Would you sack or keep Ole? (Poll reopened)
- Thread starter MrSingh2002
- Start date
- Status
I think your arguments do hinge too much on the 'this squad isn't as good as other's squads' point as if - and i do dislike using this analogy after another poster has positively spammed the thread with it - every player is a kind of numerical value of attributes that can be quantified and then totalled up like in FIFA or Football Manager... Chelsea = 347 Liverpool = 356 Man Utd = 315 and ergo all league positions are thus pre-ordained by these quantities.
This is obviously fallacious and borne out by numerous examples of managers who achieve the absolute most out of what is available to them. SAF won a league with Cleverley in midfield and Welbeck regularly starting up front. Klopp not only had Kagawa and Mikhytaryan as players of the year in the Bundesliga he also turned Henderson - widely derided at the time - into a premier league and champions league winning captain. I have no doubt at all that Klopp would have this Man Utd squad as title contenders.
Obviously there's a degree to which players (and managers) are important. Klopp's not going to make the top four with the Dog and Duck eleven and a Sunday league manager probably wouldn't relegate Man City. The question at hand is - for one of the biggest clubs in the world - with mass appeal and a gigantic budget - was Solskajer a sensible, rational appointment?
The answer really does have to be no. I'm not saying Ole is inevitably going to not be successful here, I think he's doing a pretty good job honestly. But appointing someone without proven winning experience at the highest level or at least showing signs they are within touching distance of that - eg. Pochettino, Nagellsman - was poorly reasoned in anyone’s book (other than those who derive an unhealthy degree of their self worth by believing themselves to be morally superior football club fans). It's an unnecessary level of risk that would most likely never be taken by an organisation of similar financial standing without immediate shareholder revolt. Obviously shareholders are happy with Ed Woodward as - while being quite evidently clueless regarding football - he is clearly very. competent at selling Man Utd products to a global market.
Ole might very well turn out successful here - I've enthused massively about some of the performances we've had under him, was even impressed by the performance in the loss to PSG. But if he does and people are overly self-righteous about it, it's a bit like betting big on a horse that was 15/1 and then saying 'SEE! I knew they were gonna win all along!'. If you consistently bet on horses that are 15/1 you'll make less money than the person who was picking 2/1, 3/1 each time. It's simple maths. What the club probably should be doing is more simple maths. The fact they don't indicates that football is a far, far lower priority than Man Utd the brand. They would do well to remember what the brand is built on from time to time. That’s what LVG meant when he said Man Utd was a commercial club and not a football one. Football is like an afterthought to this board until the bottom line starts to get hit.
An interesting thought experiment is hypothesising how Ole would do with the squad that LVG had where LVG finished fourth and fifth and won the FA cup (while boring us to tears). Do you think he'd do better or worse with no Bruno and instead Lingard in midfield? No older and more consistent Rashford? No £130 million spent on defenders, no Telles, no Pogba, no Cavani, no Greenwood? We had a little glimpse of it before Bruno came and that's what makes people's alarm bells sound.
Anyway the debate will go on and on forever with the same points being made on either side over and over again. But you can’t really argue with the logic that Ole was a risky appointment. You could do a simple numbers job of league finishes (with weighting by league) to budget ratio of managers to find a fair few managers who were available and would score far higher than Ole. There is plenty of evidence available. Therefore the hysteria surrounding any criticism or questioning of the Ole appointment is literally ignorant and more subjectively sanctimonious, self righteous and basically quite annoying
.Beats me
If we had a competent DOF then he would have recognized the issue and acted. Ole is clearly not seeing the need for external help because Carrick and Neville don't seem up to the task.
He may believe that an experienced coach, a former defender and ex midfielder are the perfect team but he's clearly wrong there, because the issue needs wider redress than just better players
It's hard to comment on what our coaches do or don't do. That said, I do wonder what Phelan's influence is. Under Fergie, we weren't as slick with the ball after Phelan replaced Queiroz.
If Ole had his will, We'd have Sancho, Bellingham, Haaland and Upamecano in the squad this season. I am not sure how any criticism for the squad being inferior to say Liverpool or Manchester City belongs in this thread as opposed to the Woodward/Glazers out one.
You can only exist in the league and results that happen. Any other conditions and whatabouts that's being argued have just as much credibility as ghost stories around a campfire: They're not real. The table is real.
This is the table after 13 rounds in 19/20:
https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/formtabelle/wettbewerb/GB1?saison_id=2019&min=1&max=13
This is the table after 13 rounds in 20/21: Please note the considerable improvement.
https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/formtabelle/wettbewerb/GB1?saison_id=2020&min=1&max=13
I know that a few of you will inevitably say this the league is poor this season since top teams drop points. But is it though? Leagues that have runaway teams are considerably worse than leagues with teams that always win the title. The Premier League is rich. Even the bottom half teams attract talent that only the top teams in foreign leagues can due to sheer buying power (Covid-19 world excluded). There are no teams in the Premier League that is completely unable to beat any of the top teams, and that's always a strength. Bad days on the job happens.
We're now 5 Win 1 Draw in the last 6, and still there is so much negativity here.
Win, Win, Win, Win, Draw or Win, the manager is always poor.
Only the 14/15 (27p) and 17/18 (29p) rank above the current 26p pace post Fergie.
The BEST season start of Manchester United in the past 13 years is 30 points after 13 games. So we're 4 points behind Fergie the Great at this point in the season. That's not far is it? You know, year 2 of a outspoken rebuild that the owners for some reason refuse to fully commit to as for example Chelsea are.
You can only exist in the league and results that happen. Any other conditions and whatabouts that's being argued have just as much credibility as ghost stories around a campfire: They're not real. The table is real.
This is the table after 13 rounds in 19/20:
https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/formtabelle/wettbewerb/GB1?saison_id=2019&min=1&max=13
This is the table after 13 rounds in 20/21: Please note the considerable improvement.
https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/formtabelle/wettbewerb/GB1?saison_id=2020&min=1&max=13
I know that a few of you will inevitably say this the league is poor this season since top teams drop points. But is it though? Leagues that have runaway teams are considerably worse than leagues with teams that always win the title. The Premier League is rich. Even the bottom half teams attract talent that only the top teams in foreign leagues can due to sheer buying power (Covid-19 world excluded). There are no teams in the Premier League that is completely unable to beat any of the top teams, and that's always a strength. Bad days on the job happens.
We're now 5 Win 1 Draw in the last 6, and still there is so much negativity here.
Win, Win, Win, Win, Draw or Win, the manager is always poor.
Only the 14/15 (27p) and 17/18 (29p) rank above the current 26p pace post Fergie.
The BEST season start of Manchester United in the past 13 years is 30 points after 13 games. So we're 4 points behind Fergie the Great at this point in the season. That's not far is it? You know, year 2 of a outspoken rebuild that the owners for some reason refuse to fully commit to as for example Chelsea are.
Last edited:
Hm...which Neville are you trying to blame for this ?
Without checking - wasn't that about the same time Ronaldo left as well ? So there might have been a few other factors at work there
This is both good and bad. We can't keep starting games the way we do. Ultimately, if we want to win trophies, we'll have to improve the way we approach games. Its already resulted in CL elimination.
Also, we were great at coming back from behind under Mourinho. Thats one thing that hasn't changed from the Fergie era.
that is a ridiculous stat
wonder what the odds on that would've been at the start of the season?
When you see that the last few games we were lucky to win, when you see that most of the performances are not great yet somehow we manaeg to win thanks to some individual brilliance, do you wonder why? Also, got kicked out of the cl after winning the first 2 games. Results in the epl are flattering us simple as that.
Yeah there were certainly other factors such as that, but I remember a lot of discussion here at the time about how much our play changed after Queiroz left.
I think your arguments do hinge too much on the 'this squad isn't as good as other's squads' point as if - and i do dislike using this analogy after another poster has positively spammed the thread with it - every player is a kind of numerical value of attributes that can be quantified and then totalled up like in FIFA or Football Manager... Chelsea = 347 Liverpool = 356 Man Utd = 315 and ergo all league positions are thus pre-ordained by these quantities.
Of course. But it's perfectly possible to assess the strengths of a squad without resorting to numerical values. If you ask yourself the question "in what positions do Liverpool/City/Chelsea lack the quality/depth needed for a top team?", it seems to me pretty obvious you'd come up with considerably fewer things to name than you'd do with United's squad.
This is obviously fallacious and borne out by numerous examples of managers who achieve the absolute most out of what is available to them. SAF won a league with Cleverley in midfield and Welbeck regularly starting up front. Klopp not only had Kagawa and Mikhytaryan as players of the year in the Bundesliga he also turned Henderson - widely derided at the time - into a premier league and champions league winning captain. I have no doubt at all that Klopp would have this Man Utd squad as title contenders.
Well, you seem to forget that it took Klopp five seasons to turn Liverpool into champions. Also, I think you need to consider the distinction between what is possible and what is reasonable to expect. Just because there are examples of managers who achieve results well beyond what you can reasonably expect from the squads they have at their disposal, that doesn't mean that you can expect a manager to do that, nor conclude that he is deficient if he doesn't.
Obviously there's a degree to which players (and managers) are important. Klopp's not going to make the top four with the Dog and Duck eleven and a Sunday league manager probably wouldn't relegate Man City. The question at hand is - for one of the biggest clubs in the world - with mass appeal and a gigantic budget - was Solskajer a sensible, rational appointment?
That is a question, but it is not the question being discussed in this particular exchange. But no problemo, let's discuss it.
The answer really does have to be no. I'm not saying Ole is inevitably going to not be successful here, I think he's doing a pretty good job honestly. But appointing someone without proven winning experience at the highest level or at least showing signs they are within touching distance of that - eg. Pochettino, Nagellsman - was poorly reasoned in anyone’s book (other than those who derive an unhealthy degree of their self worth by believing themselves to be morally superior football club fans). It's an unnecessary level of risk that would most likely never be taken by an organisation of similar financial standing without immediate shareholder revolt. Obviously shareholders are happy with Ed Woodward as - while being quite evidently clueless regarding football - he is clearly very. competent at selling Man Utd products to a global market.
Ole might very well turn out successful here - I've enthused massively about some of the performances we've had under him, was even impressed by the performance in the loss to PSG. But if he does and people are overly self-righteous about it, it's a bit like betting big on a horse that was 15/1 and then saying 'SEE! I knew they were gonna win all along!'. If you consistently bet on horses that are 15/1 you'll make less money than the person who was picking 2/1, 3/1 each time. It's simple maths. What the club probably should be doing is more simple maths. The fact they don't indicates that football is a far, far lower priority than Man Utd the brand. They would do well to remember what the brand is built on from time to time. That’s what LVG meant when he said Man Utd was a commercial club and not a football one. Football is like an afterthought to this board until the bottom line starts to get hit.
There are some fair points in there, but I'm not sure if your betting man approach to defining reality is much better than the FIFA stats approach to judging players that you rightly reject in your first paragraph. Even if I treat that as just an analogy, the analogy only holds if wins and good United performances under Solskjær only happened sporadically, which is not the case. Horses who win frequently aren't 15-1. Also, from a betting or probabilities perspective, an inexperienced manager is inherently a bigger risk than an experienced one. That's how you have to think when you're setting odds. That however is a much, much more simplistic equation than deciding on the right manager. Odds just reflect the assessed probability of a closely defined outcome, such as a manager getting fired or winning the PL within a certain time. Finding the right manager is a question of defining a complex approach to a challenge that includes many different aims, and then finding the person who fits your needs. Someone who might be the right person to solve one set of challenges, may not be the right person to solve a different set of challenges. Also, OGS has now been a top-level manager for two years, so that uncertainty is now much less than it was when he was appointed. Hence, he is no longer a similar risk.
An interesting thought experiment is hypothesising how Ole would do with the squad that LVG had where LVG finished fourth and fifth and won the FA cup (while boring us to tears). Do you think he'd do better or worse with no Bruno and instead Lingard in midfield? No older and more consistent Rashford? No £130 million spent on defenders, no Telles, no Pogba, no Cavani, no Greenwood? We had a little glimpse of it before Bruno came and that's what makes people's alarm bells sound.
Er, what? That makes no sense. If he has a worse squad, then he gets worse results. If the only difference between the observable reality and your hypthetical is the squad, then the reason you get different results in the two is the squad. When we do better with Bruno than Lingard as no 10, the reason is Bruno is better than Lingard as no 10. Ie, squad matters.
Anyway the debate will go on and on forever with the same points being made on either side over and over again. But you can’t really argue with the logic that Ole was a risky appointment. You could do a simple numbers job of league finishes (with weighting by league) to budget ratio of managers to find a fair few managers who were available and would score far higher than Ole. There is plenty of evidence available. Therefore the hysteria surrounding any criticism or questioning of the Ole appointment is literally ignorant and more subjectively sanctimonious, self righteous and basically quite annoying
I certainly agree there were many safer options in terms of previous record. I was surprised myself at the time, and also unconvinced it was the right choice. But you should consider that there were also factors favoring Ole. Not least, that he was already in place and had shown a good rapport with the players, as well as some obvious ability to get the best out of them. I think the key thing though was his vision of where the club was and where it needed to go and what was required to do that. That was what turned me too. Because I think that was absolutely right, and for a rebuilding project that included regaining club identity and values and generally required traits he had shown that he has, he was - is - a good choice.
Also, how do you score managers? Especially as you argue in your first paragraph that you can't score players?
Problem is the league results are masking the real problem. In all thos win games we were mostly lucky, as G Nev said, we won by moments or individual brillance. Westbrom we had to retake a penalty, Saints after 2-0 down we manager to win with a 93rd winner and not player brilliantly (but we won), v Westham we should have been 3-0 down but somehow we scored with the ball going out and won the game, v City it was a borefest and city had the best 2 chances, v Sheffield, again a match with patches of good and bad football an won 3-2 vs the worst team in the league. Results are simply flattering us.
People only need to look at the managers currently working in this league to see how strong the PL is right now. Its a modern day hall of fame list
I think managing and coaching part is very interesting. Ole is a decent man manager, but a fairly average coach. Problem is if you see around all the best or upcoming best in the business at the moment (Klopp, Pep, Flick, Nagelsmann, Rose, etc.) are great coaches first and foremost. It is not a coincidence. Ole needs to hire better coaches (who can also provide in game help) or he will ultimately not make it.
A solid midfield that allows us to dominate or take control the midfield and a more dominant with pace centre back will improve it for sure.
Acceleration! I prefer the word slow. Lindelof is a bench player at best. Being fair on Maguire (( even though he never heads on goal )) he only said lacks a decent right hand man and then we may see the best of him. He clearly has to much on his plate and actually think he would be a better player if Ole took the captains arm band off him.
I struggle with Pogba & Matic playing off each other, it isn't working. Fred is like Ole, very inconsistent with his formation/tactics. He has the odd good game but yet again just another bench warmer for me. We like so much debt at the back we're always going to be found wanting against the so called big teams which on evidence at the moment is somewhat lacking is which is why when you look at the table it doesn't look as bad as our inconsistency is currently showing.
This year could well be a record low for points tally winnng the league. We really need to forget the luxury buys ( Sancho ) and stick firmly on developing at the back, do this then we may just have a chance. I still don't think under Ole though we will hit those heights again.
Who dislikes him? Why is this thing still popping up? Do you dislike players who you want upgrade with another? He is great guy and no single fan hates him or dislikes him. We just think thst he is not good enough.
Fair enough, he is doing ok lately but we shall see what will happen. He had some good wins (away form) but also he had some huge mistakes also (Leipzig and some defensive displays at OT).
For me, result is everything. If he wins something with his approach, great.
Not completely agree on signings though. I still think that James and Maguire are huge mistake. I give him credit for Bruno and despite it is early, for Cavani and VDB. Those two will be very good signings. AWB; feck me if i know what to thing about him. So many flaws and great things in one player. One minute he looks as best fb in PL and another he looks as 10 mil full back.
Lindelof was initially at fault for giving Henderson the ball when neither he nor Maguire, nor Matic where in a position to receive it.
Maguire has nowhere to go when he receives and has to go back. Henderson should just boot it away but you see him desperately looking for an option and there isn’t one.
If I’m the coach, im blaming Lindelof initially for restarting in a naive way and then Henderson who should have just booted it. Could argue Maguire could also have just booted it but that’s the issue with having a right footed LCB, probably felt uncomfortable getting the required distance/accuracy
In Jose's first season we looked great. Dominant in nearly every game.
What can i say; i enjoyed when during that season we pushed teams in their pen box at OT for whole game.
Somebody should remind Gary Neville about the CL final in '99. Outplayed for 85 minutes, only to win it because of "moments" and "individual brilliance".
It happens - and it is a good thing!
For a team to have the strength to produce said moments of brilliance time and time again, in seemingly every game lately, - be it individual or a team effort - is a sign of a team that can win anything and everything.
"Can United score. They always score!" Why? Because moments. And individual brilliance. And a whole bunch of other factors, obviously, but those moments won us titles.
"United are unbeaten in 5 of 6 because of moments". Well. Seems to be happening a lot then? Why does it have to stop? I don't get it. Clearly we're creating these moments, and are now capitalizing on them (even though we should be capitalizing even more due to the pure numbers of "moments" and "brilliance" that's not even converted).
This team could win the league from this position with the right manager and stop Liverpool drawing level on titles. Problem is, the club won’t entertain the idea of getting the right manager until Ole loses three on the bounce and the league is out of sight.
Again, Ole has done the best you can expect and could get top four, which is an achievement for him but an achievement for him is an underachievement for the club.
Again, Ole has done the best you can expect and could get top four, which is an achievement for him but an achievement for him is an underachievement for the club.
We got 3rd place in the league last season and reached 3 semi finals. We have started this season a lot better than last season. Why do you think we can't improve and contend in all of the remaining competitions?
We have started the league campaign a lot better than 19/20. We're still in the same cups as last season. I agree we probably won't win them all, but two thirds of the season still remain, and so far we're way better off in the league and equal in the cups. So far we have improved. I don't see why we won't/can't continue building on that throughout the season.
Will we lift a trophy this season? Nobody knows.
Can we lift a trophy this season? Feck yes.
Edit: "Could get top 4." He just got top 3. Get a grip.
Yes, go through all their defense names and compare them to our main CBS no problem? Chelsea has only Silva as a good defender and without that, a joke that we were seeing regularly. Tottenham has Eric Doer playing main defender as them. Liverpool has lost their main defender for the whole season, rest of theirs are average.They have 2 teenagers playing in defense against Spurs. City have some ridiculously inconsistent set of defenders and have spent ton of defensive flop, wasn't long ago when they conceded 3 penalties against Leicester.
You are just choosing to compare the fullbacks because Liverpool have better ones than us? Very selective to prove your opinion. I'm waiting for you to compare all of them to Maguire and Lindelof, no problem.
Rest of the post has nothing for me to reply on. You just said that my argument has wrong things in them and nothing else, you didn't provide any counter arguments for me to reply on, so nothing to comment on here.
We may have not agreed on many things about Ole but this I agree with you 100%. He needs much better coaches. He does not need to beat the top 5 to win the PL. All he needs is to at least draw with them. He can have different system for different opposition. I would get the defence and Fred to defend mostly against normal teams and let the three forwards and Bruno and Pogba create and score. They are good enough to do that against any team. For the big teams drop a forward and play an extra midfield player.
We do not need our FBs to play as wingers if they can be taught to cross from just over the half way line.
If we had beaten all the teams we were expected to beat this season we would have been on top now.
As for the corners, it is a mess. So is playing from the back. What is the purpose from playing from the back? To keep possession and to keep control. If we cannot keep possession and if we cannot keep control by playing from the back then it is a useless exercise. If we play Pogba, we have someone who can chest it down or head the ball and keep it most of the time. It is a better option than getting caught in possession outside our penalty box or inside the box. To me it looks like Ole is doing it because it looks fashionable doing it by playing out from the back and not because it is the best way for the team to play.
Do you think Ole lurks this thread?
Last edited:
>>Conte has entered the chat
Conte didn't have to fix 6 years (arguably more) worth of problems.
I certainly hope not, regardless of my position on him, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
What else would he be looking at on his ipad during games?
Conte inherited a team that won the league a year before he took in charged mate. The season when he got rid some of the main Mourinho players that won PL, it back fired him.
I think your arguments do hinge too much on the 'this squad isn't as good as other's squads' point as if - and i do dislike using this analogy after another poster has positively spammed the thread with it - every player is a kind of numerical value of attributes that can be quantified and then totalled up like in FIFA or Football Manager... Chelsea = 347 Liverpool = 356 Man Utd = 315 and ergo all league positions are thus pre-ordained by these quantities.
This is obviously fallacious and borne out by numerous examples of managers who achieve the absolute most out of what is available to them. SAF won a league with Cleverley in midfield and Welbeck regularly starting up front. Klopp not only had Kagawa and Mikhytaryan as players of the year in the Bundesliga he also turned Henderson - widely derided at the time - into a premier league and champions league winning captain. I have no doubt at all that Klopp would have this Man Utd squad as title contenders.
Obviously there's a degree to which players (and managers) are important. Klopp's not going to make the top four with the Dog and Duck eleven and a Sunday league manager probably wouldn't relegate Man City. The question at hand is - for one of the biggest clubs in the world - with mass appeal and a gigantic budget - was Solskajer a sensible, rational appointment?
The answer really does have to be no. I'm not saying Ole is inevitably going to not be successful here, I think he's doing a pretty good job honestly. But appointing someone without proven winning experience at the highest level or at least showing signs they are within touching distance of that - eg. Pochettino, Nagellsman - was poorly reasoned in anyone’s book (other than those who derive an unhealthy degree of their self worth by believing themselves to be morally superior football club fans). It's an unnecessary level of risk that would most likely never be taken by an organisation of similar financial standing without immediate shareholder revolt. Obviously shareholders are happy with Ed Woodward as - while being quite evidently clueless regarding football - he is clearly very. competent at selling Man Utd products to a global market.
Ole might very well turn out successful here - I've enthused massively about some of the performances we've had under him, was even impressed by the performance in the loss to PSG. But if he does and people are overly self-righteous about it, it's a bit like betting big on a horse that was 15/1 and then saying 'SEE! I knew they were gonna win all along!'. If you consistently bet on horses that are 15/1 you'll make less money than the person who was picking 2/1, 3/1 each time. It's simple maths. What the club probably should be doing is more simple maths. The fact they don't indicates that football is a far, far lower priority than Man Utd the brand. They would do well to remember what the brand is built on from time to time. That’s what LVG meant when he said Man Utd was a commercial club and not a football one. Football is like an afterthought to this board until the bottom line starts to get hit.
An interesting thought experiment is hypothesising how Ole would do with the squad that LVG had where LVG finished fourth and fifth and won the FA cup (while boring us to tears). Do you think he'd do better or worse with no Bruno and instead Lingard in midfield? No older and more consistent Rashford? No £130 million spent on defenders, no Telles, no Pogba, no Cavani, no Greenwood? We had a little glimpse of it before Bruno came and that's what makes people's alarm bells sound.
Anyway the debate will go on and on forever with the same points being made on either side over and over again. But you can’t really argue with the logic that Ole was a risky appointment. You could do a simple numbers job of league finishes (with weighting by league) to budget ratio of managers to find a fair few managers who were available and would score far higher than Ole. There is plenty of evidence available. Therefore the hysteria surrounding any criticism or questioning of the Ole appointment is literally ignorant and more subjectively sanctimonious, self righteous and basically quite annoying
Yes Ole was a risky appointment but we have past that stage now. The risky aspect would have been that he would do more damage that it will take us another 3 years back but in his 2 years time one thing he has done is built a squad who are good enough for the future. If tomorrow poch comes he will have a better starting point than Ole had. Most managers would love to work with the players we have now.
ive been Ole out since last season, but have to say that it would be harsh at the moment considering we are the form team in the league. the argument that wed be more likely to win the league with a better manager from now on doesnt hold water as its ole who has got us in this position. id keep him till end of season now, unless there is a a complete meltdown. if he finishes to 4, id keep him next season too.
He's a win against Leeds away from looking like we've had a decent start to the season and in a decent place, we'd be mad to sack him at that point. A loss though and its a massive knock-back, sentiment very much on a knife-edge
Difference was the tactical switch, not just coming in and being blessed with good players. Look how poor Moyes was for us. Conte's mistake was with Costa, who was so pivotal to their way of playing, but when he started so badly in the first season, he went back to what he knew well (5 at the back) and then they just ran away with the league.
You are talking about tactical switch but Ole tactical style is different to Mourinho. So the main difference in Ole and Conte’s case is being blessed with good players. Look at what happened to Conte‘s 2nd season when he signed Rudiger, Bakayoko & Morata to replace ageing Cahill, the loss of Matic & Costa. It wasn’t just Costa.
I genuinely can't remember if we were good coming back from behind under Jose. Were we?
We only really sucked at comeback from being behind under LVG. During LVG's era if we go 1-0 down, it's over even if it was in the first minute of the game. Since Mourinho came and now with Ole in charge we have improved a lot in this department.
Debateable how different his style is. Jose is more defensive/risk adverse but they are both counter attacking, fast and direct, cautious coaches who setup with a double pivot. Both often conceded first and both scored late goals. I don't think you can say Ole is like an LVG or Bielsa coming in and needing time because their tactical ideas are so extreme/different. Using your argument that Conte took over a team that came 1st in the PL, you can also say Ole took over a team that was second and got 80 points the season before so that argument works both ways.
The way I see it, for the first time in a while there are four (arguably five with Spurs although I think they are a bit short) similar teams individual quality wise and with squad depth. It used to be City and Pool and a bit of a gap but now it does seem more even given City's recruitment has been poor, their best players getting older and Liverpool have lost both their starting CBs for apparently most of the season. What we're seeing now is really intriguing because you have so many different styles of football and, really, whoever wins the league will have done it because of their manager (and probably some luck on injuries) rather than just having the 'best' players.
I’m pretty sure we weren’t very good at coming back from behind under Jose, at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
- Status