Hes blaming his failings on why we aint in the top 4 now on FFP. Remind me again how much he spent on Hojlund, Mount and Onana? Sure it was close to £190 mill with the Amrabat loan fee as well
Erik ten Hag - Manchester United manager
- Thread starter sewey89
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
FFP is hurting us because of the mismanagement of transfers and contracts at the club going back more than 10 years.
See this is my issue right here. What does this even mean? Injustice?
As a club, we have no reason to believe in him based on his output. Fair doesn't win trophies or titles.
Standards, regardless of injuries should always be maintained, especially in regard to our standard of play. How can we as a club justify putting the crowd through a goal difference of 0, averaging 51% possession whilst conceding more chances than we create 2/3rds of the way into the season. These are numbers that literally reflect performance, and as a team, the data tells us that we've played poorly far more often than we've played well. On performance, this may very well be the worst season we've had in the post-Fergie years, yet even with injuries, I can say for a fact that we've had far worse squads than the one we currently have.
For me, I genuinely believe that if Ten Haag didn't come from the Ajax school of football, with fans having dreams about a total football style, he would have been out of a job in November. People still call him a good manager despite results and peformances.
As a club, it would be gross negligence to fail due to a poor start next season knowing that the manager we kept had the team performing this way the season prior. This isn't Klopp at Liverpool who had a clear style that had previously brought success at Liverpool. There should be no credit in the bank for Ten Haag. The truth is, he mostly likely will get sacked at the end of the season anyway, as I don't think the club can take on that risk, but will be quiet on plans until the end of the season. However, what fans have been willling to take in the name of fairness is quite sad. He's not worth this. We can't afford for us to have another poor season and with him, the chances of that are high. Fans like to talk about Fergie getting time, but the truth about this is that Fergie was always a very unique story, in a different time, with a club which had far less money, far less quality and lower expectations. What people don't like to chronicle about is why Liverpool actually failed. They consistently kept managers way past their sell by date, who were involved in making truly terrible signings. Souness should have been gone far earlier, but keeping him allowed Liverpool to drop standards progressively. Liverpool were so emotional about sackings that they kept Roy Evans on and had a dual coach system with Houllier until it was clearly untenable. Reminding me of how we brought in Mckenna hoping he would change Ole's football. This period of failure meant they missed out on the Premier League boom period and the money that would have come with it from being on top. The media spent years trying to defend rubbish managers and throwing players under the bus, leading to lots of player turnover and a progressively worse squad, as similar to us, they simply couldn't comprehend that managers could actually be that bad. Whereas other clubs had to go through the unpredicatability of hiring managers, knowing that these managers weren't guaranteed to be good. Both Pool and us had the absolute belief in the manager approach. We were the clubs who had long periods of success, where we didn't truly understand the true quality of the managers and structures we had. This lack of understanding has built into the belief that anyone can save us with the right support, when in reality, like other clubs already know, a manager who doesn't have it, simply doesn't have it.
As fans, its easy accepting what we are and where we are and hoping. However, if we aren't successful and we've spent money, clearly poor decisions have been made. I don't even think our signings have been bad under ETH. However, his tactics this season have been horrendous. People like to act like injuries should have led to these expectations. But for a comparison. In 2019/2020 with our worst transfer window, injuries and Bruno only coming in midseason, we ended the season with a +30 goal difference, averaging 54.6% possession. For a reminder, Matic and Pogba were injured for large portions of that season. We had an xi containing Pereira/James Lingard, Mctominay, Fred, Williams and Lindelof for most of the season. He had more difficult circumstances and was still able to provide far better performances than we've produced this season. Ole wasn't good enough, and as a club, United didn't owe him more seasons after that. But we kept him because he hadn't completely capitulated, waiting until he did. Things shouldn't have to completely capitulate until we make smart decisions. That's where we've consistently failed over the last ten years. Ironically, we've already past the point of capitulation, and similar to 15/16 with LVG, he's stayed long enough to give some fans a sense that just maybe things might turn around...maybe if Rooney is in midfield, maybe if Martial can come back from injury..etc. Managers should not stay in jobs due to fairness. They should stay because the play on the pitch usually reflects performance that can lead to success. He's had 18 months on the pitch, in training, with this group of players, at the biggest club in the world. It should not be easier to stay in the United job than it is to keep a job at Wolves.
Last edited:
We have changed managers 5/6 times since 2013/14. A short/medium turnover rate; isn‘t that what you want?
Look where Chelsea are.
But Chelsea were changing managers under Abramovich and they had the best return of trophies in that period in England.
Meaning changing managers is not the main problem but having the right manager and demanding success is the main bulls eye.
We have been having substandard managers then owners who don't demand success from such managers who in turn don't demand the best from the substandard players signed.
Its very INCONCEIVABLE that we can have Substandard Owners, Substandard management structure, Substandard Players but have an Elite manager who was signed off by the substandard owners + management team.
Doesn't work like that.
That's why in the last 10 years with substandard owners/players/management structure we have averaged the same number of points, 68 points - /+ 10 whoever it may be in those positions.
Its not rocket science, it's very easy and visible to see. Its just people like holding on to hope.
This is a contaminated team all through from top to bottom. And thank God Ineos knows that. Thus the necessitated surgery. We need radical changes in all areas of the football club.
- Owners ( Football Control) - changed.
- Management structure/team - changes continue.
- Manager - will need addressing
- Players - a new 11 players are needed. If you expect Antony/Rashford/Bruno to become Ballon D'or level because of Ineos then, surprise surprise it won't happen. We need new players in almost all areas of the pitch.
Madrid, Bayern, and Barcelona, the most successful teams of the last ten years, have employed 5 to 6 managers in that time. Rest assured that if Madrid were performing as poorly as we were, they would have fired many more managers than we did. In ten years, a team that was consistently at the top of the league has fired as many managers as some of Europe's most successful teams, demonstrating a lack of ambition.
For me, it expands on the idea of a rebuild and three-year plans. I don't and have never bought it. We take the idea of giving the manager the entire season, and if the manager can even achieve a few good performances, we celebrate with hope for the following year. Then we fire them only when everything goes absolutely wrong. Consistent performance should always be the indicator. There are metrics to measure performances and the eye test also works in this regard for people who understand the game. City and Liverpool have succeeded and win many games because they play well in most games. They create chances, control games and don't concede many chances. You can't do well in the league over the course of the season if momentum and luck consistently play a part in your success. If a team shoots at your goal 15 times a game, you aren't going to have many games in which you don't concede. It's just logic. Successful teams play well. It doesn't always mean that the football follows a singular mode ( tika taka, gegenpress etc), but if you consistently do good things on the pitch, you will win games for the most part.
As with any job, the manager's performance should be closely reviewed in the first few weeks/months. That way, there is pressure to perform, and we may take action if results do not meet expectations, rather than handing them a guaranteed entire season to fail without risking their job.
In the belief that fans and the club have that we will eventually succeed, we have consistently overlooked performances in the first three months, because we are always coming with a long-term outlook for the manager. However, I believe the manager must demonstrate their abilities before we can immediately embrace them. During the first few months, many turn on the players, questioning why they are unable to implement this new and brilliant manager's style of play. I can understand the superstar treatment for Mourinho, but its been consistently absurd for everyone else. I'd argue that the new structure would fix that, as there would be figures with the skill to actually appraise our managers performance from the moment they join without falling into the usual media lovein. My theory is that the lack of strong football figures overseeing the managers allowed for too much freedom and not enough pressure towards the manager outside of the press. Where the manager is in charge and completely oversees all football matters without being questioned as they were always seen as experts.
Last edited:
I will expand on this.
Hiring and firing managers every 2-3 years is fine if it’s proven to work for you and you have the football structure in place to make it work. United has , as you said, hired and fired managers as much as other top clubs and it hasn’t worked, which suggests our problem isn’t managers, it’s far deeper than that.
All these successful clubs can sign and sell players well. They don’t seem to have many under performing players hanging around like a bad smell. The way the clubs are run, they seem to provide incoming managers with excellent squads that don’t usually need much tweaking. These clubs are and have been seriel winners so each manager inherits strong teams with a winning culture.
Our managers are lucky if they aren’t coming into a crisis, aren’t inheriting drama with difficult players, multiple positions that need fixing and with squads full of players not good enough or not what the manager needs.
This idea that a manager should be able to make the dysfunction at our club work, is wrong. Every successful team provides their managers with a strong team and competent/proven football structure that’s worked with multiple managers. United spend money and fans think “well ETH has had loads spent” as if that matches every at what other top clubs are doing.
400 million spent for a Madrid or City or Liverpool manager is going to do a lot more for their managers then the same spent for a United manager. Not least for the fact that United are notoriously awful at getting value for money. Any manager walking into United position the last 10 years inherited a bit of a mess of a squad, the same can’t he said of managers taking over the best of the best elsewhere.
All these issues (and more) and handicaps exists at United , before we even discuss managers. Our managers have been effectively setup to fail because we are not an elite club getting the most out of our financial advantage , nor have we been under multiple managers.
INEOs are certainly doing all the right things optically and really do promise more potential for success then the “sack the manager” fanatasists solution. Ironically they may of been planning to sack ETH a long time but a manager will be only a part of their strategy, not the woodwardesque spend 400 million on that manager and rebuild every couple of years when it inevitably doesn’t work.
Last edited:
I don't actually agree with this. I think the structure actually allowed managers to have too much freedom. Good overall managers with a vision for the club would have been able to work with the freedom United presented. In fact, I can recall many people at different points not wanting a director of football or similar structures to other clubs due to the fear that it would undermine the manager. Woodward clearly adopted that theory as well. Even with Ten Haag, we had the ability to do that, but due to us wanting to get him in and empower him, we didn't have the DOF role overseeing him.
I'd argue that our structural failures led to us appointing the wrong managers. We had Louis Van Gaal come to United, rip apart the squad, sell players due to personal dislikes, experiment with using 5 to 6 young unproven players to start the season ( most of which went nowhere), played for half a season with a 352 that was more of an experiment, whilst selling fans on a philosophy ehtos that never manifested. He was able to waste time and money so freely due to not having real supervision, leaving us with the worst squad I ever remember us having in 15/16. That wasn't just the club, that was the manager. Next we hired Jose who had already showed signs of being past it with his performance at the end of his last Chelsea tenure. However, being in the Woodward era, big flashy signings were in, and giving Jose the moon was what we were all about. He wasn't constructive, never tried to bring a long term vision, and the playing style was not consistent. In addition, he was willing to blame the club at every turn, despite wasting so much money. For example, despite buying Lindelof and Bailly, he claimed that he wasn't supported in getting a centre back. He also had the power to fall out with our players publically with no repurcussions within the team. This of course led to squad management issues. The club didn't create that crisis, Jose did. Again poor structure with poor football knowledge and a need to please the fan base led to us getting and keeping Ole despite knowing he didn't have the tactical nous to keep up with the top dogs in the league. Again, he wasn't kept in check. There were clear signs of lack of urgency, which is why we had such poor starts to the season. He made promises that he couldn't keep which is where he had squad issues. We were asking players to work with a manager that they knew couldn't compete at the highest level, kept him for three years, wasting the prime of players like Pogba and wondering why they were so eager to leave. We spent almost 3 years with Ole who hadn't proven he could have us playing good football and had a light CV. To Ole's credit, for me, he outperformed the other managers we've had. We then followed this up with ETH. Where we had the chance to have the DOF supervise him,we didn't follow through with this as the club ( and fans) wanted him to have as much control as possible. Turns out that he's not a genius, and people are now saying a structure would support him as an excuse. In the biggest job you could possibly get, you would think the man would not take ridiculous risks and would apply urgency. What type of manager switches to another system and buys a player for a good portion of the budget that can only play that system? He essentially only came with a new plan A this season, and once that hasn't worked, he's just buried his head in the sand. We've had two seasons with poor preseasons ( training wise) leading to poor starts. He's also not even tried to adapt or experiment with tactics even though his plan has failed - two things exposing the lack of urgency. A good structure would have had a DOF overseeing this and lighting a fire under him, which would have ensured he took less stupid risks and planned better. Despite this, I'd argue that a good manager should not need their manager to monitor them. They should be able to make good decisions and manage their own work. So why keep someone with restraints if we already know he would fail if needed to step up when not monitored.
I have to ask. As a club, outside of the compensation we pay Ten Haag, what are we actually gaining by keeping him come the end of the season, given what we've seen?
For the love of god man break up the wall of text.
How are you arguing with my post? I’m literally saying if we had the right football infrastructure replacing managers wouldn’t be as big an issue as it has been.
I honestly don’t know how to respond to this because I’m not sure how it relates to my post. What exactly did you interpret in what I said?
Good points in the posts above. A good structure around a manager helps. Not to add pressure, but to take care of many things instead of having the manager deal with almost everything as Ten Hag has.
None of our managers were bad; even Ole who is the most unproven of the bunch, had us playing good football for a spell (Mourinho had us playing atrocious football, but he is a capable manager for sure).
Some of you believe Ten Hag isn‘t the answer, while he has managed to get a squad with holes and problems to finish third and won a cup, with good football at times. That for me is enough to let him have a go with an improved structure around him.
None of our managers were bad; even Ole who is the most unproven of the bunch, had us playing good football for a spell (Mourinho had us playing atrocious football, but he is a capable manager for sure).
Some of you believe Ten Hag isn‘t the answer, while he has managed to get a squad with holes and problems to finish third and won a cup, with good football at times. That for me is enough to let him have a go with an improved structure around him.
You're missing the point. He spent £190 million not £19 million in he summer and hes moaning about FFP. How much did he want to spend £290/390 million?
Fair point. He spent so much money, the last thing he should be saying is that he had not enough funds
You‘re missing the point. Our squad needs a lot of investment because of previous mismanagement. Sancho, DeGea and Ronaldo on ridiculous wages, not performing and no transfer value.
Then we go and overpay for Antony by about 50 mill. I‘ll say it becsuse xou will bring it up next.
You might be too.
Ok he spent £190M and added X to the wage bill, but what if he had £250M to spend? £290M? What if we had more wage freedom because we didn't have deadwood on the books.
Instead of Mount it could have been....
Instead of Hojlund it could have been...
Instead of having to loan Amrabat we could have signed...
We might have got a central defender....
Onana I think we would have signed anyway.
We don't truly know if the players we signed were number one targets, or for all we know they could have been second, third, fourth on the list because of a FFP compromise. This could be what he is suggesting.
This is Ole 2.0 , he can't set up a team and people are blaming injuries and signings. Even if you have injuries or bad signings, you can still set up a tactically sound team. And he can't do it, that's the problem. So hilarious that people here really think that United will be successful with him, just like I laughed when the same people thought we would be successful with Ole.
I think we know some players weren‘t first choice. Casemiro being the prime example, and the emergency loans of Weghorst, Sabitzer and Amrabat. Kane instead of Hojlund.
Onana is fine, but Maignan might have been better and could have been first choice. But that is speculation.
Antony transfer should never have gone through: why didn‘t we go for the next ones down the list? Perhaps we did, no one was available and the club panicked.
For a Manager to oversee the spending of £400m in 2 years and have such a poor squad make up is shocking. To then mention FFP as an issue is laughable. Johnny Evan’s on a free after this spend is what arguably the biggest club in the world has been reduced to. Some will defend him to the hilt others want him out. I dearly want us to win today and get Top4. But my feeling is no matter what come the summer we will have a new manager in place. Rarely does a manager survive a change of ownership. We don’t play exciting football and far too many ifs or buts in his defence Imo.
With opinions like this I think you’re taking the @Mickson
There are parallels but it's not the same, whether you think Ole was a better or worse manager then ten Hag, nobody can actually claim this is Ole 2.0 nor is it Mourinho or LVG 2.0. It's ETH 1.0, whatever that is and will be.
ETH out. Winning but we're playing shit.
Fastest United goal away against Luton in February ever - ETH in. I didn't check the stats so taking a risk here.
Lucky goal again. Get rid of him.
Get ready for the “it’s only Luton” comments from the ten hag out brigade
Fastest double from Højlund for United - ETH working miracles. We're a good team, Berbaclass and me.
Wonder what ETH gets criticised for in this game…
@BoulderDevil ruining the flow. 
Rise above hate.
I'll be honest, I'm liking the youth element we have currently
Luton score. ETH out
Jammy goal for Luton. We know they won’t go down easy! Think Onana could have held his position on that one
33% possession against Luton while we play like its basketball. This bozo needs to go asap. Holy feck he's truly a horrendous manager. He's literally bailed by individual brilliance all the time. Cant coach defense even if his life depends on it
We play unserious chaos ball. Funny to watch but this is an uncontrolled mess.
Just a glamorous version of Stoke City which loved playing hoofball at every opportunity.
Use the matchday thread guys.
Pain.
One of our worst halfs of the season. Which is saying something.
Shit football. Still no improvement. No progress. Don't care how long you think he should be given, he'll never come close to winning the league
Yeah in all seriousness, this thread should probably be locked during games like the player performance threads