We've heard of these homages to our DNA from multiple managers post-Fergie, and yet, to a man, they miss the mark in more aspects than not.
What is it that is strived for in pursuit of our infamous DNA that is so evasive? Why are managers who come in so pursuant of homage to the past? Make your own way and have the ego to believe what you do can become bedrock.
Apart from blooding youth and going for the game, is there a uniformly agreed upon DNA that we have, anyway? Subjectively you take bits of this (let's go with stunning wing play), and bits of that (aggression and control through midfield), and add all sorts of intangibles (heart, never say die spirit, determination) and other tangibles to it (great defence and attack)as all our EC/CL-winning and best sides: '68, '99, '08 had these tenets, so too our Babes and the '94 team, but it quickly compounds to too much... DNA... to be of merit, as eventually it just rounds to being very good at most things and exceptional at the vaunted, which isn't particularly unique to United anyway.
Point is, it's something to silently aspire to or have others call out and appraise you for, but pretty pointless to state as it's just a rod for your own back. Obviously, this is in relation to ten Hag, beings as he's the latest to slip into the proverbial DNA quicksand whilst falling so foul of it, you can't help but wonder what has gone wrong between visualisation and conceptualisation, unless he thought our DNA was not having a midfield and hoofing the ball aimlessly the majority of the time? Which is problematic in itself when thinking
This:
Is probably the embodiment of team goals for us, for me. Imagine anyone punting aimless balls then.
Of course, using one extreme against another isn't fair, but on a sliding spectrum, we've used the ball in accordance with the times when great or even good.
Even counter-attacking, our best is along the deck, with this decimation of Arsenal:
being the highest pinnacle I can think of.
I'm mentioning our best because when talking about 'DNA' it's a romanticism of what any club excels at, and if anyone asked you what our DNA is, you're likely to pull some fabulous play from the recesses of your memory, so why does any manager wish to burden himself with something fans don't actually ask for?
Indeed, if you're good enough, you will make an indelible stamp of your own that will be assimilated into the DNA of the club, like Klopp has at Liverpool, whose history before him was more famed for a very slow style of possession football.
Now when Liverpool are mentioned in all-time xi terms, there's a Klopp element to the styling and pace the team would be perceived to play at. Same goes for Pep at Barca or Flick (to a lesser extent) at Bayern. Basically, your football will do the talking for you with the past being left firmly where it is.
That's my take, but what's yours? Other than, cohesive, attacking football, do you feel 'DNA' should interfere with the objectives of anyone coming in to manage the club? Why have we become so intrinsically linked to 'DNA' anyway?
What is it that is strived for in pursuit of our infamous DNA that is so evasive? Why are managers who come in so pursuant of homage to the past? Make your own way and have the ego to believe what you do can become bedrock.
Apart from blooding youth and going for the game, is there a uniformly agreed upon DNA that we have, anyway? Subjectively you take bits of this (let's go with stunning wing play), and bits of that (aggression and control through midfield), and add all sorts of intangibles (heart, never say die spirit, determination) and other tangibles to it (great defence and attack)as all our EC/CL-winning and best sides: '68, '99, '08 had these tenets, so too our Babes and the '94 team, but it quickly compounds to too much... DNA... to be of merit, as eventually it just rounds to being very good at most things and exceptional at the vaunted, which isn't particularly unique to United anyway.
Point is, it's something to silently aspire to or have others call out and appraise you for, but pretty pointless to state as it's just a rod for your own back. Obviously, this is in relation to ten Hag, beings as he's the latest to slip into the proverbial DNA quicksand whilst falling so foul of it, you can't help but wonder what has gone wrong between visualisation and conceptualisation, unless he thought our DNA was not having a midfield and hoofing the ball aimlessly the majority of the time? Which is problematic in itself when thinking
This:
Is probably the embodiment of team goals for us, for me. Imagine anyone punting aimless balls then.
Of course, using one extreme against another isn't fair, but on a sliding spectrum, we've used the ball in accordance with the times when great or even good.
Even counter-attacking, our best is along the deck, with this decimation of Arsenal:
being the highest pinnacle I can think of.
I'm mentioning our best because when talking about 'DNA' it's a romanticism of what any club excels at, and if anyone asked you what our DNA is, you're likely to pull some fabulous play from the recesses of your memory, so why does any manager wish to burden himself with something fans don't actually ask for?
Indeed, if you're good enough, you will make an indelible stamp of your own that will be assimilated into the DNA of the club, like Klopp has at Liverpool, whose history before him was more famed for a very slow style of possession football.
Now when Liverpool are mentioned in all-time xi terms, there's a Klopp element to the styling and pace the team would be perceived to play at. Same goes for Pep at Barca or Flick (to a lesser extent) at Bayern. Basically, your football will do the talking for you with the past being left firmly where it is.
That's my take, but what's yours? Other than, cohesive, attacking football, do you feel 'DNA' should interfere with the objectives of anyone coming in to manage the club? Why have we become so intrinsically linked to 'DNA' anyway?