Poll: Would you take a results-based manager or an attacking manager?

[Fosu-Mens]

I seem to remember discussing the issue with the short-termism incumbent in Mourinho's approach to football when he was our manager and why it was doomed to fail in the long term. The only one in the modern football that got any success at the top level over the last years preferring to play defensive football is Atletico Madrid and Simeone. Then again, they have a number of players that are extremely technical and can pass it around if needed.

I think the last seasons have shown us quite clearly that unless you are able to dominate possession against all weaker teams there is less chance of winning over a number of games. Dominating games through possession and thus forcing an ongoing attack against a low block balanced defence is something most of the best teams in the world and their managers are able to do(City, Liverpool when they are playing both Wijnaldum and Fabinho, Tottenham in certain periods, Bayern when not being coached by Kovac). What separates the managers are how they approach this and are able to break down and create chances against these balanced defences. Guardiola'ss City is by far the best at doing this with chances created and goals scored that are most likely part of a "playbook".

My criteria for a manager would not be just playing attacking football, as this can mean many things and approaches. In addition, having a manager + coaching team that are unable to improve a team's technical abilities over time should not be part of any potential list of managers regardless of the type of football they prefer.

Criteria for next manager and coaching team:
1. Improve players trough coaching/training over time.
2. Being able to force weaker teams to sit low through dominating possession, technical able players and passing/movement.
3. Manager+ coaching team got experience working/creating/establishing "state of the art" standards and practices in regards to training, systematic improvement of players and the football organization at the club(usually done by a DoF, but that's not happening).

Pochettino would be the ideal candidate for the job if he can get his head around on how to systematically break down low block defences. Which is the fundamental issue as for why Tottenham has not won anything under him.

 

[JPRouve]

Doesn't really address anything, does it?

There are clearly managers who are regarded as pragmatists who come with the expectation of results and trophies over anything else. Equally, there are managers out there who guarantee attacking football, whether that falls short at the final hurdle, who can say, but their bottom line is that they're going to arrive at a club and turn into an attacking unit.

Rodgers/Nagelsmann or Allegri/Simeone - the distinction between the two sets is apparent.

It doesn't address anything because your dichotomy doesn't address anything. The expectations put on a manager are based on his alleged quality not whether he is pragmatic or dogmatic. Allardyce is pragmatic and no one expects him to win anything. Guardiola is attacking, dogmatic and everyone expects him to win a lot. And Simeone isn't pragmatic, he doesn't adapt his philosophy to the context, he is very dogmatic and defensive.

 

[Invictus]

Cheers.

What say you in choosing, by the way?

The choices are quite flawed but given absolute options with no in-between or nuance, I'd go with attacking manager, mate — mostly because the modernization of United's principles and overall attacking style is overdue...

• Early 2010s: Fergie was the greatest manager of all time but we started looking quite stale towards the end of his tenure to grind out results as he increasingly delegated to his assistants.
• 2013/14: David Moyes' appointment didn't lead to seismic change wrt. revamp of playing style, obviously.
• 2014-16: Van Gaal had some good ideas to oversee or at least instigate the much needed root and branch overhaul/modernization (like at Bayern before they won the Treble with Heynckes), but was slightly out of touch (in comparison with the new generation or even his younger self), and his system perished in its infancy.
• 2016/18: As much as I like him, José undid some of the positive work from the previous manage's tenure — also the literal embodiment of the “pragmatic winner” archetype, of course.
• 2018-present day: We all love Solskjær and he has some decent ideas too, but it doesn't seem like he's getting the message across, and our brand-of-football looks pretty uninspiring as a consequence.

In a sense we're still stuck in the previous decade because of ideological inconsistencies and maybe even the fact we didn't have a Guardiola or Klopp or someone who's qualitatively weaker but has expansive convictions to revolutionize the playing style with rigorous coaching method to set the ball rolling or maybe lay the foundations for a bit, so I'd very much be in favor of the exciting new crop of attacking managers who emphasize verticality, intelligent pressing as soon as the team is dispossessed, clever interplay, possession with purpose and build a structure where it's easy to maneuver through the half-spaces on in between lines (usual candidates like Ten Hag, Nagelsmann, Rose).

There's a degree of uncertainty associated with those managers because they have never handled a club with United's dimensions and aren't vastly experienced or the most accomplished, but I'd be willing to take the risk after so many miscues and philosophically inconsistent solutions that didn't deliver success on a consistent basis while coaching meh football for the most part. Also, I started supporting United not because my family introduced me to the club like innumerable other posters on the Caf but because of our adventurous and eye-catching style in the mid to late '90s (that seduced me when I could have just as well supported Milan because of my dad or Dortmund or some other club) — a kid in that same position today would probably choose City blue over the red of United, there's no denying they are levels above us wrt. entertainment value....which is really unfortunate because we have a grand tradition to live up to.

 

[Skills]

If you end up losing or drawing or don't win much for a year or two at big clubs the pressure increases. Pochettino is supposedly called attacking manager but for almost a year his football doesn;t resemble anything attacking , in fact a boring pragmatic style. Klopp's last season at Dortmund also became the same. Once you start losing and the pressure increases any manager's football look clueless. It's not black and white like many think it is.

Pochettino actually isn't an attacking manager if you follow the football Spurs play. Yes he doesn't play the soul sucking, dour brand of football that Mourinho has specialised in. But everytime Spurs are up against a well matched team they reduce the game into a war of attrition.

 

[DVG7]

I based my answer on the fact that even with success, it's very unlikely that the pragmatic manager will ever change his ways because he's too focused on the results. The attacking manager will eventually see his methodology yield success on the field, and that's worth waiting for in my opinion, even if the gap between silverware is pretty long.

 

[fps]

Has it ever been?

Well I was asking myself the same, then that stat about Milan winning the league with 36 goals came into my head.

 

[fps]

This. On the other side of the scale, if you're setting up not to concede against the worst team in the league - that's not being pragmatic, that's called being stupid.

Frequently Man Utd get undeserved respect from oppo at the starts of matches then sit off them and invite them into the game.

 

[Cassidy]

Well I was asking myself the same, then that stat about Milan winning the league with 36 goals came into my head.

Yes but that usually the exception isn't it. Most winning teams are attacking not the other way round

 

[AshRK]

Pochettino actually isn't an attacking manager if you follow the football Spurs play. Yes he doesn't play the soul sucking, dour brand of football that Mourinho has specialised in. But everytime Spurs are up against a well matched team they reduce the game into a war of attrition.

I agree with your assessment but his Spurs team did used to play some good football in 2015-16 season and season after that too. I don't think he was ever an attacking manager but he was not this bad either. Now his team play in a clueless manner because of the results. My point is you can be an attacking manager or even a defensive manager all you want but if you keep on losing or drawing then your football will automatically look a clueless one. People call Ole a defensive manager, I don't think he is a defensive manager , he is just a clueless manager who does not know how to set up his team, same thing happened to Jose last season and Van gaal before that. I have seen some really good defensive managers who have their team play a organised football and get results. I do not think Jose that managed us, Van gaal taht managed us or Ole managing us can termed defensive managers, more like clueless managers.

 

[RedCurry]

If results mean winning the PL or CL or at least getting very close to doing it, then sure. Anything else, I'd rather just watch some good football on weekly basis.

 

[Fts 74]

I voted for the attacking manager.

I think this is borne out of total frustration at the uninspiring rubbish we've been subjected too from the last 4 managers.

I just wish ole would revert back to when he came in I genuinely couldn't wait for the games to come round, although I accept a lot of that was to do with the fact Jose had gone and the players felt a weight had been lifted.

I still feel incredibly fortunate that I lived through the fergie years and was old enough to a) savour and enjoy it and b) I remember how bad things got even for fergie before the fabled Mark Robins goal.

If you ask me in 10 years time if we're no nearer challenging even though we're playing great football I might change my mind but for now, entertain us please, win lose or draw.

 

[gerdm07]

If we win leagues not playing expansive football I can live with that.

Hmm. Please name a club that wins or competes for a major league title regularly and does not play expansive football.

 

[fps]

Yes but that usually the exception isn't it. Most winning teams are attacking not the other way round

Exactly, a perfect defensive game plan guarantees you 38 points, a perfect attacking game plan....

 

[Botim]

Hmm. Please name a club that wins or competes for a major league title regularly and does not play expansive football.

Juventus under Allegri probably fit that bill. Simeone at Atletico would be another example.

I just wish we had any system to begin with. Whether you build around a solid defensive core or a high press, flair system, you need to recruit players specifically for your system. Rather than hire a hotchpotch of has-beens, flavours of the month and whoever fits the short term vision of the short term manager.

 

[Forevergiggs1]

I'm definitely going for attacking. Going by our 2012/13 title win even though SAF was still manager our performances were sometimes very hard to watch and there wasn't the same joy come the end of the season as most of our other PL titles. Being spoiled and watching us win titles going at teams from the start has set the bar for me and I wouldn't want to be watching pragmatic football week in week out even if we are winning titles.

 

[bosnian_red]

Obviously they aren't mutually exclusive, so it's a flawed question (not to mention the extent of each being a big factor). But I'd say our priority should be developing an attacking style of play and sticking to it and build ourselves up as an attacking side again. It's not like we've been starved of success over the years that we can't make it through some barren years, so it's really not the end of the world for me. What we need is to be good to watch again, and to build on from there.

 

[liamp]

It's really not unreasonable to want both.

 

[Sky1981]

Attacking football that loses game is shit football.

Sorry... if you win you can say you win ugly. But if you lose you cant say you lose beautifully. All loses are ugly.

How can you claim you play attacking football when at the end of the day you dont score more than the other team?

 

[SirAF]

Attacking football that loses game is shit football.

Sorry... if you win you can say you win ugly. But if you lose you cant say you lose beautifully. All loses are ugly.

How can you claim you play attacking football when at the end of the day you dont score more than the other team?

Agreed.

 

[izec]

There is no pragmatic manager winning you titles currently in the league and CL.

I find it funny that it is assumed that the likelihood is bigger with a pragmatic manager to win things than with an attacking one.

Plus is a pragmatic manager better suited to our squad currently or is a young and attacking coach better for our core squad and players?

Pragmatic managers rely on experience and leaders. Guys like Jose, Simeone and Allegri relied on certain type of players to have success, players we dont have and cant buy in a short period.

 

[Class of 63]

What we need is a Tommy Docherty with Dave Sexton's tactical genius, or a SAF till we find him.

 

[bosnian_red]

Attacking football that loses game is shit football.

Sorry... if you win you can say you win ugly. But if you lose you cant say you lose beautifully. All loses are ugly.

How can you claim you play attacking football when at the end of the day you dont score more than the other team?

I think the comparison is a Lampard/Chelsea style of football right now, compared Atletico Madrid over the last few years. A team that consistently tries to play attractive and attacking football but will lose games and be undone occasionally, vs a team who regularly plays a pragmatic style. If other teams are better at attacking, that doesn't mean that you yourself didnt play an attacking style.

 

[James Ward]

I don't get this type of thread, Look at Pep ,Klopp, Lampard, Rodgers.

All play attacking football and get results. This thread has in my head that we should be looking at Big Sam for some reason.

 

[Sky1981]

I think the comparison is a Lampard/Chelsea style of football right now, compared Atletico Madrid over the last few years. A team that consistently tries to play attractive and attacking football but will lose games and be undone occasionally, vs a team who regularly plays a pragmatic style. If other teams are better at attacking, that doesn't mean that you yourself didnt play an attacking style.

In reality there's no such extreme. Even defensive football scores a few beautiful goal just as attacking football will have their bad game moments.

But between style and actual substances I'd choose result. Arsenal plays better attacking football during wenger but nobody would remember them becauer they won zero

 

[Leftback99]

I don't believe that 70% of the forum would accept football that isn't winning nearly every game. They'll be begging for the sack at the first sign of problems.

 

[AshRK]

I would prefer us in the following order

• Win trophies with attacking football
• Win trophies with pragmatic or dull football (although one cannot be continuously dull if you are winning trophies)
• Play attacking or beautiful football and win nothing (again cannot see it happening too. If you are continuously losing then you are not playing beautiful football for sure)
• Play clueless football. (We are in this right now)

 

[bosnian_red]

In reality there's no such extreme. Even defensive football scores a few beautiful goal just as attacking football will have their bad game moments.

But between style and actual substances I'd choose result. Arsenal plays better attacking football during wenger but nobody would remember them becauer they won zero

Tbh I remember saying when Sir Alex retired that I would happily accept a few Arsenal style years, where they play pretty football but don't really win much. It's a good basis for future improvement always but you just need to make the step up which they never did. I'm still in that boat. We need to get that foundation again where we can play a fluid style of play naturally and improve from there.

 

[sammsky1]

F*ck pragmatism. We had enough of that with JoMo the Wicked Witch of the West.

 

[Ekeke]

Neither. Attacking football pragmatic manager, no toxic atmosphere

 

[Eli Zee]

I think the question becomes: would you rather watch your team win/lose games 1-0, or would you rather watch your team win/lose games 3-2, 4-3, etc.


Are you a Manchester United fan first or a football fan? If you are a fan of the sport first, I’m sure you will want to see an attack minded team that won’t always get the run but will provide entertainment.

If you are Manchester United fan first, you will always want to see your team win.




I’m with the majority here.... they aren’t mutually exclusive. There was a time where we were exciting and guaranteed to win every time.... we should strive for that. Just need to get a solid starting 11, some impact subs that aren’t Juan mata and Jesse lingard, and improve tactics

 

[Jim Beam]

With our resources and with the way football (coaching) is developing we should really aim for both.

 

[matt10000]

Aren’t all managers results based? Isn’t that what they are paid for, to use the resources available to them to get the beat results possible?

Of course they can build a team by making signings that will allow them to play with an emphasis on attacking play but as with Ole, until you have had time to make those signings you play to give team the best chance possible to win

SAF always used to setup his teams to give them the best chance of wining the football match. Often it was attacking but not always.

 

[Infra-red]

There is no need to make this kind of choice, as Liverpool and City (and, to a lesser extent, Chelsea and Leicester) are currently showing.

 

[nutmegrush]

We just spent circa 200m on defenders,I’ll take an attacking manager please

 

[matt10000]

We just spent circa 200m on defenders,I’ll take an attacking manager please

You cant be attacking with shite defenders!

 

[SAFMUTD]

Its a false dilema, obviously everyone would take the attacking attractive football with results.

On fantasy everyone would take the attacking manager but in reality most people would preffer the results.

The question is formulated as if you preffer Mourinho’s Inter or Klopp’s Dortmund.

Mourinhos Inter any day of the week for me.

 

[gerdm07]

Juventus under Allegri probably fit that bill. Simeone at Atletico would be another example.

I just wish we had any system to begin with. Whether you build around a solid defensive core or a high press, flair system, you need to recruit players specifically for your system. Rather than hire a hotchpotch of has-beens, flavours of the month and whoever fits the short term vision of the short term manager.

I'm not sure about Juventus. I do know they have a lot of talent and that they spend over twice as much as any other team in payroll. They win because they have the best players, not because of their pragmatic approach.

Athletico is a good example. However, that's one team out of all the main European leagues. To win consistently in the modern game a club has to have talent and must play an attacking style, or have Simeone as their manager.

I agree that we do not seem to have an overall plan. I still have hope that Ole will turn it around after another good transfer window.

 

[Greck]

This poll is literally Liverpool's Klopp vs Jose from 2 seasons ago. Back when Klopp was ridiculed for overprioritising attack while the defence suffered. After the europa cup we were also certain we were justified.

There's obviously more to it because not everyone would turn out as great as Klopp but then again the options wrongly presupposes the guy who plays dour football will almost always produce results. If that was true Jose wouldn't have seen 3 job terminations

 

[Zlatan 7]

I remember all the zombie passing threads late on in SAF reign, we then won the league. I would definitely take that again

 

[shamans]

Exactly, the question is how we’d like the team to attack, not whether we should be attacking. The very use of the term “attacking” implies a certain naivety as well, as if putting 5 forwards on would mean more goals scored, for instance.

It's this shit that has people fooled with Ole. They think playing Greenwood Martial and Rashford upfront means guaranteed attacking flow.

A good tactician can create more chances with even one forward.