Looking at the media as well as this board, I think realistically Solskjær is going to have to deliver very, very strong results to overcome doubters.
There is now a smothering narrative about amateurishness and naivety from which people won't easily step back. Just look at the coverage in The Guardian for example, with Barney Ronay's arrogant rubbish leading the way. That's going to matter no matter how unreasonable and badly founded it is.
It's like everyone held their breath for a little bit and reminded themselves that patience was needed, and now they've run out of breath and have forgotten all about that and suddenly United has to not only contend for and win titles, they have to do so by obliterating the opposition consistently and in an entertaining fashion. If they don't, Solskjær is obviously an idiot.
It's enough to make you despair of mankind when you look, for instance, at what is written about Chelsea compared to what is written about United. United is spoken about as if they have performed way below expectation, and are standing at the foot of the precipice. Sky Sports wrote after the City game that the result at least "arrested the slide". "Slide"? They had four straight PL victories ahead of that game. What "slide" would that be?
Chelsea on the other hand is being talked about in glowing terms as a title contender. Fixed their defensive issues, made great signings - and above all, being guided towards dominance by an exciting, promising English manager whose previous experience is, er, Derby County. Whereas United is being guided by some nonentity who, apart from a previous stint in the PL, has only worked in some yobbo league on the outskirts of Europe.
How is that, though? They finished behind United last season. So far this season, they have yet to string together more than three consecutive wins in the PL, compared to United's four. Their average points taken is 1.8, same as United. Their record against top teams (Liverpool, City, United, Chelsea, Tottenham, Leicester) is 0-2-1, same as United. And unlike United, they lost their last PL game. All this with a better and deeper squad than we have. So what exactly has Frank Lampard achieved that OGS hasn't? How has his team been more consistent, or better? Why is OGS on the brink, while the issue isn't even remotely on the horizon for Lampard?
And another thing. The 0-0 Manchester derby was a shameful and awful performance indicative of grave issues with both teams, while the 0-0 Tottenham-Chelsea game wasn't?
Here's what the BBC wrote about that game:
Tottenham returned to the top of the Premier League despite being held by Chelsea in a highly-competitive yet goalless London stalemate.
The eagerly-anticipated fixture between two teams in excellent form failed to produce a goal as both sides cancelled each other out at Stamford Bridge.
And this is what the BBC wrote about the Manchester derby, under the heading "Absence of fans felt in soulless, dismal Manchester derby":
Any fans who wished they could be here might have been swiftly put off by the over-cautious, cat-and-mouse approach from Manchester United manager Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and Manchester City counterpart Pep Guardiola.
This was a game that started, finished and nothing much happened in between. Local honour was satisfied in a very unsatisfactory match.
There were 20 shots (4 on goal) in the Manchester derby. There were 18 shots (4 on goal) in the London derby. Obviously "Highly competetive yet goalless stalemate....as both teams cancelled each other out" is as applicable to one game as to the other. So is "over-cautious, cat and mouse approach", and "This was a game that started, finished and nothing much happened in between. Local honour was satisfied in a very unsatisfactory match."
Watching football being discussed and analysed is at times like watching some weird collective entity responding to people's emotions rather than to reality. As if we're in a Terry Pratchett novel. And the journos are as bad as anybody.
