Erik ten Hag - Manchester United manager

[astracrazy]

I was pointing out the contradiction in your post that makes it seem like ETH can do no wrong in your eyes.

You're blaming the club for buying him Antony for crazy money and then also blaming the club for going above him to buy him Mount because it was more financially prudent.

Disclaimer: You're completely guessing on the Mount business and I went along with it to make my point.

I don't see how its being contradictory because I'm trying to factor in where is Murtough in all this.

The players being targeted is one thing, which is on EtH. How the transfers are handled is another, which I'm saying is on Murtough.

What you see a lot of on here is the two bundled together and blamed on EtH which isn't right and what I'm trying to highlight.

I don't know how many times I've read on here that they can't believe EtH spent £80M on Antony, as if its like football manager where the manager does all the bidding and negotiating.

 

[united for life]

My main problem with him is his signings. Now is it his fault or it’s the wider recruitment team? I think it’s both, he has to take his fair share of blame for the lousy recruitment so far under his management. Below are his 16 signings with my views on whether they are a hit or a miss:

1- sabizter: miss
2- butland: miss
3- eriksen: hit
4- dubravka: miss
5- weghorst: wehhorst missed everything—big miss
6- malacia: miss
7- martinez: hit (ETH best signing)
8- casemiro: miss. Given the huge transfer money paid and average return
9- antony: miss
10- hojlund: miss considering he is signed as a player to solve our attacking issues. Unfair to be put under this pressure though. Hope time changes this.
11- mount: miss. We signed an attacking midfielder for a cm role. Largely ETH’s mistake.
12- onana: miss. Very shaky so far
13- bayinir: na, i dont even know him. Cant rate him if ETH doesnt even drop onana
14- amrabat: miss
15- reguilon: miss. Cant get a game with shaw injured
16- evans: hit. Surprisingly

more than half of these players are a miss. It shows how bad we have done in the transfer window under ETH. We’ve paid 100s of millions for players like mount, onana, antony, casemiro… very very bad transfer business

 

[Piskin]

He judgement of players is woeful to say the least, possibly the worst signings the club has ever made and there has been some bad one's in the past.

 

[Alex99]

My main problem with him is his signings. Now is it his fault or it’s the wider recruitment team? I think it’s both, he has to take his fair share of blame for the lousy recruitment so far under his management. Below are his 16 signings with my views on whether they are a hit or a miss:

1- sabizter: miss
2- butland: miss
3- eriksen: hit
4- dubravka: miss
5- weghorst: wehhorst missed everything—big miss
6- malacia: miss
7- martinez: hit (ETH best signing)
8- casemiro: miss. Given the huge transfer money paid and average return
9- antony: miss
10- hojlund: miss considering he is signed as a player to solve our attacking issues. Unfair to be put under this pressure though. Hope time changes this.
11- mount: miss. We signed an attacking midfielder for a cm role. Largely ETH’s mistake.
12- onana: miss. Very shaky so far
13- bayinir: na, i dont even know him. Cant rate him if ETH doesnt even drop onana
14- amrabat: miss
15- reguilon: miss. Cant get a game with shaw injured
16- evans: hit. Surprisingly

more than half of these players are a miss. It shows how bad we have done in the transfer window under ETH. We’ve paid 100s of millions for players like mount, onana, antony, casemiro… very very bad transfer business

I don't disagree that our transfer business has been poor, but I absolutely hate this "16 signings" and "fair share of the blame" nonsense.

Of your misses (or non-hits):

Three of those players are backup goalkeepers, two temporary loans, one of which was brought in to replace the other after he was recalled. Their jobs were/are to sit on the bench, and they did that.

Two of them are loaned midfielders brought in as depth-options, required because the club hasn't been ran well enough to afford actual, permanent options (that meet the required standard).

One is a left-back brought in on an emergency loan because our starting left-back and back-up left back were both out with long-term injuries. The starting left-back is fit again, so he's unsurprisingly taken a back seat.

One was a short-term loan of a striker, made necessary because the club has failed to bring in a proper option up front since Rooney and van Persie left, so we were left with Martial (who may well have been injured) as our only striker once Ronaldo decided to set fire to the bridge.

One is a midfielder that cost us far too much after the club failed to secure the signing of an actually suitable target, so panicked late in the window (but he was also good for the first season).

One is a young left-back brought in as a back-up option (which he's generally done okay as).

I think it's far too soon to be labelling Hojlund, Mount and Onana as misses (although Onana is putting up a good argument and seems likely to fall into that category), which leaves Antony, who (in my opinion) would be viewed far more favourably if the club had only paid the £30-£40 million or so he was actually valued at.

If the barometer for misses is temporary loans, back-up options being back-up options, and spending too much (or a combination of the three) then you're either expecting far too much from these players or blaming things on the manager that are clearly the fault of the club.

 

[frostbite]

My main problem with him is his signings. Now is it his fault or it’s the wider recruitment team? I think it’s both, he has to take his fair share of blame for the lousy recruitment so far under his management. Below are his 16 signings with my views on whether they are a hit or a miss:

1- sabizter: miss
2- butland: miss
3- eriksen: hit
4- dubravka: miss
5- weghorst: wehhorst missed everything—big miss
6- malacia: miss
7- martinez: hit (ETH best signing)
8- casemiro: miss. Given the huge transfer money paid and average return
9- antony: miss
10- hojlund: miss considering he is signed as a player to solve our attacking issues. Unfair to be put under this pressure though. Hope time changes this.
11- mount: miss. We signed an attacking midfielder for a cm role. Largely ETH’s mistake.
12- onana: miss. Very shaky so far
13- bayinir: na, i dont even know him. Cant rate him if ETH doesnt even drop onana
14- amrabat: miss
15- reguilon: miss. Cant get a game with shaw injured
16- evans: hit. Surprisingly

more than half of these players are a miss. It shows how bad we have done in the transfer window under ETH. We’ve paid 100s of millions for players like mount, onana, antony, casemiro… very very bad transfer business

I did not realize it is already 16 players! Sixteen!

After spending 400 million, he did not bring in a single world-class player.

Even the hits you have in that list (Ericksen, Martinez, Evans) are not really good.

 

[astracrazy]

My main problem with him is his signings. Now is it his fault or it’s the wider recruitment team? I think it’s both, he has to take his fair share of blame for the lousy recruitment so far under his management. Below are his 16 signings with my views on whether they are a hit or a miss:

1- sabizter: miss
2- butland: miss
3- eriksen: hit
4- dubravka: miss
5- weghorst: wehhorst missed everything—big miss
6- malacia: miss
7- martinez: hit (ETH best signing)
8- casemiro: miss. Given the huge transfer money paid and average return
9- antony: miss
10- hojlund: miss considering he is signed as a player to solve our attacking issues. Unfair to be put under this pressure though. Hope time changes this.
11- mount: miss. We signed an attacking midfielder for a cm role. Largely ETH’s mistake.
12- onana: miss. Very shaky so far
13- bayinir: na, i dont even know him. Cant rate him if ETH doesnt even drop onana
14- amrabat: miss
15- reguilon: miss. Cant get a game with shaw injured
16- evans: hit. Surprisingly

more than half of these players are a miss. It shows how bad we have done in the transfer window under ETH. We’ve paid 100s of millions for players like mount, onana, antony, casemiro… very very bad transfer business

I say both + Murtough (who has my beef today for some reason lol)

EtH and the recruitment team should be identifying better players.

Our DoF shouldn't be signing the players if they aren't good enough. If they are then we shouldn't be fecking about like we do which costs us more. One of the points of a DoF is regardless of manager the overall process heads in the right direction.

 

[NLunited]

It’s simple: we aren’t good enough lately. Injuries play a role, but it is more than that.

At least I saw a good workrate, which often has not been the case. With the exception of Rashford who doesn’t press, everyone worked their socks off.

We had trouble playing through their press. Mainoo was marked out of the game and our cb’s aren’t good enough passers to play through the lines. Martinez is missed big time.

There is something lacking in our attack. There isn’t enough movement and runs, and not enough hunger/desire to make something happen.

Every player in our frontline can dribble with the ball but they do little with it.

We also lost because Forrest defended better than we did. We conceded two goals cheaply, Forest did not make such mistakes.

I feel like we have fixed one problem (workrate) but have many more to solve.

Rashford played well, but he needs to press or go back to the bench.

 

[NLunited]

We were not over performing last year. We played shit for most of it and finished 3rd. Nothing extreme from seasons past

We were over performing last year. We played shit for the first two games and after winning the Carabao Cup and finished third. Almost no one thought we would make top four.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Zlatan 7]

We were over performing last year. We played shit for the first two games and after winning the Carabao Cup and finished third. Almost no one thought we would make top four.

Fixed it for you.

Didn’t need fixing

 

[sourdough satellite]

These are the players he wanted. What happens when he has to coach players someone else chooses for him

I dunno, he seemed to do pretty well coaching the players Overmars signed.

 

[Son]

My main problem with him is his signings. Now is it his fault or it’s the wider recruitment team? I think it’s both, he has to take his fair share of blame for the lousy recruitment so far under his management. Below are his 16 signings with my views on whether they are a hit or a miss:

1- sabizter: miss
2- butland: miss
3- eriksen: hit
4- dubravka: miss
5- weghorst: wehhorst missed everything—big miss
6- malacia: miss
7- martinez: hit (ETH best signing)
8- casemiro: miss. Given the huge transfer money paid and average return
9- antony: miss
10- hojlund: miss considering he is signed as a player to solve our attacking issues. Unfair to be put under this pressure though. Hope time changes this.
11- mount: miss. We signed an attacking midfielder for a cm role. Largely ETH’s mistake.
12- onana: miss. Very shaky so far
13- bayinir: na, i dont even know him. Cant rate him if ETH doesnt even drop onana
14- amrabat: miss
15- reguilon: miss. Cant get a game with shaw injured
16- evans: hit. Surprisingly

more than half of these players are a miss. It shows how bad we have done in the transfer window under ETH. We’ve paid 100s of millions for players like mount, onana, antony, casemiro… very very bad transfer business

That alone is a big enough reason to be sacked let’s be honest.

We can see he shouldn’t be in charge of business but end of the day doesn’t fill us with hope he’ll get the best out of players signed for him either.

He’s terrible with the media also and I believe the job is just too big for him and too much of a culture shock.

 

[erikcred]

I dunno, he seemed to do pretty well coaching the players Overmars signed.

Like Antony?

 

[frostbite]

I dunno, he seemed to do pretty well coaching the players Overmars signed.

Depends on what you mean by "doing well". Overmars build a side that was compared to the 1995 CL winning side. For example, see the following article. By that measure, ETH failed in Ajax. Winning 3 domestic titles was the bare minimum that everyone expected from that 2017 side. Their goal was to win the CL.

Note: this article is from May 2017, half a year BEFORE they hired ETH. Did ETH really add anything to this? Did these players overachieve under ETH?



Marc Overmars has built the best Ajax team since 1995 - but before it comes to an end he knows they must win

Overmars’ Ajax team won one Champions League and Intercontinental Cup, and lost the Champions League final the following year, before they finally disbanded in 1996 and 1997


https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ster-united-europa-league-final-a7749571.html

When Marc Overmars returned to Ajax in 2012 he had one goal. He had won the Champions League with Ajax in 1995, but since then the giant club had been dwarfed in the new financial landscape of the game. Overmars was the new technical director and he was desperate to drag his old team back into a European final.

On Wednesday night in Stockholm, Overmars’ ambition will be fulfilled. Ajax will play Manchester United for the Europa League. It is their first European final since they lost the Champions League to Juventus in 1996 in Rome, a game Overmars missed with injury. But for Overmars and the rest of the veterans of that great mid-1990s side, guiding this team back to the top is what it is all about.

“It makes me proud,” Overmars tells The Independent in his office at De Toekmost. “When I started here I wanted to do the same as I did as a player, and reach a final. Now to achieve it this year is fantastic for us.”

Football history does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes, and it does so very clearly in the case of Ajax then and now. The 1995 team, which Overmars played in, was a young side, mostly but not exclusively local, playing adventurous pressing football inspired by the values of Johan Cruyff. All of that is true now, and not by chance either. This team has been drawn up on the lines of the old one and it shows.

22 years on, Overmars is still struck by how his band of “schoolboys” upset the odds and beat reigning champions AC Milan 1-0 in Vienna. He was 22, Edgar Davids was 22, Michael Reiziger was 22, Patrick Kluivert was 18. But they took on the Milan of Franco Baresi, Alessandro Costacurta and the rest and won. This Ajax team is just as young now. And it gives him confidence that they can beat United.

“That is why I feel the comparison to 1995,” Overmars says. “Because we were also schoolboys. We arrived at the final in our tracksuits, we came in and we had our lunch, which was spaghetti, a little soup, and apple pie. And all those [other] clubs who already had labs and everything.” But it was enough.

 

[united for life]

I don't disagree that our transfer business has been poor, but I absolutely hate this "16 signings" and "fair share of the blame" nonsense.

Of your misses (or non-hits):

Three of those players are backup goalkeepers, two temporary loans, one of which was brought in to replace the other after he was recalled. Their jobs were/are to sit on the bench, and they did that.

Two of them are loaned midfielders brought in as depth-options, required because the club hasn't been ran well enough to afford actual, permanent options (that meet the required standard).

One is a left-back brought in on an emergency loan because our starting left-back and back-up left back were both out with long-term injuries. The starting left-back is fit again, so he's unsurprisingly taken a back seat.

One was a short-term loan of a striker, made necessary because the club has failed to bring in a proper option up front since Rooney and van Persie left, so we were left with Martial (who may well have been injured) as our only striker once Ronaldo decided to set fire to the bridge.

One is a midfielder that cost us far too much after the club failed to secure the signing of an actually suitable target, so panicked late in the window (but he was also good for the first season).

One is a young left-back brought in as a back-up option (which he's generally done okay as).

I think it's far too soon to be labelling Hojlund, Mount and Onana as misses (although Onana is putting up a good argument and seems likely to fall into that category), which leaves Antony, who (in my opinion) would be viewed far more favourably if the club had only paid the £30-£40 million or so he was actually valued at.

If the barometer for misses is temporary loans, back-up options being back-up options, and spending too much (or a combination of the three) then you're either expecting far too much from these players or blaming things on the manager that are clearly the fault of the club.

I’d like to think that any signing, even a loan, would be one made to contribute to the team’s progression (i don’t want to say success yet as we are far off). Failing to hold eth, or anyone responsible, for these signings on the grounds you mentioned is what is nonsense (sorry had to used your words).

i am not saying fire the manager, i am saying that he needs to be held accountable for these signings.

what i agree with you on is that it might probably be early to write onana, mount and hojlund off. But my assessment was based on the following:

- onana: brought as an upgrade to de gea. He has been far from that.
- mount: brought as a CM while he is not one. Set up to fail from day 1.
- hojlund: brought in as the striker who will pour in the goals. Also set up to fail as a 19 year old. Love the boy’s attitude but failed as a signing so far.

 

[The_Midfielder]

I think we should sack him and get Potter for 6 months..
We won't achieve anything this season, so let's see how it goes ..

 

[united for life]

That alone is a big enough reason to be sacked let’s be honest.

We can see he shouldn’t be in charge of business but end of the day doesn’t fill us with hope he’ll get the best out of players signed for him either.

He’s terrible with the media also and I believe the job is just too big for him and too much of a culture shock.

I think it would make sense to see how he would operate under a more organised/experienced structure. He has had his shortcomings as I mentioned, but people negotiating have been a jOke

I did not realize it is already 16 players! Sixteen!

After spending 400 million, he did not bring in a single world-class player.

Even the hits you have in that list (Ericksen, Martinez, Evans) are not really good.

The millions spent is what hurts the most. Couldve been spent much wiser across diffent aspects of the football club

I say both + Murtough (who has my beef today for some reason lol)

EtH and the recruitment team should be identifying better players.

Our DoF shouldn't be signing the players if they aren't good enough. If they are then we shouldn't be fecking about like we do which costs us more. One of the points of a DoF is regardless of manager the overall process heads in the right direction.

It’s a mess all over. The transfer sagas we’ve had are a joke. A player is automatically more expensive once united is interested.

 

[united for life]

I think we should sack him and get Potter for 6 months..
We won't achieve anything this season, so let's see how it goes ..

ole, no?

 

[Robbie Boy]

ole, no?

No.

 

[Robbie Boy]

I think we should sack him and get Potter for 6 months..
We won't achieve anything this season, so let's see how it goes ..

No thanks.

 

[redshaw]

None of our attackers know whats happening after a certain sequence of passes happens. There are no late runs into the box, nobody anticipates a cross.

This is one of the key problems, we have possession in some games recently yet it's been a few games now the commentator will reel off some stat like United have not had any or barely a touch or pass in the opposition box in the whole first half and for example Forest something like 8-12. Villa also had a high number early on.

To me that is very much a coaching issue if players aren't getting into the box with passes or movement for strikes on goal. We're on course for 40 goals, last season 58 with Rashford masking a lot of problems when we should be adding to our goals this season and achieving 65-75. Really for United 80+ most seasons should be the standard. We're a world away from that.

Part of the reason maybe this whole high turnover transition style, we win the ball back quickly but their defence is already set and we just face the same block with no skill or idea to get through, this is why even top sides don't generate much from high turnovers and our players are focusing and pressing for that. We're very much a side that needs to play a ball over the top or through the middle with our attacker on the shoulder of the last defender.

 

[sourdough satellite]

He is lucky we took gamble with him. Cant believe that he is still at the job.

I can, I doubt he's gonna get the sack without Rattcliff appointing a new CEO and DoF first.

 

[Alex99]

I’d like to think that any signing, even a loan, would be one made to contribute to the team’s progression (i don’t want to say success yet as we are far off). Failing to hold eth, or anyone responsible, for these signings on the grounds you mentioned is what is nonsense (sorry had to used your words).

i am not saying fire the manager, i am saying that he needs to be held accountable for these signings.

what i agree with you on is that it might probably be early to write onana, mount and hojlund off. But my assessment was based on the following:

- onana: brought as an upgrade to de gea. He has been far from that.
- mount: brought as a CM while he is not one. Set up to fail from day 1.
- hojlund: brought in as the striker who will pour in the goals. Also set up to fail as a 19 year old. Love the boy’s attitude but failed as a signing so far.

1. I've not said that no one should take responsibility. The Glazers are primarily responsible, then Woodward/Arnold, then Murtough, the chief scout and chief recruitment analyst.
2. Loans and free transfers of old(er) players are clearly not going to "contribute to the team's progression" and it's ridiculous to expect this to be the case. No other side with anything remotely matching our ambitions finds themselves so regularly reliant on stop-gap signings like these.

It's fine to suggest that Ten Hag may not have a great eye for a player suitable for the top end of the PL, but that's not (or at least shouldn't be) his job, and so it's a rather redundant criticism.

 

[united for life]

1. I've not said that no one should take responsibility. The Glazers are primarily responsible, then Woodward/Arnold, then Murtough, the chief scout and chief recruitment analyst.
2. Loans and free transfers of old(er) players are clearly not going to "contribute to the team's progression" and it's ridiculous to expect this to be the case. No other side with anything remotely matching our ambitions finds themselves so regularly reliant on stop-gap signings like these.

It's fine to suggest that Ten Hag may not have a great eye for a player suitable for the top end of the PL, but that's not (or at least shouldn't be) his job, and so it's a rather redundant criticism.

i do not agree with that. Any signing, whatsoever, should be viewed as a signing that would add value to the team. Adding much needed depth is a reasonable reason for such signings. Even loan players. We don’t sign players for the sake of signing players.

although he should not be solely blamed for failed signings, he surely has a responsibility to hold

 

[Alex99]

i do not agree with that. Any signing, whatsoever, should be viewed as a signing that would add value to the team. Adding much needed depth is a reasonable reason for such signings. Even loan players. We don’t sign players for the sake of signing players.

although he should not be solely blamed for failed signings, he surely has a responsibility to hold

We aren't signing players for the sake of signing of players. We're signing players (on free transfers on loans) because we've had a decade of horrible mismanagement that has left us with gaps in the squad that need plugging, and no transfer budget or FFP wiggle-room to adequately plug them with proper signings.

It's not even about value to the team. Evans and Eriksen (even Sabitzer, Reguillon and the two back-up GKs last season) have their value in the squad. It's about how frequently we have to make these signings. No other side with Champions League ambitions gets remotely close to our reliance on free-transfers of 30+ year-olds and loans as short-term options to add squad depth.

As far as I'm concerned, any responsibility Ten Hag holds for these signings is nominal at best. As I said, the vast majority of it has to lie at the feet of the Glazers, then Woodward and Arnold, then the recruitment team.

 

[Juicy Juiced]

I can, I doubt he's gonna get the sack without Rattcliff appointing a new CEO and DoF first.

I agree, that is saving his ass for now. I am just anoyed with yesterday results.
Happy Holidays.

 

[AndySmith1990]

1. I've not said that no one should take responsibility. The Glazers are primarily responsible, then Woodward/Arnold, then Murtough, the chief scout and chief recruitment analyst.
2. Loans and free transfers of old(er) players are clearly not going to "contribute to the team's progression" and it's ridiculous to expect this to be the case. No other side with anything remotely matching our ambitions finds themselves so regularly reliant on stop-gap signings like these.

It's fine to suggest that Ten Hag may not have a great eye for a player suitable for the top end of the PL, but that's not (or at least shouldn't be) his job, and so it's a rather redundant criticism.

It doesn't say much for the ability of a manager if they can't even identify players suitable for the style they're trying to implement. Especially if they're identifying players they've already worked with and they're still a bad fit

It's very relevant criticism

 

[Alex99]

It doesn't say much for the ability of a manager if they can't even identify players suitable for the style they're trying to implement. Especially if they're identifying players they've already worked with and they're still a bad fit

It's very relevant criticism

The players are a good fit for the style though. The issue is whether they're a good enough for the level we want to play at.

It's a shite criticism and one that essentially completely absolves the Glazers, Woodward, Arnold, etc. from their shambolic running of the club.

 

[Rista]

1. I've not said that no one should take responsibility. The Glazers are primarily responsible, then Woodward/Arnold, then Murtough, the chief scout and chief recruitment analyst.
2. Loans and free transfers of old(er) players are clearly not going to "contribute to the team's progression" and it's ridiculous to expect this to be the case. No other side with anything remotely matching our ambitions finds themselves so regularly reliant on stop-gap signings like these.

It's fine to suggest that Ten Hag may not have a great eye for a player suitable for the top end of the PL, but that's not (or at least shouldn't be) his job, and so it's a rather redundant criticism.

It has literally been his job here. How could it possibly be redundant criticism when he has had a huge say in transfers. Whether or not it should be his job is another matter entirely.

 

[Alex99]

It has literally been his job here. How could it possibly be redundant criticism when he has had a huge say in transfers. Whether or not it should be his job is another matter entirely.

Because it shouldn't be his job.

As soon as you acknowledge that it shouldn't be his responsibility, it's daft to criticise him for it.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

Amazing that people still harbor hope he will come good.

It's over. It's only a matter of time before he gets sacked.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

I am having major doubts about him, but the reality is that he isn't getting sacked anytime soon, and will have alot of players back before he is in any real danger of been sacked, so it's not inconceivable (in fact it's quite probable) that we will hit some form again once he has these players in the team again.

 

[el3mel]

Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

I am having major doubts about him, but the reality is that he isn't getting sacked anytime soon, and will have alot of players back before he is in any real danger of been sacked, so it's not inconceivable (in fact it's quite probable) that we will hit some form again once he has these players in the team again.

Because we played well when they were in the team ? Did we hit the group running with Casemiro, Shaw and Mount playing for us this season ?

You realize we're 5 months into the season and half of it is already done right ? These players didn't miss the entire 5 months.

Injuries are just a nonsensical excuse at this point.

 

[bond19821982]

Because we played well when they were in the team ? Did we hit the group running with Casemiro, Shaw and Mount playing for us this season ?

You realize we're 5 months into the season and half of it is already done right ? These players didn't miss the entire 5 months.

Injuries are just a nonsensical excuse at this point.

Sorry, I wanted to ignore your agenda driven posts and just move on. But can't help when I see baseless posts like this.

How many games has he got with all of his first team ?

Below is his first team

Dalot
Varane/Lindelof/Maguire
Licha
Shaw
Case
Mount
Bruno
Antony
Rashford
Hojlund/Martial

It's a straight forward question and so appreciate a straightforward response. I am not interested in beating around the bush type of discussions.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

I'd disagree, his Ajax teams were very very well drilled.

Was it their exit from the Europa League that made you think that?

 

[Rista]

Because it shouldn't be his job.

As soon as you acknowledge that it shouldn't be his responsibility, it's daft to criticise him for it.

But it is his job. It has been his job. That's the role he wanted and that's the role he got. It's incredibly disingenuous to dismiss it as lazy criticism when that's his actual job here. Every other manager was held responsible for transfers but people are trying to absolve Ten Hag from responsibility even though he has obviously had a massive say in transfers, why is that? It's only now with Ten Hag that there is even this idea that the manager shouldn't be involved with transfers. Now that his transfers have mostly failed, that is. Before that everyone was asking for him to get "backed" by the club.

 

[Alex99]

But it is his job. It has been his job. That's the role he wanted and that's the role he got. It's incredibly disingenuous to dismiss it as lazy criticism when that's his actual job here. Every other manager was held responsible for transfers but people are trying to absolve Ten Hag from responsibility even though he has obviously had a massive say in transfers, why is that? It's only now with Ten Hag that there is even this idea that the manager shouldn't be involved with transfers. Now that his transfers have mostly failed, that is. Before that everyone was asking for him to get "backed" by the club.

I absolve every other manager of transfers, and lean very heavily on the side of it being utter bollocks that this is a responsibility Ten Hag wanted. People have read far too much into a couple of quotes about him having a veto.

Literally no club that's remotely well-run relies on the manager to choose transfer targets as much as we do (and we can't even deliver on them half the time).

 

[frostbite]

Because it shouldn't be his job.

As soon as you acknowledge that it shouldn't be his responsibility, it's daft to criticise him for it.

Erik ten Hag says he wouldn't have taken Man United job without 'control' over transfers

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_...g-says-taken-man-united-job-control-transfers

 

[frostbite]

I absolve every other manager of transfers, and lean very heavily on the side of it being utter bollocks that this is a responsibility Ten Hag wanted. People have read far too much into a couple of quotes about him having a veto.

Literally no club that's remotely well-run relies on the manager to choose transfer targets as much as we do (and we can't even deliver on them half the time).

He said it himself.

 

[Alex99]

Erik ten Hag says he wouldn't have taken Man United job without 'control' over transfers

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_...g-says-taken-man-united-job-control-transfers

He said it himself.

He also started the sentence with this:

"I don't want to be the sole ruler, I stand for cooperation..."

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

Sorry, I wanted to ignore your agenda driven posts and just move on. But can't help when I see baseless posts like this.

How many games has he got with all of his first team ?

Below is his first team

Dalot
Varane/Lindelof/Maguire
Licha
Shaw
Case
Mount
Bruno
Antony
Rashford
Hojlund/Martial

It's a straight forward question and so appreciate a straightforward response. I am not interested in beating around the bush type of discussions.

Mount was struggling to get a start even before getting hurt, and that attack + Bruno has been fit all year. The preferred back 4 hasn't been available sure but if that was our only issue then it would be excusable.

 

[el3mel]

Sorry, I wanted to ignore your agenda driven posts and just move on. But can't help when I see baseless posts like this.

How many games has he got with all of his first team ?

Below is his first team

Dalot
Varane/Lindelof/Maguire
Licha
Shaw
Case
Mount
Bruno
Antony
Rashford
Hojlund/Martial

It's a straight forward question and so appreciate a straightforward response. I am not interested in beating around the bush type of discussions.

The notion the manager shouldn't be evaluated unless he has his full team present is just invented to defend Ten Hag at this point. Injuries are part of the sport. That's why football clubs have squads of plus 25 players and not just 11 players. I swear people here are acting like they only started to follow football this season just to absolve the manager of the blame.

The other concept that these players will suddenly click once they all play together is nonsensical. Casemiro and Mount have been rubbish whenever they played this season (and Casemiro played a lot). Mount particularly was getting benched for Scott McTominay ever since the Brentford game. Shaw didn't improve the team's results one bit when he returned from the injury. All players have been massively under performing this season. What would Martinez returning do to the fact our main forward line scored only 22 goals this season?