Moyes' biggest mistake, and there are quite a few, was getting rid of the entire coaching set-up and bringing in guys with less success to replace them. After Fergie left we needed evolution, not revolution, instead we got a guy who was so hellbent on making his own mark that he threw out methods that had already been established as best practice, thinking he knew better. To go from first to seventh with a squad that had just won the league by 11 points was a startling failure. Yes the squad had peaked but at the very least with a common sense approach they should have been looking at a top four finish. Hiring Moyes, as someone said previously, was like Pardew taking over at the Bernabeau. It was an appalling appointment however you look at it. At least Van Gaal and Mourinho had the excuse they were cleaning up a mess from the minute they walked in the door. The football under both was rubbish though. It's not saying much to say you were more successful than the other two on this list.
Moyes vs van Gaal vs Mourinho - A Retrospective Review
- Thread starter hmchan
- Start date
Agree with this completely - the two trophies masked the fact our football was horrible for most of the season and we only managed to finish sixth. We scraped past most opponents in both the league cup and Europa League. Jose was not suited to the sensibilities of this club at all.
Has anyone posted the gif of Moyes' Fulham celebration? This is his biggest achievement since that equalizer honestly. Van Gaal and Mou were both rubbish at United (Van Gaal moreso than Mou if you ask me), but Moyes? Come on dude, I would've made a better manager.
I mostly agree, but corrected 13/14 for you.
Tbf, I'll give him his due, we were playing some enterprising stuff from September to c.January/Feb that season but didn't get the results (the multitude of draws - Burnley at home being the prime example 32 shots, a lot of them in good positions and still drew 0-0), then we steadily regressed and by the time we were realistically out of Top 4 contention, Jose gave up all pretences of trying to play good football.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt at that point, and hoped for better in his second but it just became a more polished version of what we saw towards the end of the first season: functional and overall meh. That too, with a £180m spend.
In terms of football played, I'd even argue LvG was better. Yes, it was boring as feck, but we had some semblance of a plan all the way through. Jose? He just seemed to jump through hoops to make sure his favourites always played and his use of existing resources like Martial and Rashford was frankly a sackable offence in its own right. If he hadn't have got that renewal, he'd have likely been gotten rid of.
Compare and contrast it with how Ole has us set up, and honestly, it isn't even close.
Nah, watch that season back. We were enterprising for the first half of the season, up to around January/February but didn't get the results. By that point, Jose just gave up all pretences of playing good football.
It was a chore to watch, and he had me questioning why I made the time to watch the games.
I'd say LvG's was better. There was a set system there, it might well have been shit and boring at certain points, but in all honesty I could see the tide turning when Rashford broke through. If we hadn't had lost v West Ham I genuinely think we might have seen his vision more clearly the following season.
Moyes was clueless. Nuff said.
Jose was ok for the first 4-6 months, and then just gave up the ghost and the rest of his tenure was an experiment to see how he could fit his favourites into every starting line-up. His buys were on the whole, a shit show. And his use of existing resources arguably even worse.
Ole is head and shoulders above the lot though, and it's not even close for me. We've scored 5+ goals in more games under his leadership than anyone else post-SAF and he has LVG's tactical nous of nullifying the top opposition. And that's before we even consider his use of the kids and the fact that he's had to do without his best players for months at a time (Martial, Pogba, and Rashford). Yes, it was a sticky period for a while with a small squad that seemed be constantly hit by injuries, but he's negotiated all those pitfalls admirably and with Bruno now in position and Pogba most likely staying, I'd say we are more than well placed to kick on from here on in.
All three were bad. For me Moyes was a distant 3rd but with more time would have improved (couldn’t have got worse).
I’ve said before that LVG was improving but I was derided. And Mou just spontaneously combusted.
Total mess but I think the hierarchy were as much to blame as the managers. God knows what really goes on behind the scenes but all three of these managers appeared to live in fear of the sack and whilst plenty of money was spent the support seemed inconsistent and the general attitude was one of complacency and entitlement.
I’ve said before that LVG was improving but I was derided. And Mou just spontaneously combusted.
Total mess but I think the hierarchy were as much to blame as the managers. God knows what really goes on behind the scenes but all three of these managers appeared to live in fear of the sack and whilst plenty of money was spent the support seemed inconsistent and the general attitude was one of complacency and entitlement.
Ole number 1?
Moyes: nothing good, lot of bad.
LVG: bought Martial and won us a FA cup. But lot of bad. His football was fecking dire to watch. And his other transfers suck. Lot of money wasted.
Mourinho: won us a EFL and a EL cup. Got a half first year of relatively good football. Then feck me, I always wanted to kill myself watching our football. Some good transfers like Ibra and Pogba. Some may argue about the Pogba case but he's incredible. Sanchez arguably the worst signing in 30 years. Lot of money wasted. I don't blame him for the destruction of our Utd way though. Like UpWithRivers said, it all started with Moyes and Jose was just the guy who finished it.
I didn't like Mourinho before he came here. After the Sevilla match I just really hated him, tbh I've never hated anyone that much in my entire life. The guy was a fecking toxic dinosaur, a coward, self loving psycho. However as much as I hate the guy, tbf he should be considered the best out of those three, with LVG comes second. All three were fecking clueless though. Lot of pain in the last 6 years. Thanks God OGS has brought some light back, may this continues.
Last edited:
Interesting that, even 7 years after SAF retired, it's difficult for people to actually take a retrospective view, particularly regarding Moyes, who is regarded by almost everyone as clueless.
Moyes - Don't forget he was SAF's "chosen one", so can't be dismissed as some kind of amateur. He was well regarded for his ability to achieve decent positions in the EPL on a tight budget. He'd had some decent results against Utd and it was believed he would succeed at a club with a bigger budget. Being the chosen one seems to have led him to overestimate his abilities and he just wilted under the pressure, never settling on a system until he ended up back where he started in his last game in charge.
Moyes will remain an unknown - if he'd been allowed to write off his first season, draw breath and start again in his second, he may have learned from his mistakes. His form as a manager since suggests not, though. I was in favour of his appointment at the time, but equally in agreement with his dismissal at the time - like a lot of people, I thought we would need a couple of seasons to adjust to SAF no longer being there, but hadn't expected us to fall off that badly. He reminded me of Dave Sexton, but with a touch of O'Farrell's aloofness with his players, something that comes out in Rio's comments. He was unwise to get rid of all SAF's staff, even if he naturally wanted some of his own people from Everton. He suffered as well from inheriting a team that everyone knew was in decline and won the title in the last SAF season largely because City blew it, and the loss of key personnel like David Gill.
Van Gaal - The polar opposite of Moyes - as if the club wanted someone who would settle on a system and stick with it, where Moyes constantly reacted to criticism by changing it. Unfortunately, the system he had in mind was alien to Utd, and he was very stubborn in sticking with it. However, the club knew what they were getting when he arrived and his reputation was for building the foundations, not resorting to quick fixes to get results. His record on promoting youth chimed well with our traditions. His signings often looked functional - favouring players who could play in different positions in the Dutch manner and fit into his system, rather than for technical flair or entertainment value, although Shaw, Martial and Romero are still with us and his promotion of Rashford was prescient. You have to wonder if the board just reacted to the failure of Moyes by going after a big name manager, and LVG was the only one available, rather than thinking of the longer consequences.
In the end, for all LVG's better performance in doing the dirty work of rebuilding, the paying fans were disillusioned with the style of football. I think the board were concerned he was taking the team in a direction it didn't want to go. Nevertheless, I would rank him best of the three for the work he did in stabilising the team after the Moyes season and laying foundations, and for his youth policy. I was against his sacking at the time - he has always said he only wanted to do the job for three years, and I would have let him complete the project in the interests of stability. Mourinho's availability probably change that as much as anything.
Mourinho - An appointment I was wholly against at the time. He appealed to fans who wanted a big name who would bring "guaranteed silverware". Unfortunately, by that time it was clear that he was a manager who would bring short term gain and long term mayhem. The eventual outcome was almost exactly what I thought it would be, including his disregard for "kids" and his penchant for spending large amounts of cash randomly buying big name players without any regard for how that fit into an eventual picture, then disposing of them or back-stabbing them if it didn't work out. As an odious personality in the way he managed some players he ranks with Tommy Docherty.
I rank him second of the three, as he did achieve second place for one season and his decision to go all out for the Europa League in 2017 as a route to ECL was a good tactical gamble that paid off, more than Moyes would probably achieved. Some of his signings have prospered (Lindelöf, Fred, Matić) and McTominay was promoted. The rest has been largely a disaster, which we're now trying to sort out 7 years after SAF retired). Even Ibrahimovic was no more than a short term fix - there is a case sometimes for those signings (e.g. SAF's signing of RVP), but Ibra was no more than a Mourinho statement that he could attract big name players because of his record and contributed nothing to longer term success. The second team was in tatters by the time he left. The short term gain just wasn't worth it.
So, LVG - Mourinho - Moyes. Ole will do a better job than any of them if he's given the time.
Moyes - Don't forget he was SAF's "chosen one", so can't be dismissed as some kind of amateur. He was well regarded for his ability to achieve decent positions in the EPL on a tight budget. He'd had some decent results against Utd and it was believed he would succeed at a club with a bigger budget. Being the chosen one seems to have led him to overestimate his abilities and he just wilted under the pressure, never settling on a system until he ended up back where he started in his last game in charge.
Moyes will remain an unknown - if he'd been allowed to write off his first season, draw breath and start again in his second, he may have learned from his mistakes. His form as a manager since suggests not, though. I was in favour of his appointment at the time, but equally in agreement with his dismissal at the time - like a lot of people, I thought we would need a couple of seasons to adjust to SAF no longer being there, but hadn't expected us to fall off that badly. He reminded me of Dave Sexton, but with a touch of O'Farrell's aloofness with his players, something that comes out in Rio's comments. He was unwise to get rid of all SAF's staff, even if he naturally wanted some of his own people from Everton. He suffered as well from inheriting a team that everyone knew was in decline and won the title in the last SAF season largely because City blew it, and the loss of key personnel like David Gill.
Van Gaal - The polar opposite of Moyes - as if the club wanted someone who would settle on a system and stick with it, where Moyes constantly reacted to criticism by changing it. Unfortunately, the system he had in mind was alien to Utd, and he was very stubborn in sticking with it. However, the club knew what they were getting when he arrived and his reputation was for building the foundations, not resorting to quick fixes to get results. His record on promoting youth chimed well with our traditions. His signings often looked functional - favouring players who could play in different positions in the Dutch manner and fit into his system, rather than for technical flair or entertainment value, although Shaw, Martial and Romero are still with us and his promotion of Rashford was prescient. You have to wonder if the board just reacted to the failure of Moyes by going after a big name manager, and LVG was the only one available, rather than thinking of the longer consequences.
In the end, for all LVG's better performance in doing the dirty work of rebuilding, the paying fans were disillusioned with the style of football. I think the board were concerned he was taking the team in a direction it didn't want to go. Nevertheless, I would rank him best of the three for the work he did in stabilising the team after the Moyes season and laying foundations, and for his youth policy. I was against his sacking at the time - he has always said he only wanted to do the job for three years, and I would have let him complete the project in the interests of stability. Mourinho's availability probably change that as much as anything.
Mourinho - An appointment I was wholly against at the time. He appealed to fans who wanted a big name who would bring "guaranteed silverware". Unfortunately, by that time it was clear that he was a manager who would bring short term gain and long term mayhem. The eventual outcome was almost exactly what I thought it would be, including his disregard for "kids" and his penchant for spending large amounts of cash randomly buying big name players without any regard for how that fit into an eventual picture, then disposing of them or back-stabbing them if it didn't work out. As an odious personality in the way he managed some players he ranks with Tommy Docherty.
I rank him second of the three, as he did achieve second place for one season and his decision to go all out for the Europa League in 2017 as a route to ECL was a good tactical gamble that paid off, more than Moyes would probably achieved. Some of his signings have prospered (Lindelöf, Fred, Matić) and McTominay was promoted. The rest has been largely a disaster, which we're now trying to sort out 7 years after SAF retired). Even Ibrahimovic was no more than a short term fix - there is a case sometimes for those signings (e.g. SAF's signing of RVP), but Ibra was no more than a Mourinho statement that he could attract big name players because of his record and contributed nothing to longer term success. The second team was in tatters by the time he left. The short term gain just wasn't worth it.
So, LVG - Mourinho - Moyes. Ole will do a better job than any of them if he's given the time.
I think Moyes was under huge pressure, especially from the pundits and media, to make signings that summer ... big disaster if Utd didn't sign anyone. etc, etc. He just looked for someone he knew well, who had actually been a nuisance when we played against Everton. Fellaini (who is a really nice guy who I like, and got a lot of unfair abuse) was a player we never needed, never looked a right fit for Utd and no surprise he wasn't used much.
Equally unsurprisingly, LVG and Mou both found a use for him when they needed somebody in the box to punt a long ball to - I remember LVG deriding a journo who asked why he played Fellaini, saying "why do you not understand my reason for using a player who is 2 metres tall?".
Agree with most of your points. But there are a few that I personally have some conservations.
(1) Not everyone knew the team was in decline, not even today. Many still thought Ferdinand and Vidic were still in their prime, despite being so error prone.
(2) I don't think van Gaal was stabilizing the team. What he did was just kicking everyone out and replacing them with inferior options.
(3) He had laid a terrible foundation for his successor. The squad was criminally thin and many of the players were simply not good enough.
(4) His youth policy had done more harm than good, to the team and to the youngsters. Refer to the OP for more details.
(5) There was an actual need to bring in Ibrahimovic at that time. Rashford and Martial were on the rise but they were not mature and consistent enough to lead the line. It made sense to sign a veteran striker so that quality could be maintained without sacrificing Rashford and Martial. He was crucial to our cup success, but his injury cut his spell at United short and the whole plan had fallen through.
I remember saying to friends in the spring of 2013 that I thought Utd would still win the EPL but that I'd be surprised if we won by more than 3 or 4 points. We only won three games out of eight from the loss to City in April, and I was astonished we won eventually by 11 points - it was a tribute to SAF's ability to keep winning as well as a failure by City to take advantage. Rio, amongst others, has gone on record that the team knew it was in need of refreshment, so, yes, some people still criticise Moyes for turning a winning team into one that came seventh, but I still think the signs were there at the time.
As far as LVG goes, this is where I think we still don't really take a retrospective view. Football, particularly at the level of EPL, is, I guess, mostly a short term matter - most people want to see trophies and results now, particularly if they are shelling out for a season ticket or satellite or cable subscription. Moyes had to follow a manager who had managed the side for 26 years and almost everything led back to SAF. If there is a criticism to be levelled at him, it is the touch of old-style football cronyism that left a vacuum after he retired. Regardless of how much was Moyes's fault, he failed and left a club puzzled by the extent of its fall from the top spot. The big debate at the time was whether we should appoint someone in the Utd tradition (e.g. give Giggs the job) or go for an experienced manager with a track record. LVG provided the sense of stability, that we wouldn't lurch from one system to another in the way Moyes had in his 10 months.
I agree that it failed eventually - as I say, it was taking the club in a direction it didn't want to go. I would still rather have given him his third season, though, rather than appoint Mourinho, whose appointment I always thought would end in tears. In ranking the three managers, any harm LVG's style left was way less damaging than the toxicity of Mourinho and the constant reminders that it was all about him. He wouldn't have left a title-winning team after three seasons but he would have left a calmer, more structured side for a successor to move forward.
Regarding the squad, he said from the start that he believed in working with a small squad, with players who knew the manager trusted them and without players becoming frustrated and disruptive because they didn't play enough games, and that when he needed cover he would use the second team. The club knew what they were getting when they appointed him. Using youth players is a longer-term business - it involves trying players out and giving them the time to develop, as very few are fully formed or exceptional players from the start - a problem with have now, think of how McTominay was derided as "not good enough" and just a Mourinho puppet. Some of them will fail, as we saw with some of the names you quote, although some could have succeeded given more time.
If I have a criticism of his youth policy, it is that he discarded youth players too quickly if they had a bad game (look at how many were damaged by the MK Dons match). However, the principle is better than Mourinho's policy of having two specialists for each position and then pitching them against each other - I'm all in favour of players competing for their place, but not the Mourinho tactic of setting them at each other's throats, and it's just too expensive spending huge sums of money on players, only to discard them soon afterwards. It effectively renders your youth system pointless.
I would agree some of his signings weren't good enough - as I say, they tended to be very functional, not counting Di Maria and Falcao, who were for me very untypical of LVG. He did sign Martial and Romero, Shaw and Herrera belong to his time (accepting they had already been agreed) and Memphis and Blind are not bad players, in Memphis's case more one of his own personal issues rather than a bad signing by LVG. You could level the same accusation at Mourinho, e.g. Mkhitaryan, Sánchez, Lukaku, Bailly, and the big question of how good Pogba is for Utd as a team. I had no issue with Ibra personally and he brought a feel-good factor but I still think it had more to do with Mourinho making a statement about himself and his low regard for Martial and Rashford.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/11801249/zaha-moyes-daughter-man-utd/
I was always puzzled why Zaha was not given a chance and after listening to this I really feel for the bloke
I was always puzzled why Zaha was not given a chance and after listening to this I really feel for the bloke
It was clear early on that Moyes had no idea of the size and scope of the job he was coming into and that was just the football side. Moyes had taken a leap in the dark really, but with Fergie's help had landed himself a good contract (6 years wasn't it?). Lost it with RvP, got Rooney a ridiculous new contract after saying he wouldn't, put far too much weight on Adnan Januzaj's shoulders, had no idea what to do with Mata when he arrived and looked as puzzled as the rest of us when Ed announced the transfer. Struggled to get anyone in, you could argue Felliani give us something different. Down the wings and cross the ball main form of attack. Suppose we will never know for certain why he was brought in, maybe to try to stabilize things after SAF's departure, certainly nothing to do with the future.
LvG was only ever a stop gap to try to restore some semblance of United having a manager that knows what he was doing. However living on his past glories, definitely a yesterday's man but did try to get our players to appreciate that whilst you have the ball the opponent can't score and he tried to get them to love having the ball, even if they could do precious little with it. Was talking in public about the promises he made to his wife about their retirement, golfing holidays etc. and this was after only six months in the job. LvG apparently offered to go in the Nov after a poor run of results, but probably by then Ed had his eyes on landing Mourinho at the end of the season and who was then in the middle of his debacle at Chelsea. LvG won the FA Cup and either by accident, or good luck, gave a few youngsters a chance to shine.
Mourinho should have been able to succeed he had the pedigree, had managed successfully all over Europa, treble winner with Inter etc. and in his first season with success with Europa and League cup arguably he did. Jose always claims getting PL runner up to City with the players he had was his greatest ever achievement; however his style didn't suit a lot of fans (or players you suspect) and he didn't see eye to eye with Woodward about transfers, so it was always going to be 'tears before bedtime' and a nice pay-off.
LvG was only ever a stop gap to try to restore some semblance of United having a manager that knows what he was doing. However living on his past glories, definitely a yesterday's man but did try to get our players to appreciate that whilst you have the ball the opponent can't score and he tried to get them to love having the ball, even if they could do precious little with it. Was talking in public about the promises he made to his wife about their retirement, golfing holidays etc. and this was after only six months in the job. LvG apparently offered to go in the Nov after a poor run of results, but probably by then Ed had his eyes on landing Mourinho at the end of the season and who was then in the middle of his debacle at Chelsea. LvG won the FA Cup and either by accident, or good luck, gave a few youngsters a chance to shine.
Mourinho should have been able to succeed he had the pedigree, had managed successfully all over Europa, treble winner with Inter etc. and in his first season with success with Europa and League cup arguably he did. Jose always claims getting PL runner up to City with the players he had was his greatest ever achievement; however his style didn't suit a lot of fans (or players you suspect) and he didn't see eye to eye with Woodward about transfers, so it was always going to be 'tears before bedtime' and a nice pay-off.
This is why Zaha failed and he admitted it himself.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...a-admits-Manchester-United-failure-fault.html
Gareth Southgate solved this problem for us by dropping him for England first. As a result no body really batted an eyelid when he got dropped by Mourinho.
There was a point where things could have gone very well under Mourinho but that 3rd summer and season was just.........awful.
So Mourinho> LVG. Moyes shouldnt even be in the conversation to begin with because he was an utter failure.
I really don't understand how people are rating Mourinho below Van Gaal, and especially below Moyes. Mourinho's football was very painful to watch at times, especially the latter part of his first season and periods of his second season but it's not like we played entertaining football under LVG or Moyes.
Transfer wise, in his first season, he brought in: Bailly, who has been inconsistent but has shown potential; Ibra, who hit the ground running and did very well; Pogba, who was probably our best midfielder in both of Mourinho's full seasons and our best player in Ole's amazing run when he took over; and then Mhki who was a flop but he was signed for a position we needed improving in (and still need), and he was very good in Germany. He also let go of a lot of dead weight in his first season. Second season, he signed: Lukaku, who had a good first season scoring 27 goals; Matic who started very very well but ended up being pretty poor, though his form has picked up recently; Lindelof, who has been inconsistent; and then Sanchez who has been terrible. Third season, he signed Dalot, who hasn't played much but has shown potential and Fred who started poor but has been very very good since December.
Results wise, we won 3 trophies under Mourinho in his first season, which is very good. In the league, we were pretty poor and drew 15 games and ended up finishing 6th. 2nd season was the opposite, we did poor in the cups but did well in the league, with our best position post-Fergie and our highest points total. 3rd season obviously was comical but he did get sacked when we were 6th and we finished the season in... 6th.
Van Gaal's football was just boring, yeah we finished 5th and 4th under him but his highest points total was 70 points when we finished 4th, which was just 1 point more than Mourinho's lowest. Van Gaal's 2nd season saw us score 49 league goals. We also lost 18/72 league games under Van Gaal and only 17/89 under Mourinho.
As for Moyes, he isn't even in this discussion.
Mourinho > Van Gaal > Moyes.
Transfer wise, in his first season, he brought in: Bailly, who has been inconsistent but has shown potential; Ibra, who hit the ground running and did very well; Pogba, who was probably our best midfielder in both of Mourinho's full seasons and our best player in Ole's amazing run when he took over; and then Mhki who was a flop but he was signed for a position we needed improving in (and still need), and he was very good in Germany. He also let go of a lot of dead weight in his first season. Second season, he signed: Lukaku, who had a good first season scoring 27 goals; Matic who started very very well but ended up being pretty poor, though his form has picked up recently; Lindelof, who has been inconsistent; and then Sanchez who has been terrible. Third season, he signed Dalot, who hasn't played much but has shown potential and Fred who started poor but has been very very good since December.
Results wise, we won 3 trophies under Mourinho in his first season, which is very good. In the league, we were pretty poor and drew 15 games and ended up finishing 6th. 2nd season was the opposite, we did poor in the cups but did well in the league, with our best position post-Fergie and our highest points total. 3rd season obviously was comical but he did get sacked when we were 6th and we finished the season in... 6th.
Van Gaal's football was just boring, yeah we finished 5th and 4th under him but his highest points total was 70 points when we finished 4th, which was just 1 point more than Mourinho's lowest. Van Gaal's 2nd season saw us score 49 league goals. We also lost 18/72 league games under Van Gaal and only 17/89 under Mourinho.
As for Moyes, he isn't even in this discussion.
Mourinho > Van Gaal > Moyes.
Agreed. I don’t understand how Van Gaal gets this amount of criticism. At least we kept the ball! Mourinho was definitely a downgrade long term. Nothing worse than watching your team run around chasing it and having no possession cue mourinho/ Moyes!
LVG was a disappointment rather than a failure compared to Moyes. LVG appointment was the only one available for us after the disasters of Moyes.
So in that sense it was understanding that he got appointed. I still maintain that forcing LVG to accept Giggs as his assistant was a huge mistake.
The reason I say this is because Giggs don't understand the football the Dutch/ LVG favours and LVG doesn't understand the British football.
In hindsight someone like Rene would have been the best choice. Top Dutch coach who knows United very well and also the Dutch system too.
To me Jose was a winner but was always going to be toxic. The injury to Zlatan was crucial to is in Jose losing the plot. I don't think if Zlatan didn't get injured Jose would have self destructed so quickly.
The less said about Moyes the better. I would rather have Fat Sam than Moyes any day.
So in that sense it was understanding that he got appointed. I still maintain that forcing LVG to accept Giggs as his assistant was a huge mistake.
The reason I say this is because Giggs don't understand the football the Dutch/ LVG favours and LVG doesn't understand the British football.
In hindsight someone like Rene would have been the best choice. Top Dutch coach who knows United very well and also the Dutch system too.
To me Jose was a winner but was always going to be toxic. The injury to Zlatan was crucial to is in Jose losing the plot. I don't think if Zlatan didn't get injured Jose would have self destructed so quickly.
The less said about Moyes the better. I would rather have Fat Sam than Moyes any day.
So I just came across Moyes' last interview as United manager after being beaten by Everton, and it's remarkable how genuinely unaware he is that he's about to get the sack. Seems disappointed in the situation but totally secure in his job. It's clear he didn't understand the requirements at United, or the standard that he was expected to maintain. The way he keeps going on about how we played well despite having almost no chances, like he thinks dominating possession is a sign of good play because his Everton teams never dominated the ball. I really wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it's remarkable how ridiculous an appointment it looks in hindsight.
The clip:
The clip:
results: Mou > LVG > Moyes
attractivity of our matches: Mou > LVG = Moyes (and I don't like Mou's playstyle)
it depends on the season but overall: Mou > LVG > Moyes
attractivity of our matches: Mou > LVG = Moyes (and I don't like Mou's playstyle)
it depends on the season but overall: Mou > LVG > Moyes
I think people are overselling how bad LvG's football was at times. It was definitely too risk averse (especially during that December period where we were just flooded with injuries) and a lot of possession for possession's sake at times but our team did become very good at keeping possession, the lack of something I routinely lamented during Mourinho's reign. LvG himself said multiple times that the players were not taking the initiative to attack that he wanted them to take and were being too conservative by simply maintaining possession. Something encapsulated by this glorious press conference:
LVG just came too late but it was the right idea to try and move us towards that style of football in my opinion. A lot of people remember the dull home performances but I do think he was unlucky with how Depay, Falcao, Di Maria turned out as on paper you'd hope at least one would have been successful. He brought in Martial, cleared out a lot of average players we had grown detrimentally fond of (Welbeck, Chicharito etc) and signed the bare chested marauder for which I'll be forever thankful. We had a pretty average team but finished fourth on 70 points and that's remarkable when you think we had a season end slump where we took 5 points from a possible 18. He lacked what every United manager has lacked until Ibra signed for us, a top level striker. Add in his personal entertainment factor and I was really sad at how Woodward fired him (he learned through his wife) especially since he'd actually just delivered a the only meaningful domestic cup we have won since SAF.
Mou I see as an abject failure here. His spending was equal to Pep and yet the team actually got worse over time in my opinion. His first season was actually quite fun to be a part of in a rollercoaster type way and we picked up a couple of trophies although the League cup is 'meh' and the EL was more a means to an end but even after more heavy spending and Lukaku etc coming in I don't think we really improved all that much and I'd argue our football was just as dull as under LVG the difference being we seemed to aim for as little possession as possible, we'd gone from one of the spectrum to the other. We finished second which sounds good but masks the fact we were like 20 points off City and then he just gave up and caused as much damage as possible through the summer until his sacking next season.
Moyes was just crap.
Mou I see as an abject failure here. His spending was equal to Pep and yet the team actually got worse over time in my opinion. His first season was actually quite fun to be a part of in a rollercoaster type way and we picked up a couple of trophies although the League cup is 'meh' and the EL was more a means to an end but even after more heavy spending and Lukaku etc coming in I don't think we really improved all that much and I'd argue our football was just as dull as under LVG the difference being we seemed to aim for as little possession as possible, we'd gone from one of the spectrum to the other. We finished second which sounds good but masks the fact we were like 20 points off City and then he just gave up and caused as much damage as possible through the summer until his sacking next season.
Moyes was just crap.
Mourinho was the best of them because he won things. He was terrible for the club, but still, he won things. Van Gaal's football was the most boring football I've ever seen, it was proper "fish trying to climb a tree" stuff and his signings were mostly atrocious. The ground lost on other top clubs while Van Gaal was manager was astounding.
(1) Unlucky was an understatement. I would give Depay a benefit of the doubt, but Falcao never worked for me even on paper given his age and serious injury record. di Maria had a promising start going into the season, his form just dipped after van Gaal had started putting him in different positions and formations and that's on the manager.
(2) Clearing out average players is good, only if you replace them with better players. This has been discussed extensively in another thread.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/the-time-s-louis-van-gaal-ignored-chief-scout-jim-lawlor.454956/
(3) The same applies to van Gaal imo.
Honestly, Mourinho's signings weren't even bad. I don't know why people keep on going on about it.
Pogba - best player/midfielder in the team.
Ibrahimovic - Great signing and Free.
Lukaku - Good signing (Was able to get our money back on him, so also a decent investment) - Helped us get our highest finish in the league since Ferguson and also played a major part in getting Solskjaer the permanent job (PSG win was entirely down to Lukaku) - I am not a Solskjaer fan by the way (he needs to show a lot more first)
Lindelof - First-team defender (good player)
Bailly - Not really sure you can blame a manager if a player turns out to be injury-prone. Started off very well before that.
Fred - Turning out to be a really good player for us - Just a difficult first year.
Mkhitaryan - Started the second season off well in the PL. Important to our EL win. Was not great, but it is not like he did zilch.
Sanchez - Worth a try. Unfortunately, this didn't work out, but it wasn't an outrageous signing to make.
Dalot - Just a youth player; admittedly, not looking like he has a lot to him.
People go on about net spend, but you can only get a good net spend if you have players worth anything to sell. Mourinho actually inherited very few players worth anything - and those that we wanted to sell had almost no value.
He also had to clear a lot of junk/average/finished players out as well: Schweinsteiger, Schneiderlin, Depay, Blind, Januzaj, Rooney, Carrick, Johnstone, Mcnair, Blackett, Keane
Europa League, League Cup, FA Cup Final, Second place finish - It is not even close - Mourinho was the best of them.
Also, I think people saying that he was terrible for the club are talking nonsense. Five of those signings are still here, three of which are in the first team. 5/7 signings still in the team; not bad. Ibrahimovic does not count as he was clearly short term and Mkhitaryan was traded for Sanchez.
Pogba - best player/midfielder in the team.
Ibrahimovic - Great signing and Free.
Lukaku - Good signing (Was able to get our money back on him, so also a decent investment) - Helped us get our highest finish in the league since Ferguson and also played a major part in getting Solskjaer the permanent job (PSG win was entirely down to Lukaku) - I am not a Solskjaer fan by the way (he needs to show a lot more first)
Lindelof - First-team defender (good player)
Bailly - Not really sure you can blame a manager if a player turns out to be injury-prone. Started off very well before that.
Fred - Turning out to be a really good player for us - Just a difficult first year.
Mkhitaryan - Started the second season off well in the PL. Important to our EL win. Was not great, but it is not like he did zilch.
Sanchez - Worth a try. Unfortunately, this didn't work out, but it wasn't an outrageous signing to make.
Dalot - Just a youth player; admittedly, not looking like he has a lot to him.
People go on about net spend, but you can only get a good net spend if you have players worth anything to sell. Mourinho actually inherited very few players worth anything - and those that we wanted to sell had almost no value.
He also had to clear a lot of junk/average/finished players out as well: Schweinsteiger, Schneiderlin, Depay, Blind, Januzaj, Rooney, Carrick, Johnstone, Mcnair, Blackett, Keane
Europa League, League Cup, FA Cup Final, Second place finish - It is not even close - Mourinho was the best of them.
Also, I think people saying that he was terrible for the club are talking nonsense. Five of those signings are still here, three of which are in the first team. 5/7 signings still in the team; not bad. Ibrahimovic does not count as he was clearly short term and Mkhitaryan was traded for Sanchez.
Last edited:
Van Gaal had his flaws but I do think we were better off as a squad when Van Gaal left. In regards to the Jim Lawlor story - the counter point to that was that LVG came in and was shocked at how bad our scouting team was (something we've heard from a few sources) and that most players we signed weren't the ones he wanted. In hindsight he was basically planning for retirement, hadn't been in club football for a while and was probably promised United could buy anyone. I think this also excuses Mourinho somewhat as so many of his players didn;t play well under him and just adds fuel to the fire that Woodward is too involved in transfers.
For me the difference between LVG and Mou is LVG actually cared about United and the players coming through. He was probably 10 plus years too late but he tried something very different, he also reportedly made positive changes at Carrington and many players speak highly of him as a football brain/tactical force which we've not really had since Quieroz. Mou just came in, spent on older players because he thought they could bring immediate success and when that failed and funds ran dry he threw a tantrum and waited for a huge payout.
Although I do not completely agree with your opinion on some players, I do agree that Mourinho's transfers have been underrated overall. I think this has something to do with his poor relationship with the media, so that his wrongdoings are magnified while his contributions are left unmerited. The media are also trying so hard to bring down Pogba and create a gap between him and Mourinho, discrediting the signing of the only world class player arguably in our team.
He gets a lot of flack for the players he wanted to sign as well. In terms of his signings Lukaku is a symbol of a type of player who isn’t very United, including his character, and as for prospective signings Willian and Perisic are very functional attacking players who don’t get people off their seats and had limited growth to make at the club. Of course signings are often smoke and mirrors, but he didn’t seem especially interested in having young gems and letting them develop, which united fans love.
Fair point. This may also explain why van Gaal was rated so high in terms of transfer, as he signed Martial despite also purchasing a bunch of flops.
Imo we have to consider the context when we talk about transfer. Mourinho clearly wanted Ibrahimovic to play for another season or two, and then it's time for Martial and Rashford to step up. Unfortunately things didn't go as expected and Ibrahimovic's horrible injury meant we had to look for another striker. By that time rumors suggested Lukaku, Morata and Belotti were the available options, and among them Lukaku was still arguably the best candidate looking from hindsight.
Meanwhile the squad lacked both quality and quantity when Mourinho took over. He didn't have the luxury and time to invest in young players like we used to. We already had two young gems with flair up front in our team - Martial and Rashford. It made sense to sign a functional attacking player who could provide consistency and end products to the team. He also tried to gamble on Dalot, despite I personally doubt whether he could develop into a good player.
Moyes - I don't think there's any need to go into why this failed. It's well documented that the idea that Fergie had was that Moyes would slide into the same role with the coaches continuing to do the daily work and Moyes would get to grips with the size of the club and then very slowly tweak things. He didn't, he overhauled the entire staff and replaced them with Everton staff instantly. He alienated players through his archaic training and talks and his tactics of cross the ball are now legendary. Not to mention his well known transfer method of needing to see a player a thousand times.
LVG - LvG is much more interesting as a case study. His tactics instilled a philosophy but unfortunately it was one of robotic interactions all over the pitch. It's well known that he likes his players to stay in their zone and the only ones given any sort of freedom are the three attacking players. Failure to stay in your zone or pass the ball to the right area would result in a bollocking. Herrera saying that he was told off for scoring because he should never have been in that position tells you all you need to know about LVG. I've heard him speak and he's clearly a tactical mastermind. However, his methods don't seem to translate well to teams who have real talent. Bayern players also absolutely hated working under him for the same reasons and indeed fans on here warned us of his failures and inability to adapt when he joined us. If a player wasn't performing he would move them out of position all over the pitch too. He played di maria at left, right, centre. The same with Depay. I don't think he liked having conversations with players to find out what wasn't working. He also refused to drop Rooney who was performing terribly on the basis that he was the captain and must player. He's now admitted he knew Rooney was well past it. Which is testament to his stubbornness and ultimately his downfall.
Now, weirdly his tactics worked pretty well against the top 4. We destroyed a very good spurs team and I thought, finally the turning point. However, alas it never stuck. We lost to relegation candidates on the regular and the football under him bar those top 4 games was the worst i've ever seen at United. I watched every game under his tenure and fell asleep in so many.
Jose - His start to United was electric. We had Pogba and Fellaini centre mid and were blowing teams away with some gorgeous counter attack football with Pogba pulling the strings from deep. It's well documented that Madrid has broken him as a manager and as soon as we had to play Liverpool we reverted to ultra defense and the team lost confidence and momentum which it never recovered. His football from there on turned dire and we played some awful, awful stuff. I'm convinced if we had got the guy straight after Fergie than we would have had another period of success, at least for another 3 seasons.
LVG - LvG is much more interesting as a case study. His tactics instilled a philosophy but unfortunately it was one of robotic interactions all over the pitch. It's well known that he likes his players to stay in their zone and the only ones given any sort of freedom are the three attacking players. Failure to stay in your zone or pass the ball to the right area would result in a bollocking. Herrera saying that he was told off for scoring because he should never have been in that position tells you all you need to know about LVG. I've heard him speak and he's clearly a tactical mastermind. However, his methods don't seem to translate well to teams who have real talent. Bayern players also absolutely hated working under him for the same reasons and indeed fans on here warned us of his failures and inability to adapt when he joined us. If a player wasn't performing he would move them out of position all over the pitch too. He played di maria at left, right, centre. The same with Depay. I don't think he liked having conversations with players to find out what wasn't working. He also refused to drop Rooney who was performing terribly on the basis that he was the captain and must player. He's now admitted he knew Rooney was well past it. Which is testament to his stubbornness and ultimately his downfall.
Now, weirdly his tactics worked pretty well against the top 4. We destroyed a very good spurs team and I thought, finally the turning point. However, alas it never stuck. We lost to relegation candidates on the regular and the football under him bar those top 4 games was the worst i've ever seen at United. I watched every game under his tenure and fell asleep in so many.
Jose - His start to United was electric. We had Pogba and Fellaini centre mid and were blowing teams away with some gorgeous counter attack football with Pogba pulling the strings from deep. It's well documented that Madrid has broken him as a manager and as soon as we had to play Liverpool we reverted to ultra defense and the team lost confidence and momentum which it never recovered. His football from there on turned dire and we played some awful, awful stuff. I'm convinced if we had got the guy straight after Fergie than we would have had another period of success, at least for another 3 seasons.
Last edited:
I know people say about this age thing, but his actual signings weren't that old.
Lindelof, Pogba, Lukaku, Fred, Bailley, and Dalot were all 25 or younger when they were signed. He did seem interested in keeping Rashford playing, as well.
I do also think Lukaku's signing was partially due to availability as well. The only strikers available were Morata and Lukaku; although Lukaku is a good player, there wasn't actually any world-class options. Had Ibrahimovic not got that injury, I do think we may have not signed Lukaku at all. The issue was we were going into a season with just Martial and Rashford for attackers; we needed a striker that season and had little choice but to sign one.
I think, had we not signed Lukaku, we may have not even finished top four in that season. We most certainly wouldn't have got second.
Yes Martial and the rather fortuitous stepping into the spotlight of Rashford hide a multitude of transfer signs with old Louis mind, he packed the club with mediocrity. It wasn't a great time for strikers when Lukaku joined, and those names remind me of this - how's Belotti doing now? A few attackers have developed recently who are far more exciting. A real shame Ibra got injured, I remember being dismayed, he was a proper United player. At least by signing Pogba United had a jewel again, no matter how rough it's been having him here the club's standing could really have fallen to nothing without that player of proper top level quality being on the books.
My only point with Rashford and Martial would be that Mourinho was playing Martial on the left where he never looked comfortable and I think he'd probably have sold him if he could. This would to my mind have been a mistake.
The problem with Mourinho's signings was his refusal to actually play most of them, or to get the best out of them. Pretty much every signing he made was consigned to the bench/reserves at some point with Zlatan and Lukaku the exceptions, and maybe Sanchez (bizarrely). He didn't even rate his own signings, or have any idea on how to use them.
The others have have come into their own since he's left.
Well, it was regarded as a big joke at the time and nobody with any sense took it seriously, but things like this seemed to have been magnified in his mind. I guess you have to remember he was only 19 and found it daunting to deal with. I suspect the management thought it was just a matter for him personally rather than for the club.
He never settled away from London for some reason. There was a lot of talk about his attitude at the time, but if these things really were affecting him it would have been sensible to give him more support without babysitting him. Moyes seemed to be too schoolmasterish with players in this way. I'd like to bet there is another side to the story, though, that has to do with him needing to be the focus of the team's efforts, which he can be at Crystal Palace where he shines more (and I don't mean that in a nasty way). A shame it didn't work out, though, I liked his energy and natural enthusiasm.
Exactly. A completely unsustainable way of buying players, wanting to sign a huge squad (virtually all of whom would be from outwith the club so costing a lot of money) then working out how to use them and discarding the ones he didn't want to use. There have been suggestions he didn't want Fred, so you wonder how many were players were low on his list of targets but were all the club would fork out for, or whether it was a habit he brought from Chelsea and Real Madrid? As you say, some of them have prospered since his left, which pretty well confirms what I suspect about his man management.
Who are you referring to exactly? Bailly and Ibrahimovic were integral to our cup successes and they made an immediate impact. Pogba had always been a divisve figure but he basically started every game and he had been brilliant imo. Mkhitaryan, and the later replacement Alexis, were also given extensive chances before they were widely considered as failed signings and sent to the bench. The fact that they failed later on elsewhere supported this decision. You may not rate Lukaku or Matic but it's undeniable that they were regular starters for us.
The cases of Lindelof and Fred were a bit trickier. They obviously came from a less competitive league and it always took time for these players to adapt to the intense, physical Premier League. Fabinho didn't start a single game for 3 months after he joined Liverpool and now he's crucial to the team. For me, Lindelof was still introduced prematurely due to the injury crisis at that time. If he were given more time to adjust, he would have developed more confidence and been more prepared to the physicality here.
I was in Uni from 2009-2013, completely missed out on football. Started following it again starting with Moyes' era... Oh God! Disappointment after disappointment. His pressers were so dour and uninspiring and the football moreso. The game where there were more than 80 crosses without much effect. Losing to Newcastle at home, so many new records of losses at home.
Then the Man City game where we Moyesey mentioned they were the aspiration (which might be true but better left unsaid by the Manager) and the losing to Liverpool 0-3 at home with Moyesey mentioning that Liverpool were the favourites before the game.
Van gaal era started out exciting, right after the Fifa world cup, the Dutch were doing well. New signings like Daley Blind, Di Maria, Falcao. But things drastically changed after the Leicester game. Van gaal became so conservative or might be the philosphy/process was kicking in. But atleast we won the FA cup, Rashford was breaking in to the 1st 11. Martial was exciting. We did well in big matches against City, Chelsea, beating Liverpool home and Away.But most of all, Van gaal pressers were fun to watch.
Mourinho's 1st year was good. Ibrahimovic, Pogba and Lukaku were doing well. But Mourinho is Mourinho, things go Kaput real fast.
for me personally, Van Gaal > Mourinho > David Moyes.
I really don't understand the support for David Moyes from the United fans. I hate Moyes with a passion. He couldn't shut his mouth about United right after he got sacked. Saying that he was not supported when in reality he could have signed Hererra and Strootman right away but kept on going after Fellaini and Leighton Baines. He went on to fail miserably in Real Sociedad too and after that too. He is at his level now.
Then the Man City game where we Moyesey mentioned they were the aspiration (which might be true but better left unsaid by the Manager) and the losing to Liverpool 0-3 at home with Moyesey mentioning that Liverpool were the favourites before the game.
Van gaal era started out exciting, right after the Fifa world cup, the Dutch were doing well. New signings like Daley Blind, Di Maria, Falcao. But things drastically changed after the Leicester game. Van gaal became so conservative or might be the philosphy/process was kicking in. But atleast we won the FA cup, Rashford was breaking in to the 1st 11. Martial was exciting. We did well in big matches against City, Chelsea, beating Liverpool home and Away.But most of all, Van gaal pressers were fun to watch.
Mourinho's 1st year was good. Ibrahimovic, Pogba and Lukaku were doing well. But Mourinho is Mourinho, things go Kaput real fast.
for me personally, Van Gaal > Mourinho > David Moyes.
I really don't understand the support for David Moyes from the United fans. I hate Moyes with a passion. He couldn't shut his mouth about United right after he got sacked. Saying that he was not supported when in reality he could have signed Hererra and Strootman right away but kept on going after Fellaini and Leighton Baines. He went on to fail miserably in Real Sociedad too and after that too. He is at his level now.