Net spend? That's a different conversation.
No! Net spend is very relevant in this conversation because if you lost players from first team squad for example Lukaku and etc, the squad‘s quality is also reduced so it makes sense the manager requires more money or more support in transfer market not just to fix the existing problem but also to replace the players he just lost.
This is the first time net spent has been brought up in this conversation, and it only has now because someone was wrong about the actual outlay.
It's the footballing equivalent of Godwin's law.
I never argue about Ole isn’t backed. I was arguing how you are very wrong saying ‘’Ole spent more than Frank’’ instead of calling it the same. And after I showed the number, now you changed it to ‘’they‘ve spent about the same’’.
Ole has spent more than Lampard, that's just a fact.
Yeah, then we lost the player that single handedly dragged us to that 3rd place. In the two years upto Lamps taking over we effectively lost 5 world class player's, 3 to sales (Costa, Eden, Courtois) and 2 to decline (Kante, Azpi). People were hysterically laughing at the lineup we rolled out at OT for Frank's first game and didn't give us a prayer of Europe let alone top 4.
Ole spent more, Ole spent about the same, and now Ole has spent more. Make up your mind mate!!
The phrase "Ole can only dream of the backing Lampard had," is not my problem, it's your problem with the other poster. My problem is that you made false claim which I gave you the number already to correct you and it's fact. You got problem with that then you got problem with fact.
I am not talking about net spend. You know that. Goodbye.
Spending is spending.
It's called net ''spent'' not net ''sales'' for a reason. It's not different thing because money doesn't come out from out of nowhere, Ole wouldn't have that extra 70m to spent without selling Lukaku first.
The money for spending comes from a variety of different places, not just player sales. TV money, prize money, sponsorship, investment from owners, etc.
I could make the same case that Ole lost Herrera who was part of his starting XI in 18/19.
And Ole wouldn't have that extra 70m to spent without selling Lukaku first. I didn't try to change the conversation because I was never in it with your discussion, I'm correcting your false claim, that's all.
Point is he wasn't on his own at age 29, there was an existing hierarchy within the club of international captains capable of managing themselves more or less. Also it does the opposite of making Mourinho seem a fraud - if anything it's huge credit to him that the structure he built and implemented was able to persist long after he went.
Comparing losing Herrera to losing Hazard
I'm convinced Ten Cate was incharge in all but name for a couple of reasons.
Yeah this is a good point. Certainly would make sense.
Where did I compare losing Herrera to losing Hazard?Comparing losing Herrera to losing Hazard
Martial was part of 18/19 squad, he wasn't new signing while Lukaku was United 2nd top scorer in 18/19. The point is United lost goal scorer without adding a new one until January Bruno & Ighalo. What Martial did in 19/20 is irrelevant to the point & discussion, it only tells you good coaching and man management from the manager to improve Martial as player which not something we are discussing.
You responded to @Dancfc 's post about us losing Hazard, who scored or assisted half our goals, by pointing out that you'd also lost Herrera, a functional player who is entirely average.
So every time you sell a player you need to sign one? If you have a replacement within the squad who can perform to a similar if not higher level, then complaining about not signing someone is just silly. Again you dodged the question - do you honestly think the drop-off from 18/19 Hazard to 19/20 Pulisic is smaller than that between 18/19 Lukaku to 19/20 Martial?
@Dancfc wasn't just talking about losing Hazard though in his post that I replied. May be you should read both conversation first before guessing so you understand what is the Herrera thing I refer to.
Definitely sounds more likely than “the team managing itself”. Also explains why those same players didn’t step up when Scolari was stinking up the joint yet were able to win the double a year later with Ancelotti. Relying on the strength of the squad will enable you to get by when you have the quality of Chelsea between 2004 and 2012 but to have the best record in the league over 30 games and reach a Champions League final takes at least some tactical ability and managerial leadership.
So you then think Herrera is a world class player in the bracket of Hazard, Costa, Courtois, Kante, and Azpilicueta? Not much better there, mate.
There's no argument he's doing better this season but last Lampard did the better job. Transfer ban and loses his gamechanger vs around £200m spent, should have been a mismatch on paper yet Ole needed GD to get above us.
The issue with Scolari was in his team selection - he essentially ousted Drogba for no real reason whilst crowbarring Deco into the midfield. It's the same thing that happened to AVB - both tried to kick out the senior players abruptly and without proper justification and were ultimately undermined & ignored.
To Scolari's credit the first two month's we played some breathtaking football with Anelka leading the line (also Drogba was very unsure about his long term commitment to us at that point). Scolari's issue came post Liverpool when Rafa showed the world the way to stop us (pin back the fullbacks and press the shit out of Mikel) to which everyone else followed that blueprint and he had no plan B.
If Lampard had as much financial backing Ole was given, it'd would be a different story.
When did I say Herrera is a world class player in the bracket of those? Although, calling those players world class is debatable but that's another different discussion.
Upgrade? Both Martial & Greenwood were in 18/19 squad.
No. What was your point?
Isn't this season with Lampard proving that spending tons of money is moot if you can't get those players to perform? Ole took a team that finished 6th to 3rd, making 3 SF's having sold our only consistent 20+ goal a season striker taking a punt on Martial to replace him. Lampard took a team that finish 3rd to 4th having lost Hazard taking a punt in Pulisic to replace him (which was a transfer in regardless) and made one cup final
And Ole didn't improve your points tally from the previous season despite the money spent, if Lampard finishes level with Leicester or Arsenal on same number of points (regardless of whether he jumps positions) as last after this summer's outlay would he be deemed to have a successful season and a better one than Brendan/Arteta? Absolutely not.
Right, so mentioning Herrera as a loss in the context of those players was meaningless then? Gotcha.When did I say Herrera is a world class player in the bracket of those? Although, calling those players world class is debatable but that's another different discussion.
Upgrade? Both Martial & Greenwood were in 18/19 squad.
No. What was your point?
Again why the despite the money spent argument? Lampard is proving spending money doesn't guarantee improvement if the manager struggles to get the best out of those players
We finished 6th with Herrera, Matic, Pogba as our regular midfield three and Fred + McTominay as our backup in 18/19, and we lost one of them without adding new midfielder as replacement in the summer 19/20. Do you finally get the point why I mentioned Herrera in the discussion now?
Well, that's unfair. You are just doing that to suits your argument
. In reality, the same can be applied to Chelsea as well that losing Hazard wasn't some huge and massive burden as you also had younger and better options ready to step up.
