Does having 'united DNA' matter in management selection? If so, what is it?

[FatTails]

If we are having such a hard time defining it, it might just be made up and it doesn't exist.

 

[Tyrion]

Not according to my definitions set out in this thread.

1- Having a top class academy and providing clear pathways into the first team for youth players.
2- promoting a positive, attacking style of football.
3- Promoting a family culture around the club that is linked to players and managers not only understanding, but fundamentally buying into our history and ethos.

Barcelona and Bayern Munich do that. Most successful football clubs do that. Its not that specific. It just seems like basic requirements for long term success.

 

[Redfrog]

United is about playing attacking and attractive football. It's about promoting youth. As a team, we should be going out dominating teams.

This club was forged with an identity. Busy babes. 68 winning team. The class of 92. This is what we're about.

All right, but promoting youth in numbers happens one time in a generation. Fergie did not replicate it with his last great team. He bought Ronaldo and Rooney and developed them. So it’s a bit of a romantic notion I think. And even then, he had a lot of winners all around this young players, you need them to win.

So we can agree that Ole has failed ? He doesn’t play attacking football and only has Greenwood as young player from academy (who let’s be honest, is to good not to make the grade).

 

[Redfrog]

United seriously sometimes looks like a third world country still mesmerized by a pseudo ideology of it's founder (Fergie) and making people blindly follow some undefinable, vague objective and calling it the ultimate truth.
Sad to say, this club looks like a third world struggling country.

Yes, we reversed it. It’s not Fergie who has United DNA but United who had Fergie’s DNA.
Now he is gone, instead of moving away we try to reproduce it but without the main ingredient.

 

[Abraxas]

Of all the things that are kind of intangible, I'd say that having a certain courage to play youth products is not one of them. That is something that is quite measurable.

It's actually one area where I've been somewhat disappointed and surprised in Ole. Maybe it's because he's always clinging onto his job from one week to the next.

There's no point in having an expensive academy, scouts all over the shop and to be spending all the time and effort it takes to maintain that structure if the manager at the top isn't interested. So I think this is an important thing because it has the potential to bring through players that have a lot of long term value to the club and can save huge amounts of money, which under our current ownership is important due to obvious budgeting. Bringing them through means we can more easily afford the big signings.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Well no it’s not and it doesn’t have to be at all. Again if we all accept that the Utd way means three things:
1- Having a top class academy and providing clear pathways into the first team for youth players.
2- promoting a positive, attacking style of football.
3- Promoting a family culture around the club that is linked to players and managers not only understanding, but fundamentally buying into our history and ethos.

Those are the values that represent Manchester Utd, they are the reason I support this club and not some other plastic club. They are the reason we should never be hiring a Mourinho with his bollocks “heritage” speech and they are the reason I’m more than dubious about appointing another negative manager in Conte. Having clear cultural values should never be linked to mediocrity, no, instead point the finger at the lack of forward planning at the top of the club. But it’s become an easy target to look at the ‘nostalgia’ and believe we can no longer maintain our values, that couldn’t be further from the truth. I think Ole has taken us as far as he can, but what is fundamental is making a positive managerial change and getting in someone who can understand and continue to implement those values which Ole has at least promoted.

I like 1 and 2 but what on earth is 3?!

Don't mind us having a few things we strongly believe in. I've always felt that we should continue promoting youth and playing an attacking style of football. Having said that it's good to be open minded and free of bias as well.

Ole for example, does not really implement attacking football. Our fullbacks are nowhere near as cavalier as Liverpools. Our back line doesn't push high. Our pressing is downright crap. We are a functional team really. There's nothing exciting or especially attacking about us. On this point, Conte is no less attacking than Ole. He just implements his system better.

And on the point of youth as well, I'm not sure what Ole has done? Greenwood is an absolute superstar and any manager would promote him. On the rest it has some players who are young/not old and then Cavani, Ronaldo and Ighalo, so again I'm not seeing this huge push for youth under him. If anything with Ronaldo and Cavani now coming in and him failing at the Liverpool pressing experiment which of the two philosophies is he supposedly doing great at?

The only reason I bring up the above about Ole is to test the waters regarding our philosophy. If Ole has supposedly promoted then a lot more managers would than people think. And hence while we should protect these ideas it does not mean that yiu need SAF faces like Carrick and Ole to do so and they may not be beacons of those thoughts either.

 

[Get In Scholesy]

Maybe “United DNA” is massive front for our nepotist decisions as of late. Would be a massive troll job by the club if true.

Would never imagine them to be this creative given recent decisions.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Yes, we reversed it. It’s not Fergie who has United DNA but United who had Fergie’s DNA.
Now he is gone, instead of moving away we try to reproduce it but without the main ingredient.

There are other managers who promote youth and play an attacking philosophy but it's more the interpretation of the DNA that seems amateurish. The whole surround yourself with his ex players/staff, he got time so patience is everything, wingers, manager must be non confrontational (brainless one) etc It's one thing to keep a few elements that are universal and another to keep random things just to recreate something that happened 30 years ago. I mean, if attacking footy is an important part then Bielso has 100 times more of the Uniged DNA than Ole. So yeah, keep the core ideology if you want but be logical and professional about it.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Maybe “United DNA” is massive front for our nepotist decisions as of late. Would be a massive troll job by the club if true.

Would never imagine them to be this creative given recent decisions.

Don't think it's a troll job but we definitely seem to be letting romanticism about the past cloud our judgment in the present. The fact that we have a manager that doesn't care about modern progressive football accompanied by a set of coaches none of whom has any experience implementing progressive football at the highest level says it all. We want to recreate the past using Chinese fakes rather than create an original future that can match/is befitting of our past.

 

[croadyman]

Don't think it's a troll job but we definitely seem to be letting romanticism about the past cloud our judgment in the present. The fact that we have a manager that doesn't care about modern progressive football accompanied by a set of coaches none of whom has any experience implementing progressive football at the highest level says it all. We want to recreate the past using Chinese fakes rather than create an original future that can match/is befitting of our past.

Yeah that's the hardest part to stomach whilst our rivals have top managers in place

 

[Blood Mage]

It really feels like it's just a made up thing to excuse the jobs for the boys culture at the club currently and I hate it. It's been going on for years now, the club literally tried to force Van Gaal to mentor Giggs to be our future manager ffs.

 

[Nicolarra90]

Well, can culture be specific? Think of it this way - when Solskjær came, one of the first things he did was go talk to the desk lady who’d worked there for ages. This was in stark contrast to the way Moyes, Van Gaal and particularily Mourinho treated the members of the club that weren’t eligible for the next league game. Many people at the club had been there long enough to know how Sir Alex always treated her with the same level of respect and interest as he did star players and board members. Small things like these add up, and help knit bonds that will be important when the going gets tough. Ferguson himself did almost the same, when he came to the club he studied everything about United history, and everything about Sir Matt Busby. He knew the deeper knowledge was part of the bigger picture both of what dreams may thrive in the corridors of such an institution, and what practices may need to be developped - at many levels.

Sir Alex was close to the sack several times during the first six years. One may ask if the people who didn’t sack him really where so prescient about how his methods would inevitably turn things around, or wether how he respected the culture of both the club and the people working at it buy him time, acceptance and support at the club, making him survive where anyone else would’ve been axed.

As for Solskjær, there have been several rounds when his head has been called for. People assume he is tacticly weak, inexperienced as an elite coach, too soft, etc. And entertain this: If he is indeed behind so many in coaching methods and tactics - how has he managed to keep the job for three years, to get pros and stadium fans to get behind him and stay behind him, to get capitalist speculants to inveat money for good players for him, and to steadily increase the points tallies, heighten the league placings and deepen the cup runs - is he a much better manager than credited, or does the fact he knows and respects culture embedded in the club (among board members, functionaries, players and coaches, fans, community people and even a lot of expert commentators, old buddies so to speak) actually help him in getting the job done, not having to work against people, moods, traditions, habits, not having to reimplement a thousand things every week anew, and having people fight for him after each set back, despite doubt, despite critics in the press and SoMe, despite 20 players in the squad who play less than they think they deserve.

There is a lot of culture living in the people connected to Man United today, and the stories of Sir Matt, The Babes, working class railwaymen, Georgie Best and Sir Alex form helix strings within that culture, making it easier for anyone who can sail with it and harder for anyone aiming to go against it.

Hats off to you sir. You are really grande.

 

[ZenMaster Coltrane]

The fact that this thread exists shows the extent to which the propaganda has succeeded in distracting and ensnaring people in a web of emotional gooey nostalgia. You don't build historic teams by scouting players' boyhood clubs. It's irrelevant who Eric Cantona supported as a child. You don't just give the captaincy to a British CB/MF because you've decided that's the essence of Fergusonism. Nothing Gary Neville says means anything in regard to what will win in 2021. It's irrelevant. Just because you think you played some version of a 4-4-2 in 1998 doesn't mean that's what you do now. Move on. Singing songs about out of their depth managers is not some endearing value. It's cultish in all its iterations.

 

[RedRonaldo]

I don’t believe in such thing. But according to most:

- attacking football
- fast counter attack
- wing play
- young players
- British core
- never give up
- anything assemble to Man Utd football play during 90s/00s, the most successful period of club history
- total trust in manager for long term

 

[Anustart89]

Barcelona and Bayern Munich do that. Most successful football clubs do that. Its not that specific. It just seems like basic requirements for long term success.

Yes but that’s why they’re so successful, they have United DNA.

 

[SAFMUTD]

It doesn't, it's cheap propaganda.

 

[UpWithRivers]

Yes. It matters.

It’s not some esoteric undefinable.

It’s bringing on an attacker and not a defender in the 82nd minute at 2-2

It’s signing a young player that may stay forever over a player that will see out his days here.

It’s having players that engage with the community without reward (See Valencia vs Di Maria).

It’s - and this has been lost - accepting that winning lots of games 3-2 is better than winning more 2-0.

It’s inviting jeopardy and embracing uncontrollable elements.

I could go on. But I freely admit I didn’t like Pep Barcelona. Nor do I like Pep City. I DO like how Klopps Liverpool play football. They play the United way. It’s a gut wrenching admission but they’re the same. Their historic sides were boring as feck. They don’t have an enjoyable ‘way’ but by god they have a modern version of the ‘United Way’. It’s a bit hoofy but it’s pretty exciting. They have great players that play on the front foot. Aggressively. It’s not conservative or guarded.

We have all of the sales pitch and none of the application at the moment. We have the players but not the manager. LVG and Jose put results first. I *hope* that Ten Haag would be a halfway house Between ole and those two.

Thats it.

This is the very definition of esoteric undefinable statements-

1. It’s bringing on an attacker and not a defender in the 82nd minute at 2-2 - That has nothing to do with the 'United Way'. Thats just a more attacking manager. Or any manager based on what they define the team need. Maybe its good to get a draw sometimes. Sir Alex played for and was happy with a draw loads of times if that's all we needed. Are you saying when Liverpool sub on an attacker when they are drawing then you shout at the TV 'hey look they are doing it 'United Way!' No you dont. Why? Because it has nothing to do with it.
2. It’s signing a young player that may stay forever over a player that will see out his days here. - Same as above. All teams do it so its nothing to do with the 'United Way'. Also all teams have academies. Do you think they dont wish for the youth players to end up in the first team? Of course the do. Do you not think its financially more viable to sign youth players. Of course it is. But football is not black and white. You sign who is best for the team to win trophies. Full stop. If thats an older player then thats what you do. And again Sir Alex did it loads of times - eh Van Persie? Berbatov
3. It’s having players that engage with the community without reward (See Valencia vs Di Maria) - Again every single club do this. They do extensive background checks to make sure the player is not an arsehole. Sure everyone prefers a married, quiet, zen player over a a wild youtuber. But firstly thats not the age we live in anymore and secondly its just not feasible. What we gonna do? Hire from monasteries? And again Sir Alexs' players were no angels. Trust me. They weren't.
4. It’s - and this has been lost - accepting that winning lots of games 3-2 is better than winning more 2-0. - See point 1. This is just an attacking manager. See Klopp. See loads of teams. This is not 'The United Way' its just football.
5. It’s inviting jeopardy and embracing uncontrollable elements. - What?

This is exactly the grey nonsense that we are living in. Why are we just getting blanket statements about football and trying to live by them? Its crazy! I might as well add sht - Get the ball back. Stop the other team from scoring. Wear the official Kit. Dont sht on the pitch.

 

[Tyrion]

Yes but that’s why they’re so successful, they have United DNA.

We need to get it back. Perhaps hiring Philip Lahm might do the trick.

 

[Someone]

Barcelona and Bayern Munich do that. Most successful football clubs do that. Its not that specific. It just seems like basic requirements for long term success.

Pretty much yeah. It could only be achieved by having the right people in place, people with the talent to do it. Instead we're trying to manufacture it by bringing in familiar faces with no proven success record, thinking that their connection to the club will be enough. And they'll only bring in familiar faces who won't cause a fuss, you'll never see the likes of Roy keane around the club, they want yes men.

 

[Moonwalker]

This is the very definition of esoteric undefinable statements-

1. It’s bringing on an attacker and not a defender in the 82nd minute at 2-2 - That has nothing to do with the 'United Way'. Thats just a more attacking manager. Or any manager based on what they define the team need. Maybe its good to get a draw sometimes. Sir Alex played for and was happy with a draw loads of times if that's all we needed. Are you saying when Liverpool sub on an attacker when they are drawing then you shout at the TV 'hey look they are doing it 'United Way!' No you dont. Why? Because it has nothing to do with it.
2. It’s signing a young player that may stay forever over a player that will see out his days here. - Same as above. All teams do it so its nothing to do with the 'United Way'. Also all teams have academies. Do you think they dont wish for the youth players to end up in the first team? Of course the do. Do you not think its financially more viable to sign youth players. Of course it is. But football is not black and white. You sign who is best for the team to win trophies. Full stop. If thats an older player then thats what you do. And again Sir Alex did it loads of times - eh Van Persie? Berbatov
3. It’s having players that engage with the community without reward (See Valencia vs Di Maria) - Again every single club do this. They do extensive background checks to make sure the player is not an arsehole. Sure everyone prefers a married, quiet, zen player over a a wild youtuber. But firstly thats not the age we live in anymore and secondly its just not feasible. What we gonna do? Hire from monasteries? And again Sir Alexs' players were no angels. Trust me. They weren't.
4. It’s - and this has been lost - accepting that winning lots of games 3-2 is better than winning more 2-0. - See point 1. This is just an attacking manager. See Klopp. See loads of teams. This is not 'The United Way' its just football.
5. It’s inviting jeopardy and embracing uncontrollable elements. - What?

This is exactly the grey nonsense that we are living in. Why are we just getting blanket statements about football and trying to live by them? Its crazy! I might as well add sht - Get the ball back. Stop the other team from scoring. Wear the official Kit. Dont sht on the pitch.

Would it come as a surprise to you if you were to learn that your genetic material is not unique to you either? You share 50% of your DNA with your parents and your siblings. If you have blue eyes that doesn't mean no one else on the planet can have blue eyes. Barcelona's specific culture is intertwined with the idea of playing possession football (among a myriad of other things). That doesn't mean Ajax can't also foster such a culture.

The number of people lining up in this thread to explain to everybody (as if we didn't already know) that United are not unique in any aspect is remarkable. And it's just as baffling that a metaphor which is used to connote a culture is treated as if it were a term in Analytic philosophy. A metaphor cannot be that by definition. That's why it's a fecking metaphor.

The identity of an organization is constituted by numerous traits. Whether these traits (in isolation) are unique or not, you need to be familiar with this specific amalgam of them. Otherwise you are baffled and gobsmacked when the crowd starts chanting "attack" because you thought just having a lot of possession is attacking, which is what happened to one of our hopeful successors. Or, you will take the team to Bondi Beach and cause complete mayhem, because you thought having the team mingle at beaches is kosher; because you've done it before at Everton. Or you'll think that "United can sign any player"; or you will go on bizarre rants about heritage and sabotage an entire season in service of your own ego.

People familiar with United are less likely to fall prey to some of these pitfalls; so everything else being equal between two candidates, you pick the one who is, rather than the one who isn't. You can describe this familiarity in whichever terms you want, whether it's "United way" or "United DNA" or "One of us" it's completely irrelevant. People demanding precise descriptive content of the term are first demanding that it be something that it isn't, and then complaining that it isn't "Oh it's just a myth!".

Just as you would, between two footballers (all else being equal) pick the one who uses his weaker foot better. That's not to say that this is a necessary requirement, as there are plenty of one-footed footballers who are world class, nor is it to say that it's sufficient requirement, as there are plenty of ambidextrous folk who are hopeless at football. All it means, is that it's a plus for you to have this trait, and if everything else is equal that's an advantage for you over someone else who doesn't have it.

It would be the same for two managerial candidates. If they are roughly the same according to all available objective indicators; then one being a member of the family (there's another metaphor, because belonging to a large group like that isn't a family in a denotative sense), familiar with the club, or indeed possessing 'United DNA' would have advantage over someone who doesn't.


Now we all know, that our current problem is precisely that Ole isn't equal to his managerial alternatives. That he is in fact severely under-qualified to be at a job of this magnitude, and that this makes him the wrong choice despite having 'United DNA'. It doesn't follow from this that we should commit complete cultural suicide.

 

[Grande]

Hats off to you sir. You are really grande.

Mille grazie

 

[MayfieldsFinest]

I think if you ask most United fans which manager most epitomises the clubs identity and ethos, they will say Sir Alex. The thing is Sir Alex had no connection to United before he joined. Indeed, had Arsenal had patience in early 1986 he would have been their manager, ironically George Graham who got the Arsenal job had more of a United connection than SAF (and played horrible football). Our most successful manager pre-SAF was Sir Matt and his playing career included City and Liverpool, how would you define his DNA pre-United?

This DNA thing is a myth. There is good football and there is bad football. Sometimes good football isn't successful and sometimes bad football is and this is where the crux of the matter lies. Personally, I'd hate to see United resort to utilitarian, bland and defensive football as the default position.

 

[CloneMC16]

The identity of an organization is constituted by numerous traits. Whether these traits (in isolation) are unique or not, you need to be familiar with this specific amalgam of them. Otherwise you are baffled and gobsmacked when the crowd starts chanting "attack" because you thought just having a lot of possession is attacking, which is what happened to one of our hopeful successors. Or, you will take the team to Bondi Beach and cause complete mayhem, because you thought having the team mingle at beaches is kosher; because you've done it before at Everton. Or you'll think that "United can sign any player"; or you will go on bizarre rants about heritage and sabotage an entire season in service of your own ego.

People familiar with United are less likely to fall prey to some of these pitfalls; so everything else being equal between two candidates, you pick the one who is, rather than the one who isn't. You can describe this familiarity in whichever terms you want, whether it's "United way" or "United DNA" or "One of us" it's completely irrelevant. People demanding precise descriptive content of the term are first demanding that it be something that it isn't, and then complaining that it isn't "Oh it's just a myth!".

I see what you're saying here, but I don't think any of this is reasoning as to why you should be looking for someone with "United DNA". All of those issues are down to signing managers that weren't the right fit. You need a manager that has worked at a top club before and knows how things work. You need a manager that has been successful within the last few years. You need a manager that isn't deluded into thinking that he can get everything he wants, without question. You need a manager that doesn't act like a complete asshole, and understands how to lead the club with class.

I'm sure absolutely all of us would prefer someone to lead the club that has history within it. If they had any modern managerial experience, playing good football, and winning anything, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, that person does not exist.

 

[redrobed]

United DNA is being the club that doesn’t just use oil money and sugar daddies to buy trophies - it means bringing young local players through the youth academy and winning and dominating with those players. It means not having a book of blank cheques and in fact spending very little but winning anyway despite all odds. And it’s about loyalty and sticking with the club through thick and thin.

 

[padzilla]

United DNA seems to be being a top red and swallowing whatever PR guff the club comes out and acting as a cheerleader despite being served up regular scoops of utter dross.

 

[Zen86]

United DNA seems to be being a top red and swallowing whatever PR guff the club comes out and acting as a cheerleader despite being served up regular scoops of utter dross.

That’s just what someone without United DNA would think.

 

[NoLogo]

The weird part is, when I think about United DNA, non of the managers we hired really fit that mould. Maybe LVG back in the day at Ajax and Barca was an attacking coach, but he hasn't been for a while when we hired him. Moyes wasn't and Mou certainly wasn't either. Ole might be, but he and his staff don't have a clue how to teach their players to play some quality attacking football.

 

[fastwalker]

Honestly, the more I read the more convinced I am that 'United DNA;' amounts to nothing more than a not so subtle form of psychological conditioning. So much of football is tribalist - our colours, our badges, our chants our terrace culture. As football fans we live for the experience of kinship - the reality that we are affiliated to something distinct and different. 'DNA' is in my view, an extension of this idea of an association with uniqueness and distinctiveness. However, the problem with football club DNA is that it means completely different things to different people and, in many cases , means absolutely nothing to others.

 

[Chairman Steve]

Feck no

Our two most successful managers did not play for United and had no prior affiliations to Utd. One of them was a City player and a Liverpool captain!

Meanwhile, Wilf McGuinness was a massive fail and Ole Gunnar Solskjaer isn’t looking too great at the moment.

We shouldn’t be so insular. Its fecked us up in the past and it’s rearing its ugly head again. Liverpool overdosed on that boot room nostalgia drug with Evans and Souness in the 90s and it wasn’t until a Frenchman came in, did it start looking better again.

 

[pratyush_utd]

Not sure what “United DNA” is but one thing i am now sure about is that we should not hire any former player as manager.

 

[Dirty Schwein]

United DNA is what the PR team spin when people start questioning our style of play/recruitment etc.

It's the same as when the Man City PR team give out free tickets after their 14 fans have bought their tickets

 

[matt10000]

How can people not believe there is a "United way"??? Do you even understand why support United???

To help you out, it's NOT just about winning!

Actually if you look at Fergie over the years it was exactly about winning above all else. He would happily change the way we played if it gave the team a better chance of winning including parking the bus. His longevity was exactly because he was prepared to change and adapt.

 

[matt10000]

The only true way of maintaining SAF DNA is to appoint Darren Fergusan as our next manager.

 

[GlasgowCeltic]

The only true way of maintaining SAF DNA is to appoint Darren Fergusan as our next manager.

Or Darren Fletcher so they say

 

[Dante]

No.

It's just a term that people on Twitter pretend is the motivation behind everything bad at the club, and then they complain about it after making up fantasies of what it means.

 

[Stadjer]

I read before that United dna and the United way is to play with pace, wings and giving young players a chance. Currently Ole plays without wings but plays with a front two who are 70 year old together.

What is currently United dna? Passion, desire and winning 50/50 duels? Or is Ronaldo the Manchester United dna?

I dont think it means anything, the United dna. It is just a way to give old players a job or something to talk about.

 

[Ikon]

Our two most successful managers did not play for United and had no prior affiliations to Utd. One of them was a City player and a Liverpool captain!
Meanwhile, Wilf McGuinness was a massive fail and Ole Gunnar Solskjaer isn’t looking too great at the moment.
We shouldn’t be so insular. Its fecked us up in the past and it’s rearing its ugly head again.

Absolutely correct.
The "United Way" what a load of old tosh.
If the United way is swashbuckling attacking football with wingers, then why the feck is Solskjaer sending out 6 or 7 defensive players, considering he has the United DNA..?

 

[matt10000]

Or Darren Fletcher so they say

haha

 

[Hawks2008]

United DNA is just an intangible assigned to anything with a tie to SAF's era and that's all there is to it. Everything else is just people wearing rose tinted glasses.

 

[Stig]

I believe Busby was a former city and Liverpool player and was in line to be the liverpool
boss before taking the United job. Sir Alex was considering the Spurs job before ultimately taking the United job. This false idea of “United DNA” has failed the club before when Wilf was appointed after Busby. Just hire the best candidate available and act like a big club again.

Good post.