No, it was about players improved under Ole. It was about players who improved under Ole, 2 of the examples were McTominay and Rashford.
Would you sack or keep Ole? (Poll reopened)
- Thread starter MrSingh2002
- Start date
- Status
No, it was about players improved under Ole. It was about players who improved under Ole, 2 of the examples were McTominay and Rashford.
What I find hilarious about all these arguments is that people state "he DESERVES to start" basing it on seeing them play a few times for underage sides. They make these claims despite the fact that Ole sees them day in, day out in training. Knows what they can / can't do. How quickly they're adapting, how much they're taking in in relation to what he wants. But they "deserve" to start. Again, in spite of showing absolutely nothing at any point in the first team, from their few appearances. And it's a manager who has absolutely shown that he's willing to fire youngsters in at the deep end.
Generally I think we are on the same page, whilst our opinion differs on the extend those players have improved. Natural progression is development which I said from the off.
Where we differ is that you make it some kind of a big deal out of it whilst I don't see their improvement as a case to hail Ole's reign so far.
As for the bolded - that is your spin of it because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Was that a question? No Ole is not a better manager than Jose.
Has he? When?
And my point was that their improvement is not that significant to make a case out of it.
I've rated Rashford very highly ever since his debut and he has been progressing ever since under 3 managers. Didn't look too bad in the year we finished 2nd under Jose did he?
Its what makes all of these discussions so pointless in the end. Anything good that has happened would have happened anyway. That's the argument. Easy to argue for because it doesn't have to defended at all. It just is, so there.
If we look at the players that have made the biggest leaps forward this season, then at or near the top of the list would be Rashford, Greenwood, McTominay & Fred. 2 strikers and 2 central midfielders. Its not that much of a stretch, nor is it being biased, to suggest that working with Ole and Carrick would have had a positive influence on those players.
Haha, on the bolded, I guess I'll concede that. I don't really have an agenda there, all I'm saying, I wouldn't lay it 100% at Ole's door. Past history has shown me that Woodward isn't up to it in the transfer market. Past history is my favourite indicator of current / future. So I think it's most likely his fault, more so than Ole's. I don't think you'll find many managers who don't want new signings, especially when moving so many players.Generally I think we are on the same page, whilst our opinion differs on the extend those players have improved. Natural progression is development which I said from the off.
Where we differ is that you make it some kind of a big deal out of it whilst I don't see their improvement as a case to hail Ole's reign so far.
As for the bolded - that is your spin of it because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Was that a question? No Ole is not a better manager than Jose.
I am not making a big deal of the improvement. My point is that .. you won't see it as any proof of Ole doing something well. And that's just not fair. You can't blame all the failings on him, and then not admit that some good things are coming out of his rein. To just claim they're naturally progressing and he's not helping them ... it's just not right / fair, in my opinion.
As for the Ole / Jose thing ... Rashford is progressing far quicker under Ole. You're saying better managers improve players ... so, surely by your logic, Ole is a better manager than Jose?
Well, he's made Rashford a key man, for a start. Rashford was rotational before he came along. Ditto McTominay. He's brought Greenwood in at a very raw age. He's brought Williams in. He's signed a pretty young AWB.
Just because he's not playing certain players who certain posters like, doesn't mean he's not willing to play young players.
People are overrating this whole "improved player" thing.
To improve a player is really simple: play him in his favored position and give him time to nail down his position. That's it.
Remember De Gea when he got here?
He looked like a deer in the headlights. And what made things a lot worse is when SAF started rotating him with Lindegaard(he did the same thing with Caroll and Howard back in the day with identical results). So what happened when Lindegaard got injured? De Gea got a run of games and since then he was our undisputed number 1.
The same thing can be said for Rashford really. Under Jose he would have a good game and then he would be dropped the next one. Same with Martial.
When Ole came he simply started playing Rashford regularly. Guess what? Now Rashford looks like a decent football player. Same thing with Shaw. As soon as he got over with his injuries he actually became decent. Same with Lindelof, Mctominay and Fred.
This whole improving thing is quiet simple really: just give the player a run of games in his preferred position and occasionally rest him to avoid injuries. And that is it.
If you want to be a bit more advanced then persist with the players when they're just getting started or going through a rough patch. Both Rashford and Fred at the begining of this season are good examples. They were rubbish, but eventually they regained their form.
To improve a player is really simple: play him in his favored position and give him time to nail down his position. That's it.
Remember De Gea when he got here?
He looked like a deer in the headlights. And what made things a lot worse is when SAF started rotating him with Lindegaard(he did the same thing with Caroll and Howard back in the day with identical results). So what happened when Lindegaard got injured? De Gea got a run of games and since then he was our undisputed number 1.
The same thing can be said for Rashford really. Under Jose he would have a good game and then he would be dropped the next one. Same with Martial.
When Ole came he simply started playing Rashford regularly. Guess what? Now Rashford looks like a decent football player. Same thing with Shaw. As soon as he got over with his injuries he actually became decent. Same with Lindelof, Mctominay and Fred.
This whole improving thing is quiet simple really: just give the player a run of games in his preferred position and occasionally rest him to avoid injuries. And that is it.
If you want to be a bit more advanced then persist with the players when they're just getting started or going through a rough patch. Both Rashford and Fred at the begining of this season are good examples. They were rubbish, but eventually they regained their form.
So first you said there is no improvement and now you are saying improvement is not significant.
I have always rated Rashford but he was never this good. You don't even need stats, you just have to watch his game to see how much he has improved and the most important improvement is his runs.
I'm sorry. This is complete and utter BS. Are you telling me there has never been a player who has come into a team, regularly played in his natural position ... and not improved?
Ole said so himself that they had been monitoring him and taking scans and that he looked fine the day before at training. Of course in hindsight he should have been rested that game, but unless Ole is utterly daft he would not have risked his most important player if he thought he could not handle it.
I don't know how you can be so definitive on either.
I don't see Rashford improving as he should be under better management. Generally he has been on the same level as last year which was my point. He has more space to run into but he has to improve other parts of his general play. Now his improvement is halted and he's sidelined for a decent amount of period, when you put all those in perspective I don't see it.
Rashford has become more experienced and as I said tactics suit him as he has more space to operate. However if he is to fulfill his true potential just his runs won't cut it.
This is so simplistic and wrong. Honestly, I genuinely think some people on here think everything is in isolation, and things just come about because of games. Which is totally wrong. 95% of improvement comes through training. There's a reason they have repetitive routines, working on keep ball etc etc. Because training is what improves players, for the most part.
As for De Gea, we'll ignore that he moved country, basically refused to learn English when he first got here, was a lazy trainer, used eat his main meal wayyyy too late at night etc. They basically had to reinvent him as a footballer. Strength training, protein drinks, all that stuff. He became a completely different physical specimen.
And that's just the physical part. There was also Fergie's constant bigging him up, even when he was struggling, which De Gea came out and pointed out as very important, how it "emboldened him", so, gave him confidence. If you can't see that what Fergie was doing with the rotation was, allowing a young keeper to learn, adapt whilst not having his confidence battered, I don't know what to say to you. But yeah, it all came about because he just kept playing him.
Making the the top 3 with spurs is the same as making top 7 with Man Utd don't you know.
You're meshing the timeline here. Each manager starts a fresh rebuild and Klopp's didnt deteriorate once it started. It was a slow upward progression. Successful rebuilds don't tend to contain a short term collapse. That's the latest myth doing the rounds on the caf
He has improved, that's why he gets into more goal scoring positions and wins more penalties, scores more goals and in general more goal threat.
If the tactic is helping then Ole is helping him to play well, which is the point.
Now you are going all hypothetical again, as much as he would have improved, there is a good chance he would have been on the bench too with different coach, but somehow you assume Rashford would have been key player and improve even more.
Haha, on the bolded, I guess I'll concede that. I don't really have an agenda there, all I'm saying, I wouldn't lay it 100% at Ole's door. Past history has shown me that Woodward isn't up to it in the transfer market. Past history is my favourite indicator of current / future. So I think it's most likely his fault, more so than Ole's. I don't think you'll find many managers who don't want new signings, especially when moving so many players.
I am not making a big deal of the improvement. My point is that .. you won't see it as any proof of Ole doing something well. And that's just not fair. You can't blame all the failings on him, and then not admit that some good things are coming out of his rein. To just claim they're naturally progressing and he's not helping them ... it's just not right / fair, in my opinion.
As for the Ole / Jose thing ... Rashford is progressing far quicker under Ole. You're saying better managers improve players ... so, surely by your logic, Ole is a better manager than Jose?
Ok, I might have been a but more rash in my response probably didn't put it in the best way. Obviously players improved and happened under certain manager and all managers get credit for it.
To me United manager as a standard is quite high and pointing out some positives compared to many failings and shortcomings is really not significant case when that manager is paid millions and the requirements for the job should be a lot lot higher.
As for the last line, I know that is in jest so I responded in the same way
When Ole is eventually replaced the tactics will change. He will have to work in different environment and has to evolve his game in different direction.
Januzaj looked great under Moyes and was bound to be the next best thing and then fell off a cliff under LvG.
Rashford has always been known to use space and pace, he has also been erratic in his finishing this season. He will improve a lot more in the future that I'm sure of, provided he doesn't have problems with injuries.
This is just weird post man, what if tactics change, then it's on different manager to get the best out of team. Rashford is not only playing well for Manutd, he is playing well for England too.
His game has already evolved, that's why he is a goal threat. Ole is getting best out of Rashford and that's why he is key player for ManUtd.
Meh I'm done, just all over the place with ever changing goal posts now.
Well, truthfully, I'm not. They are both still very young. Chong has looked ordinary at best every time he has had a chance, and Gomes isn't able to get minutes even when he has the weakest competition imaginable in front of him. Now that we have Bruno and are looking to strengthen further there he won't get a look in. There may be something in the contract issues with Gomes, I don't know, but I don't believe Ole is in any way afraid of playing youngsters if they are good enough and Gomes rarely features. It doesn't look promising. If he was as exciting a prospect as some people believe him to be he would be getting game time. We are crying out for creativity.
Being a leading man and building confidence is very important for a forward and having zero competition also adds to that, but you will tell me again I'm changing goal posts.
Anyhow it's not a simple discussion and we can agree to disagree and see how he pans out next season.
And the manager who made that decision was Ole but somehow you come up with hypothetical scenario where with better manager he would have improved even better when no one knows whether Rashford would have had same game time, confidence from the manager. The last one we had used to rotate him and Martial for 1 position and came up with nonsense like "That's why Lukaku" when Rashford and Martial failed to score vs Brighton.
It kinda is, though.
Player improves under manager = manager deserves credit
You're the one adding loads of irrelevant whataboutisms to try make it complex.
Players improved under Moyes, do you want to bang on that drum to make it fair?
It's weird when people want to downplay our own players improvements, just because they want Ole gone. I want him out, but will happily point to improved players, because its a good thing for the club. Doesn't mean he deserves a new 7 year deal.
Here you go again, what does Moyes have to do with it?
"sure they've improved under Ole but WHADDABOUT MOYES?"
"sure they've improved under Ole but WHADDABOUT IF WE HAD POCH INSTEAD?"
"sure they've improved under Ole but WHADDABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY'D PROBABLY IMPROVE ANYWAY"
Man, you must be a shit boss to work for. "Yeah, your sales were good, but honestly, someone else probably would've done the same anyway so, you're fired."
Because it's meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Some players improve, some players regress. That doesn't make Ole's stint less shit. It's like saying we lost 7-1, but what a goal that one was.
So he did some good, but who really cares when the club and team is in worst state since decades?
If/when we finish 8th he will be fired, we don’t have a squad capable of challenging for the title but there’s no excuse to finish behind Sheff United, Wolves and Leicester.
Spurs/Chelsea/Arsenal have been nowhere near there best either, top 4 should have been possible this season.
Spurs/Chelsea/Arsenal have been nowhere near there best either, top 4 should have been possible this season.
So just to be clear, it's meaningless to praise a manager for improving players?
Your last sentence is basically everyone's fecking argument against you. It's OK to praise him when he does something good, it won't cancel out the fact that he's done a shit job overall. Don't worry.
Oh, ffs - it's not something out of the world, players improve under crap managers constantly.
And yes I don't care about details when the grand picture is he's doing a terrible job. I'm pretty sure those players will improve under different manager too.
That's not what I asked.
Does a manager not deserve credit for a player improving under them? Not just Ole, any manager.
They do. And he will be a good coach for a Sunday league side, which is about his level.
When there are way too many negatives that are detrimental for the club as a whole some positives don't cut it I'm sorry.
But Ole's 'sales' (ie - his results) aren't fecking good, are they? That's the bloody point!
Right but that's all we argued, that's it, thanks for finally admitting the silliness of your original post.
The second sentence has been our whole point to you this entire fecking time
Right, point taken.Right but that's all we argued, that's it, thanks for finally admitting the silliness of your original post.
The second sentence has been our whole point to you this entire fecking time
I’m just tired of using any positive spin to praise a really shitty job he’s doing.
That's the thing though. I think there are those of us who think Ole is doing some things right. But most of us will definitely point to issues. There's no spin. It's "hey, he's cleared deadwood, he's improved morale, he's improved young players, he's blooded young players ... but you know what, tactically it hasn't been good enough, results haven't been good enough" etc. It's not spin. To me, it's a realistic slant.
The Ole out crowd - and not all - but a far higher percentage in my view, will more or less stop at nothing to discredit him.
"anyone could sell players"
"anyone can play young players"
"all young players get better, nothing to do with coaches"
Even your point about Rashford and his injury? I mean, that's just silly. YOu still didn't answer whether Poch deserves same criticism for Kane?
I'm firmly Ole out but I've just spent all morning arguing with him over that so you can't really put such labels on people. It's OK to think he's done a good job in a few small areas and still want him gone because his overall work here has been dire.
you could easily spin it the other way and say those who are "Ole in" are far more ridiculous because they completely ignore the insanely glaring issues in Ole's results and overall performance as a manager here in favour of clinging on to those little tidbits, but again, I'd be branding everyone with the same stick, wouldn't I?
"Improved" when discussing managers is related to players' baselines and anything exceeding the natural individual progression that is gained from experience and repetition. Fred has now acclimatized and has 'improved' in relation to his previous poor form. He's now back to being the Fred who makes the BRA squad.. If people want to give credit to players going on runs and gaining confidence because they're just playing more because there's no squad depth...fine but that's not the same thing as players developing a larger arsenal (improved runs, spacing, passing, awareness etc...) or playing in a system that elevates the player well above their baseline. This is undoubtedly not happening.
A wonky golf analogy:
I can go make 500 three footers on the putting green every day and through this repetition become more consistent and confident on short putts. But has my course strategy improved? Do I know what sides to miss the flag on to leave the best angle for a recovery shot? How do I deal with adversity during the round? Can I curve the ball different ways to access different hole locations? Unless you're a generational genius talent who learns all this on their own without prodding, this is where coaching comes in.
A wonky golf analogy:
I can go make 500 three footers on the putting green every day and through this repetition become more consistent and confident on short putts. But has my course strategy improved? Do I know what sides to miss the flag on to leave the best angle for a recovery shot? How do I deal with adversity during the round? Can I curve the ball different ways to access different hole locations? Unless you're a generational genius talent who learns all this on their own without prodding, this is where coaching comes in.
- Status