Time + blind faith = Sir Alex Ferguson.

[Rista]

It's all one system. If one part is failing, it all fails.

So a bad system then.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Yeah usually when there is a massive disaster that is caused by a single faulty element, it is considered a design failure and they avoid doing that in the future. It's not a virtue!

 

[Fortitude]

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.

Let's run with that and say he can't implement his ultimate system; in the interim he should have none and look devoid of contingencies?

The whole point of philosophy is that there are set of core principles to abide by, come what may. The machine might not chug along as soundly as it should, but as many of the parts that can, will maintain their optimal level.

I see the counterpoint of other teams capitulating in terms of points earned when key, elite players are out, Liverpool and Van Dijk being cited of late, but the fundamental point seems to be lost in those back and forths that whichever manager it is, doesn't suddenly turn around and bin everything his sides stand for. In Liverpool's case, the system remained, but it became leakier, which is fair enough - the vulnerability without Van Dijk in their high line was on full display, but the rest of the team didn't suddenly stop playing football, in fact, they worked harder within the system trying to make up for what then became a leaky defence. So high octane back and forths abounded.

The principle of building from the back is valid, but that does not excuse an entire midfield and attack from looking lost positionally and bereft of ideas when in full control of the game. The flank impetus is reduced a great deal without Shaw, nobody can refute that, but where is the contingency? We just abandon it? Reguilon's one and only strength is purported to be his attacking contribution, and yet? Will Spurs suddenly stop attacking as they have been because of their injuries, do you think? Or will they try to play the system the manager has instilled to lesser results? Or better to ask, will he/they now abandon everything they've stood for to recompense?

Unless you're an elite coach with the ability to be fluid from one set of principles to another, why would you veer wildly from what you stand for? A huge part of the stick he's getting is because what he's gone for, he is no expert at; it's not unfair to state Ole was better at this than him. All love to Ole, but that's damning. If you're an A or B at what you do, but only a D or E in what you're switching to... you really shouldn't switch.

It's a lot of time wasted on something that is worse than what you initially ran with; if losing some players elicits that kind of panic and doubt, there's a cause for concern. We shouldn't play worse football than everyone bar Luton and Everton at any point. It shouldn't be possible; even stripped to bare bones, the principles of the club wouldn't be to turn into the second coming of the Crazy Gang or simply stop upholding the values by which our academy players are raised.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

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.

I was a big EtH defender coming into the season but this excuse has really begun to knock that.

Very few managers walk into situations like Pep did at City, where the squad was sort of built with him in mind & to start winning needed tweaks up until we see the juggernaut they are today so the excuse that he doesn’t have the players to fit his system system simply doesn’t carry weight.

Let’s say we continue to but Antony’s & Mount’s with a tge odd sprinkling of a Martinez until he has 22 players he has bought in, what evidence do we have that the system he wants to play is going to be successful at the top end of the game?

We are not simply playing badly against the elite teams that have been expensively assembled & drilled to within an inch of their lives, we are looking incoherent at multiple levels & the manager has to take some responsibility for this.

 

[tenpoless]

Time + Blind faith also resulted in Maureen. Even after his rant we still believed in him...

 

[JimiboyX]

Modern football isn't set up for another Ferguson anyway. Ferguson's greatest strengths were squad-building and man management, but the former is now effectively done by committee at every club that is run properly and maybe the latter is arguably less significant too, in an era where the top clubs can basically just hoard tons of players and loan out the ones they don't want that season.

Closest thing these days is someone coming in with a "philosophy" that is tactically proficient and is taken to by the fans, but relies on the club's structure supporting it with the right squad. Even with a good structure, it's not easy to find a manager who can achieve that long-term. That's why so few top clubs have found anything close to a long-term manager, let alone a Ferguson. City, Liverpool and Atletico are the only 3 that spring to mind, and even the latter two have won comparatively little owing to the competition.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I see the counterpoint of other teams capitulating in terms of points earned when key, elite players are out, Liverpool and Van Dijk being cited of late

It's a misleading counterpoint, anyway.

Liverpool weren't simply missing van Dijk. For a while they had no regular center backs available. They were playing Henderson, Fabinho, Kabak (an emergency 6-month loan), and Nat Phillips.

 

[Alex99]

So a bad system then.

Yeah usually when there is a massive disaster that is caused by a single faulty element, it is considered a design failure and they avoid doing that in the future. It's not a virtue!

Not necessarily. Many systems require certain components to be functioning at some capacity to avoid total failure.

Ideally, our backup players would have a similar skillset to the starters. In reality, they don't.

Let's run with that and say he can't implement his ultimate system; in the interim he should have none and look devoid of contingencies?

The whole point of philosophy is that there are set of core principles to abide by, come what may. The machine might not chug along as soundly as it should, but as many of the parts that can, will maintain their optimal level.

I see the counterpoint of other teams capitulating in terms of points earned when key, elite players are out, Liverpool and Van Dijk being cited of late, but the fundamental point seems to be lost in those back and forths that whichever manager it is, doesn't suddenly turn around and bin everything his sides stand for. In Liverpool's case, the system remained, but it became leakier, which is fair enough - the vulnerability without Van Dijk in their high line was on full display, but the rest of the team didn't suddenly stop playing football, in fact, they worked harder within the system trying to make up for what then became a leaky defence. So high octane back and forths abounded.

The principle of building from the back is valid, but that does not excuse an entire midfield and attack from looking lost positionally and bereft of ideas when in full control of the game. The flank impetus is reduced a great deal without Shaw, nobody can refute that, but where is the contingency? We just abandon it? Reguilon's one and only strength is purported to be his attacking contribution, and yet? Will Spurs suddenly stop attacking as they have been because of their injuries, do you think? Or will they try to play the system the manager has instilled to lesser results? Or better to ask, will he/they now abandon everything they've stood for to recompense?

Unless you're an elite coach with the ability to be fluid from one set of principles to another, why would you veer wildly from what you stand for? A huge part of the stick he's getting is because what he's gone for, he is no expert at; it's not unfair to state Ole was better at this than him. All love to Ole, but that's damning. If you're an A or B at what you do, but only a D or E in what you're switching to... you really shouldn't switch.

It's a lot of time wasted on something that is worse than what you initially ran with; if losing some players elicits that kind of panic and doubt, there's a cause for concern. We shouldn't play worse football than everyone bar Luton and Everton at any point. It shouldn't be possible; even stripped to bare bones, the principles of the club wouldn't be to turn into the second coming of the Crazy Gang or simply stop upholding the values by which our academy players are raised.

Liverpool did abandon their usual style though. They weren't playing end to end, gung-ho football in attempt to preserve the core philosophy. They tried, and often failed, to sit back and hit teams on the counter. They failed to score in eight of the 14 games in that run, and lost 1-0 in five of the eight defeats. It wasn't a run of crazy 4-3 results. By and large, scorelines were low.

The club also has no philosophy. That's one of the key structural failings. The philosophy/vision/whatever you want to call it has been left up to each individual manager, so each has been wildly different, leaving a mess of a squad in its wake.

We've reverted to the same shit on a stick style every time things go wrong because that's one of very options available to the manager of a disjointed side.

I was a big EtH defender coming into the season but this excuse has really begun to knock that.

Very few managers walk into situations like Pep did at City, where the squad was sort of built with him in mind & to start winning needed tweaks up until we see the juggernaut they are today so the excuse that he doesn’t have the players to fit his system system simply doesn’t carry weight.

Let’s say we continue to but Antony’s & Mount’s with a tge odd sprinkling of a Martinez until he has 22 players he has bought in, what evidence do we have that the system he wants to play is going to be successful at the top end of the game?

We are not simply playing badly against the elite teams that have been expensively assembled & drilled to within an inch of their lives, we are looking incoherent at multiple levels & the manager has to take some responsibility for this.

Even sides with less financial clout are run better than us. They have better structures with more cohesion throughout.

We saw glimpses last season of what ETH wanted us to move towards, and when he had his best players available, it was pretty effective.

Until the club commits to a reasonably defined philosophy and structures things to support that, each manager will struggle.

It's a misleading counterpoint, anyway.

Liverpool weren't simply missing van Dijk. For a while they had no regular center backs available. They were playing Henderson, Fabinho, Kabak (an emergency 6-month loan), and Nat Phillips.

So we're clear, United have no excuse for "dropping off a cliff" when injuries have forced them into playing their fourth and fifth choice centre backs alongside a make shift left back (which in itself has been necessary because the emergency loan cover also got injured), but Liverpool are excused for the same thing after being forced into a makeshift back line?

How is it misleading to point out that the reigning champions, multiple years into the squad building and training of the philosophy, abandoned said philosophy because of an injury crisis causing the failure of one part of the system, and then performances and results dropped off a cliff?

I'm willing to accept that ETH might not be the one, I just think that a) he's earned enough credit to be given some time to turn things around and b) it's quite obvious that the ongoing injury issues are a huge mitigating factor when it comes to results/performances, and that's before you consider the plethora of off-field issues plaguing the club.

I also think it's ultimately pointless sacking him while the Glazers are still ultimately in control, not because I think he should be immune from it regardless of resuls (because eventually a bad enough run will necessitate that trigger to be pulled), but because a lack of change above him (short of us appointing an absolute miracle worker) will see us back here in 12-18 months, once again debating why this manager can't return the club to the top of English football.

 

[RoadTrip]

I hate this argument as well. SAF had achieved something incredible even before he came to United. But importantly, once at United, there was significant evidence of his impact behind the scenes that was evident to some, albeit not all.

 

[FootballHQ]

Modern football isn't set up for another Ferguson anyway. Ferguson's greatest strengths were squad-building and man management, but the former is now effectively done by committee at every club that is run properly and maybe the latter is arguably less significant too, in an era where the top clubs can basically just hoard tons of players and loan out the ones they don't want that season.

Closest thing these days is someone coming in with a "philosophy" that is tactically proficient and is taken to by the fans, but relies on the club's structure supporting it with the right squad. Even with a good structure, it's not easy to find a manager who can achieve that long-term. That's why so few top clubs have found anything close to a long-term manager, let alone a Ferguson. City, Liverpool and Atletico are the only 3 that spring to mind, and even the latter two have won comparatively little owing to the competition.

Klopp could probably do 15 years at Liverpool if he fancies it (very unlikely) as there's next to no chance of him getting sacked or the Kop turning on him.

He's already been there over 8 years and will likely make a decade, possibly the same for Guardiola although think he'll step down at end of this present deal.

 

[Alex99]

Klopp could probably do 15 years at Liverpool if he fancies it (very unlikely) as there's next to no chance of him getting sacked or the Kop turning on him.

He's already been there over 8 years and will likely make a decade, possibly the same for Guardiola although think he'll step down at end of this present deal.

I think the SAF point is less about longevity at a club, because a well run club with manager performing to or exceeding expected standards still leaves room for one to remain for a long time, and more about the manager having the sort of influence over the club that SAF had.

Modern managers aren't even necessarily responsible for the structuring of their own back room team, let alone the footballing direction of the club and the dictation of scouting and recruitment.

 

[Jeffthered]

Modern football isn't set up for another Ferguson anyway. Ferguson's greatest strengths were squad-building and man management, but the former is now effectively done by committee at every club that is run properly and maybe the latter is arguably less significant too, in an era where the top clubs can basically just hoard tons of players and loan out the ones they don't want that season.

I take your point, but I would suggest Klopp, Pep at club, and Deschamps at Intl' level all have similar approach to SAF, similar in personalities in some, fundamental ways too... all build their squad, all man-manage v v v well, all clearly have the respect of their players, all are not afraid of making big decisions, all make it v v clear how they want their respective teams should play, all are prepared to look to the youth, all are always looking progressively, how to regenerate the squad, and all place club/country over individuals.

 

[Ish]

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.



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.



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.

Agreed with you around clubs failings. Manager should never have been given this amount of power and even if he wanted Antony, a club of our stature should have had alternatives available when the asking price became ridiculous. So yeah, on him and the club. Strangely, I agree about the Mount (& to an extent Casemiro) signing(s) potentially not being EtH. What we have seen is, he generally plays his targets he signs almost immediately but with Mount it’s not been the case after a couple of starts. Like he himself is struggling to fit Mount into his plans - which is extremely weird if he’s the one who pushed for his signing. I mean, it’s left majority on this board quite puzzled.

Anyway, it’s all conjecture at this point and I doubt we’ll ever really know. At the end of the day, the manager takes accountability for results and performances. We need a turnaround (and a turnaround in luck!) quickly.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

So we're clear, United have no excuse for "dropping off a cliff" when injuries have forced them into playing their fourth and fifth choice centre backs alongside a make shift left back (which in itself has been necessary because the emergency loan cover also got injured), but Liverpool are excused for the same thing after being forced into a makeshift back line?

How is it misleading to point out that the reigning champions, multiple years into the squad building and training of the philosophy, abandoned said philosophy because of an injury crisis causing the failure of one part of the system, and then performances and results dropped off a cliff?

You are asking me to agree with a bunch of premises that I don't agree with, that's why I'm not reaching the same conclusions you do.

I do not believe that Liverpool had problems simply because they lost their backline. I believe there were other issues at play. So I do not excuse Klopp or the rest of the team for that.

In general, Klopp is not "excused" for these issues due to having to use a makeshift backline. He is "excused" for these issues because Liverpool ultimately achieved the minimum targets that season. They finished 3rd and made it to the CL quarterfinals. The longest period of time they spent outside the top 4 was 13 games, and the minimum position they reached was 8th (for a single matchday).

Klopp, and the team as a whole, are also "excused" because they reached almost 100 points in two consecutive seasons. It was understood that the level would drop.

 

[pocco]

I said this a few years ago:


https://www.redcafe.net/threads/would-you-sack-or-keep-ole-poll-reopened.450911/post-26469263


True to this day and gets worse by the year.

Just seen this post but very well put. One thing I've learnt in my time is that a lot of football supporters talk rubbish and just don't really understand what they're seeing sometimes. Not saying I'm an expert, far from it. But the point you made is extremely pertinent. We've witnessed it all first hand, good management, good players, good football etc. But people seem to have forgot what that looks like and standards are at an all time low as a result. You can lead a horse to water and all that...

 

[Alex99]

You are asking me to agree with a bunch of premises that I don't agree with, that's why I'm not reaching the same conclusions you do.

I do not believe that Liverpool had problems simply because they lost their backline. I believe there were other issues at play. So I do not excuse Klopp or the rest of the team for that.

In general, Klopp is not "excused" for these issues due to having to use a makeshift backline. He is "excused" for these issues because Liverpool ultimately achieved the minimum targets that season. They finished 3rd and made it to the CL quarterfinals. The longest period of time they spent outside the top 4 was 13 games, and the minimum position they reached was 8th (for a single matchday).

Klopp, and the team as a whole, are also "excused" because they reached almost 100 points in two consecutive seasons. It was understood that the level would drop.

This is not the argument you've been making though.

You refuted the point that injuries are an obvious mitigating factor when it comes to performances and results by saying "struggle yes, but not drop off a cliff". The implication here being that six wins in 11 is not good enough in an ongoing injury crisis.

It was pointed out to you that Liverpool dropped off a cliff, mid-season, as reigning champions, with a mitigating factor being injuries.

You then said it wasn't injuries, but tiredness, which makes little sense given the drop off happened 15 games in and was recovered without any break to get over said tiredness. You even went on to later highlight the extent of their injury problems at this time. Regardless of the reasons, the fact is that Liverpool's drop off was three wins in 14, and a total of 12 points from a possible 42.

This isn't about whatever credit respective managers have/had in the bank.

This is about whether the injuries, particularly a number in the same positon, are a mitigating factor when it comes to judging performances and results, which they clearly are. You have essentially acknowledged as much yourself by highlighting how Liverpool were forced into playing backup defenders and midfielders in their back line (something United have been forced to do).

If anything, United's drop-off from third last season to the stuttering start now is less stark than Liverpool's that season as they were reigning champions, sat top of the league, and fresh off the back of a 7-0 win when it began. Liverpool were also multiple years into their structure/philosophy/vision/whatever you want to call it. United still don't seem to have one.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

You then said it wasn't injuries, but tiredness.

I did not.

I said a drop off is expected after two consecutive years of performing at a very high level. That is not because of exhaustion necessarily.

given the drop off happened 15 games in and was recovered without any break to get over said tiredness. You even went on to later highlight the extent of their injury problems at this time. Regardless of the reasons, the fact is that Liverpool's drop off was three wins in 14, and a total of 12 points from a possible 42.

This is not a given.

Liverpool began 'dropping off' in the season they won the title in. They won all but one of the first 28 games. Then they slowed down quite heavily and drew 2 and lost 3, including a 4-0 defeat to Manchester City. They continued to be inconsistent in 20/21, getting beat 7-2 by Aston Villa and having difficulties winning more than two games in a row. Then they had an even worse run in which they lost almost every game.

It was not a sudden quick drop because of an injury. Liverpool were trending down long before that.

 

[Red in STL]

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]).

I still don't know how we blew that one!

 

[Red in STL]

Time + Blind faith also resulted in Maureen. Even after his rant we still believed in him...

Speak for yourself, I was never in in favor of his being our manager and I knew it was going to end in tears

 

[ElDiabloRojo]

I still don't know how we blew that one!

Robson got injured I think and it fell apart.

I loved that team when I was a kid.

 

[Alex99]

I did not.

We've been having this discuss across two threads, and your insinuation was that performing very well for two seasons meant drop off was inevitable.

There's a marked difference between not being able to chase high 90s points totals and dropping 30 points in 14 games, so if injuries weren't to blame for that, what exactly caused such a large drop off if not tiredness?

 

[The Mitcher]

Cult mentality the thread.

 

[FootballHQ]

I think the SAF point is less about longevity at a club, because a well run club with manager performing to or exceeding expected standards still leaves room for one to remain for a long time, and more about the manager having the sort of influence over the club that SAF had.

Modern managers aren't even necessarily responsible for the structuring of their own back room team, let alone the footballing direction of the club and the dictation of scouting and recruitment.

Yes the culture is difference but in terms of circumstances there's still space for managers to stay nearly a decade at one club in present football if they are elite and there's that attachment with the fanbase as you see with Klopp and Guardiola.

Pochettino at Spurs might've been another but it all feel apart after they lost the CL final. He still did over 5 years there.

Simeone just agreed new deal at Atletico so he's probably going to be their coach for 15 + years which must be a modern record in Spain?

 

[Loon]

Robson got injured I think and it fell apart.

I loved that team when I was a kid.

Yup, I will always have great affection for that United side. Played great football too.