AFC NimbleThumb
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2019
- Messages
- 8,363
It’s a race to the bottom amongst some fans. . .We have become Arsenal under Wenger without the good football.
It’s a race to the bottom amongst some fans. . .We have become Arsenal under Wenger without the good football.
Thank you for the deep dive, I found it fascinating! And I agree on the season expectations too.They're entirely the wrong metrics though, which is why it's insane. They're vanity metrics.
Last season we lost the exact same number of games (6) as City yet finished 12 points behind them.
The season before they actually lost one more game than us (9 vs 8), yet finished 15 points ahead of us.
In 2017/18, Liverpool lost just five games and scored 84 goals, but finished 4th, 25 points off 1st, and 6 points off us in 2nd.
Even among the title races, in 2018/19, City lost three more games than Liverpool (4 vs 1), but still won the league ahead of them.
In 2016/17, Spurs lost one less game than Chelsea (4 vs 5) bit finished behind them.
In fact, Liverpool losing just once in 2018/19 is the lowest number of defeats in a season of any top four placed team in the past 10 seasons, yet it wasn't enough to get them over the line. Additionally, half of the top 10 goal tallys of the past 10 seasons are by teams that didn't win the league.
There is almost nothing to gain by setting targets based on final points totals or being unbeaten in x number of games, and even less to gain by setting targets for goals scored and remaining unbeaten at home.
Only half of the past 10 seasons have seen the league winners lose fewer games than every other team in the top four, and only six of the 10 have seen them score more than every other team in the top four.
In the past 10 seasons, we've seen a team finish 2nd on 97 points, another on 86 points and still be 7 points off the winners. We've seen 82 points only be enough to get you 3rd, but be within four points of the winners, yet we've also seen 81 points be enough to secure the league by a margin of 10 points while a total of 89 points has the league decided on goal difference.
The only metric that league winners have consistently outperformed the other top four teams in is games won. They've lost more games than other teams in a number of seasons, but in the past 10 seasons, only once have they failed to win more than another top four team, and that was the year it was decided on goal difference. In fact, only twice in the past 10 seasons has a team inside the top four finished behind a team that won fewer games than them.
So I'm not here just picking apart your post, here's what I'm looking for as the minumum bar (as set out by the OP):
- Another top four finish
- Progression from the CL group and only knocked out by a team competitive in one of the top domestic leagues (i.e. not Sevilla 2017/18)
- A run in at least one of the domestic cups that is only ended by a top side, or one of the chasing pack away from home (the likes of West Ham, Leicester, Everton and Leeds last season).
This bar is likely to remain at that level for a while, unless we start demonstrating some proper title contending ability.
That sounds like a very reasonable standard.Minimum:
Top 4
CL knockouts (unless a stupidly hard group)
Expected:
Top 3
CL quarter finals
Cup final
Good Season:
Top 2
CL Semis
Cup Win
But most people are talking about a credible title challenge, not necessarily about winning it. Liverpool challenged City for the title in 18/19 and finished second only one point behind a City side that amassed 98 points. This City isn't superior to that one at all, let alone 'infinitely' so it shouldn't be impossible to challenge them.This City side is infinitely superior to the one that finished second to Liverpool.
Ole has used money. But so is City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool. It’s an ultra competitive league where nothing is guaranteed. Plenty of clubs have high ambitions. Under the so called top teams there are very good clubs like Leicester, Spurs, Everton and Aston Villa. All of them ambitious.End of coming season means Ole in charge for 3 and half seasons already.
With any other manager, with the amount of money spend and with the team we have now, most of us will be asking for at least CL or PL win.
But alas… it’s Ole.
Special treatment or is Ole not capable of doing it? Why the low expectations?
Mind you, when Klopp was into his 3rd season at Liverpool, we were all mocking him for not winning anything even after spending a lot. And at least his team was playing good football right from the start. Our football is still the same old boring defend and counter attack.
I understand how difficult the league is. All i am saying is that it's the same for all managers and teams. United's team is good enough to win the title in the coming season. We now has one of the best defense in the league, a very good midfield (average DM i know and we will probably address that area as well in this window) with the best or second best creative midfielder in Bruno and a terrific attacking line with many options.Ole has used money. But so is City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool. It’s an ultra competitive league where nothing is guaranteed. Plenty of clubs have high ambitions. Under the so called top teams there are very good clubs like Leicester, Spurs, Everton and Aston Villa. All of them ambitious.
Yes, the bar should be set high for a manager of Manchester United. But it’s foolish forgetting this is the most competitive league I remember in the 25 plus years I have watched. On top of that City that already have the best team are making very, very good signings.
The OP said the following ''The absolute minimum if you were in charge of hiring and firing for you to keep Ole for another season. Go.'' He is asking for my minimum, not the clubs minimum, and I have given that.I think we've got different understandings of what the minimum bar is.
The OP set out criteria that meant you didn't even have to be happy with it, but it was just what would be enough to keep Ole in the job.
Top 4 will very likely do that.
And it's mad. Glad we've cleared that up.The OP said the following ''The absolute minimum if you were in charge of hiring and firing for you to keep Ole for another season. Go.'' He is asking for my minimum, not the clubs minimum, and I have given that.
Expecting the manager of Manchester United to show progress and deliver a trophy after 3 and a half seasons in the job and spending a fortune is apparently mad. The spending power and strength of our rivals will be the same 1 year from now, 2 years from now, 3 years from now. It is not going to change. If Ole can not elevate us to that level like Klopp did for Liverpool then he is not the man. Ole needs to prove that he is a special manager, like Pep, Klopp and Tuchel are. If he is just an ordinary manager who cannot elevate the team beyond it's individual parts then he is not the man.And it's mad. Glad we've cleared that up.
By a distance is definitely a stretch. Ederson last season got found out more than once, they have very good CBs like we do. I'd have Shaw any day of the week over Zinchenko or Mendy, AWB over Walker although probably not over Cancelo.I agree a title challenge is long overdue, but it's next to impossible right now with City holding the strongest squad in the PL by a distance, and that was before they signed Grealish. Adding Kane to that squad probably makes them the best club side in world football.
That said, winning the race for second place will be our most realistic accomplishment this year. Throw in a decent CL run (QF's or further) and winning one of the domestic cups would make for a successful season by any standards.
Points totals are the ONLY sensible way of setting a target in the league because you don't have control over what other teams do.Laughing at the lads setting minimum points targets. Some seasons 85 points puts you in the race, other seasons it leaves you as an also ran. It really depends on the strength of the teams in the bottom half of the table relative to the top teams.
We have shown progress and were a penalty shootout away from silverware last season.Expecting the manager of Manchester United to show progress and deliver a trophy after 3 and a half seasons in the job and spending a fortune is apparently mad. The spending power and strength of our rivals will be the same 1 year from now, 2 years from now, 3 years from now. It is not going to change. If Ole can not elevate us to that level like Klopp did for Liverpool then he is not the man. Ole needs to prove that he is a special manager, like Pep, Klopp and Tuchel are. If he is just an ordinary manager who cannot elevate the team beyond it's individual parts then he is not the man.
Ok, so if we get 79 points and finish second, what then?Points totals are the ONLY sensible way of setting a target in the league because you don't have control over what other teams do.
Over the last 10 years, here are the average points totals for the first three positions in the league:
1st: 90.8 points
2nd: 82 points
3rd: 73.4 points
My minimum expectation, 80+ points, would have seen us in first or second in nine out of ten seasons. Only once, in 2014, did the third-placed team get over 80 points (Chelsea with 82). An 85 point season would have been a respectable title challenge in six of the last ten seasons.
Similarly, not even getting to 80 points after three and a half years in charge (with €400m spent) indicates you're unlikely to ever win the league. The last time a team won with 70-something points was in... 1999, twenty-two years ago. So if even that modest target is beyond Solskjaer (barring a freakish injury crisis, of course) then we should absolutely part ways because that would mean we're going nowhere.
I'd look for a new manager, unless we win the Champions League or at least get to the final. That's simply a poor performance after three and a half years in charge, it indicates insufficient progress after spending €400m.Ok, so if we get 79 points and finish second, what then?
And what if we finish 2nd on 79 points and 1st finishes on 80?I'd look for a new manager, unless we win the Champions League or at least get to the final. That's simply a poor performance after three and a half years in charge, it indicates insufficient progress after spending €400m.
Again, all this obviously hinges on a reasonable amount of injuries. If we lose Bruno, Shaw, and Sancho for 8 months each, for example, then obviously I'd view top 4 as a remarkable achievement.
And if we get 81 points but finish 5th, by your thinking that’s OK??I'd look for a new manager, unless we win the Champions League or at least get to the final. That's simply a poor performance after three and a half years in charge, it indicates insufficient progress after spending €400m.
Again, all this obviously hinges on a reasonable amount of injuries. If we lose Bruno, Shaw, and Sancho for 8 months each, for example, then obviously I'd view top 4 as a remarkable achievement.
Anyone can change their perspective with certain condition. 81 points is basically guaranteed top 4 for sure because I don't see Arsenal, Spurs, Leicester, West Ham, Leeds are capable to achieve 80 points this season with the squad they have. When was the last and first time a team finished 5th with 81 points or plus?And if we get 81 points but finish 5th, by your thinking that’s OK??
That never, ever happened in the history of the league. Seriously. It's that outlandish.And if we get 81 points but finish 5th, by your thinking that’s OK??
I'd still look for a new manager in this hypothetical scenario. If you think about it, it'd be pretty damning: we signed Varane and Sancho only to not be able to beat a team that got only 80 points, the lowest total for a winner since 2011 (when, incidentally, the runners-up did sack their manager afterwards). That's an absolutely massive missed opportunity. Would City, for example, likely to be that bad again any time soon?And what if we finish 2nd on 79 points and 1st finishes on 80?
What if we get knocked out of the CL by PSG in the last 16 who go on to win the thing?
As with a lot of the posts in here, I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I would argue that an obvious replacement would need to be available, and I'm not sure who that would be.I'd still look for a new manager in this hypothetical scenario. If you think about it, it'd be pretty damning: we signed Varane and Sancho only to not be able to beat a team that got only 80 points, the lowest total for a winner since 2011 (when, incidentally, the runners-up did sack their manager afterwards). That's an absolutely massive missed opportunity. Would City, for example, likely to be that bad again any time soon?
Yeah, I agree with that. I very much hope the club does keep tabs on great and potentially great managers, much like they must do on players. Trusting the incumbent is all well and good but we should always have plans. The club must always have a vision of the type of manager they want, and look for those.As with a lot of the posts in here, I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I would argue that an obvious replacement would need to be available, and I'm not sure who that would be.
It's all well and good calling for Ole's head, but there needs to be a proper plan for replacing him.
I’d assert that OgS wasn’t ‘an obvious replacement’ when he replaced his incumbent.As with a lot of the posts in here, I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I would argue that an obvious replacement would need to be available, and I'm not sure who that would be.
It's all well and good calling for Ole's head, but there needs to be a proper plan for replacing him.
Yeah, bring on the post Wenger years. They're goodWe have become Arsenal under Wenger without the good football.
You think the fans would do worse than Moyes - LVG - Mourinho - Ole?This thread makes me happy that fans don't get a say in hiring and firing managers.
Probably a fair assessment and for me regardless of what other teams do is key. A lot of people seem to think points don't matter and bring freakish scenarios in as a counter argument. I can't understand how points don't make a good metric at the end of the season. We win more games than last season with less loses and it's obvious our points tally is going to be higher which is where your regardless of other teams comment is all important. We concentrate on ourselves, get 4 or 5 more wins than last sesson which as you say will bring us to mid/high 80s and I'll see it as a successful season in the league.A points total isn't really a bad way to gauge how Ole is doing. The league is still basically made up of, 10 teams we should beat twice, a few teams we'll struggle to beat away, and the top teams. This year we should be setting our sights at the below minimum targets.
1. Win 17/20 against the bottom 10. With the quality available to us now we should be dominating these boys.
2. Win 5/8 against 7th to 10th. We should still come out on top more often against the best of the rest.
3. Win 4/10 against the top 6. Usually a lot of draws in these games but this year we should look to win 4 of the big games.
That would lead us to 78 points. Adding draws would bring us up into the mid to high 80s
Regardless of what other teams do if we hit the above targets, it'll be another year of progression.
Absolutely. What makes you think a fan knows more than professionals about football beyond playing FM?You think the fans would do worse than Moyes - LVG - Mourinho - Ole?
Look, Leicester won the league in 2016 with 80 points because it was an open, competitive competition. That’s why points targets are nonsense.That never, ever happened in the history of the league. Seriously. It's that outlandish.
If it's a freak season like that, I'll reevaluate. But it's much more likely to be a normal season.
I couldn't agree more.Look, Leicester won the league in 2016 with 80 points because it was an open, competitive competition. That’s why points targets are nonsense.
Every season is different in terms of attrition and competition and a league winner on 80 points is no less a winner than a winner with 100 points.
Of course we canAbsolutely. What makes you think a fan knows more than professionals about football beyond playing FM?