No it doesn't seem like we do. But there seems to be a lot of alternative facts floating around this thread.
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?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...ng-wheel-of-a-directionless-manchester-united
Took one minute to find a report that explains the veto structure.
The rule at United is that the manager and football department have a veto – therefore Ten Hag and John Murtough, the football director, have to agree on any signing.
Ah, I see we are back at the "Murtough should have stopped him" phase of the debate
Right and Ten Hag wasn't aware of this I assume?
Mount has been injured since November yes, but when he still was fit Ten Hag got into the habit of preferring McTominay.
Nope, just explaining basics that Ten Hag doesn't have full control. Which should be a simple concept to understand but here we are.
No my point is Ten Hag is relying on McTominay. In preference to his own midfield signings.
I didn't bring McTominay into the discussion someone else did to back up a ludicrous point.
You don't throw a player in to start games after they're making returns from chronic injuries. You start off by fielding them off the bench, you get this right?
I have no doubt that McTominay was genuinely preferred in certain games but you're looking at a very small sample size. When you consider big signings generally always need to bed in and tend to be benched for a period, it's not remotely contraversial. I've named 3 players who have been manged in this way by top coaches.
Hes relying on McTominay, yes. This idea that McTominay would have permanently replaced mount had mount stayed fit is bollocks though.
Displacing a free transfer squad signing and a loanee is hardly anything to write home about. He wanted him gone, and still will come the summer
Beauty school dropout
United didn’t even have the toughest schedule in Manchester, let alone the world.
Y’all ETH fans have truly lost it.
But no Ten Hag quotes no?
Didn't think so, fair enough. The thing you actually claimed Ten Hag said wasn't even that outlandish, it might well be the case. But you said it in a post where you accused me of making things up, despite the fact I had direct quotes from Ten Hag that I was basing my opinion on.
Genuine question mate. Do you make up narratives in your head to argue against?
So Ten Hag now preferring McTom to his own signings, that he signed and wanted to be integral parts of his midfield is nothing to write home about?
If you say so mate, still it proves my point that Ten Hag isn't being forced to rely McTominay though.
Poor Ten Hag having to chase top 4 and league cup glory. City had it easy with their treble
God no. It was painfully clear our players had no intention of doing as Rangnick asked, which is why he wanted to cull most of them.
I thought this thread couldn’t get any wilder. You’d think at some point they’d read back what they’ve written and ponder, ‘There are one or two holes in this argument I’ve constructed, now that I come to think of it.’
Then we can argue for months about if we should have kept Ten Hag instead of hiring Gareth Southgate
I haven't dug into ten hags own interviews, but I have made it clear that our structure is well reported and this idea that Ten Hag is the only one with control is bollocks. You now understand this, yes?
[/QUOTE]
You literally just extrapolated an assumption from a tiny sample and assumed McTominay is preferred to Mount, whilst burying your head in the sand about McTominay being on the market. And then you ask me about made up narratives?
Sorry, do you actually think Amrabat and Eriksen were bought as integral signings? A loanee and a free transfer? This sounds like a you problem at this stage.
Accurate
Look, I was one of his critics, but our current manager has really made me revise that dark little period. RR was actually a decent caretaker until the wheels came off in mid-April, probably when we dropped out of top 4 and the players knew there was nothing left to play for. I assume that was also when he started sounding off in the pressers.
Those club groupings are really interesting. You can almost sub divide the league on this basis from top to bottom. Interesting that Erik isn’t considered a heavy pressing manager too. I think he would be, if he had the players to do it.
Has anyone actually said that ETH is the only one with control?
If McTominay was on the market due to not fitting into how ETH wants to play, then doesn’t selecting him 33 times this season constitute poor management?
Amrabat was a very expensive loan with an option to buy. It was clearly done with a view to a permanent transfer with one eye on the finances. And Eriksen was a free transfer… like Sol Campbell. And Robert Lewandowski. And Lionel Messi. Since when has being a free transfer had anything to do with a player’s status within the squad?
We did actually play one more game than City last season, not that it's significant.
Yes i did and you are incorrect. I am talking about the first time Mount got injured which was literally after 2 games in August.
Last edited:
Ten Hags first 10 league games in charge, 5 wins, 2 draws and 3 losses. We did very well after the 6-3 defeat to City. That was his purple patch of form which ended with the League Cup win. From that moment onwards it's been crap.
Our 2024 form hasn't been great. We did play well against West Ham, that was a comfortable win. We scraped by Wolves, Villa and Luton. Drew to Spurs and lost to Fulham and City. No I'm not taking into account the FA Cup games, clutching at straws if you're going to include wins against Wigan, Newport (which was a pretty horrific game) and Forest.
We've done ok in the league in 2024 but nothing to flaunt. I hope our standards haven't dropped so low that 5 games unbeaten is something to celebrate. That really would be depressing.
Not that this matters, as City were clearly playing far more difficult opposition, but @UDontMessWith24 was specifically talking about how (apparently uniquely) difficult United's post-WC schedule was. I actually think City had more games than anyone in the second half of the season.
But I'm just being pedantic with you. The simple fact is, of all the excuses to make for ETH, dealing with a season that had a WC in the middle (like literally every other Manager) is a right up there.
Yes there are many posts from those wanting him out insinuating full or total control, despite being corrected many times.
Eh? Not at all. He repositioned McTominay into a second striker off the bench or a 10 to come in and get us a goal, because he knows that's where he can milk his value. If Rashford was firing and Hojlund didn't need to settle a bit I doubt you'd see us being so desperate to bring him on.
Poor management would be failing to milk the assets while you have him.
Bit of mental gymnastics here. There's a reason it's an option and not an obligation (such as say, Raya). Il let you work out why that's the case, but it's certainly not because we are set on keeping him.
Also comparing Eriksen, a midfielder whos legs are going to Lewandowski, a striker smashing 40 goals for Bayern the year before is stretching to put it nicely.
If you want to run with the logic that Eriksen was part of Ten Hag's long term vision then go for it. It's clear Eriksen was an injection of experience and technical quality needed to overlay the squad, which he inherited with Pereira, Pogba, Matic and Mata out the door. A free transfer punt was great value, but it wasn't some long term plan.
RR’s record was worse than Ole’s and much worse than ETH’s. Things can be two things you know. Ralf can be awful and Ten Hag can be bad too. Ralf relying on a Russian league former assistant for pre-game tactical analysis was ridiculous.
Let’s just agree that the only manager we will be satisfied with is one that is dead cert to make top 4, wins the league every few years and goes deep into the CL, possibly winning one. Those are the standards. We are consistently 2nd/3rd/4th in revenue in the world, and for a club this big, that’s the minimum.
No I said for a period (5 games to be specific) before Mount's injury McTominay was preferred. Which is a fact, you arguing against the idea that McTominay would have permanently replaced Mount if he'd stayed fit is something you've made up.
So let's get this right are you saying that the guy Ten Hag signed last summer and then proceeded to select for 44 games last season and the midfielder he chased for most of this summer (and had to sign on loan due to FFP restrictions) weren't integral to his plans this season?
Answer me this of these 3 midfielders which one do you think Ten Hag would have envisaged playing the least games this season?
McTominay
Amrabat
Eriksen
So last season he wasn't better than Rangnick how exactly. He had a new manager purple patch bounce after a difficult start? He was bouncing into two finals by accident? Or he churned out results to stabilise in 2024? Which bit is worse than Rangnick?
Im all for people slating style of play and being tired of how we let in shots on goal, but let's not outright rewrite history while we are frustrated.
I mean objectively speaking on results that's wrong. 8 wins and one draw out of 11 is actually very good, not OK.
Last edited:
We've scored one more goal than Luton. We've scored less goals than Fulham, Brentford, and Chelsea. We've scored twenty less than fecking Newcastle. What a mess.
Aye, it's the same tiresome circular arguments everyday.
I dont think he will get sacked if we go out of the FA Cup this weekend but if it becomes mathematically impossible to reach top 4/5 then I reckon his fate is sealed.
This season has been pretty farcical and I can easily see us finishing up 6th quite easily safely ahead of 7th but miles away from CL spots.
Hang on, Eriksen absolutely was an integral signing. Aren't we paying him close to 100k a week? C'mon, just because he's a free transfer doesn't mean he wasn't considered a big signing. Matip, Ibrahimovich, Cavani etc.
Why are you talking about that period though?
When I was clearly referring to Mount's current injury which occured in November. In the 5 games leading up to the last time he was fit he was on the bench for all 5 while McTominay started.
So please explain how am I incorrect again?
Eriksen was a cheap acquisition to add numbers to the squad. He spent previous three months at Brentford and prior to that did not play football since he had heart attack the Summer before. We had hardly any competition aside from Brentfofs.
And by all means he was a good acquisition and contributed a lot last year.
My friend this makes no sense. Mount had a first injury bout a couple games in and needed to be bedded back into games. That's a big part of being benched, as is needing to get used to the system (again we've seen this with big players under Klopp and Pep but you keep burying your head in the sand).
What is your argument exactly? That Ten hag was favouring McTominay because he gave up on Mount? If so that's stretching.
Every man and his dog knew Eriksen had 1 or 2 seasons left in him and was a fine stop gap on that regard for a free. Saying he hit 44 apps in season 1 is fine, we expected him to still give us some legs and quality. Then he got inured for ages, and got injured again for ages, and can't run anymore. And we aren't surprised because he's in the twilight of his career.
Did you think Ten hag saw Eriksen as a long term solution? What on earth led you to think this?
Also can you point to where we prioritised Amrabat as a permanent signing season? There's varying reports with Romano saying Amrabat is waiting for man utd and ten hag wants him, but not on what deal or what strategy. And there was Luckhurst saying the Amrabat links were exaggerated bollocks. The truth is evidently somewhere I between, but him being a loan with option tells you we aren't convinced by him.
They would have all been broadly squad players. Eriksen may have played more had he not been injured a fair bit and if we clicked system wise, but none of these players were actually seen to be in the first team for season 2 before a ball was kicked.
Ten Hag had big plans for Mainoo since last April (you can see the quotes yourself for that and refer to pre season). Casemiro, Mainoo, Bruno, Mount would have been our primary first choice midfielders with an overlay of Amrabat, McT, Eriksen beyond that. Of course Mainoo being injured for half the season and Mount virtually all season changes it and leads to dependency on squad players.
Last edited:
Both were options to buy. However Amrabat’s loan fee is £8.5m. Whereas Raya’s is £3m. The only metal gymnastics there are yours.
The comparison to Campbell, Lewandowski and Messi was to point out that a transfer being free has nothing to do with the player’s status in the squad as you were saying. Therefore it’s not “a stretch”, it’s a relevant example. You don’t even have to have powers of comprehension to grasp that point, I literally spelt it out for you, but there we are.
And Eriksen was clearly a key part of ETH’s plans or he wouldn’t have picked him 44 times last season.
I don’t even understand why this is a discussion. Managers sign players all the time. Managers are judged on their transfer record all the time. Usually nobody finds either of those things hugely contentious.
What is it about ETH that inspires such loyalty that any area in which he is criticised is suddenly no longer in his job description? How can nothing be his responsibility?
We're paying him £150,000 a week! That isn't a cheap acquisition. Also suggests he might have had other well-paid offers. Free doesn't always mean squaddie grunt. In the same way that Matip wasn't a squaddie grunt for the scouse. It's a weird argument to try and frame Eriksen as some no-mark, inconsequential signing that shouldn't be factored into the squad-building.
Eriksen was never seen as a player who we thought would be called upon frequently for more than 1 or 2 seasons. Do you understand this? Let's start here for now so we can then debate the other areas. You give personal insults on comprehension and take lazy logic yourself in understandings Eriksens role in the medium term.
When he signed everyone saw it as a good short term move for immediate impact.
Also, not all loans are seen as permanent moves. Whilst wholly accepting that you had Raya as option (I was reading ESPN that said obligation, but grant athletic will know best), you need to also understand that dumpster diving on loans because you can't fork out more than 10m eur on a midfielder severely limits the talent pool you're going for. Suggesting Amrabat was part of ten hags big strategy is a stretch because he was working with the cards he was dealt, which is no real funds for a free, and a tiny budget, and players available to come in cheap. If he had Gravenberch money he'd probably get him, we were linked too.
If he had Gakpo money in Jan, he'd have probably got him. He didn't loan Weghorst because he wanted him badly. It's opportunistic with a shit hand, and that's essentially what Amrabat was.
Are you being purposely dense? One more time, United played 3 games a week, every week, for almost 6 months consecutively. No other club had to do that last season.