I understand where you are coming from and it is inevitable that more fans will become more dissenting if the performance continues to be tumescent. Though few and far between, we have seen glimpses that this team is capable to playing entertaining football - and other teams in transition (i.e., Liverpool) seem to be capable of playing attacking football as well. So yes, I do not see it as a necessary byproduct of the job he is doing - I see it as the most pragmatic way.
As time goes on, we can only say that we were incredibly lucky to have a manager like SAF, and for 26 years. Many fans took the success he brought for granted and it is becoming more apparent now what an awesome feat that was. But then again, let's also remember he took around 6 years to start on a winning run - and yes you could also argue the state of the team was worse than the one LVG took over but things are always different. Just because fans expect results quicker now doesn't mean its the optimal way.
Unfortunately there is no comparison because the sample size is 1, so we can only be patient. Every one wants the good old days of swashbuckling attacking football under Fergie, but truth is only a few of Fergie's teams managed that consistently. I look back on those months with Moyes and I can still recall not only the boring football, one dimensional tactics (n crosses), a manager who lacked the authority and track record, and also the poor results that came with it; and I can only say that from those lenses, LVG has done reasonably well.
We cleared out the deadwood (and many fans have said we needed to), we do have some different plans and tactics (they don't always work but which tactic works 100% of the time), we have a manager with a plan and track record (though no one knows what his time line is or even what the KPI set by the board is), and we are showing better results (so far).
Some may use the 200m spent as a stick to beat LVG with, but let's not forget we did sell a lot of players too and we got rid of a lot of high wages. I'd be keen to see the net result and I'd wager we wouldn't see such an large incremental amount combined. But that's investment, which a lot of fans complained was something we didn't do enough of.
All in all, I think there is a reason why LVG was only signed for three years. The board has a plan (and I hope that isn't about making Giggs the manager) and I think the board hired LVG simply for the transition: Clear the deadwood, set a foundation, improve our tactical acumen, give youth opportunities, but don't screw up too much such that our commercial revenue is compromised. It became clear to the management that it is almost impossible to jump from SAF to an SAF mk II. We naively tried that in Moyes and had to nip that in the bud fairly quickly so the board might be creating a transition period and simply waiting for a Pep or someone similar (or Giggs, god forbid).
For all we know, LVG might have only agreed to this job because it was going to be a short one. Woodward might have said, build a strong base but just keep us steady and close to challenging for 3 years and off you go on retirement. In that case, LVG doesn't care if he isn't entertaining the fans. It will be the next manager's job to do so.
