager and players that are able to deliver on it.

If a manager fails to deliver, his replacement should still be within the profile outlined. This means the squad should be suitable and not in need of significant overhaul.

At Manchester United, there is no vision. There is no structure. A manager is brought in doing one thing, signing players to do that thing, fails and gets sacked, and then a replacement is brought that wants to do something entirely different. The players aren't suitable, so some are sold and some new ones are brought in, but the squad still isn't there to properly deliver. Now he's been fired and the new manager wants to do something different again. The cycle repeats. Along the way some players are brought in that no manager wanted. The squad gets more and more disjointed.

Look at Brighton. They lost a manager and didn't miss a beat. They lose key players and don't miss a beat. The football they play has barely changed, if at all. The club has a vision and a structure to support it.

Good post. You can add that the players bought are given that high a wage that when a new manager comes in, hes undermined by unwanted players refusing to leave because of that.

 

[Kinky Melinky]

(Clueless opinionated kneejerkers \ The Glazers) x social media = United fan base

Surely Football Manager features in that equation somewhere no?

 

[Ish]

I’m in the same boat. My confidence in ETH is diminishing. Not because of results. But because of the lack of progress in playing style and he’s in game management appears to be awful at times.

I still hope he succeeds. But I don’t feel that belief I had. I realise his had injuries to key players, Martinez being out is probably a huge miss to our style of play. But even then yesterday I was watching West Ham and it was an enjoyable football match. It’s was tactically and technically very good from both sides. With United sometimes at best it’s entertaining.. but if we’re honest never is the football any good on our end.

Spot on yeah, and sort of where I’m at with EtH. He needs a run of games now with results and a drastic change in playing style - why we’ve regressed so badly is a mystery. Sure there’s injuries and players out of form but there should still be a semblance of coherence even in the event of adversity.

 

[Alex99]

Spot on yeah, and sort of where I’m at with EtH. He needs a run of games now with results and a drastic change in playing style - why we’ve regressed so badly is a mystery. Sure there’s injuries and players out of form but there should still be a semblance of coherence even in the event of adversity.

Is it a mystery?

How do you implement a cohesive playing style when you have key players missing through injury and are constantly having to change your starting eleven?

 

[Fortitude]

Is it a mystery?

How do you implement a cohesive playing style when you have key players missing through injury and are constantly having to change your starting eleven?

By making the entire squad play the system? Why should it be foreign to any of them?

 

[Ish]

Is it a mystery?

How do you implement a cohesive playing style when you have key players missing through injury and are constantly having to change your starting eleven?

Yeah i get that but I don’t want to come around sounding like ones just making excuses for him. After more than a year in charge and having had sufficient time/money to sign players to be able to adapt, it shouldn’t be this bad IMO. Even moreso when his signings are sitting on the bench.

But yeah, I would say we’ve seemingly suffered atrocious bad luck at the start of this season. Injuries, silly individual errors, penalties, VAR, red cards, out of form players….couldn’t make it up.

 

[AndySmith1990]

Is it a mystery?

How do you implement a cohesive playing style when you have key players missing through injury and are constantly having to change your starting eleven?

We have key players missing in defence, midfield, and attack do we? Because not a single area of the team looks coached. Not to mention a well coached squad could continue playing the same way regardless of who is misding, only to a lower standard.
The excuse that a couple players missing is the reason for the terrible performances is laughable. Nobody is buying that shit anymore

 

[Alex99]

By making the entire squad play the system? Why should it be foreign to any of them?

Because not all players are suited to the system he wants to play. It's quite different to anything our previous managers have wanted them to do.

A glaring example of this is how quickly we had to abandon playing from the keeper last season, because De Gea simply wasnt up to it. Our ability to play from the back this season has been further hampered by the injuries to Martinez and Shaw, and frequent absence of Varane. Maguire, Lindelof and Evans simply aren't up to it.

The club has let managers down with its recruitment and squad building practices for a decade at least.

Yeah i get that but I don’t want to come around sounding like ones just making excuses for him. After more than a year in charge and having had sufficient time/money to sign players to be able to adapt, it shouldn’t be this bad IMO. Even moreso when his signings are sitting on the bench.

But yeah, I would say we’ve seemingly suffered atrocious bad luck at the start of this season. Injuries, silly individual errors, penalties, VAR, red cards, out of form players….couldn’t make it up.

He shouldn't just have "his" signings though. That's a huge failing of the club that managers are identifying and choosing targets. I'm not even convinced he actually wanted Mount either. I don't think it's unreasonable to think the club had loosely identified the need for a midfielder and jumped on Mount's availability , regardless of how he suited the needs of the squad.

We have key players missing in defence, midfield, and attack do we? Because not a single area of the team looks coached. Not to mention a well coached squad could continue playing the same way regardless of who is misding, only to a lower standard.
The excuse that a couple players missing is the reason for the terrible performances is laughable. Nobody is buying that shit anymore

It's all one system. If one part is failing, it all fails. If the defense can't reliably beat a press and move the ball forward, which they can't, the midfield and attack aren't going to be receiving it to create chances.

It's also not as simple as "playing to a lower standard". We saw this during Liverpool's mid-season collapse the other year. Key players missing ruins the whole system and requires a different, temporary style that suits the available players. We're trying that now.