Would you sack or keep Ole? (Poll reopened)

[Foxbatt]

Any saf team that won the trophies were better than the Jose team that came 2nd.
I would say any saf team that came 2nd was better than the Jose team that came 2nd.
You simply cannot compare. It's a matter of opinion.

 

[roseguy64]

Better qs would be when did this transfer committee started?

I think season 17/18, late months 2017, many transfers later on support that theory. It definitely had strongest influence starting 18/19 onwards.

Looking at the committee members though, I would say Ole have stronger influence than Mou there. No way they will ignore his input.

What's the date for the interview?

The info got released last year October.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/mufc-new-transfer-recruitment-procedure.451331/

This thread has an article in the OP about the changes. Was out before the interview which was in United We Stand a few days later.

https://www.thenational.ae/sport/fo...-manchester-united-to-former-glories-1.925936

This is an article about the interview. Think a link was shared with pics of the interview but can't bother searching for it.

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

Any saf team that won the trophies were better than the Jose team that came 2nd.
I would say any saf team that came 2nd was better than the Jose team that came 2nd.
You simply cannot compare. It's a matter of opinion.

That is why bias might play a role. We love our sides and think they are better since they won titles for us.
The Mourinho side is mostly hated due to how we played in the big games that season and also how it failed when it did matter.

It is fair to say that football now is better than it was in the 1990. I am too young to have experienced that time, but from watching the games it looks worse and slower back then.
Thus to argue that other sides was much stronger is a bit silly too.
Although it is about to win what you can and we did that then in 1999. Mourinho only won two cups and failed here so his side is not greater than 1999 obviously even though he won more points.
Although it was probably harder to gain 81 points now than it was in 1999.

 

[Reiver]

Comparing points in different seasons, especially if there is a 19 years gap between them is more than just pointless.

In 1998/99 for example there were only 2 teams from the PL in the CL. In Jose’s time with us there were at least 4. It does make a difference if only you (and another PL team - in our case initially Arsenal who went out in the group stages in 1998/99) have to play PL games after difficult European midweek games or if at least 3 other teams face the same challenge.

A lot of people were discussing fatigue of our players in the last few weeks and how team x had a whole week to rest and team z had two days more rest. Now imagine how that fatigue would look like if you are actually the only PL team with such a tight schedule and playing an important match every 3-4 days.
In 1998/99 the team was already in the 1st half of the season in the group of death with Barcelona and Bayern. Everyone knows how exciting but also difficult those midweek games were. And after the group stages we were the only PL team left in the CL until the very end. Arsenal didn’t survive the group stages and weren’t even competing in other European competitions. Despite having played many more games we still won the PL ahead of them. Chelsea were at least still competing in the cup winners cup - albeit against weaker teams than the CL and fewer games than we had to play.

In 2017/18 we were in a relatively easy CL group and went out in the 1st knock-out phase. Not a great achievement really that Jose managed to get us 2 more points in that season than we got in 1998/99 under completely different circumstances.

In the end if you win the PL + CL in the same season it means you are a great team as you won the CL and managed to win one of Europe’s top leagues at the same time. To top it by winning the FA Cup in the same season is huge!
This is a greater season than winning the league with 100 or whatever points but being nothing special in Europe at the same time.
And definitely better than what we achieved in 2017/18.
There’s no way you can compare seasons without taking into consideration the amount of games played and the level of opposition overcome in the seasons you are comparing.

A common sense response to the current obsession of comparing points totals, I agree 100%.
Context is everything when comparing different teams and the number of posters who seem to rely solely on points totals are only considering one facet and missing the bigger picture.

 

[Fussball13251]

That is why bias might play a role. We love our sides and think they are better since they won titles for us.
The Mourinho side is mostly hated due to how we played in the big games that season and also how it failed when it did matter.

It is fair to say that football now is better than it was in the 1990. I am too young to have experienced that time, but from watching the games it looks worse and slower back then.
Thus to argue that other sides was much stronger is a bit silly too.
Although it is about to win what you can and we did that then in 1999. Mourinho only won two cups and failed here so his side is not greater than 1999 obviously even though he won more points.
Although it was probably harder to gain 81 points now than it was in 1999.

It's just more organized now. Foreigners changed it. There is no "British" style anymore. Football back then was alot more British... the way that the played.

 

['77FACup]

We are United and we set out to win all trophies available.
With it looking like to win the league we need at least 90 odd points do we think OGS can fight on all fronts or do we just want the league first then he should have been able to build a team to win multiple trophies in the seasons after?

 

[TheLord]

If TheLord changes his vote that means we can finally close this thread.

Oh, yes. "Cent pour cent".

 

[theklr]

I know it has been said to death, but next season will most definately be "Ole's first real test"

He has had time to mold the team into how he wants it,he has bought what he wanted in defence and this window mid/attack, and with Sancho, Grealish or VdB, and another striker or CB coming in, he should really be comfortable in top 4 next season.

I dont expect a full on title challenge, but he should be at least quite close. Should also be competing in all cups again, and getting through the group stages of CL.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

To much if buts maybes and not trues. I’ll tell you what is true though. That 99 side was better than Jose’s second side. Tell you what also is true. If Pep wasn’t Manchester United manager Jose’s team would have won that Premier league and we’d remember it like his last Chelsea league champions. Boring but did the job.

Now let it go.

Someone else would. You are going to hope the freak 15/16 season all over again for Jose to win the league in 17/18.

These are exceptional managers though. Once they leave 71 points will win the league again. Even Alex Ferguson would struggle. These managers would do this in any era. Back in the old says Fergie was too good for the other British managers. Today it is different with all of these top foreign managers.

Outside of the top 2 it has been highly competitive. Look at the right points margin between them.

You're up against young, hungry elite managers wanted by everybody... hence why the top 2 are so far ahead.

Point means nothing without knowing why and how they achieve it.

For example. Last season we achieved 66 points which exactly the same as this season. So how did we finish top 4 while last season we didn't? Because this season we beat our competitors (Chelsea 2x, Leicester 2x, Spurs 1x & draw). If we didn't beat Leicester & Chelsea twice but beat other teams instead, we wouldn't make top 3 with 66 points this season.

Every seasons & eras are different. 12/13 or post are different to prior.

Sir Alex won the league with 89 points in 12/13. Are you telling me that 12/13 squad is better than 98/99? If Sir Alex can won the league with 89 points with Cleverley, Jones, 39 years old Giggs, Young & Valencia in 12/13 which is the beginning of the, imagine what he can do with proper players in nowdays era.

 

[Smores]

Pep wasn’t Manchester United manager. And if he’d not been City’s Manager, someone else would have. You don’t know what that someone else could or would have achieved. Bottom line - that team played crap, overachieved like crazy and was ultimately fortunate to cling on to second.

Let it go now.

We actually smashed a lot of teams that season we didn't play like crap at all. I think there's some recency bias in confusing the following season with it and the Sevilla games toward the end. You say clung on but we were 4 points clear.

In the league we got decent results against the top teams, Arsenal twice, Spurs, Chelsea, Liverpool, City. The only bad game was the loss to Spurs really and maybe City at home which was overly defensive.

I certainly wouldn't agree with the idiotic idea it compared to any of SAFs top teams but the idea that it wasn't a very good season is as moronic.

 

[lysglimt]

We actually smashed a lot of teams that season we didn't play like crap at all. I think there's some recency bias in confusing the following season with it and the Sevilla games toward the end. You say clung on but we were 4 points clear.

In the league we got decent results against the top teams, Arsenal twice, Spurs, Chelsea, Liverpool, City. The only bad game was the loss to Spurs really and maybe City at home which was overly defensive.

I certainly wouldn't agree with the idiotic idea it compared to any of SAFs top teams but the idea that it wasn't a very good season is as moronic.

We were really good up until december - after that we started to play a lot of really bad games, but we managed to carve out a lot of wins with 1 goal. But I agree, the football we played in the first 2-3 months of the season was really good, and we actually looked like we could fight for the title.

 

[Withnail]

We were really good up until december - after that we started to play a lot of really bad games, but we managed to carve out a lot of wins with 1 goal. But I agree, the football we played in the first 2-3 months of the season was really good, and we actually looked like we could fight for the title.

I seem to recall we looked brilliant up til Jose bottled it and parked the bus against a Liverpool side who were there for the taking. Confidence just seemed to drain from the team after that.

 

[Foxbatt]

That is why bias might play a role. We love our sides and think they are better since they won titles for us.
The Mourinho side is mostly hated due to how we played in the big games that season and also how it failed when it did matter.

It is fair to say that football now is better than it was in the 1990. I am too young to have experienced that time, but from watching the games it looks worse and slower back then.
Thus to argue that other sides was much stronger is a bit silly too.
Although it is about to win what you can and we did that then in 1999. Mourinho only won two cups and failed here so his side is not greater than 1999 obviously even though he won more points.
Although it was probably harder to gain 81 points now than it was in 1999.

You look at the players SAF had and the players we have now or Jose had. We have to accept the squad SAF had was better and better coached too. It doesn't take away anything from Jose who was a world class manager.
I am not comparing Ole to Jose.
Ole has to win almost the whole lot to be even compared to Jose in his success.
It's to point out that points alone can't be the criteria for comparison as to what wins the PL. Points in one season could be higher and not win the league while in another season it could be lower.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Someone else would.

In all probability, yes.

You can remove Pep from the equation, but that doesn't mean you also remove City's squad (under another hypothetical manager) from it.

Sure, it's conceivable that United might have limped over the line as PL winners that season if you remove Pep (and replace him with a pretty shite manager) - yes. But it still wouldn't have had the appearance of Jose's last title winning season with Chelsea. Because that season they looked genuinely solid up to a certain point - after which they, sort of, hung in there and dragged themselves over the line in a decidedly non-glorious fashion. But they actually looked solid for months. We never looked solid at any point, by contrast. We looked shaky as feck - a disjointed team capable of moments of brilliance and carried in several, crucial matches by a goal keeper making statistically unlikely saves time and again. If we had won the league that season, it would have gone down in history as a very shabby title campaign - clearly worse than Chelsea's.

ETA It is also very easy to make a mockery of the idea that points total - or even league position - is an accurate measure of how good a given team actually was. You - obviously - have to factor in more.

Sacchi's AC Milan vintage won the Serie A in 1988. They then secured their reputation as one of the greatest club teams ever by winning the European Cup in style - and then defending it the following season.

But that team did not win the league in any of the seasons when they triumphed in the European Cup. They came 3rd in '89 and 2nd in '90. Had that happened today, I have no doubt a certain category would have been all over it, pushing the idea that this historically great team - with Baresi, Maldini, Gullit, Van Basten and Rijkaard - were a bit "overrated" (quite possibly "frauds" to boot).

Of course, a bit of context helps here: the Serie A was insane in those years, with Inter's "German" vintage (who won it in '89) and Maradona's Napoli (who won it in '90). But that's pretty much the point - context. You don't judge a team by looking at statistics in isolation - unless you're a feckin' idiot, that is.

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

You look at the players SAF had and the players we have now or Jose had. We have to accept the squad SAF had was better and better coached too. It doesn't take away anything from Jose who was a world class manager.
I am not comparing Ole to Jose.
Ole has to win almost the whole lot to be even compared to Jose in his success.
It's to point out that points alone can't be the criteria for comparison as to what wins the PL. Points in one season could be higher and not win the league while in another season it could be lower.

So basically SAF had better player and was a better manager. Yet got less points?
Something do not add up here unless we claim the league was better in 1999. I think the opposite.
Luck could be a factor here. I am not sure how the games was lost in 1999 since I didn't follow us back then and have mainly just watched the big games.
Did we often dominate, but fail to produce a moment of brilliance? Keeper difference since De Gea was a beast for us in 2018.
Mourinho underrated now compared to SAF or our squads? Although SAF didn't have meltdown seasons and was the comeback king.
Also the squad we had back then won multiple titles.
The big game record is also interestingly poor in 1999 and I see and worse than 2018. Goal difference is almost the same too.
If 1999 was not part of the treble it would not be talked about as highly I think. Obviously since we got the treble it is a legendary season.

 

[AshRK]

So basically SAF had better player and was a better manager. Yet got less points?
Something do not add up here unless we claim the league was better in 1999. I think the opposite.
Luck could be a factor here. I am not sure how the games was lost in 1999 since I didn't follow us back then and have mainly just watched the big games.
Did we often dominate, but fail to produce a moment of brilliance? Keeper difference since De Gea was a beast for us in 2018.
Mourinho underrated now compared to SAF or our squads? Although SAF didn't have meltdown seasons and was the comeback king.
Also the squad we had back then won multiple titles.
The big game record is also interestingly poor in 1999 and I see and worse than 2018. Goal difference is almost the same too.
If 1999 was not part of the treble it would not be talked about as highly I think. Obviously since we got the treble it is a legendary season.

But they were part of the treble side. I am not taking anything away from Liverpool side this season but I would say just focusing on the league and getting 99 points is easier than winning the treble. This whole point obsession has only started by the Liverpool PR media.We would have easily got 95 plus points in SAF last season but SAF nor the club ever cared about getting to 100. A title is a title.

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

But they were part of the treble side. I am not taking anything away from Liverpool side this season but I would say just focusing on the league and getting 99 points is easier than winning the treble. This whole point obsession has only started by the Liverpool PR media.We would have easily got 95 plus points in SAF last season but SAF nor the club ever cared about getting to 100. A title is a title.

True you only need to do enough to win the league title. Had Arsenal got slightly more points maybe our guys would have responded.
It just shows how tiny the margins are at football. In 2008 we could have won the treble as well if not for the crazy game vs Pompey and people would compare with that season.
I guess what is so impressive with SAF is that he always fighted for the title in every bloody season for so long since he won it the first time. He changed players, but the goal was always the same.
Not most points, but to win the title.
If Ole can win the title at 79 points then we take it way above Mourinhos 81 point and second.

 

[Withnail]

So basically SAF had better player and was a better manager. Yet got less points?
Something do not add up here unless we claim the league was better in 1999. I think the opposite.
Luck could be a factor here. I am not sure how the games was lost in 1999 since I didn't follow us back then and have mainly just watched the big games.
Did we often dominate, but fail to produce a moment of brilliance? Keeper difference since De Gea was a beast for us in 2018.
Mourinho underrated now compared to SAF or our squads? Although SAF didn't have meltdown seasons and was the comeback king.
Also the squad we had back then won multiple titles.
The big game record is also interestingly poor in 1999 and I see and worse than 2018. Goal difference is almost the same too.
If 1999 was not part of the treble it would not be talked about as highly I think. Obviously since we got the treble it is a legendary season.

Well obviously. It's extremely difficult to fight on three fronts and win the FA Cup, Champions League and keep the League campaign going.

You can't look at the league in isolation when the team also won the other two. You have to rotate constantly so you're rarely putting out your best team.

Take a look at Klopp, he basically binned off the FA Cup and hardly rested anyone in games against Bournemouth and Norwich ahead of the Atletico games in the pursuit of a points record.

Granted it was their first title but it was odd to see when they had such a lead built up.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

So basically SAF had better player and was a better manager. Yet got less points?

Yes.

There is no correlation between how good a team is and how many points said team win in a given, isolated league season. Really - what is so hard to understand about this?

Forget about Liverpool. Leicester did better than the treble winners in the league - on points.

Another one (a good one, I think): Jose's Chelsea got 93 points in his second-stint league win. That's better than any Fergie team ever did. What does that tell you?

Or - let me rephrase that: if you were around for the 2016-17 PL season, saw how it unfolded, how the teams actually performed - would you conclude that Chelsea were a better team than any of Fergie's league winning vintages?

If you would, I would call your sanity (or at least your basic ability to understand football) into question.

 

[AshRK]

True you only need to do enough to win the league title. Had Arsenal got slightly more points maybe our guys would have responded.
It just shows how tiny the margins are at football. In 2008 we could have won the treble as well if not for the crazy game vs Pompey and people would compare with that season.
I guess what is so impressive with SAF is that he always fighted for the title in every bloody season for so long since he won it the first time. He changed players, but the goal was always the same.
Not most points, but to win the title.
If Ole can win the title at 79 points then we take it way above Mourinhos 81 point and second.

And that is why I find it amusing when people say even SAF would have struggled to fight for the title against this klopp or pep because he never reached 90 plus points. Well let us rewind the history book, Chelsea under Jose's first sting reached 95 and 91 points. And getting 95 points was a record for some time. SAF didn't even need to touch 90 points but won the league beating Jose;'s chelsea by getting 89 points in 06-07.

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

Yes.

There is no correlation between how good a team is and how many points said team win in a given, isolated league season. Really - what is so hard to understand about this?

Forget about Liverpool. Leicester did better than the treble winners in the league - on points.

Another one (a good one, I think): Jose's Chelsea got 93 points in his second-stint league win. That's better than any Fergie team ever did. What does that tell you?

Or - let me rephrase that: if you were around for the 2016-17 PL season, saw how it unfolded, how the teams actually performed - would you conclude that Chelsea were a better team than any of Fergie's league winning vintages?

If you would, I would call your sanity (or at least your basic ability to understand football) into question.

Now you are being subjective though. You rate our teams since they are our great sides. If they drop points they need to perform badly as well just looking at the league table.
All legendary players had bad games too just like the modern ones that get hated upon. You can argue that they save energy for CL, but we didn't win it that many times.
Chelsea played some good stuff that year under Conte. Efficient team that would have given our SAF sides a run for the money. They could not keep it up without Costa and Matic though next year.
In terms of winning it for many year we have done way better than anyone else. Although for the individual years other teams have been equally impressive.
What is better is hard to tell since they are not playing against each other.

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

And that is why I find it amusing when people say even SAF would have struggled to fight for the title against this klopp or pep because he never reached 90 plus points. Well let us rewind the history book, Chelsea under Jose's first sting reached 95 and 91 points. And getting 95 points was a record for some time. SAF didn't even need to touch 90 points but won the league beating Jose;'s chelsea by getting 89 points in 06-07.

Having SAF there with the mindgames is enough to take away 10 points each from Pep and Klopp

 

[He'sRaldo]

When you say ' Keep Ole & back him to finish rebuild', does that include going for trophies, or is it just limited to refreshing and reshaping the squad?

 

[lysglimt]

I seem to recall we looked brilliant up til Jose bottled it and parked the bus against a Liverpool side who were there for the taking. Confidence just seemed to drain from the team after that.

we had a small dip there but bounced back with 4 strong wins (4-1 Newcastle, 4-2 Watford, 3-1 Arsenal and 1-0 Brighton)

But after that we stopped scoring goals - and won just 5 matches with more than 1 goal. Compared to 8 wins by 2 goals or more in our first 15 games.

So 35 goals in our first 15 - and 33 in our last 23 games.

 

[united_99]

So basically SAF had better player and was a better manager. Yet got less points?
Something do not add up here unless we claim the league was better in 1999. I think the opposite.
Luck could be a factor here. I am not sure how the games was lost in 1999 since I didn't follow us back then and have mainly just watched the big games.
Did we often dominate, but fail to produce a moment of brilliance? Keeper difference since De Gea was a beast for us in 2018.
Mourinho underrated now compared to SAF or our squads? Although SAF didn't have meltdown seasons and was the comeback king.
Also the squad we had back then won multiple titles.
The big game record is also interestingly poor in 1999 and I see and worse than 2018. Goal difference is almost the same too.
If 1999 was not part

Apart from 1 or 2 games against Arsenal, which other big game did we actually lose in 1999 as you are saying the big game record was poor?

We actually did well in big games and I doubt there are many other seasons where a team had to face more big teams than us in every single competition. We drew some big games, but didn’t lose them.
In the CL that season we were unbeaten, in the group we faced Bayern and Barça (both won their leagues that season). In the semis we faced Juve who had reached 3 CL finals in a row before playing us in 99.
Then Bayern again in the final without our regular midfield.
In the FA Cup we best Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal. Chelsea and Arsenal were in the top 3 in that season. As the first games against both of them were draws we had to play replays, which meant even more fixtures. Basically every game in the last few months felt like a final and with so much on the line. If one actually knows all the factors it is easy to understand why we completed the season with lesser points than some other seasons.

Only one season later we actually managed to win the league with 12 more points, but I wouldn’t say at all that that season was more successful than 99. It was still great though as it confirmed our superiority in England.

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

Apart from 1 or 2 games against Arsenal, which other big game did we actually lose in 1999 as you are saying the big game record was poor?

We actually did well in big games and I doubt there are many other seasons where a team had to face more big teams than us in every single competition. We drew some big games, but didn’t lose them.
In the CL that season we were unbeaten, in the group we faced Bayern and Barça (both won their leagues that season). In the semis we faced Juve who had reached 3 CL finals in a row before playing us in 99.
Then Bayern again in the final without our regular midfield.
In the FA Cup we best Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal. Chelsea and Arsenal were in the top 3 in that season. As the first games against both of them were draws we had to play replays, which meant even more fixtures. Basically every game in the last few months felt like a final and with so much on the line. If one actually knows all the factors it is easy to understand why we completed the season with lesser points than some other seasons.

Only one season later we actually managed to win the league with 12 more points, but I wouldn’t say at all that that season was more successful than 99. It was still great though as it confirmed our superiority in England.

It was many draws against the top 4. 1 win in 6 I think from looking it up. Yeah in CL is was obviously great in the big games and I know about the famous win over Arsenal in the cup.
The margins are small though with Arsenal behind. Could have easily gone another way. Although SAF had a skill to get things his way in the league.

 

[united_99]

It was many draws against the top 4. 1 win in 6 I think from looking it up. Yeah in CL is was obviously great in the big games and I know about the famous win over Arsenal in the cup.
The margins are small though with Arsenal behind. Could have easily gone another way. Although SAF had a skill to get things his way in the league.

Well the margins are mostly small in big games with some CL and WC finals even decided after penalty shootouts.

 

[midnightmare]

We actually smashed a lot of teams that season we didn't play like crap at all. I think there's some recency bias in confusing the following season with it and the Sevilla games toward the end. You say clung on but we were 4 points clear.

In the league we got decent results against the top teams, Arsenal twice, Spurs, Chelsea, Liverpool, City. The only bad game was the loss to Spurs really and maybe City at home which was overly defensive.

I certainly wouldn't agree with the idiotic idea it compared to any of SAFs top teams but the idea that it wasn't a very good season is as moronic.

Started like a runaway train. Then parked the bus away to the dippers after which (if I remember correctly) we lurched like a passed-out drunk to a loss to Huddersfield. Was never the same after that. By the end of December the league was absolutely done for all practical purposes with a massive gap to City. A few good wins here and there but most were grim affairs that relied heavily on DdG producing one of the best - if not the absolute best - ever seasons of goalkeeping the league has seen. Think of Arsenal away. Any other keeper and we’d lose despite scoring thrice.

By the time we swayed to that shambles against Sevilla, I seem to remember that all anyone could speak of was Liverpool and how they were the team on the up and would overtake us. More great keeping and classic Mourinho games saw us squeak past the line still in second but it was very much “holding on” in each game and overall. That win against the dippers at home was crucial as was that mental game away to City. Injury time winners against Palace and Arsenal I think. But each time, it wasn’t like we were swamping them and being dominant and that “the goal is coming”. It just didn’t feel like we were building up a head of steam. It was joyless. And this was being said by United fans. A majority of us wanted Jose gone before the summer and this wasn’t because of the gap to City. It was because the football was atrocious. Sevilla wasn’t a one-off. It was just the epitome / nadir.

I think for most people, it seemed obvious we were heading for a collapse - and was just a matter of when. When you end the season second, but aren’t being discussed as title challengers for the coming season while the teams below you are, you should know it wasn’t a classic season.

 

[Fully Fledged]

When you say ' Keep Ole & back him to finish rebuild', does that include going for trophies, or is it just limited to refreshing and reshaping the squad?

We can still win a trophy this season.

 

[Verminator]

This thread is where Death comes to die.

 

[Bilbo]

Someone let the rest of the forum know when the points total conversation is finished please

 

[Robbie Boy]

I don't think anything new or enlightening has been posted in this thread in a while now. We should all be backing our manager, getting third was a good achievement.

 

[tomaldinho1]

So basically SAF had better player and was a better manager. Yet got less points?
Something do not add up here unless we claim the league was better in 1999. I think the opposite.
Luck could be a factor here. I am not sure how the games was lost in 1999 since I didn't follow us back then and have mainly just watched the big games.
Did we often dominate, but fail to produce a moment of brilliance? Keeper difference since De Gea was a beast for us in 2018.
Mourinho underrated now compared to SAF or our squads? Although SAF didn't have meltdown seasons and was the comeback king.
Also the squad we had back then won multiple titles.
The big game record is also interestingly poor in 1999 and I see and worse than 2018. Goal difference is almost the same too.
If 1999 was not part of the treble it would not be talked about as highly I think. Obviously since we got the treble it is a legendary season.

Aside from the idiocy of comparing points totals 2 decades apart..

Re the strength of the league.

Leicester won the PL with more points than the 99 treble winning team, Conte then smashed the PL points total first season, Pep then broke that total, Klopp nearly broke that total this year. We just got 3rd place with 66 points for crying out loud when the winners nearly hit 100. What better sign could you have of a less competitve league? PL has never been so weak overall in my opinion.

 

[RedPed]

Do 536 Cafites still really want Ole gone and a new manager installed next season or have they just not bothered updating the poll?

Just askin'.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

I don't think anything new or enlightening has been posted in this thread in a while now. We should all be backing our manager, getting third was a good achievement.

Agree. We were never gonna be expected to move from 6th to challenging the league. It was always gonna be expected to fighting for top 4 and we achieved the best possible position which is 3rd. 66 points is the same points as last season but what's the point if we can't make the top 4 with 66. We got this 3rd place fully deserved because we stole away the points from our competitors by beating them head to head. While last season we couldn't do it which allows them to stole the points away from us & finished above us.

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

Aside from the idiocy of comparing points totals 2 decades apart..

Re the strength of the league.

Leicester won the PL with more points than the 99 treble winning team, Conte then smashed the PL points total first season, Pep then broke that total, Klopp nearly broke that total this year. We just got 3rd place with 66 points for crying out loud when the winners nearly hit 100. What better sign could you have of a less competitve league? PL has never been so weak overall in my opinion.

There was way less money for the weaker sides back then. Why would they be stronger in a sport that has evolved since then too? Watching the few games I have the quality also look clearly worse back then. I am talking CL games and
I doubt there is not a gap difference for the weaker sides too.
The weaker sides now can keep their players better and also sign quality from other leagues. Maybe sides are a bit more attacking now though and thus leaves themselfes more exposed for the bigger sides?
Still most side play vs City and try to defend very deep.

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

Do 536 Cafites still really want Ole gone and a new manager installed next season or have they just not bothered updating the poll?

Just askin'.

I change my vote now. Has just forgot about it. I am still not sold on Ole to take us to the title and challenge in europe, but he certainly deserves the chance next season and probably one more after that if he does well.
I even said he deserved the chance missing top 4 this season with the restart being the way it is.
Next season is still tricky with Corona so there is less time to really coach the side with a pre season.
Hopefully he can recruit well and add to our squad.

 

[Matriac]

"Ole out."

https://v.redd.it/i6vmjb1ow6e51

 

[RedPed]

I change my vote now. Has just forgot about it. I am still not sold on Ole to take us to the title and challenge in europe, but he certainly deserves the chance next season and probably one more after that if he does well.
I even said he deserved the chance missing top 4 this season with the restart being the way it is.
Next season is still tricky with Corona so there is less time to really coach the side with a pre season.
Hopefully he can recruit well and add to our squad.

You may well be right but what's pissing me off is the anti United/Solskjaer bias and how even Arteta finishing 8th and overseeing Arsenal's worst ever PL season is still getting more credit. How has Lampard had a great season but Solskjaer's just lucky?

 

[Withnail]

"Ole out."

https://v.redd.it/i6vmjb1ow6e51

Why always Lukaku