No it doesn't lack any context, it's all factual (maybe not 99%, but it sure felt that way). All I'm saying is right now nobody is bothered that we're following the same approach because things are relatively ok on the pitch, but if things go off the rails, or we don't win major trophies soon, I guarantee that everybody will be bumping this thread and questioning the whole lot again.
If and when ETH goes, I will not be shocked in the slightest if we go for a completely different manager and we'll be talking about a rebuild. Obviously we're not at that point yet, but I base this on the fact that we apparently coveted managers with completely different styles just last summer. Which tells me there was no overarching plan or philosophy. Like you said, we're relying on one manager to dictate that, you seem to be happy with it but thinking strategically over the long run, I think it's a bad approach.
I completely agree with your overarching point. For a football club to be successful in the medium to long term, there has to be a strategic vision that supersedes the manager and executive body. For there to be continuity in player recruitment, which can only be achieved if there is a consensus on how the team will play. Players are primarily bought to fit tactical and stylistic roles, which are determined by the way the team plays and sets up. This can be further boiled down to the fundamentals of how the team approached the game. Is it possession orientated, is it a fast or slow tempo, does it include a high or low line? Etc etc.
We have seen in the past that when you hire successive managers that have competing philosophies eg a possession orientated, technical, slow tempo Van Gaal, to a low block, counter attacking, possession shy Mourinho, you end up with a lot of players not fit for purpose. You then end up with enormous turnover, massive amounts of wasted money, lengthy integration periods, and a constant state of transition. Data shows us that the squads, historically, with the lowest rate of turnover, are typically the most successful. So whatever is happening at United now, and I think we can all agree that we like the direction Ten Hag is taking us in; everything we do now also has to have one eye on what happens when he leaves. Because if there is one inevitability in football, it’s change. And our recruitment, both playing and managerial, has to have a thread of continuity about it.
with regards to this story about Hojlund vs Kolo Muani, there is a fair amount of context missing that doesn’t allow us to draw any significant conclusions. I would expect there to be divergent opinions on recruitment. That is part and parcel of the process. It just depends on why those opinions diverge. Is it because we look at both players and say they both fit the chosen needs and direction of the squad, and some people think KM is better equipped for that than RH, or is it that the difference in opinion is also a difference in opinion over how the team should play? Hence different choices for CF. Those are two very different disagreements. One is natural, the other is alarming. Alas, I don’t think we can really know without being in the room.
The other point to consider, if we assume that there will always be differing opinions (normal), is how that tie breaker gets resolved. Was everyone happy to go along with RH because ETH made his case and ultimately the deciding vote goes to the manager? Or did the manager force it through despite the DoF or data team being opposed to it? Again, two very different disagreements.
We also have to consider the alternative. The DoF overruling the manager and getting the final vote, and the manager being unhappy. Potentially a worse situation.
Bottom line is that I don’t think we know if there is a disagreement, or the basis of that disagreement. All we can do is hope that there is a general consensus on the way the team should play, and the profile of players that fit. A consensus that has to have permanence beyond the existing human capital in place.