Erik ten Hag - Manchester United manager

[TsuWave]

Are you high? Murtough and Arnold weren't even properly in place with the other managers. They worked for Woodward and he was around indefinitely along with the Glazers as far as they were concerned (at least until the bitter end of Ole).

Please stop having conversations with yourself and read what’s being said to you.

You said you could objectively argue that any manager would fail under this structure - to which I replied we’ve seen managers perform better under this structure - and you corroborated this with your subsequent reply adding that we’ve also seen managers fail.

When I asked you what are you using to substantiate your argument that any manager would fail under this structure - you pivoted to “its not the same structure” and Ten Hag is dealing with a very specific set of circumstances - to which I replied I’m happy to concede it’s not the same structure, but again - how do you objectively substantiate your previous assertions then?

You replied with “Both structures were bad, but the one ten Hag has been given is worse. Head scouts were sacked and the DoF and CEO faced job uncertainty from the getgo as the club was put on for sale” - which prompted me to say your understanding of structure differs to mine since you segued into employment uncertainty. Do you understand this now? Read it as many times as you need, slowly.

And you're asking for actual references as proof as to why a structure like this where the head scouts are sacked and where the DoF has literally no clue, all whilst not knowing who will own the club in a few months is worse for a manager? I can use your same daft logic against you and say there's no proof alternative managers can do much better.

Mate you are struggling, it's not worth my time.

This would be comical because you’d be asking me to prove a negative, do you understand this? Making an argument out of thin-air without foundation and/or reference points - is the opposite of being objective. Ten Hag is nowhere near being at the pinnacle of his profession - both in current and past performances - so the assumption that any other manager would fail, is baseless.

And just because you reply in a hostile manner and with barbs it doesn’t substantiate your posts. I assure you I’m not the one struggling here. If you opt to run, it’s on you - again, you quoted me.

Again, Ten Hag’s tenure coinciding with ownership changes and organisational restructuring doesn’t absolve him of on-pitch results and performances, thus my position that he should go is easily explainable and justifiable.

 

[VP89]

Please stop having conversations with yourself and read what’s being said to you.

You said you could objectively argue that any manager would fail under this structure - to which I replied we’ve seen managers perform better under this structure - and you corroborated this with your subsequent reply adding that we’ve also seen managers fail.

When I asked you what are you using to substantiate your argument that any manager would fail under this structure - you pivoted to “its not the same structure” and Ten Hag is dealing with a very specific set of circumstances - to which I replied I’m happy to concede it’s not the same structure, but again - how do you objectively substantiate your previous assertions then?

You replied with “Both structures were bad, but the one ten Hag has been given is worse. Head scouts were sacked and the DoF and CEO faced job uncertainty from the getgo as the club was put on for sale” - which prompted me to say your understanding of structure differs to mine since you segued into employment uncertainty. Do you understand this now? Read it as many times as you need, slowly.



This would be comical because you’d be asking me to prove a negative, do you understand this? Making an argument out of thin-air without foundation and/or reference points - is the opposite of being objective. Ten Hag is nowhere near being at the pinnacle of his profession - both in current and past performances - so the assumption that any other manager would fail, is baseless.

And just because you reply in a hostile manner and with barbs it doesn’t substantiate your posts. I assure you I’m not the one struggling here. If you opt to run, it’s on you - again, you quoted me.

Again, Ten Hag’s tenure coinciding with ownership changes and organisational restructuring doesn’t absolve him of on-pitch results and performances, thus my position that he should go is easily explainable and justifiable.

Words can't describe how unbelievably bad your post is.

Even this bit from you

"your understanding of structure differs to mine since you segued into employment uncertainty. Do you understand this now? Read it as many times as you need, slowly."

You think unemployment uncertainty is the only thing that was different with Ten Hags structure and everyone else?

I mean you have to be on another planet to think that the structure is the same to make the point that other managers performed better in the SAME structure. A new CEO, a shit stick as DoF (when we didn't have one before) and sacked head scouts. But no the structure is the same according to you. feck sake that is another level of delusion.

Do you actually read posts properly? This time, think read and then answer. Or don't bother at all. Im not wasting further time with someone as dosile and or inept as you are with discussions.

 

[united for life]

can we get him back?

 

[Rista]

Which 99.9%? You mean the 99.9% of other clubs who already made significant changes to their structure. Right ok.

Arsenal were one of few clubs 3/4 years ago which still had an old structure and they revamped it.

We are the only top club left in football with a broken structure. But sure let Murtough and Joel Glazer pick another manager, not listen to them, sign players without a long term squad building vision and have the same conversation in 3 years.

At this point "structure" has become nothing more than a buzzword. As if we have any idea what structure is like for vast majority of the clubs.

It is really simple. You sack a severly underperforming manager. That's all there is to it at this point. When this structure is in place, you bring in someone for the future if the current manager isn't performing.

 

[NLunited]

I like ten Hag and wouldn't want him to get sacked, but for the life of me, please try someone different.

He's brought different players in but it's more or less the same story, in that we keep the ball relatively well, but it's slow, predictable and we struggling to score goals.

Why not get someone up top with Hojlund to support him? If that means sacrificing our wingers then so be it. It's not as if they're pulling up any trees anyway.

Rashford Hojlund
Mount
Reguilon Amrabat Bruno Wan-Bissaka
Shaw Casemiro Varane
Onana

I don't know if it'll work but at least it's something different instead of trying the same thing over and over again and getting very little from it.

You have a point, trying something different seems like it could not hurt right?

 

[stefan92]

At this point "structure" has become nothing more than a buzzword. As if we have any idea what structure is like for vast majority of the clubs.

It is really simple. You sack a severly underperforming manager. That's all there is to it at this point. When this structure is in place, you bring in someone for the future if the current manager isn't performing.

And you don't give the manager too much influence over signings, you keep squad building and managing that squad mostly apart. That's the part of structure that's still missing at United and which explains why United wastes so much money every time they change the manager. But nonetheless you are right that an underperforming manager should be sacked.

And to be clear, an underperforming team doesn't necessarily mean that the manager is underperforming, as runs of form can be influenced by luck, confidence etc. But even during a bad run of form for his team a well performing manager will make it look like he has an idea how to get out of it. And EtH shows no plausible idea, that's why he is underperforming now.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

Which 99.9%? You mean the 99.9% of other clubs who already made significant changes to their structure. Right ok.

Arsenal were one of few clubs 3/4 years ago which still had an old structure and they revamped it.

We are the only top club left in football with a broken structure. But sure let Murtough and Joel Glazer pick another manager, not listen to them, sign players without a long term squad building vision and have the same conversation in 3 years.

It’s widely accepted the Glazers are incompetent, so it stands to reason that this decision making would stretch to their choices as manager.

The ‘structure’ above EtH is shoddy but that structure is not bad enough to have lost 13 games before Christmas.

The truth is they hire the wrong managers & persist with them, this is what we are seeing again with EtH.

 

[Walters_19_MuFc]

You have a point, trying something different seems like it could not hurt right?

Exactly! At this point, he has nothing to lose but a lot to gain if he switches it up and it works. If he continues to be so stubborn, he'll lose his job, unfortunately.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

Exactly! At this point, he has nothing to lose but a lot to gain if he switches it up and it works. If he continues to be so stubborn, he'll lose his job, unfortunately.

Remember when OgS signed Sancho only to switch to a wingerless 3-5-2 that worked against Spurs but ultimately ended up in him losing his job? That’s all any radical change would amount to for EtH.

Any short term change to save his job would be insulting, he was supposed to be principled.

 

[christinaa]

Just because you don't change a team, doesn't mean you don't change the tactics. He could easily have kept the same team, barring Dalot of course.

Yep, but someone said keep the same formation without Bruno

 

[devilish]

Interim yes.

Considering the people involved and the lack of decent managers around willing/capable of taking the job then we can safely say that the interim will most probably fail. But let's say that he wouldn't and that the players who are jogging around under ETH are wise enough to pull a shift. Then what happens afterwards? SJR will be pressured to keep the interim manager Ole's style and those who had been downing tools will survive yet another day. Then few months later the manager will irk these players (something outrageous like training them hard or till its dark) and we're back to square 1

I'd say let's bring a new admin team and let them decide what to do next. If the manager is the problem then experienced and fully qualified people should identify that and they would sack him. However let them take the decision not the players and for god sake not Murtough/Joel.

I am just a fan and I am looking things from the outside but from decades of experience in watching football I believe that the issue is far bigger then the manager. The cracks are all to be seen from OT crumbling down to fans being served raw chicken to Carrington becoming vintage right to players jogging on the pitch, leaks coming on a daily basis, waves upon waves of injuries and every manager we've got being reduced into a moron whose forced to play tumescent football with a big tall oaf (Fellaini or McT) up front. Please guys just ask why we keep repeating that cycle time and time again?. Why after so many hundreds of millions spent and so many managers changed we're back to square one every single time.

 

[Amira]

Can you imagine some of the people on here running a tech business? They'd stand by and happily watch the head of development release buggy products, waste money investing in outdated software, constantly go over budget, and run the team into the ground, all because the managing director needs replacing and they're too dimwitted to replace multiple employees at once

I like ten Hag and wouldn't want him to get sacked, but for the life of me, please try someone different.

He's brought different players in but it's more or less the same story, in that we keep the ball relatively well, but it's slow, predictable and we struggling to score goals.

Why not get someone up top with Hojlund to support him? If that means sacrificing our wingers then so be it. It's not as if they're pulling up any trees anyway.

Rashford Hojlund
Mount
Reguilon Amrabat Bruno Wan-Bissaka
Shaw Casemiro Varane
Onana

I don't know if it'll work but at least it's something different instead of trying the same thing over and over again and getting very little from it.

I had this same thought yesterday. 442 or 4312 but let’s have 2 people up there. Just in the spirit of trying something

 

[r3idy]

Wouldn't be suprised on next years round of festive fixtures to see Potch in our dug out and ETH over at Chelsea

 

[Walters_19_MuFc]

Remember when OgS signed Sancho only to switch to a wingerless 3-5-2 that worked against Spurs but ultimately ended up in him losing his job? That’s all any radical change would amount to for EtH.

Any short term change to save his job would be insulting, he was supposed to be principled.

I can't say I do remember that. I do; however, remember Ole switching to a 352 in the so called tougher games, which more often than not worked, but I can't remember him losing his job as a result of it.

Anyway, a change of system doesn't mean a change of philosophy. His philosophy can remain the same, but he needs to try something to get the most out of the squad currently available to him.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

I can't say I do remember that. I do; however, remember Ole switching to a 352 in the so called tougher games, which more often than not worked, but I can't remember him losing his job as a result of it.

Anyway, a change of system doesn't mean a change of philosophy. His philosophy can remain the same, but he needs to try something to get the most out of the squad currently available to him.

Worked so much more often than not he got the sack.

EtH’s goose is cooked.

 

[Cassidy]

At this point "structure" has become nothing more than a buzzword. As if we have any idea what structure is like for vast majority of the clubs.

It is really simple. You sack a severly underperforming manager. That's all there is to it at this point. When this structure is in place, you bring in someone for the future if the current manager isn't performing.

Yes and then the person who hired all those underperforming managers continues to hire managers. Thats exactly how top clubs operate, sure.

 

[Cassidy]

It’s widely accepted the Glazers are incompetent, so it stands to reason that this decision making would stretch to their choices as manager.

The ‘structure’ above EtH is shoddy but that structure is not bad enough to have lost 13 games before Christmas.

The truth is they hire the wrong managers & persist with them, this is what we are seeing again with EtH.

The truth is the person who hided ETH and Rangnick needs to be fired.

 

[Offsideagain]

In his defence, he's not had a defence, player wise anyway, all season. The loss of Martinez was a major blow. On top of that, Antony has not shown the form he had at Ajax where a mate of mine in Holland said Antony was unplayable at times. On the prosecution side, ETH doesn't seem to be able to inspire the players, perhaps it's his hard line and strict training regime. They just aren't responding to his instructions. Dunno if it's a language thing or culture thing. I'm reading Sir Jim Ratcliffes book 'Grit,rigour and humour' and I can guarantee anybody and I mean anybody that is not pulling their weight or is cruising will be shown the door. Does this include ETH? I don't know. Perhaps he has until the end of the season or, if things don't improve after the Brailsford report and new board, he'll be fired.

 

[TsuWave]

Words can't describe how unbelievably bad your post is.

Even this bit from you

"your understanding of structure differs to mine since you segued into employment uncertainty. Do you understand this now? Read it as many times as you need, slowly."

You think unemployment uncertainty is the only thing that was different with Ten Hags structure and everyone else?

I mean you have to be on another planet to think that the structure is the same to make the point that other managers performed better in the SAME structure. A new CEO, a shit stick as DoF (when we didn't have one before) and sacked head scouts. But no the structure is the same according to you. feck sake that is another level of delusion.

Again opting for hostile tone and circular discussions with yourself rather than reading what was said to you. Let's try again. Slowly:

You said you could objectively argue that any manager would fail under this structure - to which I replied we’ve seen managers perform better under this structure - and you corroborated this with your subsequent reply adding that we’ve also seen managers fail.

You then pivoted to “its not the same structure” and Ten Hag is dealing with a very specific set of circumstances - to which I replied I’m happy to concede it’s not the same structure <- do you know what this means?

I then asked you how do you objectively substantiate your previous assertions then?

You replied with “Both structures were bad, but the one ten Hag has been given is worse. Head scouts were sacked and the DoF and CEO faced job uncertainty from the getgo as the club was put on for sale” - which prompted me to say your understanding of structure differs to mine since you segued into employment uncertainty - capisce? This was after I conceded to your pivot, despite you previously expounding - and corroborating my assertion that we've seen manager perform better. What are you struggling with?

Do you actually read posts properly? This time, think read and then answer. Or don't bother at all. Im not wasting further time with someone as dosile and or inept as you are with discussions.

Says the person that made an argument out of thin-air that they could objectively argue that any manager would fail under this structure - and when asked to substantiate it - this was your reply:

"And you're asking for actual references as proof as to why a structure like this where the head scouts are sacked and where the DoF has literally no clue, all whilst not knowing who will own the club in a few months is worse for a manager? I can use your same daft logic against you and say there's no proof alternative managers can do much better."

suggesting I prove a negative to a statement you've made and said you were able to argue objectively - yet was conjured out of nothing, but feelings. Making an argument out of thin-air without foundation and/or reference points - is the opposite of being objective. I hope this sentence registers with you:

Ten Hag is nowhere near being at the pinnacle of his profession - both in current and past performances - so the assumption that any other manager would fail, is baseless.

What you do after that, is up to you. In terms of ineptitude with discussions - you have made up statements and attributed them to me, replied to yourself, pivoted, ignored me saying I'm willing to concede something to harp on it angrily, selectively and consistently ignore what you're being asked and thrown insults left and right.

 

[stefan92]

In his defence, he's not had a defence, player wise anyway, all season.

That's more or less true, although partially he himself has to take the blame for that (like overplaying Shaw who just returned from injury to get injured again). But that's not the big issue in regard to defence. If you know that you have to field a makeshift back four with subpar or inexperienced players, than you usually go and try to protect that defence. EtH instead tries to field a lone DM which achieves exactly the opposite - it is a tactical decision that exposes instead of protects the back four. And that's on him.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

That's more or less true, although partially he himself has to take the blame for that (like overplaying Shaw who just returned from injury to get injured again). But that's not the big issue in regard to defence. If you know that you have to field a makeshift back four with subpar or inexperienced players, than you usually go and try to protect that defence. EtH instead tries to field a lone DM which achieves exactly the opposite - it is a tactical decision that exposes instead of protects the back four. And that's on him.

Exactly.

Bar Liverpool where the result was as much about their underperformance than our performance, we have known we are going into games with makeshift back 4s so to go out so open then lose games resoundingly that’s on him.

The players are not very good, a large number should be sold. That doesn’t absolve the manager though.

 

[Robbie Boy]

It’s widely accepted the Glazers are incompetent, so it stands to reason that this decision making would stretch to their choices as manager.

The ‘structure’ above EtH is shoddy but that structure is not bad enough to have lost 13 games before Christmas.

The truth is they hire the wrong managers & persist with them, this is what we are seeing again with EtH.

I actually think ETH made sense as an appointment, as did Jose. Ole made zero sense, and tbh, neither did LvG.

I feel with ETH, he has made far too many atrocious decisions to come back from. It ain't gonna work now, that ship has sailed imo.

 

[Pyro19]

His days are numbered. The first order of business for INEOS shouls be to get rid

 

[Marcelinho87]

His days are numbered. The first order of business for INEOS shouls be to get rid

No way.

Sort out the footballing structure, get them in place and then get together and sort a plan.

 

[Its all gone Shane Long]

His days are numbered. The first order of business for INEOS shouls be to get rid

First order of business is to sort out behind the scenes then the manager

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

I actually think ETH made sense as an appointment, as did Jose. Ole made zero sense, and tbh, neither did LvG.

I feel with ETH, he has made far too many atrocious decisions to come back from. It ain't gonna work now, that ship has sailed imo.

On the face of it hiring EtH was a good move but with the luxury of hindsight we bought in a man for his football that has said he doesn’t actually want to play that football here, who shouldn’t be in charge of transfers but having been has identified some of the most peculiar players on the market & a man who weekly is being shown up tactically by managers throughout the league not just the Klopp’s & Pep’s.

More than a touch of the Emporer’s New Clothes about this fiasco.

 

[Woodenlung]

I don't think Ten Hag's job is under any immediate threat.

INEOS will want to assess every level of dysfunction permeating the club. Once they've got to grips with that and how they'll address the issues, only then will they decide what to do with the manager.

They could always get rid immediately, but that's a Glazer move. Pulling the trigger when they haven't an idea of where to go next.

 

[Robbie Boy]

On the face of it hiring EtH was a good move but with the luxury of hindsight we bought in a man for his football that has said he doesn’t actually want to play that football here, who shouldn’t be in charge of transfers but having been has identified some of the most peculiar players on the market & a man who weekly is being shown up tactically by managers throughout the league not just the Klopp’s & Pep’s.

More than a touch of the Emporer’s New Clothes about this fiasco.

Yup. The project we were sold with him at the helm never materialised. What we were left with is basically now a worse continuation of the Jose/Ole eras.

He has made a tonne of mistakes and never could get us playing his supposed brand of football.

 

[VP89]

Again opting for hostile tone and circular discussions with yourself rather than reading what was said to you. Let's try again. Slowly:

You said you could objectively argue that any manager would fail under this structure - to which I replied we’ve seen managers perform better under this structure - and you corroborated this with your subsequent reply adding that we’ve also seen managers fail.

You then pivoted to “its not the same structure” and Ten Hag is dealing with a very specific set of circumstances - to which I replied I’m happy to concede it’s not the same structure <- do you know what this means?

I then asked you how do you objectively substantiate your previous assertions then?

You replied with “Both structures were bad, but the one ten Hag has been given is worse. Head scouts were sacked and the DoF and CEO faced job uncertainty from the getgo as the club was put on for sale” - which prompted me to say your understanding of structure differs to mine since you segued into employment uncertainty - capisce? This was after I conceded to your pivot, despite you previously expounding - and corroborating my assertion that we've seen manager perform better. What are you struggling with?



Says the person that made an argument out of thin-air that they could objectively argue that any manager would fail under this structure - and when asked to substantiate it - this was your reply:

"And you're asking for actual references as proof as to why a structure like this where the head scouts are sacked and where the DoF has literally no clue, all whilst not knowing who will own the club in a few months is worse for a manager? I can use your same daft logic against you and say there's no proof alternative managers can do much better."

suggesting I prove a negative to a statement you've made and said you were able to argue objectively - yet was conjured out of nothing, but feelings. Making an argument out of thin-air without foundation and/or reference points - is the opposite of being objective. I hope this sentence registers with you:

Ten Hag is nowhere near being at the pinnacle of his profession - both in current and past performances - so the assumption that any other manager would fail, is baseless.

What you do after that, is up to you. In terms of ineptitude with discussions - you have made up statements and attributed them to me, replied to yourself, pivoted, ignored me saying I'm willing to concede something to harp on it angrily, selectively and consistently ignore what you're being asked and thrown insults left and right.

You started the hostility, and it's outstanding how you don't get the message. Learn about our structure then come back. Don't waste my time with really shit arguments that hinge on an assumption the structure has been the same. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

You keep trying to give made up summary of what you think the argument is, which is extremely weird. You can't even accept the structure isn't the same. Even after outing your assumptions as bullshite you come out with some sort of recap like this is the start of Lord of the Rings.

 

[glasgow 21]

I don't think Ten Hag's job is under any immediate threat.

INEOS will want to assess every level of dysfunction permeating the club. Once they've got to grips with that and how they'll address the issues, only then will they decide what to do with the manager.

They could always get rid immediately, but that's a Glazer move. Pulling the trigger when they haven't an idea of where to go next.

Yeah they will definitely hold out until Southgate is free after the Euro's. Then we all can leave and support whoever.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

Yup. The project we were sold with him at the helm never materialised. What we were left with is basically now a worse continuation of the Jose/Ole eras.

He has made a tonne of mistakes and never could get us playing his supposed brand of football.

Thing is it’s the basics. We’re actually a rather forgiving fanbase.

If there were a semblance of good football or his signings were actually pillaging well I think most people would be took in but there’s nothing.

 

[Zed is not dead]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Interesting. The value of the squad available against West Ham compared to squad values in 21/22 season.

 

[spiriticon]

Yup. The project we were sold with him at the helm never materialised. What we were left with is basically now a worse continuation of the Jose/Ole eras.

He has made a tonne of mistakes and never could get us playing his supposed brand of football.

We were definitely sold a lie there.

Comes in here to big fanfare, fecks off the appointed DOF advisor, then fecks up 3 transfer windows and then goes on record to say "Sorry everyone, I can't do modern football."

 

[Woodenlung]

We were definitely sold a lie there.

Comes in here to big fanfare, fecks off the appointed DOF advisor, then fecks up 3 transfer windows and then goes on record to say "Sorry everyone, I can't do modern football."

Rangnick got rid of himself. There was never any chance of him staying after he started publically calling out the state of the squad.

 

[The-Mezzala]

How can a manager be so bad whenever they managed United. They somehow space jammed and even losing their basic tactical nous

Because of the shit show thats above him. Not saying Ten Hag is a genius but No manager is gonna win trophies for this club with Arnold, Murtough The Glazer puppets around.

 

[Frosty]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Interesting. The value of the squad available against West Ham compared to squad values in 21/22 season.

I may be being very dense.... Is he saying that the non injured players available are the worst (least valuable) in the squad?

 

[stefan92]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Interesting. The value of the squad available against West Ham compared to squad values in 21/22 season.

While interesting, it is also highly flawed. Comparing the non-injured squad of one club to the total squad value of all the other clubs results in a highly skewed image. The only truly valuable insight is that more than 70% of the squad value have been unavailable (so the comparison full squad to non-injured squad).

On top you can only field 11 players at once, so a bloated squad will have a higher value but still could have a lesser value of the starting team.

 

[Zed is not dead]

While interesting, it is also highly flawed. Comparing the non-injured squad of one club to the total squad value of all the other clubs results in a highly skewed image. The only truly valuable insight is that more than 70% of the squad value have been unavailable (so the comparison full squad to non-injured squad).

On top you can only field 11 players at once, so a bloated squad will have a higher value but still could have a lesser value of the starting team.

Agreed, it is not the ultimate argument, but it gives some evidence that we’ve been playing like a lesser team because we are indeed a lesser team at the moment.

 

[pocco]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Interesting. The value of the squad available against West Ham compared to squad values in 21/22 season.

Yes, because this is based on the West Ham game alone and not the last 18 months.

Also, half our team cost us nothing as they were from our youth team. So how do they substantiate that? That's the most sorry excuse to be making. I bet our team is worth more than West Hams. I bet it's worth more than Bournemouths, Crystal Palace, Copenhagen, Galatasaray etc. Probably worth most of them combined.

 

[Zed is not dead]

I may be being very dense.... Is he saying that the non injured players available are the worst (least valuable) in the squad?

Or that we have many players unavailable