All managers post Fergie weren't good enough

[Amar__]

There is this weird obsession that I see in every thread that no manager could help us just because our every manager post Fergie didn't do well, and nothing good will happen if we change managers, because it's proven to be wrong based on these past experiences?

In general, some of them even did decent job trophy wise. But what I find weird is that people completely ignore the fact that none of our managers was good enough to begin with, if our aim were winning Premierleague or good CL campaign.

The biggest achievement our previous managers did after us was managing Roma, and the second biggest achievement was getting fired from Spurs. No top team in the world(and I am talking about top7-8 teams) would touch with a stick any of our 4-5 previous managers.

I seriously cannot understand why people keep ignoring this, we haven't had single manager who improved our performances, who made us play good modern football, and it's not because we haven't had the players, it's because some of them were long past their best, and rest were never good enough to begin with.

Can we please stop with this weird argument that nothing will change with changing the manager just because we changed couple of them in the past 10 years?

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I was having this exact conversation on the way to the ground at the weekend. Yes of course there's huge issues in the boardroom and with the structure of the club, and it has of course been a hinderance to managers... BUT, it still doesn't take away from the fact that none of our managers have been of the level required.

The one who was closest is probably Jose - and he's gone on to show he's not a top level manager anymore.

 

[justboy68]

There is this weird obsession that I see in every thread that no manager could help us just because our every manager post Fergie didn't do well, and nothing good will happen if we change managers, because it's proven to be wrong based on these past experiences?

In general, some of them even did decent job trophy wise. But what I find weird is that people completely ignore the fact that none of our managers was good enough to begin with, if our aim were winning Premierleague or good CL campaign.

The biggest achievement our previous managers did after us was managing Roma, and the second biggest achievement was getting fired from Spurs. No top team in the world(and I am talking about top7-8 teams) would touch with a stick any of our 4-5 previous managers.

I seriously cannot understand why people keep ignoring this, we haven't had single manager who improved our performances, who made us play good modern football, and it's not because we haven't had the players, it's because some of them were long past their best, and rest were never good enough to begin with.

Can we please stop with this weird argument that nothing will change with changing the manager just because we changed couple of them in the past 10 years?

Completely agree. It's a ridiculous argument, especially considering how poorly our ex managers have done after leaving. However even if one of them went on to be successful elsewhere it is still not a good argument. It doesn't mean it would have worked out with more time. Sometimes things run their course and don't work out for whatever reason and a change is needed for all parties. Emery for example has proven himself post-Arsenal more than any of our managers have proven themselves post-United. Good luck finding an Arsenal fan at the moment who wishes they hadn't sacked him.

 

[M Bison]

I find it weird the opposite way personally, put Pep or Klopp in charge and i still believe we'd be where we are, i dont believe 1 person (ie the coach/manager) is at fault for our poor performances over the past 10 years and the issues are much deeper.

 

[Scandi Red]

Both of these can be true:

1. None of them were good enough
2. No one apart from maybe 2 or 3 would have been successful. But it's far from a guarantee even with them.

 

[MadDogg]

I find it weird the opposite way personally, put Pep or Klopp in charge and i still believe we'd be where we are, i dont believe 1 person (ie the coach/manager) is at fault for our poor performances over the past 10 years and the issues are much deeper.

We definitely wouldn't be at the level of where they built City and Liverpool, but we also definitely wouldn't be the absolute mess that we are. There's a midground.

 

[Mike Smalling]

We've made some really poor decisions when it comes to our manager signings after SAF retired.

David Moyes - Yes, it was on the recommendation of SAF, but it should never have been done. He was a midtable manager with a decent record, and that's still what he is. Mad decision really.
Louis van Gaal - Kind of a weird one. He had a big name and a big personality, but his record wasn't all that. Got fired from his last club job.
Jose Mourinho - Everyone knew how this would go. Some short term success perhaps, but he had a habit of falling out with the clubs he managed. Shortsighted decision.
Ole Gunnar Solskjær - Hiring him as interim was a good decision. Giving him the job permanently after a flukey result against PSG was a travesty. His managerial experience amounted to managing in Norway and relegating Cardiff. Disastrous move.
Erik ten Hag - This only looks like a bad decision in hindsight, in my opinion. I was excited about his hiring at the time, and it seemed like most of the fanbase was. Maybe you could go back and nitpick his Ajax record, and say he was never all that, but who were the alternatives at the time?

I'd say 3 out of 5 were absolutely destined to fail from the moment they were hired permanently. Really terrible decisions.

 

[Jev]

I think ETH is the one that sticks out there. On paper he fit the profile and looked like the right man at the right time. Unfortunately, he hasn’t been able to earn that trust and will hopefully soon be the first good(-looking) manager to be sacked here.

But absolutely, LVG and Mourinho were both obviously past their prime when they came here and I was not optimistic about any of them going in. Moyes and OGS never had the pedigree (though I think the latter was the one appointment apart from ETH that I liked in theory and thought was worth trying out (and he did pretty well to be fair)).

Overall, we’ve been about as bad at manager recruitment as we are as signing players.

 

[El Zoido]

The cult of manager in football is really odd to me, when the running of a successful club involves a team of personnel, including the entire coaching and backroom staff and other associated professionals. You couldn’t just swap Ten Hag for Pep and expect us to become good.

 

[Alex99]

I don't disagree with the general premise, but at the same time, I don't think any of our managers actually hit their ceilings (with the possible exception of Ole).

I think, considering when he came in, Moyes was more than capable of consistent top four for at least a few seasons. He was never the man to win us a title though.

Van Gaal was only ever going to be a short term option, but given fecking Leicester won the league in his second season, and Manuel Pellegrini pipped Brendan Rodgers to the title the year before he joined, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest he could have at least mustered a title challenge.

Mourinho, as above. It was always going to implode at some point, but he had the pedigree to do better.

Ole I think probably did hit his ceiling. Two consecutive top four finishes but some way off the title was about his limit. If he'd stuck with the counter-attacking I'd back him to have achieved a third season in the CL, but I can't see us getting further than that level.

Ten Hag I actually think has/had a similar ceiling to Ole. I don't see him winning the PL with us or anyone. Maybe, if the stars aligned, he might have managed a title race. Ultimately, tactics are a massive issue and I expect he'll find himself having some minor success elsewhere.

 

[Fortitude]

Good thread. Let's see where it goes.

 

[Mike Smalling]

I think, considering when he came in, Moyes was more than capable of consistent top four for at least a few seasons. He was never the man to win us a title though.

What does this mean exactly? Moyes took a title winning squad and converted it into placing 7th. He specifically showed he wasn't capable of producing top four finishes.

 

[Skills]

The vast majority of managers aren't good enough to achieve long term success. It's why the top clubs run through them like condoms in a brothel.

The role should have a short leash, and you need to be constantly evaluating whether you can do better with someone else with the resources you've got.

 

[grahamo]

I think Mourinho could have done even better but the board wouldn't back him. Glazers fault!

 

[Alex99]

What does this mean exactly? Moyes took a title winning squad and converted it into placing 7th. He specifically showed he wasn't capable of producing top four finishes.

If we were well run (and ignoring that he wouldn't have been hired if this were the case) he a) wouldn't have been allowed to come in and completely gut the backroom team and b) wouldn't have ended the summer having signed only Fellaini (or Fellaini at all, for that matter).

If he had a Manchester United calibre backroom and a proper summer of transfers, he'd have been in a much stronger position.

The job was and remains far too big for him when you consider the expectations to challenge for titles, but Moyes is still a decent PL-level manager.

We might have had a wobble in 2013/14 still because the club was collectively hungover from Fergie leaving, but with some proper support, I don't think it's particularly outrageous to suggest that Moyes could have a guided us to a series of underwhelming fourth place finishes.

 

[Andycoleno9]

Moyes and Solskjaer were completely out of depth.
Lvg and Jose were top managers and they were logical and good choices but wrongly executed. They needed DoF.

Ten Hag. At that time he was good choice but again DoF problem (in his case awful Dof).

 

[Lee565]

I dont know why people think we let mourinho down, look at his history, he always implodes half way through his third season.

I'm not surprised ole did better than ten hag, ole at the very least knew what the epl was all about and knew his limitations as a manager, ten hag on the other hand has been really naive with the demands of the epl and he may have been able to get away with playing attacking football in the Dutch league with ajax but the epl is on another level, it's like a gerrard looking amazing as big fish in a small pond in Scotland and then getting roasted in epl

 

[Mike Smalling]

If we were well run (and ignoring that he wouldn't have been hired if this were the case) he a) wouldn't have been allowed to come in and completely gut the backroom team and b) wouldn't have ended the summer having signed only Fellaini (or Fellaini at all, for that matter).

If he had a Manchester United calibre backroom and a proper summer of transfers, he'd have been in a much stronger position.

The job was and remains far too big for him when you consider the expectations to challenge for titles, but Moyes is still a decent PL-level manager.

We might have had a wobble in 2013/14 still because the club was collectively hungover from Fergie leaving, but with some proper support, I don't think it's particularly outrageous to suggest that Moyes could have a guided us to a series of underwhelming fourth place finishes.

Sounds like a bunch of excuses, to be honest. Structure or no structure, those were his decisions. Noone forced him to change the staff and Fellaini was clearly a player he wanted given their history. He also got Mata halfway through season. Besides those two changes it was the same squad (just a year older), and we completely fell off a cliff.

 

[Mike Smalling]

I'm not surprised ole did better than ten hag, ole at the very least knew what the epl was all about and knew his limitations as a manager, ten hag on the other hand has been really naive with the demands of the epl and he may have been able to get away with playing attacking football in the Dutch league with ajax but the epl is on another level, it's like a gerrard looking amazing as big fish in a small pond in Scotland and then getting roasted in epl

It's very debatable if Ole did better than ETH. ETH's win rate is five percentage points higher and he's won a trophy, which Ole never did. Their maximum points achieved in a full PL season is almost identical (75 for ETH, 74 for Ole).

 

[Leftback99]

They weren't but bizarrely the one that has us playing the worst football of all of them is the one some think deserves more time under a 'new structure'.

 

[Jippy]

We've made some really poor decisions when it comes to our manager signings after SAF retired.

David Moyes - Yes, it was on the recommendation of SAF, but it should never have been done. He was a midtable manager with a decent record, and that's still what he is. Mad decision really.
Louis van Gaal - Kind of a weird one. He had a big name and a big personality, but his record wasn't all that. Got fired from his last club job.
Jose Mourinho - Everyone knew how this would go. Some short term success perhaps, but he had a habit of falling out with the clubs he managed. Shortsighted decision.
Ole Gunnar Solskjær - Hiring him as interim was a good decision. Giving him the job permanently after a flukey result against PSG was a travesty. His managerial experience amounted to managing in Norway and relegating Cardiff. Disastrous move.
Erik ten Hag - This only looks like a bad decision in hindsight, in my opinion. I was excited about his hiring at the time, and it seemed like most of the fanbase was. Maybe you could go back and nitpick his Ajax record, and say he was never all that, but who were the alternatives at the time?

I'd say 3 out of 5 were absolutely destined to fail from the moment they were hired permanently. Really terrible decisions.

Jose wasn't a bad call. There was definitely a chance he could've gotten us a title or at least properly competing and back up there, but yeah, it was never a long-term decision. LVG more past his best and better suited to international management by that point. Agree on the rest. ETH looked the part, but just hasn't worked out.

 

[BorisManUtd]

Agree with the OP.

Think of all ex-United managers Moyes actually has had best career since managing us. But he's still probably manager for type of teams he's been working at - Everton, West Ham etc. He took over an ageing team at United no doubt but don't think he'll ever again get a job like that as much as I do rate him as a manager.

LvG was in his prime during the 90s. Recently had success with Netherlands in 2014 and 2022 but that's cup tournament that suited him more as he got older it seems. League competition was really poor during his time here, especially in 15/16 and he couldn't even manage a top 4 finish. Thanks for Fa Cup campaign but we had easy road to it as well.

Mourinho has been on a decline since 2012 probably so it only slowly continued at United. Still most successful no doubt. I do believe we'd have won title in 2017/18 if Pep wasn't there so basically competition got stronger by the time Mourinho came to us with Pep and Klopp moving to the Premier League. Also Jose's decline only continued after United, otherwise he wouldn't be managing Spurs and Roma.

Ole did well considering where he was before us and where he is after us, and that's 2 and half years without job.

Then there's ten Hag. Strong 1st season for me but followed by poor second season.

Seems to me like there's never top managers available when we are looking for one. In 2013 (if we believe Fergie) Mourinho, Pep and Ancelotti already decided to join other clubs. In 2014 think there weren't available top managers either. Same for 2016 and 2018/19. In 2022 we were choosing between Poch and ten Hag and now it looks like neither are the answer. That plus whole state of the club being below required level.

So all in all we've had either not good enough or past their prime managers.

 

[Alex99]

Sounds like a bunch of excuses, to be honest. Structure or no structure, those were his decisions. Noone forced him to change the staff and Fellaini was clearly a player he wanted given their history. He also got Mata halfway through season. Besides those two changes it was the same squad (just a year older), and we completely fell off a cliff.

What am I excusing? Why are people so touchy when anyone dare suggest previous managers may have done (even marginally) better if the club wasn't ran like a circus?

Moyes wasn't good enough, and absolutely has to shoulder a good chunk of the blame for binning off the backroom team and replacing it with Everton's, just as he has to shoulder a good chunk of the blame for scrapping our transfer targets in favour of wasting the summer pursuing Fellaini and Baines.

That doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have been allowed to do either of those things, or indeed that properly strengthening the midfield and bringing in a couple of other fresh faces would have put him in a much stronger position than he ultimately found himself in.

Moyes was a disaster and was rightly sacked. I also firmly believe he'd have been sacked after his second or third season even if he had been properly supported and had managed two or three top four finishes, because he was never going to be the man to guide us to a title and that was plainly obvious before we even hired him.

 

[DWelbz19]

It’s interesting how we’re comfortable writing off players as not being up to the requisite standard but give managers a lot more lenience.

Completely in agreement with the OP. I think all of them - bar Moyes - possessed at least one or two traits needed to be good enough but had too many other shortcomings.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I thought this was the generally held view?

I do think recruitment is vastly more important than whoever your head coach is though.

 

[Insanity]

Agree. None of them were up to the standards.

Jose was backed too. I remember the line in his first transfer window being, "We have got the top player from each of Italy, France & Germany and a top defender from Spain" (Pogba, Zlatan, Mkhitaryan & Bailly)

Then the narrative changed once he started crying in his press conferences and started giving the example of Issa Diop (I think that was his name) as a sign of superior recruitment at West Ham.

 

[Mike Smalling]

What am I excusing? Why are people so touchy when anyone dare suggest previous managers may have done (even marginally) better if the club wasn't ran like a circus?

Moyes wasn't good enough, and absolutely has to shoulder a good chunk of the blame for binning off the backroom team and replacing it with Everton's, just as he has to shoulder a good chunk of the blame for scrapping our transfer targets in favour of wasting the summer pursuing Fellaini and Baines.

That doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have been allowed to do either of those things, or indeed that properly strengthening the midfield and bringing in a couple of other fresh faces would have put him in a much stronger position than he ultimately found himself in.

Moyes was a disaster and was rightly sacked. I also firmly believe he'd have been sacked after his second or third season even if he had been properly supported and had managed two or three top four finishes, because he was never going to be the man to guide us to a title and that was plainly obvious before we even hired him.

Your original post said that Moyes was good enough to finish top four with us consistently, despite the fact that he failed miserably at the first attempt. He didn't even come close. Your stated reasons for why he didn't manage to do it was that he was allowed to make bad decisions. So you were putting the blame for Moyes' bad decisions on the structure of the club, rather than his own lack of managerial skill.

All managers in all clubs benefit from working for an overall well-run organisation. That's hardly groundbreaking analysis. My point is simply that Moyes was clearly not good enough to finish top four with us. I know this, because he showed us.

 

[Alex99]

Your original post said that Moyes was good enough to finish top four with us consistently, despite the fact that he failed miserably at the first attempt. He didn't even come close. Your stated reasons for why he didn't manage to do it was that he was allowed to make bad decisions. So you were putting the blame for Moyes' bad decisions on the structure of the club, rather than his own lack of managerial skill.

All managers in all clubs benefit from working for an overall well-run organisation. That's hardly groundbreaking analysis. My point is simply that Moyes was clearly not good enough to finish top four with us. I know this, because he showed us.

Is nuance lost on you?

Yes, he was terrible. I'm not disputing that.

In better conditions, in which he wasn't granted the freedom to do as he pleased and make bad decisions that he shouldn't have been allowed to make, I believe he could have done better, and don't think that's a remotely controversial take. That doing better, still wouldn't have been good enough, but it would have been better.

You say my point is "hardly groundbreaking analysis", yet your point is simply saying Moyes was crap, something I've not even disputed. My entire post was basically that none of the managers were good enough, regardless of the conditions, but the conditions have been so bad that none (with the possible exception of Solskjaer) were actually able to hit their ceiling with us.

 

[thisisnottaken1]

The weird thing about ten Hag was that he was a good appointment (at least on paper) at first. He seemed like a modern, progressive manager who would finally lead us out of the dark ages, and at the end of last season, with a cup and a 3rd place finish, it seemed like he was our best manager post-SAF. There were a few niggles, but I just thought that they would be teething pains.

How wrong I was. He said he wanted to play “transition football” and ultimately this season has been an unmitigated disaster. It’s weird, because I really thought he was the one.

 

[Rista]

Jose was a good manager but obviously completely wrong fit. As it turned out he was past his best too. EtH was a very sensible appointment at the time but it hasn't worked out. No shame in admitting that and moving on. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be taking a punt on a manager like that in the future.

All the others ranged from not good enough to terrible. Ole should have never been given the permanent job.

All in all, you're absolutely correct. Our managerial appointments have not been any good. I'd say even worse than our player recruitment.

 

[UpWithRivers]

They were sht - in hindsight. But a load of people thought they were the right choice and a sht load didnt want them sacked. Its the same with ETH. We need the new board structure Berada, Ashworth, Wilcox to make a better decision even if that's keep ETH.

 

[satishunited]

David Moyes - bad choice
Louis van Gaal - good tactical manager in a club that suits his style
Jose Mourinho - wrong timing and fit. even in his brightest days, he would never be a long term fit at united.
Ole Gunnar Solskjær - Excellent interim choice after the toxic environment created by Jose. we should have gotten a top manager for the new season.
Erik ten Hag - you could argue that he was the best available option, unfortunately not working out.

 

[sugar_kane]

They all did badly and were poor choices (exc. Ten Hag arguably) but to blame any of them given the state of the club, which has increasingly gotten worse over time, seems pointless.

It's like asking a bus driver to drive a clapped out F1 car and then blaming him for losing the Grand Prix.

We've tried almost every profile of manager now and none of them have worked, the only one we've not had is the absolute elite ala Klopp or Pep - but I honestly think both would have struggled at this United, it's all moot anyway since both of them had the sense to not take the job.

 

[Revan]

Moyes - was always going to turn out how it turned out. Has done nothing of note to suggest that we were wrong to replace him.
LvG - it made sense to hire him, and as a stop-gap he was okay. However, he should have been replaced the moment Klopp became available, despite the ok first season. His onlyjob after being fired here was boring everyone to death in the World Cup.
Mourinho - it made sense to hire him. By the end of the second year, it became clear that he should be replaced. Would have won a title if the competition was weak (no Pep or Klopp etc). Failed everywhere after leaving us, unless you count a Conference Leagues as something big (some Roma fans do that tho).
Ole - good temporary manager, should have never got the full job. Did ok on his first two full seasons, but anyone knew that he should have been replaced. Still jobless after 2 years.
EtH - ticked a lot of boxes and was the obvious choice to be hired. Went spectacularly wrong, similar to how many promising managers went in the past (AVB, Potter, etc). No shame on that, you move on and replace him. I do not think he will do anything significant in his career (winning a top league or UCL).

I think the OP is obviously right. And while the structure helps, you need a good manager. A good structure can elevate an ok manager to win a title where there is not much competition, but you won't win a tiles against Pep/Klopp on song with just ok managers.

 

[UnofficialDevil]

Agree, and pointed this out in another thread

We haven't had a single top manager post SAF. Facts.
What has any of those managers achieved after managing us? Nothing.

Moyes : Nowhere near good enough for a top 4 club.
Giggs: No comment.
Louis Van Ghal: Was past it when he joined us, what did he achieve after us?
Mourinho: Was also on his way down as manager when he joined us, was also rubbish at every other club after us.
Solskjear: Obvioulsy nowhere near good enough for a top 4 everybody knows this.
Carrick : Nowhere near experienced enough for a top 4 club needs no explaining
Ragnick Has achieved nothing as manager anywhere.

As for the two heavy cards
Mourinho was sacked by Chelsea and looking dated in tactics before joining us
louis was playing a weird very defensive 352 in the World Cup before joining us never worked again after us


So this squad hasn't been managed even once by a top manager since SAF yet.
They were all very bad choices

 

[Insanity]

I find this Wenger induced idea of a "top 4 trophy" for financial rewards as a superlative achievement highly annoying. Also, find the idea of winning a tin pot cup, a competition in which our GOAT manager used to give the likes of Ryan Tunnicliffe or Scott Wooton minutes, as a harbinger of future success also pretty stupid.

I think we need to look at our managerial appointments from one and only one perspective, Can the guy win us one of the big two trophies. IF the answer is no, then it's a wrong managerial appointment.

So, let's look at our post Fergie managers from that perspective:

(1) David Moyes - This guy's ceiling wasn't very high even if we got Fab and Bale instead of Fellaini and Mata in his first window. This is the guy who couldn't win an away game against the top 4 in his entire stint at Everton, could he have won us the League or the Champions League? There is no chance in hell.

(2) LVG - He came to us having managed the Dutch national team the previous two years. His managerial stints since managing Barcelona in the previous century were a mixed bag. Failed on his return to Barca, did well at a small club AZ, won a title at Bayern but was sacked after losing 3rd place in his second season.

(3) Jose - I think he came with the best pedigree. I think he was in constant decline since the emergence of Pep and his stint at Real. I think mentally he couldn't take it that Pep was being praised for his football and was going to be the top dog in world football. Still came back to Chelsea and won a title, but imploded pretty soon in the typical Jose fashion. Won us a couple of cups in our first season, but things started going awry from the second season onwards. His career post us tells us that his decline was real with his failed stint at Spurs and his up and downs at Roma. He was the best appointment we made, but still a man very much on the way down.

(4) Ole - Sometimes I wish that PSG game never happened. I would never understand why we couldn't wait till the end of the season to give him the job. What was the immediate hurry? We were afraid he would be poached by Bayern or Barca? Ridiculous decision to hand him the job permanently.

(5) Rangnick - A Murtogh special. Brought in to assess what's wrong with the club. Not continued with when he told what was wrong with the club.

(6) ETH - Looks completely out of his depth so far.

So yeah, like playing personnel, we have failed at appointing managers too these last 11 years.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Is nuance lost on you?

Yes, he was terrible. I'm not disputing that.

In better conditions, in which he wasn't granted the freedom to do as he pleased and make bad decisions that he shouldn't have been allowed to make, I believe he could have done better, and don't think that's a remotely controversial take. That doing better, still wouldn't have been good enough, but it would have been better.

You say my point is "hardly groundbreaking analysis", yet your point is simply saying Moyes was crap, something I've not even disputed. My entire post was basically that none of the managers were good enough, regardless of the conditions, but the conditions have been so bad that none (with the possible exception of Solskjaer) were actually able to hit their ceiling with us.

Better would have been better. Got it. I'm learning so much about nuance.

You claim Moyes could have finished in the top four consistently, if only he was held back from acting on all his worst ideas. I'm saying that it was all those bad ideas that made him a manager not capable of finishing consistently in the top four in the first place. That seems to be our difference of opinion. I don't see how we finish with an additional 15 points in Moyes' season, if he hadn't changed the backroom staff or if we signed another midfielder than Fellaini. He was also tactically inept and quickly lost the dressing room.

 

[noodlehair]

Both of these can be true:

1. None of them were good enough
2. No one apart from maybe 2 or 3 would have been successful. But it's far from a guarantee even with them.

I think it's more that anyone good enough to be successful wouldn't have taken the job in the first place with the set up we had.

That's the part that will (hopefully) change now.

Don't really disagree with the opening post. I just think picking the wrong manager comes with the territory when the people above the manager don't have a plan

 

[Alex99]

Better would have been better. Got it. I'm learning so much about nuance.

You claim Moyes could have finished in the top four consistently, if only he was held back from acting on all his worst ideas. I'm saying that it was all those bad ideas that made him a manager not capable of finishing consistently in the top four in the first place. That seems to be our difference of opinion. I don't see how we finish with an additional 15 points in Moyes' season, if he hadn't changed the backroom staff or if we signed another midfielder than Fellaini. He was also tactically inept and quickly lost the dressing room.

Yes, a proper structure holding him back from acting on daft ideas would have helped him. It's a really simple concept and it's amazing that you can't grasp it and/or are so bothered that I hold this view.

You do realise that Moyes doing better under a proper structure and Moyes still not being good enough are not ideas exclusive from each other?

Tactically, he'd have been supported by better staff than Steve Round, Phil Neville and Jimmy Lumsden. Similarly, better (and familiar) staff and better recruitment is very likely to have kept the players onside (at least for longer). These are not controversial views.

As for the 15 points thing, we dropped 50 points in 2013/14. We dropped 13 at home to West Brom, Southampton, Everton, Newcastle and Fulham, and a further 8 away to Cardiff, Stoke and Everton before Moyes was sacked. We then dropped a further 5 at home to Sunderland and away to Southampton after he was sacked. That's 26 eminently winnable points, and before we discuss the 24 we dropped to City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs. As I said, I think there was still a chance we missed out on top four that year regardless, because of the post-Fergie hangover, but it's odd to think we wouldn't have managed more points had we signed even two or three of the players we were heavily linked to that summer (or even players in those positions) that weren't Fellaini and Baines. That list that included Thiago, Fabregas, Ozil, Khedira, Bale and Ronaldo, some of which were definitely a bit fanciful, but we also had the Herrera-saga and were clearly targeting a left-back as we went for Coentrao on deadline day, and ended up signing Herrera and Shaw before van Gaal was even in post.

I get your point about about Moyes thinking he could bring in his Everton team and sign Fellaini and things would run smoothly being massive red-flags, but if he hadn't been granted that freedom, he would have adapted, and been better for it. He's not a complete fool, as evidenced by his spell at Everton and current stint at West Ham.

 

[Giggsy13]

Our footballing structure hasn’t been good enough. The managers may have succeeded if we didn’t have knobs like Woodward and Murtough leading the transfer strategy.