What’s the reasons for keeping Ole?

[ryansgirl]

Well one can only look at the fact Poch got Southampton from 14th to 8th so you never know!
there is no guarentee's in football but this isn't the point. you go for the least risk and the person who you are most certain of success.
Sure he hasn't won anything but what has Solskjaer won at the top level? relegation. Klopp did not win his 1st piece of major silverware for 9 seasons but the lads at dortmund must of seen what he was doing and saw his potential. Its how I feel with Poch. you can clearly see his teams are well coached, players improve, team progresses, play nice stuff and compete so it should translate. it not a case of Klopp/Poch were crap managers until they won something. the talent was always there.
regarding the 5-year thing, it would depend on where we are at. If after 5years we are where Pool are at, (pushing City and competing for CL) then yes I'd be happy. very much so. A carling cup or two isn't going to change this

Ole hasn't managed football clubs anywhere near the length of time Klopp and Pochettino have.
On their statistics alone they have been under-achievers.

I like Klopp and wonder what he would do at United but it's reasonable to consider silverware as the hard evidence of success, and in that case he been relatively medicocre as a manager. As for Pochettino - his best chance was very recently and he blew it.

As a poster said in reply to me about that, he will learn from his tactical mistakes. However, the fact is he and Spurs lost and I don't believe they will have that opportunity again, especially given they ended playing the Champions League Final against a club they play domestically and know inside-out. Pochettino is also likeable and clearly has player management skills just like Klopp.

However, if we had either of them and after five years were only were Liverpool is at, then that would certainly be unacceptable for Manchester United. It would be the definition of failure. Two managers who won silverware were sacked, Moyes would never have had a sniff of silverware with the way he behaved and rightfully was sacked.

I think with a ruthless overhaul of the team and judicious signings, Ole could very well win silverware within the next three years. Klopp's and Pochettino's lack is just not good enough for Manchester United.

 

[JustAGuest]

I see this over and over and over.

It's not remotely the same scenario.

I suggest you to read what Pep always talked about Cruyff and how influenced he was by him, how he helped him, how he only continued the empire that he build and the youth ranks that he had at his disposal thanks to Cruyff.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...diola-exclusive-interview-johan-cruyff-unique

Pep had a great foundation, he inherited Barca's greatest team of all time.

Zidane on the other hand inherited a team that was 2 points off the top the season before. A GOAT in it, some fantastic players and the luxury of having a fantastic base to step on.

On the other hand we're team in turmoil that has no CL spot, no coherent set up, had 3 very different managers in style before him and a clueless CEO that won't get you the biggest players in the game like Perez.

The similarity is that all of them lacked experience of managing at the top level before being appointed. The post I quoted claimed that no other big club would make these kind of decisions.

 

[roonster09]

The similarity is that all of them lacked experience of managing at the top level before being appointed. The post I quoted claimed that no other big club would make these kind of decisions.

Nepotism it was at Barca, Madrid, Juventus, Atletico

 

[DevilAgeIdiot]

In that case he would never have been offered it in the first place so it's pretty irrelevant.

You've inadvertently proved rafaelgold's point.

Any other manager of Olé's calibre would not even be considered for any other big club's managerial position, and by big club I mean one that should be challenging for both domestic titles and champions league.

His dip in performance since Woody's premature ejaculatory hiring is alarming and can not be blamed on the players alone. Yes we should get behind Olé, but no we should not have some idiotic blind faith in his unproven ability to succeed at a top club. Blind faith will only result in tears.

 

[ryansgirl]

But still, you could answer the question rather than sidestepping it...

The question is essentially about nepotism, something which has literally become one of Utd's single biggest problems.

Insane decisions that no other big club would make - accepted by a fanbase deluded and walking backwards due to this endless, tireless campaign to somehow relive great moments from earlier - rather than moving on to create new ones.

Why exactly do you think Ole was offered the job permanently and so early? I'm more optimistic than some here and I believe some of it just came down to his character. However, I also think the Board should have waited to see if other options became available.

 

[JustAGuest]

You've inadvertently proved rafaelgold's point.

Any other manager of Olé's calibre would not even be considered for any other big club's managerial position, and by big club I mean one that should be challenging for both domestic titles and champions league.

His dip in performance since Woody's premature ejaculatory hiring is alarming and can not be blamed on the players alone. Yes we should get behind Olé, but no we should not have some idiotic blind faith in his unproven ability to succeed at a top club. Blind faith will only result in tears.

As already mentioned, the same can be said for both Guardiola and Zidane, to use the two most obvious examples.

 

[Enigma_87]

The similarity is that all of them lacked experience of managing at the top level before being appointed. The post I quoted claimed that no other big club would make these kind of decisions.

But the circumstances couldn't be more different. This is not really a valid objection that Ole will succeed here, just because those two did.

Ole hasn't managed football clubs anywhere near the length of time Klopp and Pochettino have.

Ole has managed football clubs since 2010. Poch since 2009.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

We will just have to hope he does actually know how to deal with problem situations in games. His star was at it's height when things were going well, but looked alarmingly inadequate when they didn't and couldn't appear to put things to right. Let's just hope he knows exactly how he wants the team to play and the club back him in signing players to fit his plan. I just hope we do not go from one style to another because all are failing. We will just have to wait and see what happens. I would start to seriously worry if we have a summer of players turning us down because we are perceived as on the decline.

 

[DevilAgeIdiot]

The similarity is that all of them lacked experience of managing at the top level before being appointed. The post I quoted claimed that no other big club would make these kind of decisions.

Yes and the post you quoted was correct.
No other big club would indeed appoint a manager of Olé's calibre.
So the decisions to appoint Guardiola and Zidane can not be possibly considered in the same bracket of ejaculatory stupidity as the premature appointment of Olé.

 

[ryansgirl]

But the circumstances couldn't be more different. This is not really a valid objection that Ole will succeed here, just because those two did.
Ole has managed football clubs since 2010. Poch since 2009.

I actually meant in terms of length of time involved at management level. Correct me if I am wrong but I think Ole has spent less actual time in management than both Klopp and Pochettino.

 

[roonster09]

But the circumstances couldn't be more different. This is not really a valid objection that Ole will succeed here, just because those two did.

That's not the point he made. It was very clear what he was saying. See the post he was replying to.

 

[UncleBob]

But still, you could answer the question rather than sidestepping it...

The question is essentially about nepotism, something which has literally become one of Utd's single biggest problems.

Insane decisions that no other big club would make - accepted by a fanbase deluded and walking backwards due to this endless, tireless campaign to somehow relive great moments from earlier - rather than moving on to create new ones.

It's nonsensical question, it speaks for itself that if you remove the very reason someone was hired in the first place, the outcome is unlikely to be the same. Would Guardiola have been appointed Barcelona B manager if it wasn't for his history with the club, what would his career path have looked like then, would it have been exactly the same ?

We're on our 4th manager since Fergie retired and this is the first time we've gone for someone with deeper connections with the club, where the manager wouldn't have been hired in the first place without those connections. It's a tad early to single out nepotism as one of Uniteds biggest problems.

Blowing things out of proportion is just as meaningless as downplaying major concerns. Pretending that we're the only club to make managerial decisions based on club connections is so wrong that it's outright lying.

 

[Alvaro Maestre]

You all have to wait at least until December when he is getting the sack. ( Normally everything I predict goes the toher way around so we might be challenging for the league or carababo cup )

 

[roonster09]

Yes and the post you quoted was correct.
No other big club would indeed appoint a manager of Olé's calibre.
So the decisions to appoint Guardiola and Zidane can not be possibly considered in the same bracket of ejaculatory stupidity as the premature appointment of Olé.

Amazing how people can read posts he was replying to and still can't get the point.

 

[Enigma_87]

That's not the point he made. It was very clear what he was saying. See the post he was replying to.

It's not good example since Barca have very strict structure, hence it's more viable to appoint a internal man. Pep himself is a disciple of Cruyff and was closely taught by him, a lot of his ideas have been carried from Cruyff. Ole played under Fergie like bunch of other players.

It's not the same "nepotism".

I actually meant in terms of length of time involved at management level. Correct me if I am wrong but I think Ole has spent less actual time in management than both Klopp and Pochettino.

Both Ole and Poch have very similar length of time involved at management level. Poch became manager of Espanyol in January 2009. Ole became manager of Molde in November 2010.

Both had some time off(months) since Espanyol and Cardiff, but the difference is year or two, hardly substantial considering both staring their careers 9-10 years ago.

 

[Untd55]

I think the most problematic sign from his time as a manager so far has been the way results have come in blocks. People will use the managerial table to say we would have finished third under Solskjaer, but the issue is that the wins and losses were not intermixed but almost came in two separate segments. This makes that table invalid.

We started with 14 wins in 18 games (78% Win Rate), but ended with 8 losses in 12 games (67% Loss Rate).

The Cardiff and Huddersfield games are the best to show the contrast between the start and the end. Huddersfield: 3v1 win to a 1v1 draw. Cardiff: 1v5 win to 0v2 loss.

We are talking about relegated teams here - I doubt they are even Championship title-winning standard. I really don't think fitness issues should even come into a discussion about these results.

When you get a pattern like this it is just clear that results at the beginning were likely not matching the performances (we were gaining more points than we usually would with such performances). It is just at no point were we playing some mesmerising football and blowing teams away, we were just ok whilst getting a great run of results. Eventually, that luck ran out and our player's confidence was hit hard because they got a reality check, which resulted in the run of losses - not just against good teams but against poor teams also.

I just think that there was little sign of Solskjaer so far actually having much impact on the team, apart from the new manager resurgence for a bit that was followed by a period of luck regarding results. It all then came crashing down and Solskjaer was unable to do anything about it.

I am not saying that Solskjaer cannot be successful or a great manager, but I don't think his managerial tenure up to now has shown he is at all the manager we need.

 

[roonster09]

It's not good example since Barca have very strict structure, hence it's more viable to appoint a internal man. Pep himself is a disciple of Cruyff and was closely taught by him. Ole played under Fergie like bunch of other players.

It's not the same "nepotism".

It is. If he wasn't a Barca player, he wouldn't have been appointed. That's the Nepotism nonsense that was posted.

Funny you talk about Cruyff and how Pep was closely taught and ignore Fergie said many times that Ole would be a manager and he used to read the game so much better sitting on the bench. He was not like bunch of other players.

SAF in 2012,

But Ferguson believes Solskjaer’s preparation for life in the hot-seat, including taking notes about training sessions, has set him apart from other United alumni.

“I think the problem for a lot of footballers today is that when they get to the end of their careers they decide they want to become coaches because they have nothing else in their mind that they think they can do,” said Ferguson.

Whereas Ole always wanted to stay in the game, so from an early age he was preparing stay in the game as a coach or as a manager, as he is at the moment. So he has given himself a better chance than the rest.

“Ole was always one of the professionals that used to take down all the notes from the training sessions and games.”

“He has got an inner toughness, there’s no doubt about that,” added the United manager. “He is a nice man with a lovely manner about him.

“If you go to a club in Norway that have never won the league ever in their history and you win the league you have to have something about you to do that.

“He has brought in his own staff. He’s brought two coaches from United as part of his structure to the club so he knew where he was going. A useful thing to have in management is good decision making.

“It’s possibly one of the most important things and he has been decisive, so yes he has got a lot going for himself.”

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...otball-news/sir-alex-ferguson-tips-ole-679923


Zidane was appointed as he was ex Madrid player, Pep was appointed as he was ex Barca player, good chance Conte got chance at Juventus as he was Juve legend.

 

[midnightmare]

I see this over and over and over.

It's not remotely the same scenario.

I suggest you to read what Pep always talked about Cruyff and how influenced he was by him, how he helped him, how he only continued the empire that he build and the youth ranks that he had at his disposal thanks to Cruyff.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...diola-exclusive-interview-johan-cruyff-unique

Pep had a great foundation, he inherited Barca's greatest team of all time.

Zidane on the other hand inherited a team that was 2 points off the top the season before. A GOAT in it, some fantastic players and the luxury of having a fantastic base to step on.

On the other hand we're team in turmoil that has no CL spot, no coherent set up, had 3 very different managers in style before him and a clueless CEO that won't get you the biggest players in the game like Perez.

Oh dear! Pep was appointed after Rijkaard had a disastrous season - finishing third in a two-team league; 18 behind Madrid and with just 67 points for the season. He saw a massive overhaul of the team in the summer and that's how he built forward. The myth of his "inheriting the greatest team of all time" is just that - a myth.

For the record, Barcelona continued to appoint unheralded coaches after that too. It's not like they've gone for the bling at any point after Rijkaard (and Rijkaard too was unproven at the top level when appointed)*. They've constantly gone for managers that they feel "get" the club - and it's not like all have played the same system or style. They've each faced criticism as well at times.

Hearing people on here, it's as if Ole is the first and only "unproven at the top level" manager to ever get a top job. People counter with Pep - but there's also Luis Enrique (horrid Roma stint and all), Tito Vilanova, Tata Martino and Ernesto Valverde. That's at Barca alone in the last decade.

*Edit: Rijkaard's previous role was at Rotterdam where he was sacked after getting them relegated.

 

[roonster09]

Oh dear! Pep was appointed after Rijkaard had a disastrous season - finishing third in a two-team league; 18 behind Madrid and with just 67 points for the season. He saw a massive overhaul of the team in the summer and that's how he built forward. The myth of his "inheriting the greatest team of all time" is just that - a myth.

For the record, Barcelona continued to appoint unheralded coaches after that too. It's not like they've gone for the bling at any point after Rijkaard (and Rijkaard too was unproven at the top level when appointed)*. They've constantly gone for managers that they feel "get" the club - and it's not like all have played the same system or style. They've each faced criticism as well at times.

Hearing people on here, it's as if Ole is the first and only "unproven at the top level" manager to ever get a top job. People counter with Pep - but there's also Luis Enrique (horrid Roma stint and all), Tito Vilanova, Tata Martino and Ernesto Valverde. That's at Barca alone in the last decade.

*Edit: Rijkaard's previous role was at Rotterdam where he was sacked after getting them relegated.

Yeah Rijkaard is a good example. Win percentage of 15% and he was hired as Barca manager. Nepotism FTW.

 

[Enigma_87]

Oh dear! Pep was appointed after Rijkaard had a disastrous season - finishing third in a two-team league; 18 behind Madrid and with just 67 points for the season. He saw a massive overhaul of the team in the summer and that's how he built forward. The myth of his "inheriting the greatest team of all time" is just that - a myth.

For the record, Barcelona continued to appoint unheralded coaches after that too. It's not like they've gone for the bling at any point after Rijkaard. They've constantly gone for managers that they feel "get" the club - and it's not like all have played the same system or style. They've each faced criticism as well at times.

Hearing people on here, it's as if Ole is the first and only "unproven at the top level" manager to ever get a top job. People counter with Pep - but there's also Luis Enrique (horrid Roma stint and all), Tito Vilanova, Tata Martino and Ernesto Valverde. That's at Barca alone.

Pep inherited fantastic academy players. Rijkaard might have had disastrous season but won the CL and La Liga before that. That doesn't mean the crop he got wasn't good,far from it.

It is. If he wasn't a Barca player, he wouldn't have been appointed. That's the Nepotism nonsense that was posted.

Funny you talk about Cruyff and how Pep was closely taught and ignore Fergie said many times that Ole would be a manager and he used to read the game so much better sitting on the bench. He was not like bunch of other players.

SAF in 2012,


https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...otball-news/sir-alex-ferguson-tips-ole-679923


Zidane was appointed as he was ex Madrid player, Pep was appointed as he was ex Barca player, good chance Conte got chance at Juventus as he was Juve legend.

Again, very different circumstances. I would also take Fergie's view on managers with a pinch of salt considering the names he threw when he first thought of stepping down and then promoting Moyes.

Pep wasn't "just" a Barca player. He was Cruyff's darling since his playing days and suck up to every idea he had, clearly seen in his playing blueprint.

As mentioned above other past players didn't work too well even at Barca. Pep was a one off so far and there is a very good explanation why he made it.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

Tell me how it's different from Zidane being given a chance at Real Madrid, or Guardiola at Barcelona? As you claim no other big club would make these decisions. Both those appointments could likewise be classified as sentimental and backwards thinking - that they both turned out successful should not be a factor here.

One could argue that, at the time of their respective appointments, they were both unknown quantities while Solskjaer is not. In fact, you can claim that he won the Cardiff gig on merit after he had done well in a smaller league but he ultimately failed in England. He's been around for a decade or so without his managerial career showing an upward trajectory such as the ones of Allegri, Klopp, Conte, Pellegrini or whoever had to work his way up. Simeone, who gets mentioned a lot, first won titles in Argentina by trademarking his own version of 442 and helped Catania avoid relegation and then he was offered the Atletico job.

Plus it's silly to mention Guardiola and Zidane IMHO. The former is a once in a lifetime (or more) manager who will go down as one of the managerial greats. Their kind isn't found easily. So Barcelona were very lucky with him (and Messi) indeed. The latter walked into a dressing room that looked more like a menagerie but it also consisted of players who had won CL, La Liga titles, WCs and Euros. That's exactly when you take a gamble with a rookie manager who's an insider and possesses lots of charisma.

Probably because no one is ready to come into this dysfunctional mess the board has created around this club.

Pretty sure, pochh has said he is not willing to leave tottenham.

I believe it to be so. We have the war chest and we have the prestige but the truth of the matter is that the job isn't very appealing atm. The comparisons will always be made with City and Liverpool who seem to be miles ahead with the best managers in the world in charge of both. Poch, or whoever, will have to come here knowing that the title will be decided on 90+ points and that the squad cannot compete for any major title. On top of that, we've already had two top-class managers who have failed spectacularly and they have both very recently implied that the board wasn't either willing or capable to grant their wishes in the market. A board that seems to believe that the backbone of what will be a good side is already in place. A board that appoints managers without discussing their respective philosophies first.

 

[roonster09]

Again, very different circumstances. I would also take Fergie's view on managers with a pinch of salt considering the names he threw when he first thought of stepping down and then promoting Moyes.

Pep wasn't "just" a Barca player. He was Cruyff's darling since his playing days and suck up to every idea he had, clearly seen in his playing blueprint.

As mentioned above other past players didn't work too well even at Barca. Pep was a one off so far and there is a very good explanation why he made it.

Rijkaard was also a past player and he was offered Barca job after relegating a team for the first time in their History in Dutch league, with a win percentage of 15%. The very next job he landed was Barca.

Again I disagree with Pep. Now it's easy to build a narrative as he is the best manager in the world. When they appointed him, they did as he was ex Barca player. The other manager who won the CL for Barca after few tough seasons was again their ex player (Rijkaard). So Barca going for their ex players is not a surprise. It's seen as good decision as they won, when ManUtd tried, people call it as Nepotism which is a just nonsense.

 

[midnightmare]

Pep inherited fantastic academy players. Rijkaard might have had disastrous season but won the CL and La Liga before that. That doesn't mean the crop he got wasn't good,far from it.

So now inheriting good youngsters counts as inheriting the "greatest ever team"? He bought 7 players and promoted only Busquets. He sold Deco and Ronaldinho. He actually made over the entire squad and no, promoting youngsters does not qualify as "inheriting the greatest..." If you do it that way, why credit Fergie for our achievements? He just "inherited" the Class of '92, surely?

And what about Rijkaard et al? Should we ignore the fact that Barcelona have never actually gone for top-end managers in 20 years?

Again, very different circumstances. I would also take Fergie's view on managers with a pinch of salt considering the names he threw when he first thought of stepping down and then promoting Moyes.

Pep wasn't "just" a Barca player. He was Cruyff's darling since his playing days and suck up to every idea he had, clearly seen in his playing blueprint.

As mentioned above other past players didn't work too well even at Barca. Pep was a one off so far and there is a very good explanation why he made it.

Whose darling was Rijkaard? Or Enrique? Or Tito? Tata? Bizarre... Do we now write-off the treble Enrique won? What about Rijkaard's success which you've just cited before? Unheralded manager succeeding at winning it all with Barcelona after building the team. How is Pep the "one-off"? He may be the best, but he's not "one-off" in terms of being successful.

One could argue that, at the time of their respective appointments, they were both unknown quantities while Solskjaer is not. In fact, you can claim that he won the Cardiff gig on merit after he had done well in a smaller league but he ultimately failed in England. He's been around for a decade or so without his managerial career showing an upward trajectory such as the ones of Allegri, Klopp, Conte, Pellegrini or whoever had to work his way up. Simeone, who gets mentioned a lot, first won titles in Argentina by trademarking his own version of 442 and helped Catania avoid relegation and then he was offered the Atletico job.

Again, Rijkaard by that token, should be considered a "known quantity" as a failure when Barca appointed him. Not every manager can succeed everywhere. Allardyce excelled with lower level teams; Pulis as well; same for Warnock - which would succeed with a big team? Similarly, it's not assured that Zidane would lead Cardiff to Cup glory or Top 4, regardless of all else.

Edit: Hard for Ole to have shown an "upward trajectory" after winning the league. Where next with Molde? Oh wait, he did bloody a lot of big clubs' noses in the Europa, but what more could he have done?

 

[Enigma_87]

Rijkaard was also a past player and he was offered Barca job after relegating a team for the first time in their History in Dutch league, with a win percentage of 15%. The very next job he landed was Barca.

Again I disagree with Pep. Now it's easy to build a narrative as he is the best manager in the world. When they appointed him, they did as he was ex Barca player. The other manager who won the CL for Barca after few tough seasons was again their ex player (Rijkaard). So Barca going for their ex players is not a surprise. It's seen as good decision as they won, when ManUtd tried, people call it as Nepotism which is a just nonsense.

Rijkaard didn't play for Barca so I'm not sure why nepotism is mentioned?

We can agree to disagree on Pep. For Zidane you are closer to the point, but I just can't concede Pep was "just" another Barco player like Lucho.

 

[romufc]

Oh dear! Pep was appointed after Rijkaard had a disastrous season - finishing third in a two-team league; 18 behind Madrid and with just 67 points for the season. He saw a massive overhaul of the team in the summer and that's how he built forward. The myth of his "inheriting the greatest team of all time" is just that - a myth

You talking about 3rd and a Semi Final in UCL being Disastrous? you might need to check your ambitions mate.

Are you deluded? He inherited:-
Messi
Xavi
Iniesta
Henry
Eto
Puyol
Ronaldinho
Abidal

If you think that team is not great, then there is something wrong.

 

[roonster09]

Rijkaard didn't play for Barca so I'm not sure why nepotism is mentioned?

We can agree to disagree on Pep. For Zidane you are closer to the point, but I just can't concede Pep was "just" another Barco player like Lucho.

For some reason I thought Rijkaard played for Barca, my mistake.

So can we put the "no big clubs appoints unknown managers or makes these decisions" to bed now? Rijkaard relegated a team and ended up as Barca manager, Zidane's first job was Madrid and luckily he wasn't Di Stefano's darling.

 

[Enigma_87]

So now inheriting good youngsters counts as inheriting the "greatest ever team"? He bought 7 players and promoted only Busquets. He sold Deco and Ronaldinho. He actually made over the entire squad and no, promoting youngsters does not qualify as "inheriting the greatest..." If you do it that way, why credit Fergie for our achievements? He just "inherited" the Class of '92, surely?

And what about Rijkaard et al? Should we ignore the fact that Barcelona have never actually gone for top-end managers in 20 years?



Whose darling was Rijkaard? Or Enrique? Or Tito? Tata? Bizarre... Do we now write-off the treble Enrique won? What about Rijkaard's success which you've just cited before? Unheralded manager succeeding at winning it all with Barcelona after building the team. How is Pep the "one-off"? He may be the best, but he's not "one-off" in terms of being successful.



Again, Rijkaard by that token, should be considered a "known quantity" as a failure when Barca appointed him. Not every manager can succeed everywhere. Allardyce excelled with lower level teams; Pulis as well; same for Warnock - which would succeed with a big team? Similarly, it's not assured that Zidane would lead Cardiff to Cup glory or Top 4, regardless of all else.

I'm not sure why Rijkaard is kept being mentioned when it comes to nepotism.

Tata didn't play for Barca and Valverde had 20 something games at some point of his career.

I'm not discrediting Pep and his work, where did you read that? All I'm saying he had a phenomenal group of players which is true. Do we have Xavi, Iniesta and Messi in terms of quality in our youth ranks?

 

[midnightmare]

You talking about 3rd and a Semi Final in UCL being Disastrous? you might need to check your ambitions mate.

Are you deluded? He inherited:-
Messi
Xavi
Iniesta
Henry
Eto
Puyol
Ronaldinho
Abidal

If you think that team is not great, then there is something wrong.

Yep; sold Ronaldinho off the bat. Got rid of Eto'o soon after that and then Henry too. For the record, Messi was barely the big influence then. You could argue that a lot of these players became great because of Pep and not vice versa. Hindsight of his effect at City for example, would back this up. The fact is that Barcelona were considered a crisis club when he was appointed. If all he did was "inherit", he wouldn't be the success he is today.

Third was also a "disaster" for them when you consider what the competition was. They were 18 behind Real. Third in that La Liga. 67 points acros 38 games. How is that not a crisis?

 

[midnightmare]

I'm not sure why Rijkaard is kept being mentioned when it comes to nepotism.

Tata didn't play for Barca and Valverde had 20 something games at some point of his career.

I'm not discrediting Pep and his work, where did you read that? All I'm saying he had a phenomenal group of players which is true. Do we have Xavi, Iniesta and Messi in terms of quality in our youth ranks?

I didn't say it was "nepotism". Read what I said. I was countering the point of "no big club would appoint a manager with a profile like Ole's".
Also, the general view that managers without proven pedigree at the topmost level just can't be successful. It's happened and multiple times.

 

[Enigma_87]

For some reason I thought Rijkaard played for Barca, my mistake.

So can we put the "no big clubs appoints unknown managers or makes these decisions" to bed now? Rijkaard relegated a team and ended up as Barca manager, Zidane's first job was Madrid and luckily he wasn't Di Stefano's darling.

If we were in the same state when Barca and Real appoint Zidane and Pep you will see only handful complaining about that mate, there lies the difference If we had Barca's structure - the one that Cruyff build for over 20 years I, myself, wouldn't be against Ole type of appointment.

But we don't. We are neither like Real. This is what makes Ole inappropriate choice, IMO.

 

[Enigma_87]

I didn't say it was "nepotism". Read what I said. I was countering the point of "no big club would appoint a manager with a profile like Ole's".
Also, the general view that managers without proven pedigree at the topmost level just can't be successful. It's happened and multiple times.

The original quote was in regards to "nepotism" and this is the argument I replied on. The broader argument you mentioned has been discussed plenty of times in the thread and I've already shared my views on it.

 

[roonster09]

If we were in the same state when Barca and Real appoint Zidane and Pep you will see only handful complaining about that mate, there lies the difference If we had Barca's structure - the one that Cruyff build for over 20 years I, myself, wouldn't be against Ole type of appointment.

But we don't. We are neither like Real. This is what makes Ole inappropriate choice, IMO.

Barca were shambles when Rijkaard was appointed. Madrid humiliated Barca before Pep was appointed and there was article by Sid Lowe on Barca's state when they gave guard of honor to Madrid side.

The point is getting lost now. So can we agree big clubs appointing unproven managers isn't something new?

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

Again, Rijkaard by that token, should be considered a "known quantity" as a failure when Barca appointed him. Not every manager can succeed everywhere. Allardyce excelled with lower level teams; Pulis as well; same for Warnock - which would succeed with a big team? Similarly, it's not assured that Zidane would lead Cardiff to Cup glory or Top 4, regardless of all else.

For any Rijkaard you put on the table, i can raise you a Gattuso, a Zola, a Souness, a van Basten, a Tony Adams, a Stuart Pearce or even some of our own: Bruce, Keane, Giggs.

My advice is to look for context. Is Barcelona's CL spot in any kind of danger each season? Do they already have a structure in place to help the manager? If you acknowledge that the answers are no & yes while in our case are the exact opposite, you'll understand why some people are very concerned about the future.

Hell, i'm not even against Ole but some of you go to extreme lengths to justify the choice made by the board (just as some others claim to have looked into their crystal balls and they have already foreseen the burning of Rome).

 

[Tom Cato]

Ole hasn't managed football clubs anywhere near the length of time Klopp and Pochettino have.
On their statistics alone they have been under-achievers.

I like Klopp and wonder what he would do at United but it's reasonable to consider silverware as the hard evidence of success, and in that case he been relatively medicocre as a manager. As for Pochettino - his best chance was very recently and he blew it.

As a poster said in reply to me about that, he will learn from his tactical mistakes. However, the fact is he and Spurs lost and I don't believe they will have that opportunity again, especially given they ended playing the Champions League Final against a club they play domestically and know inside-out. Pochettino is also likeable and clearly has player management skills just like Klopp.

However, if we had either of them and after five years were only were Liverpool is at, then that would certainly be unacceptable for Manchester United. It would be the definition of failure. Two managers who won silverware were sacked, Moyes would never have had a sniff of silverware with the way he behaved and rightfully was sacked.

I think with a ruthless overhaul of the team and judicious signings, Ole could very well win silverware within the next three years. Klopp's and Pochettino's lack is just not good enough for Manchester United.

Klopp made Dortmund into a team that could challenge for the Champions League victory frequently, and won Bundesliga. Every time Dortmund became close to a powerhouse bigger clubs came and swooped his star players away only for him to be forced to restart.

Jürgen Klopp is probably the finest manager in the world right beside Josep Guardiola. He's won more than enough silverware in Bundesliga and now with Liverpool to award him the accolade as well.

 

[midnightmare]

But we don't. We are neither like Real. This is what makes Ole inappropriate choice, IMO.

We're not like Real? Real actually have just Florentino at the top and then the manager. Flo isn't a football man, has been very random in literally everything and is trigger-happy to boot. He lurches on all matters - from signing policy to the managerial choices. Real has no philosophy as a club either. Go back before Zidane. They won CL under Ancelotti and LL under Mou (once each) and that was about all they were doing for ages. Yet, somehow, they were in a great position when Zizou was given the job?

Benitez to Zizou... the mind boggles.

The bottomline is - "Nothing succeeds like success". Had Zidane bombed, it would be derided. But he didn't and so he's celebrated. What about his return? He's struggled after returning this past season. But his past carries him through that.

 

[Enigma_87]

Barca were shambles when Rijkaard was appointed. Madrid humiliated Barca before Pep was appointed and there was article by Sid Lowe on Barca's state when they gave guard of honor to Madrid side.

The point is getting lost now. So can we agree big clubs appointing unproven managers isn't something new?

It has been mentioned many times before and yes it is not something new. But context is very different. If we are like Real Ole would've been sacked on the spot after that string of results. If we are like Barca we would have a top notch footballing structure which would allow room for experiment.

 

[Escobar]

Another shit decision by the club not to wait till end of season to keep him. The club got too emotional with him and maybe lost an opportunity to think rationally. Woodward needs to go. Just not cut out for football .

Those who create a mess are usually not those who clean it up. I just cant see that Woodward will leave anytime soon or that the Glazer will install a professional setup with the right people who understand their business

 

[Enigma_87]

We're not like Real? Real actually have just Florentino at the top and then the manager. Flo isn't a football man, has been very random in literally everything and is trigger-happy to boot. He lurches on all matters - from signing policy to the managerial choices. Real has no philosophy as a club either. Go back before Zidane. They won CL under Ancelotti and LL under Mou (once each) and that was about all they were doing for ages. Yet, somehow, they were in a great position when Zizou was given the job?

Benitez to Zizou... the mind boggles.

The bottomline is - "Nothing succeeds like success". Had Zidane bombed, it would be derided. But he didn't and so he's celebrated. What about his return? He's struggled after returning this past season. But his past carries him through that.

As mentioned. If you give Real's management that means Ole would have been sacked long time before. Look at Solari, look at Lopetegui. You can't have it both ways. If you give Real as an example, the only way Ole should've "won" the job is winning silverware (CL) or top 4. He achieved neither.

 

[romufc]

Yep; sold Ronaldinho off the bat. Got rid of Eto'o soon after that and then Henry too. For the record, Messi was barely the big influence then. You could argue that a lot of these players became great because of Pep and not vice versa. Hindsight of his effect at City for example, would back this up. The fact is that Barcelona were considered a crisis club when he was appointed. If all he did was "inherit", he wouldn't be the success he is today.

Third was also a "disaster" for them when you consider what the competition was. They were 18 behind Real. Third in that La Liga. 67 points acros 38 games. How is that not a crisis?

Obviously when a new manager comes in, he will bring a few of his players in. Messi was barely an influence? If you call 28 App 10 goals and 14 assists barely an influence for a player at his age, then you have high expectations for a 17 year old.

Obviously he is a world class manager but you would be naive to say he didn't inherit a world class team as well.

Again with Man city- he took a year to develop his team by spending millions, you cannot expect Ole to do the same when you cannot even name a player in the United team that is anywhere near the standard he inherited at Barca, Bayern or City.


Conte inherited a team that finished 10th and won the league? with chelsea.

 

[Patrick08]

It's seen as good decision as they won, when ManUtd tried, people call it as Nepotism which is a just nonsense.

When pep wants a player out, he is out and when he wants certain category of players the club and its structure is hell bent on landing the profile of player he likes.

Will ole get those privileges at united? Will he adapt to the new era of football which revolves around attacking football and possession?

A former manager is on record that style of play is not a discussion when Ed Woodward recruits managers and we have seen examples of that with mourinho being hired straight after a manager who trained to play the team with the ball. These are very pertinent questions which arise out of Woodward appointment of ole.

Even in transfer window we are being linked with host of attacking midfielders while there is no news in the most important position we need is to shield the defense in the middle in cdm.

A club which decided to hire a manager being an opportunist riding on the high sentiments amongst the fan base based on results against bottom half mediocre teams without following a through process as claimed earlier until the whole report card is out on the manager at the end of the season.

The whole set up reeks of riding on luck that it works out. No wonder these questions get raised against the manager as well.