Hoof the ball
Full Member
Adam Crafton, Oliver Kay, Laurie Whitwell, Mark Chapman discussing this on The Athletic Podcast.
About 14 mins long.
About 14 mins long.
That he worked with one of the greatest managers of all time, now he has Ole. He now doesn't have SAF's aura and experience to fall back on.What is Mike Phelan's excuse then?
Learning in the job is fine. Everyone learning in the job is not fine though.Love to know what Begiristain was doing at Barca when he got appointed, if not learning on the job, or Van Der Sar at Ajax, or Rummenigge at Bayern etc etc.
The Athletic are beginning to be the biggest trolls in modern football journalism, what with their obsession with poor Tifo videos and podcasts deliberately designed to ruffle the feathers of fans.
And the point is, WHO are they actually learning from, because the only experienced head I see is Phelan.Learning in the job is fine. Everyone learning in the job is not fine though.
For example, we have Ole, McKenna and Carrick learning in the job from the coaching stuff. We have Mutrough and Fletcher learning in the job as DoF and technical director. We will have Arnold learning in the job as CEO in two months.
It is a bit too much, isn't it?
Shite that, spending way too much time banging on about “how good is Maguire”, “why is Fred the go to man”, “how is Lingard not getting more chances” etc. As if any of those things are the real issue here.Adam Crafton, Oliver Kay, Laurie Whitwell, Mark Chapman discussing this on The Athletic Podcast.
About 14 mins long.
great pointAnd the point is, WHO are they actually learning from, because the only experienced head I see is Phelan.
So when we say 'learning on the job' what we really mean is "fumbling about in the dark, and hopefully learning from their own mistakes"
Yup, indeed. Fergie for example could have afforded some newbie coach under him, cause he had the likes of Queiroz and later Maulensteen. Carrick and McKenna have each other. To be fair, it is a fecking disgrace that Ole does not do coaching (the main job of the manager), but that is for another matter.And the point is, WHO are they actually learning from, because the only experienced head I see is Phelan.
So when we say 'learning on the job' what we really mean is "fumbling about in the dark, and hopefully learning from their own mistakes"
Actually, for me, the real question is: Why did Ole abandon his most successful, most well coached idea of counter attacking football.Shite that, spending way too much time banging on about “how good is Maguire”, “why is Fred the go to man”, “how is Lingard not getting more chances” etc. As if any of those things are the real issue here.
Not enough time talking about how fecking horrendously naive we are and how we have no style of play or gameplan after 3 years of this management.
And what a worse environment to expose this fact than one of the biggest clubs in the world with expectations to win league titles and European trophies. Regardless of how talented these guys could be in the future, they're being set up to fail with this level of responsibility whilst having zero credibility.And the point is, WHO are they actually learning from, because the only experienced head I see is Phelan.
So when we say 'learning on the job' what we really mean is "fumbling about in the dark, and hopefully learning from their own mistakes"
And vibes. And something something about a wheel.Because mates.
I don't think we could win the league counter attacking.Actually, for me, the real question is: Why did Ole abandon his most successful, most well coached idea of counter attacking football.
This is the million dollar question, the one I want answered, the one the press aren't talking about it.
Gary Neville has alluded to it. Rio Ferdinand has too. Scholes has pretty directly said it. Yet in Ole's pressers and among the press pack in general there's no real analysis of this question.
Up until recently everyone knew what we were: A counterattacking team. That was our default and we did it well.
Ole and the coaching staff decided to abandon that. Nobody's asking them why. We deserve answers. 100 per cent, last season Ole would not have set up to play Liverpool by chasing them about randomly. We have seen Ole face Klopp enough times to know, usually, he goes cautious. He plays for quick breaks. Why change it now? Its delivered the worst result in the history of Man Utd. Why aren't people asking him directly: 'Why did you do this? What did you expect to happen by doing this?'
That's what annoys me most about football journalists. They offer next to no insight.
People still talking about player X and player Y are missing the big picture. The whole structure and approach is wrong. You could have Roy Keane and Bryan Robson in our midfield. It wouldn't matter if our lines are so far apart that they're constantly outnumbered.
Why is nobody asking Ole about his actual tactics? Cos the way I see it: This is his fault. He has made the decision to leave the counter attacking and go with this garbage that we're watching.
I think Ole came in with a three year plan that must have included winning big trophies along with front foot, attacking football once he had gotten his squad together in his third season. He’s trying to deliver on that now but never realised how woefully inadequate he and his team are to do so. Purely my speculation of course.Actually, for me, the real question is: Why did Ole abandon his most successful, most well coached idea of counter attacking football.
This is the million dollar question, the one I want answered, the one the press aren't talking about it.
Gary Neville has alluded to it. Rio Ferdinand has too. Scholes has pretty directly said it. Yet in Ole's pressers and among the press pack in general there's no real analysis of this question.
Up until recently everyone knew what we were: A counterattacking team. That was our default and we did it well.
Ole and the coaching staff decided to abandon that. Nobody's asking them why. We deserve answers. 100 per cent, last season Ole would not have set up to play Liverpool by chasing them about randomly. We have seen Ole face Klopp enough times to know, usually, he goes cautious. He plays for quick breaks. Why change it now? Its delivered the worst result in the history of Man Utd. Why aren't people asking him directly: 'Why did you do this? What did you expect to happen by doing this?'
That's what annoys me most about football journalists. They offer next to no insight.
People still talking about player X and player Y are missing the big picture. The whole structure and approach is wrong. You could have Roy Keane and Bryan Robson in our midfield. It wouldn't matter if our lines are so far apart that they're constantly outnumbered.
Why is nobody asking Ole about his actual tactics? Cos the way I see it: This is his fault. He has made the decision to leave the counter attacking and go with this garbage that we're watching.
Wouldn't surprise me if they're all learning off Phelan.And the point is, WHO are they actually learning from, because the only experienced head I see is Phelan.
So when we say 'learning on the job' what we really mean is "fumbling about in the dark, and hopefully learning from their own mistakes"
we actually didn't. Had he be evaluated in May instead of February I doubt he'd be given another year.We did the right thing hiring Ole full time. Results were good and playstyle was easy on the eye. What happened after is a disaster and could have probably happen to another manager.
Ole made some disasterous decisions afterwards and that is on him not on those who hired him.
He was given an opportunity of a lifetime and he blew it. He is a nice, but weak man. Being a manager of a top club requires much much more.
You're probably right. However, he should be challenged on this by the media. Instead of them going back to the tired questions about Van de Beek.I think Ole came in with a three year plan that must have included winning big trophies along with front foot, attacking football once he had gotten his squad together in his third season. He’s trying to deliver on that now but never realised how woefully inadequate he and his team are to do so. Purely my speculation of course.
Coaching the Manchester United reserve setup at the start of his career.Without watching, who does it suggest is learning on the job? Surely not Ole, who has been managing as long as Pep. Where was Ole when Pep was going toe to toe with Fergie and winning, about 10 years ago?
Agreed. I think the problem was we couldn't beat teams who just sat back against us if we were set to constantly counter, but that's not to say we shouldn't be reverting to these tactics in games such as the one on Sunday. We can't control possession against literally anyone so not sure how we go toe to toe with the best teams in the league, or even anyone at this rate!Why is nobody asking Ole about his actual tactics? Cos the way I see it: This is his fault. He has made the decision to leave the counter attacking and go with this garbage that we're watching.
No we didnt. All we saw at that point was "good vibes". We had no idea how he could manage the team after a loss, or a run of losses. We had no idea how he could invigorate a team that was mentally struggling. We confused being happy about Jose being gone, with joy that Ole was coming in. It didnt matter who came in, the cloud of Jose being gone was always going to lift everyones spirits. After that night in Paris, we went 5 wins in 24 games. Thats relegation material, and its when we started heavily relying on individual moments of brilliance. Bruno came in and started well, once again papering over the cracks.We did the right thing hiring Ole full time. Results were good and playstyle was easy on the eye. What happened after is a disaster and could have probably happen to another manager.
Ole made some disasterous decisions afterwards and that is on him not on those who hired him.
He was given an opportunity of a lifetime and he blew it. He is a nice, but weak man. Being a manager of a top club requires much much more.
I think the answer is Ronaldo and Oles belief that better players automatically = better football. Bit harder to play counter attack with an aging Ronaldo I reckon. Getting Varane and Sancho has also resulted in a bolder Ole and his suicidal 4-2-4 formation.Actually, for me, the real question is: Why did Ole abandon his most successful, most well coached idea of counter attacking football.
This is the million dollar question, the one I want answered, the one the press aren't talking about it.
Gary Neville has alluded to it. Rio Ferdinand has too. Scholes has pretty directly said it. Yet in Ole's pressers and among the press pack in general there's no real analysis of this question.
Up until recently everyone knew what we were: A counterattacking team. That was our default and we did it well.
Ole and the coaching staff decided to abandon that. Nobody's asking them why. We deserve answers. 100 per cent, last season Ole would not have set up to play Liverpool by chasing them about randomly. We have seen Ole face Klopp enough times to know, usually, he goes cautious. He plays for quick breaks. Why change it now? Its delivered the worst result in the history of Man Utd. Why aren't people asking him directly: 'Why did you do this? What did you expect to happen by doing this?'
That's what annoys me most about football journalists. They offer next to no insight.
People still talking about player X and player Y are missing the big picture. The whole structure and approach is wrong. You could have Roy Keane and Bryan Robson in our midfield. It wouldn't matter if our lines are so far apart that they're constantly outnumbered.
Why is nobody asking Ole about his actual tactics? Cos the way I see it: This is his fault. He has made the decision to leave the counter attacking and go with this garbage that we're watching.
Exactly this, and other clubs like Bayern, have a setup in place and a succession plan for key figures, so if one key people leaves, the newly appointed person, although learning on the job, will have the support of an existing setup.Learning in the job is fine. Everyone learning in the job is not fine though.
For example, we have Ole, McKenna and Carrick learning in the job from the coaching stuff. We have Mutrough and Fletcher learning in the job as DoF and technical director. We will have Arnold learning in the job as CEO in two months.
It is a bit too much, isn't it?
In a tin pot league and on road to double relegation stint at Cardiff. He was an absolute rookie at the job.Yes, this is a very real problem.
I don't consider Ole to be "learning on the job" though. Not in any aspect. He knows the club as well as just about anybody. Yes, it's his first big job. But at this point he's not a rookie within management. He's managed hundreds of football matches. I'm not sure where it comes from, he's not a rookie anymore - he must be close to his maximum of what he can do as a manager in the respect that he's not old and weathered, but he's got matches under his belt
The other staff do not have the background and experience one would expect, however. Particularly on the strategic side, we have men that don't have a history in sporting operations and that isn't a good point as they also answer to men that are absent. There is no accountability there.
It is boiled down to let find another SAF deluded plan really. Even as great as he was when the took our job, he needed time to learn on the job. He himself, and the people at the club bought into the wrong idea about time is the solution to our issue.Adam Crafton, Oliver Kay, Laurie Whitwell, Mark Chapman discussing this on The Athletic Podcast.
About 14 mins long.
Weaker teams learned that they were most vulnerable against Ole's 4-2-4 (With Bruno right up it basically is) when they attacked us, and so a whole range of mid-table clubs and lower-half clubs started conceding possession and asking us to attack them with men behind the ball, leading to a recurring problem; Our inability to break them down, and our inability to prevent an effective counter-attack. And thus, about 70% of the games we now face teams who don't allow us to counter-attack, ending in frustrating stalemates against defensive blocks, and worse, points dropped versus opposition we shouldn't drop them against.Actually, for me, the real question is: Why did Ole abandon his most successful, most well coached idea of counter attacking football.