Trigg
aka Trippin_Stoned
If your rebuild takes longer than 3 years and you don't see signs along the way, you are doing it wrong.
Ok. I'll pass it on.
If your rebuild takes longer than 3 years and you don't see signs along the way, you are doing it wrong.
There's no point to this discuss. This 3 years nonsense is something you and some other United fans convince themselves with just to defend the current manager. When we hire a manager and he does well, people talk about how having a good manager makes a quick difference, then once things go south with any United manager, these threads start popping up. We have seen this before. It's just delusional nonsense to make you feel better about the whole thing, and even though you have seen it 3 times before, you keep on convincing yourself it will work one day, that one day a United manager will turn into the new Ferguson after 3 years.
You basically want the manager to get more time based on nothing. His football is shit, his style is nonexistent, his signings are crap, but let's give him 3 years regardless, as if this is the magical number and after it he will transform into a god. Anyone can see how ridiculous this concept is without much discussion.
No club works on this basis but as I said United fans are desperate and want to feel better about the whole thing.
Again, I've not mentioned the manager, or whether or not ETH is the man or if he should get more time. You're looking at this all wrong and letting your bias towards wanting ETH out cloud your thinking.
What I am putting out there, is that the club, need to be evaluating this squad on the basis of where it is going to be 3 years from now. And be putting a proper structure in place to build a squad and phase out the current members that aren't going to be worth anything to the team in 3 years. To plan ahead and have a squad that they can then go and target coaches that match what they want.
And as for the bolded. When did Real start the succession planning for life without Kroos, Modric and Casemiro? Ramos? When did City start planning for Kompany and Fernandinho leaving? Etc etc. You'd have to be a total idiot not to see this is how successful clubs manage their squads.
Because other clubs don't flipflop between coaches with incompatible approaches. If Ten Hag would go from Ten Hag to Potter to De Zerbi go whoever, they wouldn't constantly need to rebuild either.Why is it always a rebuild with us? What’s wrong with progressive, incremental improvement like at other clubs?
As is United. How long you think until Newcastle can mount a title challenge or compete seriously in the CL? Cause that's what people want for United and it's a LOT harder than being competitive for the CL spots.There's no such thing. That's what United fans are convincing themselves to defend our frauds of managers that keep on getting hired. It took Newcastle one year to transform from a relegation fodder to an established top 4 team.
He's always positive about the club and individual players in press conferences. (Well, Sancho.) I mean, he was praising De Gea in public while agreeing behind the scenes to let his contract expire!Thought Ten Hag himself said in the summer that he was now happy with the squad, when asked about the rebuild. .
This is the sort of reactionary nonsense that make the FF forums such a hard place to participate in. Of course they're not all crap or old. They're struggling in a setup that isn't working, but just last year January, things were going pretty alright, and United's squad is stronger if anything this year.Truth be told all our squad members are shite or at the very best not gonna be contributing 3 years from now.
Which is nonsensical point based on nothing but your own judgment. Next?
All clubs work on this basis. But also I think you are misunderstanding. Nobody is saying 3 years before judgement, 3 years without progress, 3 years of going backwards. You need progress, an improvement in football, and see a realistic path where the system has potential but is limited by players.There's no point to this discuss. This 3 years nonsense is something you and some other United fans convince themselves with just to defend the current manager. When we hire a manager and he does well, people talk about how having a good manager makes a quick difference, then once things go south with any United manager, these threads start popping up. We have seen this before. It's just delusional nonsense to make you feel better about the whole thing, and even though you have seen it 3 times before, you keep on convincing yourself it will work one day, that one day a United manager will turn into the new Ferguson after 3 years.
You basically want the manager to get more time based on nothing. His football is shit, his style is nonexistent, his signings are crap, but let's give him 3 years regardless, as if this is the magical number and after it he will transform into a god. Anyone can see how ridiculous this concept is without much discussion.
No club works on this basis but as I said United fans are desperate and want to feel better about the whole thing.
Why is it always a rebuild with us? What’s wrong with progressive, incremental improvement like at other clubs?
We need a total and complete overhaul of all footballing operations at Manchester United. Talking about rebuilds and squad building etc under the current structure is a total waste of time. In the next 3 years this lot will sign all manner of shite, or half decent players who can't play together, probably for 2-3 different managers, and we'll be exactly where we are now - only with our rivals having won even more of the serious trophies whilst we're making do convincing ourselves that the domestic cups and good Europa League runs represents progress.
Newcastle turned from shit to very good the moment they got new owners. No clue how things could turn around so fast for them but that is probably what we need before we get anywhere. New owners, a new boardroom, new people in charge.
The word "rebuild" needs to be banned from this club. Anyone using this word has no credibility.
I think we're all coming at this from the wrong direction. You can't call it a 'rebuild' anymore. What are we rebuilding? Fergie's United? His last successful team of 2010-2013 needed a rebuild as soon as he walked out the door. We won the league in 2013 through Fergie's willpower, his old guard pulling us through and RvP having a magical season.
Moyes inherited a team where all the best players and leaders were 30+ (other than Rooney who was 28), and the only players aged 27 and younger were; Nani (27), Anderson (26), Evans (26), Chicharito (26), Buttner (25), Kagawa (25), Amos (24), Cleverley (24), Smalling (24), De Gea (23), Fabio & Rafael (23), Welbeck (23), Zaha (21) and Januzaj (18). Then we gave him Fellaini and Mata (both 26).
That side needed a 3 year, carefully planned and committed rebuild, from the ground up. What we've done for 10 years is piss around adding icing to a cake that was never there. Sod rebuilding, or even BUILDING at this point, we don't even have foundations, and the people we've got in to do the building haven't got a fecking clue what they're doing.
We need a total and complete overhaul of all footballing operations at Manchester United. Talking about rebuilds and squad building etc under the current structure is a total waste of time. In the next 3 years this lot will sign all manner of shite, or half decent players who can't play together, probably for 2-3 different managers, and we'll be exactly where we are now - only with our rivals having won even more of the serious trophies whilst we're making do convincing ourselves that the domestic cups and good Europa League runs represents progress.
It's like the never-ending "five year plans" we used to make fun of Arsenal for during the Wenger yearsThe word "rebuild" needs to be banned from this club. Anyone using this word has no credibility.
Why? Every club is in a constant rebuilding mode, the process is continuous, players become stale or no longer required, the dynamic of the group changes or needs some fresh faces. It should be 2 or 3 players a year, since last year ETH has brought in 16 players on transfers, loans and frees. That is not how it should work, a manager shouldn't come in and need that many new players in a year.
You are right in what you describe. That's exactly why "rebuild" is a word that doesn't fit the process well. The linguistic issue here is, that (re)building indicates that you will have a building in the end that you can look at. But as you correctly describe you are never done upgrading your squad, as parts of it keep deteriorating all the time. There is this constant impression that United fans are looking for "the one" manager who will build them a great team. In that they fail to realize that everything is changing over time and that it can be right to have manager X at some point and also it can be right to change to manager Y at a later point. Both can be correct calls and there might not be the need to start a new rebuild when this happens, on the contrary a new manager can be the right one do go the next step with the team.Why? Every club is in a constant rebuilding mode, the process is continuous, players become stale or no longer required, the dynamic of the group changes or needs some fresh faces. It should be 2 or 3 players a year, since last year ETH has brought in 16 players on transfers, loans and frees. That is not how it should work, a manager shouldn't come in and need that many new players in a year.
That's not really 'rebuilding.' It's more like upkeep.
There's a huge gulf in stature and expectations from Spurs and Villa to Man Utd. Also Emre flopped at Arsenal.Sorry but this 3 year rebuild is guff. Does it mean that we write off 3 years? ETH has signed a dozen players, how many does he need? He even benched 2 off his major signings for the City match. The squad we have has big issues but its full of seasoned internationals with loads of caps. How do they get picked for their countries? Emre at Villa and Spurs have shown top coaches don't need years and a squad of their own signigns to achieve decent football and clear styles of play.
I think what a top coach can be expected to do and overhauling our football structure are seperate issues. We need to do the latter and that is a multi year process, where we have a DOF and better scouting and a coach that works within that. So that players that can survive a change in manager and are well scouted are signed, not the current awful, awful signings that we could all see coming but somehow Murtough and others could not
I don’t see how it’s comparable at all. Real have a very solid core of very young players: Bellingham, Camavinga, Rodrygo, Vini, Tchouameni, Valverde, Militao are all 25 or under. The planning has been very good, you’ve paid big fees but targeted basically not needing to recruit in a number of key roles for nearly a decade if players stay fit.I think if you do these "who will be contributing in 3 years" exercises with other squads, the results won't be too different. I did it with Real Madrid and very generously got 12 players.
The bigger issue is the quality of the players that remain.
Because other clubs don't flipflop between coaches with incompatible approaches. If Ten Hag would go from Ten Hag to Potter to De Zerbi go whoever, they wouldn't constantly need to rebuild either.
As is United. How long you think until Newcastle can mount a title challenge or compete seriously in the CL? Cause that's what people want for United and it's a LOT harder than being competitive for the CL spots.
He's always positive about the club and individual players in press conferences. (Well, Sancho.) I mean, he was praising De Gea in public while agreeing behind the scenes to let his contract expire!
This is the sort of reactionary nonsense that make the FF forums such a hard place to participate in. Of course they're not all crap or old. They're struggling in a setup that isn't working, but just last year January, things were going pretty alright, and United's squad is stronger if anything this year.
Which successful football clubs actually do this? Go from Moyes to Van Gaal to Mourinho, or from Ole to Ten Hag.Football clubs change between managers with different approaches all the time. United just make a meal out of this because our managers keep on signing bad players.
Which successful football clubs actually do this? Go from Moyes to Van Gaal to Mourinho, or from Ole to Ten Hag.
That sounds interesting but I think it's entirely divorced from reality. Clubs that have a proper structure don't changes styles so radically - that's part of what a proper structure is supposed to guarantee. And I'm not talking about switching from one attacking style to another (like Brighton changing from Potter to De Zerbi); I'm talking about seismic shifts like Van Gaal to Mourinho or Ole to Ten Hag. Who actually does that and is continuously successful?If you have a proper structure and you sign good players, switching approaches isn't a big issue. Good players adapt all the time. Fellaini and Mate whom Moyes signed were stable and two of the best players for both LVG and Mourinho for example. Bruno who Ole signed has been a stable for Ten Hag as well. Rashford has been a stable player for 3 different managers in a row.
You're just signing shit players and adding more deadwood to the squad. That's the issue, not the style of such managers.
You should have a look at atletico Madrid this season. They did not even change their manager but are suddenly playing an exciting attacking style that's far different than the proverbial anti-football they played for a decade under Simeone. Seismic shifts in style are possible.That sounds interesting but I think it's entirely divorced from reality. Clubs that have a proper structure don't changes styles so radically - that's part of what a proper structure is supposed to guarantee. And I'm not talking about switching from one attacking style to another (like Brighton changing from Potter to De Zerbi); I'm talking about seismic shifts like Van Gaal to Mourinho or Ole to Ten Hag. Who actually does that and is continuously successful?
United on the other hand have done this for a decade now - and it shows, cause a lot of players behind the first team are still quite unsuited to what's probably Ten Hag's preferred approach (dominant, high-energy, vertical play). I'm not sure how you can deny that, or again, I'd be very interested in examples of continuously successful clubs that employ this kind of approach.
That sounds interesting but I think it's entirely divorced from reality. Clubs that have a proper structure don't changes styles so radically - that's part of what a proper structure is supposed to guarantee. And I'm not talking about switching from one attacking style to another (like Brighton changing from Potter to De Zerbi); I'm talking about seismic shifts like Van Gaal to Mourinho or Ole to Ten Hag. Who actually does that and is continuously successful?
United on the other hand have done this for a decade now - and it shows, cause a lot of players behind the first team are still quite unsuited to what's probably Ten Hag's preferred approach (dominant, high-energy, vertical play). I'm not sure how you can deny that, or again, I'd be very interested in examples of continuously successful clubs that employ this kind of approach.
I did not include Mourinho to Ole on purpose, cause I can definitely see continuity there. But if you compare Ole's United to Ten Hag's Ajax (which surely was the reason Ten Hag was hired), then there is absolutely no continuity, and you realize that Ten Hag cannot possibly be playing the football he is aiming for right now. And Moyes to Van Gaal plus Van Gaal to Mourinho were huge shifts as well.Mourinho to Ole to Ten Hag is actually not really that radical. All of them have been pretty pragmatic and depending mostly on transitions and counter attacking. Moyes too. LVG is the only odd one among them.
That's the same coach though, and something he has himself been building towards. That's a lot easier than bringing in someone new who isn't intimately familiar with the tactical foundations of the team/squad and wants to make a 180 based on that. (With which I'm not saying it's super easy. See Klopp trying to make Liverpool play a little further up the pitch a few years back, and immediately getting disjointed play.)You should have a look at atletico Madrid this season. They did not even change their manager but are suddenly playing an exciting attacking style that's far different than the proverbial anti-football they played for a decade under Simeone. Seismic shifts in style are possible.
Which successful football clubs actually do this? Go from Moyes to Van Gaal to Mourinho, or from Ole to Ten Hag.
I did not include Mourinho to Ole on purpose, cause I can definitely see continuity there. But if you compare Ole's United to Ten Hag's Ajax (which surely was the reason Ten Hag was hired), then there is absolutely no continuity, and you realize that Ten Hag cannot possibly be playing the football he is aiming for right now. And Moyes to Van Gaal plus Van Gaal to Mourinho were huge shifts as well.
Yep, I agree with all that. Great post. (Although I think Tuchel may have been another odd one out for Chelsea.)Very few. Even Chelsea, who are synonymous with player power and have zero qualms sacking managers, are following the blueprint Mourinho left behind. Tight at the back, defensive set-ups and cautious football with a heavy dose of pragmatism that is not only tolerated but, quite often, celebrated at The Bridge. Since Abramovic took over, the only manager who deviated from the norm was Sarri (i'm not counting Lampard in because he was bound to manage them at some point, they had to get him out of their system). Mourinho (x2), Benitez, Hiddink, Conte, Ancelotti, Tuchel, Poch, Villas-Boas etc., the specifics may change, but the overarching idea remains the same. There's a method to the madness.
The OP should also find and add to his post the video from Klopp's presentation back in 2016 because he gets asked the big one: "When are Liverpool going to win the PL?". His answer was: "In four years". That's how it would take him to reshape the squad and fully implement his system. Here, you'd have the usual suspects shouting... "but, but, but Brendan finished second with this squad. Why so long?". Because system teams demand a level of micromanaging every single detail to arrive at their final destination.
As for us, i'll repeat the same thing i said when ETH got appointed. If you don't see, along with the new manager, a bus arriving full of experts to whom the task of running the football department will be delegated so that the manager will be able to focus only on what occurs on the training ground and on the pitch, don't expect much. We will continue to set people up to fail. Another thing is that the club has to embrace change and get on with the times. United's recruitment process looks like a Caf thread on the transfer forum. We seem to target players based on what we expect them to become, instead of using the wider context of what they offer and how it can help the existing synergies in the team. Pile on Sancho all you want (and he hasn't done much to help himself) but he is a final third play-maker who wants to see lots of the ball and is also very direct. Why do you need him when you already have Bruno for that role? Shite on Antony day and night. What we paid for was the player with the most progressive passes (by far) and the third most progressive runs per 90 in the Eredivisie, with high workrate and defensive work. Why the hell sign him to pair him with AWB/Dalot and basically nobody from the midfield/attack able to play in the right half-space? It makes no sense. Yet, here we are. There's a reason why the word "rebuild" is derided nowadays. Because this club makes no fecking sense.
But my entire point here is that I think he is trying to accommodate to squad issue and not playing the football he wants. That might be wishful thinking, but why would the United board hire a coach who did great and was highly sought after specifically because of the way he played at Ajax - only to let him instead implement a drab and boring style at United? That doesn't make sense and also doesn't connect at all to how Ten Hag sees football. I think the conclusion is unavoidable that the current style is Ten Hag's attempt to adapt to United's current circumstances. (And I'll say, again, that he is obviously not doing this very well - but also that it would be irrational to sack him because he isn't good at playing a style he doesn't want with a part of the squad he most likely doesn't want either.)Ten Hag isn't playing Ajax like football though. Since first season he has been playing a very pragmatic football, and now this year he said it clearly he's building a transition based team and he can't play like Ajax at United, so the shift hasn't been really that big. The current team plays like how Ole used to, maybe even worse.
Van Gaal is the only one who tried something different but since Mourinho we have been playing the same football.
Athletico really aren't that different, they press a bit higher than last season used to but there's no 'seismic shift' there. Simeone has been trying to evolve them for a while and every season you see articles on them changing something or being more attacking in some way.You should have a look at atletico Madrid this season. They did not even change their manager but are suddenly playing an exciting attacking style that's far different than the proverbial anti-football they played for a decade under Simeone. Seismic shifts in style are possible.