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.
We can't count Eriksen because he was a free transfer (despite earning £150k p/w)
We can't count Amrabat because he was a loan (despite costing an £8.5m loan fee)
Reading elsewhere...
We can't count Onana because he's important to the way you play (despite having some decidedly average ball-playing stats)
We can't count Hojland because he's not been available for every game (despite making 30 appearances by March)
We can't count Mount because he's been injured (despite often being overlooked when fit)
We can't count Varane because he's been injured (despite also often being overlooked when fit)
We can't count Antony because he was practically forced on ETH (despite him being a former player who's signing ETH approved)
Style of play, defensive structure, controlling the midfield, creating chances... none of this the Manager's responsibility at United, apparently.
He can't be expected to coach the team if he doesn't have a fully fit squad to choose from.
He can't have his transfer record criticised because he doesn't have total control over signings (despite no Manager - not even Wenger / Ferguson - ever having
total control over transfers).
Don't you find it even the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance in suggesting praising ETH for his "overachievement" last season, while insisting that basically nothing is his fault this season?