Erik ten Hag - Manchester United manager

[Daydreamer]

They've been engaged with plenty of times. I'm fairly sure I spoke about them with you in this thread.

If the level of control people believe he has is what the club granted, then he should never have been hired, which effectively pins it back on the club. After that, you can criticise him for demanding the control and his record with that control, but it still has to be caveated with "why the feck did the club give it to him?".

It's a short quote, that literally begins with "I don't want to be sole-ruler, I stand for cooperation" but people focus on the "control of transfers bit". It can just as easily be read as him not wanting surprise signings, or players he categorically doesn't want forced on him. You literally described this situation to me with Emery and Pepe at Arsenal, prompting a change in approach for Arteta.

He has a veto, as does Murtough (Solskjaer also alluded to a scout having one, and I imagine the person authorising the financial aspect also has one). Any level of control he has outside of that is basically conjecture from both sides. Using Antony as the example (as everyone does), there's basically a sliding scale of "the club had no alternatives, so we went with a player Ten Hag knew" to "Ten Hag really pushed for his own player". Ultimately, we don't know who was the driving force behind this, or any transfer we've made since Ten Hag joined, but there have been (worrying) reports from inside the club, particularly from when Ten Hag arrived, about how ill-prepared the recruitment side of things were. Even the "500 right-backs" comment made about Wan-Bissaka paints a picture of a recruitment team not really knowing what to do with the data at their disposal, and this was publicised by the club as a good thing.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. My point is that:

• No Manager has total control over transfers
• ETH asked for control over transfers as a condition of his employment
• Such control is pretty standard for highly rated Managers, particularly in this country

I brought up Emery as an example of how things went badly at Arsenal when we gave our Manager insufficient control over transfers.

In summary, I (and quite a few others, it’s seems) find the idea that ETH’s transfer record cannot be judged due to him not having total control over transfers to be illogical and somewhat disingenuous.

 

[Marwood]

Big, physical and mobile. Haaland and Nunez are not lumps, they are just about as fast and athletic as anyone on those teams. And that's why they are in the system of those elite managers. Those managers do not need a battering ram. Having a lump like Haller up top shows which category of manager you belong to.

True they're obviously quicker but neither is particularly special on the ball. If anything they're a bit awkward looking. Average first touch etc. They're big, strong lads, in the team for their physical abilities and obviously with Holland, his goalscoring.

That's not a particularly "modern" centre forward is it?

I'm saying I don't really care how big a player is, how fast he is. What matters is are they any good.

 

[Alex99]

Whilst this is true, I find it a bizarre defence to use to justify keeping him in a job. Imagine the CEO of a business making terrible decisions and running it into the ground and then declaring that it's the board fault for letting him make those decisions and giving him too much power.

Whether he's at fault for spending he money which has been spent is moot for me. I'd assume he had an idea of what he wanted us to do and how he wanted us to play. It's a massive red flag if players he's picked and/or approved can't employ that system or aren't good enough for the Premier League.

The club can be at fault, and the manager not to the required standard. They're not mutually exclusive.

I actually think this is all irrelevant anyway. I think there's a decent chance that the stuff in the press the last few days is true, that he's gearing up to walk on the basis that he won't have control over transfers anymore under INEOS and he'll get a job elsewhere. Face saving all round.

I want a new manager next season, so it's not really a defense of him from me.

Also, that analogy is terrible. The CEO of a company is literally there to make decisions that affect the whole business (or delegate accordingly). They live and die by that, and Manchester United quite literally have a CEO above Ten Hag who should have stepped in and stopped his hiring if this control was one of the terms. In a business context, it'd be like hiring a manager for your IT department on the basis of them having significant control of your marketing department. It's simply silly to agree to such terms.

I agree that there are concerns regardless of who is to blame for recruitment failings. Antony was his player, he'd worked with him extensively, and he's got feck all out of him. That's a fair criticism, but it's also one we don't actually see much of, because instead it's just "£400 million spent", "16 signings". Similarly, prioritising Mount is a confusing move, as was the sustained pursuit of Amrabat given his clear unsuitability to Ten Hag's tactical preferences.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. My point is that:

• No Manager has total control over transfers
• ETH asked for control over transfers as a condition of his employment
• Such control is pretty standard for highly rated Managers, particularly in this country

I brought up Emery as an example of how things went badly at Arsenal when we gave our Manager insufficient control over transfers.

In summary, I (and quite a few others, it’s seems) find the idea that ETH’s transfer record cannot be judged due to him not having total control over transfers to be illogical and somewhat disingenuous.

Yes, I understood your point last time. The the third bullet point isn't true though. At least not the extent (people believe) Ten Hag has control. Literally the only control we know Ten Hag has is a veto over suggested targets. By default, this suggests that others have (some) responsibility to identify and suggest potential transfer targets, and then he reviews these and gives his input. It's possible that he also suggests his own targets, but if they've not been scouted extensively or the scout reports don't show them to be suitable, we shouldn't be pursuing them just because he said he likes them.

To flog a dead horse, we had scouted Antony. We reportedly valued him at around £25-30 million, which would have placed him firmly in the "squad player/rotation option" part of the squad. We reportedly asked Ajax about him and walked away when they asked for £50 million. We then failed to sign an alternative, panicked after losing our first two games and ended up paying three times what we'd valued him at. The majority of the blame for that has to be on the club and the recruitment team, regardless of how much Ten Hag liked him.

To flog another dead horse, Klopp wanted Brandt (and apparently two or three other players) ahead of Salah. He was overruled because Liverpool had done their homework and Salah was the stand out candidate for the position. Managers, in modern football, do not dictate transfer policy to the degree that it is made out that Ten Hag does. Some will take more of a backseat than others, but it's simply not true that Pep, Klopp, Arteta or anyone else is coming into a club, and going "scrap your scout reports, I want these players," which is what is repeated about Ten Hag again and again.

Emery had no control. There's a large middle ground between the club signing players you don't want, for huge fees, and being able to ignore all of the work the recruitment team has done in favour of "at all costs" pursuit of your own targets.

This is why this debate rages on endlessly, because one side (not you, specifically) inevitably ends up making out that signing two back-up goalkeepers and Wout Weghorst on loan was somehow part of Ten Hag's master plan for the squad. It's also how we end up with straw man comments like "Ten Hag signed Martinez and Hojlund, but Murtough signed Antony and Amrabat".

You can criticise Ten Hag's ability to lead recruitment strategy, but it's not really a concern when we should primarily be concerned with his ability to manage the team. As I said above to RedRover, Antony's lack of output is a massive concern, and on a related note, prioritising a left-footed right-winger as a key element of his tactical system, only to end up playing a right-footer there, who has been far more effective, is another actual criticism to be made. Ten Hag should be able to brief the scouting department on what he needs for his system to work, and Antony and the Varane at left centre-back thing are two large examples of him seemingly not knowing what he needs, which is a massive indictment on his managerial capabilities.

To use yesterday's favourite word, this endless harping on about how much control he has of transfers (and how much leeway he can be given because of the injuries) obfuscates any real discussion of the more pertinent issues. It's tiring, and when it's (supposed) United fans endlessly bringing up the same, weak points over and over, it makes me think that we're just going to be here again with the next manager as soon as we have a couple of disappointing results.

 

[wolvored]

a managers veto should just be his line manager saying we have scouted for the cb you wanted and taking everything into account the three best players are A b and C. Put into order your preference and we will attempt to sign in that order.

 

[NLunited]

Problem is that we've been very lucky so far in xGA. We're 6th or 7th in highest xGA.

If you concede the 2nd most shots in the league, do you really think the majority of them are poor chances? The statistics don't bear that out.

We concede a lot of shots, we concede a good amount of chances, we also cede the field way too much to opposition. Our entire defensive structure all season has been awful.

Now our xG is also showing an underperformance in goal-scoring. But the problem is we're 11th in that too.

I know xG, xGA and xPTs isn't the finite stat for how well a side is playing, but over a 28 game sample size, it's a pretty good indicator for how average we are. We've been very lucky we've accumulated the amount of points we have so far.

Almost every single attacking/defensive metric has us near mid-table or the bottom half. There is simply no defense for this. Injuries can hamper a side, but it can't hamper a side to this extent unless the manager is also failing at his job: Getting the team to be more than the sum of their parts and he's failed massively this season in this regard.

And the funny part is that those metrics were poor in the league after last season's cup final too. This isn't just this season of insipid performances. We've been poor for more than a year now.

You are mostly right, but the stats can be misleading. xG doesn‘t take into consideration many things: to name one example, one counter attack in behind is probably better than five shots from outside the box. Many of those counter attacks don‘t even lead to shots, so don‘t count towards xG.

I believe Ten Hag‘s strategy is geared towards creating better chances than the opponent.

When we have an upgrade on Casemiro, we will hopefully be rolling the dice a lot less. Another thing we need to improve us ball retention; it has been very poor.

 

[Daydreamer]

I want a new manager next season, so it's not really a defense of him from me.

Also, that analogy is terrible. The CEO of a company is literally there to make decisions that affect the whole business (or delegate accordingly). They live and die by that, and Manchester United quite literally have a CEO above Ten Hag who should have stepped in and stopped his hiring if this control was one of the terms. In a business context, it'd be like hiring a manager for your IT department on the basis of them having significant control of your marketing department. It's simply silly to agree to such terms.

I agree that there are concerns regardless of who is to blame for recruitment failings. Antony was his player, he'd worked with him extensively, and he's got feck all out of him. That's a fair criticism, but it's also one we don't actually see much of, because instead it's just "£400 million spent", "16 signings". Similarly, prioritising Mount is a confusing move, as was the sustained pursuit of Amrabat given his clear unsuitability to Ten Hag's tactical preferences.



Yes, I understood your point last time. The the third bullet point isn't true though. At least not the extent (people believe) Ten Hag has control. Literally the only control we know Ten Hag has is a veto over suggested targets. By default, this suggests that others have (some) responsibility to identify and suggest potential transfer targets, and then he reviews these and gives his input. It's possible that he also suggests his own targets, but if they've not been scouted extensively or the scout reports don't show them to be suitable, we shouldn't be pursuing them just because he said he likes them.

To flog a dead horse, we had scouted Antony. We reportedly valued him at around £25-30 million, which would have placed him firmly in the "squad player/rotation option" part of the squad. We reportedly asked Ajax about him and walked away when they asked for £50 million. We then failed to sign an alternative, panicked after losing our first two games and ended up paying three times what we'd valued him at. The majority of the blame for that has to be on the club and the recruitment team, regardless of how much Ten Hag liked him.

To flog another dead horse, Klopp wanted Brandt (and apparently two or three other players) ahead of Salah. He was overruled because Liverpool had done their homework and Salah was the stand out candidate for the position. Managers, in modern football, do not dictate transfer policy to the degree that it is made out that Ten Hag does. Some will take more of a backseat than others, but it's simply not true that Pep, Klopp, Arteta or anyone else is coming into a club, and going "scrap your scout reports, I want these players," which is what is repeated about Ten Hag again and again.

Emery had no control. There's a large middle ground between the club signing players you don't want, for huge fees, and being able to ignore all of the work the recruitment team has done in favour of "at all costs" pursuit of your own targets.

This is why this debate rages on endlessly, because one side (not you, specifically) inevitably ends up making out that signing two back-up goalkeepers and Wout Weghorst on loan was somehow part of Ten Hag's master plan for the squad. It's also how we end up with straw man comments like "Ten Hag signed Martinez and Hojlund, but Murtough signed Antony and Amrabat".

You can criticise Ten Hag's ability to lead recruitment strategy, but it's not really a concern when we should primarily be concerned with his ability to manage the team. As I said above to RedRover, Antony's lack of output is a massive concern, and on a related note, prioritising a left-footed right-winger as a key element of his tactical system, only to end up playing a right-footer there, who has been far more effective, is another actual criticism to be made. Ten Hag should be able to brief the scouting department on what he needs for his system to work, and Antony and the Varane at left centre-back thing are two large examples of him seemingly not knowing what he needs, which is a massive indictment on his managerial capabilities.

To use yesterday's favourite word, this endless harping on about how much control he has of transfers (and how much leeway he can be given because of the injuries) obfuscates any real discussion of the more pertinent issues. It's tiring, and when it's (supposed) United fans endlessly bringing up the same, weak points over and over, it makes me think that we're just going to be here again with the next manager as soon as we have a couple of disappointing results.

I think we're going round in circles, there are just way too many straw man arguments:

• Who is suggesting that this "others have (some) responsibility to identify and suggest potential transfer targets" isn't true?
• How can "The majority of the blame for that has to be on the club and the recruitment team, regardless of how much Ten Hag liked him." be true if ETH demanded control over transfers as condition of his employment?
• Are people actually saying that "signing two back-up goalkeepers and Wout Weghorst on loan was somehow part of Ten Hag's master plan for the squad." or is the issue that he was given over £400m to spend and still had major holes in his squad to fill with stopgaps?
• Will you "be here again with the next manager as soon as we have a couple of disappointing results" if the team is well-coached and improving?

I think you're answering points that aren't being made. Anyway, we can agree to disagree.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

You are mostly right, but the stats can be misleading. xG doesn‘t take into consideration many things: to name one example, one counter attack in behind is probably better than five shots from outside the box. Many of those counter attacks don‘t even lead to shots, so don‘t count towards xG.

I believe Ten Hag‘s strategy is geared towards creating better chances than the opponent.

When we have an upgrade on Casemiro, we will hopefully be rolling the dice a lot less. Another thing we need to improve us ball retention; it has been very poor.

If they don't lead to shots, they're not good attacks. Another interesting thing is that the current top-five + Brighton (often praised for their quality of their football) have registered the most shots from open play. So, while we're searching for the elusive perfect counter, the better game plans out there actually lead to more (and better) shots. The lower you go to the table, the fewer the shots. This is the biggest misconception about xG, especially when it comes to strikers. Over time, it all balances out (unless you're Messi), and the great forwards (like Ronaldo and Lewa) are the ones who manage to accumulate an impressively high xG.

But that's half the story. Last season, United had more shots from open play than anyone. The xG/Sh (0.13) was just below average, but we massively underperformed our xG. This season, not only we struggle to manufacture shots, our xG/Sh (0.11) has also nosedived way below average (0.14). These aren't the signs of a team that's trying and failing, they are the signs of a team that's simply failing.

Even at our best under ETH, we never looked like a particularly refined or subtle unit in the final third.

 

[hobbers]

Our final third play relies on moments of brilliance more than it ever has before.

Most of Rashfords goals last season were individual goals. Just like his non penalty goals this season. Garnacho's goals this season have been individual moments, same as his runs for the penalties at the weekend.

McTominay and Hojlund have scored a few goals that came from good team moves. But they have been few and far between.

It's impossible to have good attacking patterns when you press all your forward thinking players up next to the oppositions defenders in a line and expect Casemiro or Varane to somehow thread a needle. And because the positioning is so shit the tempo is lower than it could be which means the opponents are always able to reset and be in a good defensive position.

 

[Alex99]

I think we're going round in circles, there are just way too many straw man arguments:

• Who is suggesting that this "others have (some) responsibility to identify and suggest potential transfer targets" isn't true?
• How can "The majority of the blame for that has to be on the club and the recruitment team, regardless of how much Ten Hag liked him." be true if ETH demanded control over transfers as condition of his employment?
• Are people actually saying that "signing two back-up goalkeepers and Wout Weghorst on loan was somehow part of Ten Hag's master plan for the squad." or is the issue that he was given over £400m to spend and still had major holes in his squad to fill with stopgaps?
• Will you "be here again with the next manager as soon as we have a couple of disappointing results" if the team is well-coached and improving?

I think you're answering points that aren't being made. Anyway, we can agree to disagree.

• Who is suggesting that this "others have (some) responsibility to identify and suggest potential transfer targets" isn't true?

You're misrepresenting the point. The only power we know Ten Hag has is the veto (although we can assume he drives the briefs for tactical suitability). The obvious assumption we can make from the veto power, is that others have responsibility to identify and suggest targets. It is conjecture (based on one, short quote) to suggest that his control extends much further than this veto, which is why we have the sliding scale of "the club didn't offer alternatives, so we went with his former player" to "he pushed hard for his former player". There are plenty of posts trending toward the latter end of that scale that absolutely suggest that Ten Hag has assumed full responsibility (or close to it) for identifying transfer targets.

• How can "The majority of the blame for that has to be on the club and the recruitment team, regardless of how much Ten Hag liked him." be true if ETH demanded control over transfers as condition of his employment?

I refer you back to the point, repeated ad nauseam, about how he shouldn't have been hired if such control of transfers was a condition of his employment. He can't be blamed for being hired on shit terms that gave him too much control (even if he's a cock for demanding those terms), and if we accept he doesn't actually have that level of control, then the majority of the blame still falls on the club for failing to identify alternatives and for authorising the purchase of a player for three times their own valuation.

• Are people actually saying that "signing two back-up goalkeepers and Wout Weghorst on loan was somehow part of Ten Hag's master plan for the squad." or is the issue that he was given over £400m to spend and still had major holes in his squad to fill with stopgaps?

Yes, these points have absolutely been made. They're implicit in the vague "he's made 16 signings" argument which pops up all of the time, and have, at times, been outright stated (particularly with Weghorst). Even the "he's spent £400 million" ignores that he isn't (or shouldn't) be the one signing off on the financial aspects of deals, or that the club should have other targets identified in the case of their first choices being obviously too expensive. We massively overspent on Antony, we spent a large fee on Casemiro when the brief was a player like Frenkie de Jong, overspent on Hojlund, and committed to a sizeable fee for Mount despite there being obvious injury concerns. These are all issues (compounded by the financial mismanagement in the decade before Ten Hag's arrival) but they're also issues for which Ten Hag isn't (or shouldn't) be responsible.

The stopgap issue has been apparent since van Gaal was manager and we were loaning Falcao, followed not long after by Zlatan for Mourinho, then Ighalo and Cavani for Solskjaer, and finally Weghorst for Ten Hag.

• Will you "be here again with the next manager as soon as we have a couple of disappointing results" if the team is well-coached and improving?

Yes, because there are sections of this fanbase that (despite their protestations to the contrary) are incredibly negative, and are extremely vocal with it. I've said it before, but there is a massive element of "we're Manchester United, we should be challenging for the league and winning half our games 5-0" in a lot of posts about Ten Hag and the club in general. There's a general denial of the reality of the situation we're in, which was quite noticeable after the City defeat, with people seeming surprised that a side that started with Jonny Evans at centre-back, Victor Lindelof at left-back, Scott McTominay in midfield, and no recognised striker, that later had to bring on two 19-year-olds to make their third appearances for the club (with two more teenagers with zero appearances sat on the bench) because everyone else was injured, was outclassed by the reigning English and European champions, who were pretty much at full-strength, away from home.

Results and performances have been disappointing this season, and there's enough there to want a change in manager. However, I think it's utter bollocks that most of the vocally negative lot in here would accept us being sat sixth and eight points off fourth at this stage of next season just because we'd beaten a few relegation candidates by three or more goals and only lost by the odd goal to City and Liverpool, because they wouldn't see that as evidence of us being "well-coached and improving", but as more of the same. Solskjaer literally had us winning games by decent margins and had good results against City and Liverpool, and was still widely mocked by the type of poster I'm referring to (do not point out that he couldn't make the next step because that is something we didn't know until he tried it). Similarly, Arteta was widely mocked for his record at Arsenal prior to last season, at which point all of these posters suddenly declared that they "could see what he was doing".

You might not be making these points, but this thread (and others) have been rife with them, even if you've not picked up on it as an Arsenal fan.

 

[miliebrowndivorceattorney]

If they don't lead to shots, they're not good attacks. Another interesting thing is that the current top-five + Brighton (often praised for their quality of their football) have registered the most shots from open play. So, while we're searching for the elusive perfect counter, the better game plans out there actually lead to more (and better) shots. The lower you go to the table, the fewer the shots. This is the biggest misconception about xG, especially when it comes to strikers. Over time, it all balances out (unless you're Messi), and the great forwards (like Ronaldo and Lewa) are the ones who manage to accumulate an impressively high xG.

But that's half the story. Last season, United had more shots from open play than anyone. The xG/Sh (0.13) was just below average, but we massively underperformed our xG. This season, not only we struggle to manufacture shots, our xG/Sh (0.11) has also nosedived way below average (0.14). These aren't the signs of a team that's trying and failing, they are the signs of a team that's simply failing.

Even at our best under ETH, we never looked like a particularly refined or subtle unit in the final third.

Didn't we break a record for shot attempts vs Chelsea last december? One of the reasons I keep backing Ten Hag is that under him United haven't showed this much sophisticated attacks since SAF stepped down. It looks much more intelligent than the aimless crosses under Moyes.

Regarding the transfers: of course a top manager, incoming and all, demands say and veto over who the clubs advisors say should be brought in, or considered.
With a big club like United you expect a top 4 list for every position, well scouted and all.

Then a meeting comes where decisions are made about who to enter negotiations. Who to go for if everything fails. What to do on deadline day if aimed targets fail. The end negotiations are not done by Ten Hag.

The financial limits should be made by someone else. Even if Ten Hag can make a veto over who he wants in, it should never be his end decision financial wise. Except maybe the Kane transfer. Not pursuing that was one of the most stupid decisions by the Glazers ever made. A chance to buy him, even a remote chance, such a high class striker, comes every few years. Not every year. Buying him would have made a huge difference on the 23/24 season and also the club's worth. Maybe the Glazers shot themselves in the foot by hundreds of millions by choosing not to make Levy an offer he could not refuse.

The INEOS public claims and various technical management recruitments - Ratcliffe saying how Ten Hag had to report straight to the CEO, tells you that there was much improvement to be made. Also, that Ten Hag does not bear the blame for mistakes like Antony. Maybe Casemiro was too expensive as well but imo without him we would never ended 3rd in 22/23 and also the last 2 months, even if he gets older, he is an improvement over what we have and had. Fred is never a DM.

 

[RedRover]

I want a new manager next season, so it's not really a defense of him from me.

Also, that analogy is terrible. The CEO of a company is literally there to make decisions that affect the whole business (or delegate accordingly). They live and die by that, and Manchester United quite literally have a CEO above Ten Hag who should have stepped in and stopped his hiring if this control was one of the terms. In a business context, it'd be like hiring a manager for your IT department on the basis of them having significant control of your marketing department. It's simply silly to agree to such terms.

I agree that there are concerns regardless of who is to blame for recruitment failings. Antony was his player, he'd worked with him extensively, and he's got feck all out of him. That's a fair criticism, but it's also one we don't actually see much of, because instead it's just "£400 million spent", "16 signings". Similarly, prioritising Mount is a confusing move, as was the sustained pursuit of Amrabat given his clear unsuitability to Ten Hag's tactical preferences.

I don't agree with that. It's not a direct comparison but a CEO has a role to fill, often as a figurehead. Other jobs are indeed delegated to other senior figures in a business but, he's still expected to succeed in his role and guide it. He's the man brought in to front the "new" Manchester United, to decide what we'd look like on the pitch, which is, to some extent what it's all about.

My point is that an argument of "you gave him too much power" doesn't abdicate him of any and all responsibility. He asked for control, was (to an extent) given it, and was at least to some degree, given the ability and resources to try and put his plan in place. He's failed to do that. The question is the extent to which it's his fault.

Recruitment is one issue, but there are others. Some seem to think failings in the structure of the club mean he should get a free hit - rather than looking at issues which have little to do with the executive function - i.e. how he sets his teams up, the style we employ and a stubborn refusal to change it, a seeming lack of progression or direction overall, his in-game decisions and (most recently) his deluded post match comments.

I have nothing against the bloke, and to be honest I'm disappointed that he doesn't appear to be what a lot of us thought he might be when he joined. I guess elite managers are few and far between, and certainly, this job isn't easy, but I expected at least some obvious progress by now, even if we weren't the finished article.

 

[Alex99]

I don't agree with that. It's not a direct comparison but a CEO has a role to fill, often as a figurehead. Other jobs are indeed delegated to other senior figures in a business but, he's still expected to succeed in his role and guide it. He's the man brought in to front the "new" Manchester United, to decide what we'd look like on the pitch, which is, to some extent what it's all about.

My point is that an argument of "you gave him too much power" doesn't abdicate him of any and all responsibility. He asked for control, was (to an extent) given it, and was at least to some degree, given the ability and resources to try and put his plan in place. He's failed to do that. The question is the extent to which it's his fault.

Recruitment is one issue, but there are others. Some seem to think failings in the structure of the club mean he should get a free hit - rather than looking at issues which have little to do with the executive function - i.e. how he sets his teams up, the style we employ and a stubborn refusal to change it, a seeming lack of progression or direction overall, his in-game decisions and (most recently) his deluded post match comments.

I have nothing against the bloke, and to be honest I'm disappointed that he doesn't appear to be what a lot of us thought he might be when he joined. I guess elite managers are few and far between, and certainly, this job isn't easy, but I expected at least some obvious progress by now, even if we weren't the finished article.

You can feel free to disagree with it but it's a shit analogy precisely because a CEO is literally expected to take on full control, whereas the manager of a football team isn't. A CEO is top of the pyramid, a football manager is not. Anyway, this is by the by.

As for the rest of your post, I refer you back to the point you responded to in the first place: If the level of control people believe he has is what the club granted, then he should never have been hired, which effectively pins it back on the club. After that, you can criticise him for demanding the control and his record with that control, but it still has to be caveated with "why the feck did the club give it to him?".

You don't hire someone to manage one department and then give them significant control over another department that has its own department head(s).

I don't agree with the "free-hit" comments, especially those that seem to think he not only gets this season, but the entirety of next season too, but they are an absolute minority. Most who don't want him sacked are basically only at that position because the reported shortlist of replacements contains Gareth Southgate, and I think a lot of them would be happy enough to see Ten Hag gone if we brought in someone with a more encouraging CV than Southgate's.

 

[bosskeano]

we need to go for definitely a bit more mobile players especially in the middle of the park....our CM's and CB's are fecking useless when it comes to covering space and having to run

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

If the new manager who comes in is promised that players will be sold(including big names) then it can work. But so far we have seen that the new manager always gives player a clean slate. He wouldn't last long after that.

Yeah it shouldn’t be the managers decision in this case

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

If they don't lead to shots, they're not good attacks. Another interesting thing is that the current top-five + Brighton (often praised for their quality of their football) have registered the most shots from open play. So, while we're searching for the elusive perfect counter, the better game plans out there actually lead to more (and better) shots. The lower you go to the table, the fewer the shots. This is the biggest misconception about xG, especially when it comes to strikers. Over time, it all balances out (unless you're Messi), and the great forwards (like Ronaldo and Lewa) are the ones who manage to accumulate an impressively high xG.

But that's half the story. Last season, United had more shots from open play than anyone. The xG/Sh (0.13) was just below average, but we massively underperformed our xG. This season, not only we struggle to manufacture shots, our xG/Sh (0.11) has also nosedived way below average (0.14). These aren't the signs of a team that's trying and failing, they are the signs of a team that's simply failing.

Even at our best under ETH, we never looked like a particularly refined or subtle unit in the final third.

It’s ironic that if ETH had just kept the exact same setup he had last season, with swapping Weghorst and Antony with Hojlund and Garnacho and slotting in Mainoo next to Casemiro in the Eriksen role, we’d probably be much better this year even while not “progressing” our style of play simply through finishing better and defending more solidly as a unit.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

we need to go for definitely a bit more mobile players especially in the middle of the park....our CM's and CB's are fecking useless when it comes to covering space and having to run

Clear #1 priority in the squad for me. We have a grand total of… 0 athletic players through the spine that excel defending space and running. Mainoo might become one but he’s still 18, and Varane/Casemiro aren’t those players anymore.

 

[stevoc]

Ah now it's "midfield" and we're down to one match.

Where do Mount and McTominay usually play from your recollections?

Both Mount and McTominay were deployed in various midfield positions this season around that period. They can both play the same several positions.

Your original claim you referred to as a fact for some reason was that McTominay was selected ahead of Mount for the same position, which is 100% garbage.

Somebody come get this kid he appears to be lost.

Probably because you've 100% made that up. All I originally said was that McTominay was selected in the team ahead of Mount in 5 matches before Mount's injury. Which is an indisputible fact.

Why you and several others have become so fixated on one small part of a post and turned it into a veritable McTominay/Mount saga, I don't know. It's genuinely odd.

 

[Toshey]

We need Mike Smalling!

 

[DWelbz19]

It was obvious to everyone at the time that ETH thought he'd finally stumbled on something that would work with McTominay and flogged it to death, even if it meant dropping Mount. Much like his hideous idea of playing Weghorst as a no10 and moving Bruno out wide, after one good cameo there vs Leeds I think.

Yep exactly, it feels the same doesn't it?

I'd forgot about Weghorst as a no10, in hindsight the red flags were there about Ten Hag even last season.

Yep. It's just little things like this that fundamentally confirm the type of manager he is. He is not a top level progressive coach, burning every time he's not playing 10 libero's on the field at once, being hamstrung by an evil system. It's more simple than that -- he's just not that good of a gaffer in the end.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

It’s ironic that if ETH had just kept the exact same setup he had last season, with swapping Weghorst and Antony with Hojlund and Garnacho and slotting in Mainoo next to Casemiro in the Eriksen role, we’d probably be much better this year even while not “progressing” our style of play simply through finishing better and defending more solidly as a unit.

Perhaps that's true, but we can never be sure. There have been several cases of coaches who took the next step in their careers, did well for a season or two, only to "get figured out" in the end. One could argue the same thing happened to Solskjaer. Got the gig at a low point for the club, "steadied the ship" but, when the push came to shove (every manager becomes an open book, sooner or later), there weren't any solid foundations to whatever he was trying to implement.

This is the debate now, isn't it? I doubt you'll find people arguing that we haven't regressed from last season. The question is whether the cause of the decline can be traced down to several mitigating factors or what we're witnessing is the failure of yet another plan which won't be able to take us much further even when these factors go away.

Last season's setup wasn't without its issues. It's quite interesting that, despite constantly failing to finish our meal in the attacking third, statistically speaking, we were the PL's third-biggest overachievers behind Fulham and Arsenal. The Gunners seem to have bridged that statistical gap in their performances this season, while we have moved backwards. This is the manager's job, when we get down to brass tacks. This always takes me back to the biggest compliment i've heard about Ferguson in the 90s (from a Liverpool fan, nonetheless): "Everybody knows how United are going to play, but few are able to do something about it".

Believe it or not, ETH and Ange are the PL's biggest overachievers right now. This is how bad we look in the underlying stats.

Which brings me to the summer planning. I'm afraid it's never that simple. Take the one aspect of our game (the attack) where we did reasonably well (xG-wise). Rashford took 19.5% of our shots from open play, with 17.70xG (Understat). This season, not much has changed in terms of volume. He's taken 18.8% of our shots in open play, but with just 5.75xG. Is it a matter of form or something else? Because Martial may be a crock and Weghorst may not be PL quality, but their profiles helped Rashford get his two best seasons at the club. On the contrary, whenever you don't work to create an open route in the box for him, and you pair him with a forward that wants to be fed inside the box (Lukaku, Ronaldo, Hojlund), his numbers plummet.

It's what i call the "Ronaldo-Benzema" paradigm. If it hadn't been for Real Madrid's 21/22 crazy season, we would still have plenty of people claiming that Benzema stayed at the club for so long because he was Ronaldo's mate. He was much more than that, and he sacrificed more things in his game than one can imagine. It's one of the reasons i'm willing to be patient with Rasmus. If we're going down the "Rashford is our main man" road, we're looking for a very specific type of forward. They’re not easy to come by, so we might as well try to create one. But it won't happen without teething pains.

I also believe that necessity has forced ETH's hand with Bruno playing as a false #9 of sorts (he's basically free to roam wherever he wants), and you could argue that he shot himself in the foot there because he "wants" his starting xi performing his Plan A at all costs. He used Sancho in that role in the summer tour, but he ditched it when he got Holjlund. Then he fell out with Sancho, who could have offered a better variable (Bruno in for McT) in the midfield as a false #9 and, maybe, a smoother transition period for the Hojlund/Rashford partnership. It never hurts to have a back-up plan.

As for the midfield, both Eriksen and Fred were playing higher up the pitch last season than most like to remember. Eriksen would often drop in the 3-1 or 3-2 structure of the build-up (first phase) to help with the rotations because of his passing range, and Fred would sometimes come to the left side of the "3" to allow Shaw to push forward (so that Rashford could play closer to the half-spaces). This, we gave up. But, in terms of solidity and defensive reliance... nope. They were generally instructed to stay high up the pitch, which is reflected in Casemiro (who was great last season according to the Caf) being the most dribbled past DM in the league (or in the whereabouts).

In his defence, ETH can claim that, with Shaw, Martinez and Malacia all out, he doesn't have a left side to use in the build-up. He can also point at Dalot and argue: "Look, it took a while, but we're getting there on the other side of the pitch". But it was always a risky plan because: a) It relies on Martinez being injury-free, b) we don't know if the inverted FB role suits Shaw and c) if it all goes to hell (which it did), Rashford's role as the main goal-threat will become problematic. And you must suspect by now that he won't put the work of a traditional winger in to offer the semblance of a solution on that flank.

Mount wasn't such a bad idea. He's versatile. He can come deeper, he can receive the ball out wide, he offers good movement and creates the opportunity for variations and the interchanging of positions that could add a few intricacies to our game. But it's true that he makes us top-heavy. And this is what ETH probably meant when he said that our goal is to become "the best transition side in the world". The ball has to move quickly up the pitch because, right from the get-go, we have the overload (6 players looking to occupy the 5 channels) high on the pitch. Sadly, it has all backfired, we basically have no midfield, and we are where we are.

Anyway, i think he's a goner in the summer. His only saving grace is that there are a bunch of young (or youngish) players (Dalot, Garnacho, Hojlund, Mainoo, Forson, i also believe that Onana will be OK in the end), who are responding well to whatever instructions they get and can become the core of a new side.

 

[DSG]

feck me, the level of idiocy in this thread makes me worry about humanity. The level of bullshit that some people go to prop up an argument just to feel “right” is ridiculous.

ETH, rightfully or not, was granted veto power over every potential transfer. He agreed with every incoming player, from Antony and Amrabaat to Weghorst. He has responsibility for his decisions. The reverse “veto” afforded management is insignificant.

You can argue that the board / CEO shouldn’t have given him this squad building power, but that’s on management. If you hire / promote a new sales manager under you and he doesn’t perform, you sack the underperforming sales manager. He still has responsibility to achieve targets. Conversely, when your performance review is up, you’ll be properly assessed on why you hired the wrong guy. Doesn’t absolve the sales manager for being shite.

Abysmal tactics. #2 in the league in shots on goal conceded, second only to Sheffield United.
‘Despite having the most expensive squad in world football, 13th in the league in goals for.
Finished last in CL group.
Eye test… we look awful.

I’m sorry, the more the **** of Ten Hag defends him, the more they look like flat earthers. Strap on a pair of balls and admit you’re wrong. We all forgive you.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

Perhaps that's true, but we can never be sure. There have been several cases of coaches who took the next step in their careers, did well for a season or two, only to "get figured out" in the end. One could argue the same thing happened to Solskjaer. Got the gig at a low point for the club, "steadied the ship" but, when the push came to shove (every manager becomes an open book, sooner or later), there weren't any solid foundations to whatever he was trying to implement.

This is the debate now, isn't it? I doubt you'll find people arguing that we haven't regressed from last season. The question is whether the cause of the decline can be traced down to several mitigating factors or what we're witnessing is the failure of yet another plan which won't be able to take us much further even when these factors go away.

Last season's setup wasn't without its issues. It's quite interesting that, despite constantly failing to finish our meal in the attacking third, statistically speaking, we were the PL's third-biggest overachievers behind Fulham and Arsenal. The Gunners seem to have bridged that statistical gap in their performances this season, while we have moved backwards. This is the manager's job, when we get down to brass tacks. This always takes me back to the biggest compliment i've heard about Ferguson in the 90s (from a Liverpool fan, nonetheless): "Everybody knows how United are going to play, but few are able to do something about it".

Believe it or not, ETH and Ange are the PL's biggest overachievers right now. This is how bad we look in the underlying stats.

Which brings me to the summer planning. I'm afraid it's never that simple. Take the one aspect of our game (the attack) where we did reasonably well (xG-wise). Rashford took 19.5% of our shots from open play, with 17.70xG (Understat). This season, not much has changed in terms of volume. He's taken 18.8% of our shots in open play, but with just 5.75xG. Is it a matter of form or something else? Because Martial may be a crock and Weghorst may not be PL quality, but their profiles helped Rashford get his two best seasons at the club. On the contrary, whenever you don't work to create an open route in the box for him, and you pair him with a forward that wants to be fed inside the box (Lukaku, Ronaldo, Hojlund), his numbers plummet.

It's what i call the "Ronaldo-Benzema" paradigm. If it hadn't been for Real Madrid's 21/22 crazy season, we would still have plenty of people claiming that Benzema stayed at the club for so long because he was Ronaldo's mate. He was much more than that, and he sacrificed more things in his game than one can imagine. It's one of the reasons i'm willing to be patient with Rasmus. If we're going down the "Rashford is our main man" road, we're looking for a very specific type of forward. They’re not easy to come by, so we might as well try to create one. But it won't happen without teething pains.

I also believe that necessity has forced ETH's hand with Bruno playing as a false #9 of sorts (he's basically free to roam wherever he wants), and you could argue that he shot himself in the foot there because he "wants" his starting xi performing his Plan A at all costs. He used Sancho in that role in the summer tour, but he ditched it when he got Holjlund. Then he fell out with Sancho, who could have offered a better variable (Bruno in for McT) in the midfield as a false #9 and, maybe, a smoother transition period for the Hojlund/Rashford partnership. It never hurts to have a back-up plan.

As for the midfield, both Eriksen and Fred were playing higher up the pitch last season than most like to remember. Eriksen would often drop in the 3-1 or 3-2 structure of the build-up (first phase) to help with the rotations because of his passing range, and Fred would sometimes come to the left side of the "3" to allow Shaw to push forward (so that Rashford could play closer to the half-spaces). This, we gave up. But, in terms of solidity and defensive reliance... nope. They were generally instructed to stay high up the pitch, which is reflected in Casemiro (who was great last season according to the Caf) being the most dribbled past DM in the league (or in the whereabouts).

In his defence, ETH can claim that, with Shaw, Martinez and Malacia all out, he doesn't have a left side to use in the build-up. He can also point at Dalot and argue: "Look, it took a while, but we're getting there on the other side of the pitch". But it was always a risky plan because: a) It relies on Martinez being injury-free, b) we don't know if the inverted FB role suits Shaw and c) if it all goes to hell (which it did), Rashford's role as the main goal-threat will become problematic. And you must suspect by now that he won't put the work of a traditional winger in to offer the semblance of a solution on that flank.

Mount wasn't such a bad idea. He's versatile. He can come deeper, he can receive the ball out wide, he offers good movement and creates the opportunity for variations and the interchanging of positions that could add a few intricacies to our game. But it's true that he makes us top-heavy. And this is what ETH probably meant when he said that our goal is to become "the best transition side in the world". The ball has to move quickly up the pitch because, right from the get-go, we have the overload (6 players looking to occupy the 5 channels) high on the pitch. Sadly, it has all backfired, we basically have no midfield, and we are where we are.

Anyway, i think he's a goner in the summer. His only saving grace is that there are a bunch of young (or youngish) players (Dalot, Garnacho, Hojlund, Mainoo, Forson, i also believe that Onana will be OK in the end), who are responding well to whatever instructions they get and can become the core of a new side.

Regarding Rashford, yes I always thought Hojlund was a weird fit with him and (presumably) Antony. Regardless of quality, both are inverted wingers that look to shoot first at every opportunity and neither are particularly creative. Pairing them with a top box striker prospect was a strange choice (luckily looks like Hojlund will be a monster with our without them). It’s no coincidence that our attack seemed to click more post Christmas when Garnacho was forced into the right which instinctively made him look to create more as cutting in and shooting on his strong foot isn’t an option then. Its why I don’t think it will be too difficult to replace the Rashford production: whatever you might lose in pure goalscoring ability you’ll (presumably) gain in both creativity and off the ball/team oriented work.

 

[USREDEVIL]

This is where I am at.

Yep. But i will add i need to see more from our style of play. Something that suggests we can play better than other teams once we get recruitment right.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

He was literally quoted as saying he wanted control over transfers or else he wouldn't have taken the job. I don't think any manager in football has TOTAL control, obviously. But he has clearly been the driving force behind what goes on. I don't know you're pushing back against that so hard, it's quite odd.

I'm pushing back because what you're saying isn't true. Here's the quote:

"I don't want to be the sole ruler, I stand for cooperation, but control in transfers is a condition for me."

Unless you ignore the first line I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that he wanted/asked for full control over transfers. That's without acknowledging the fact that both ETH and Murtough have a veto which is a pretty large piece of evidence that goes against your point.

I can get on board with criticizing his setup and in game management but our ire for the poor recruitment should really be directed at Murtough and those above him.

I guess I'm quite bullish on this point but my view is that if Murtough really ceded control to ETH, the outcome is still Murtough's responsibility since ETH isn't a scout or DoF. Also, if Murtough didn't cede that much control then it's clearly still Murtoughs responsibility.

 

[Daydreamer]

I'm pushing back because what you're saying isn't true. Here's the quote:

"I don't want to be the sole ruler, I stand for cooperation, but control in transfers is a condition for me."

Unless you ignore the first line I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that he wanted/asked for full control over transfers. That's without acknowledging the fact that both ETH and Murtough have a veto which is a pretty large piece of evidence that goes against your point.

I can get on board with criticizing his setup and in game management but our ire for the poor recruitment should really be directed at Murtough and those above him.

I guess I'm quite bullish on this point but my view is that if Murtough really ceded control to ETH, the outcome is still Murtough's responsibility since ETH isn't a scout or DoF. Also, if Murtough didn't cede that much control then it's clearly still Murtoughs responsibility.

What he said is true, it’s what you’re saying he said that isn’t true.

You’re the only person that mentioned full control. In fact, you’ve quoted him as saying “I don't think any manager in football has TOTAL control”.

This happens every other page in this thread and it’s kinda weird.

 

[Alex99]

What he said is true, it’s what you’re saying he said that isn’t true.

You’re the only person that mentioned full control. In fact, you’ve quoted him as saying “I don't think any manager in football has TOTAL control”.

This happens every other page in this thread and it’s kinda weird.

You know what else is weird, an Arsenal fan trying to mediate a discussion about the Manchester United manager.

 

[Daydreamer]

You know what else is weird, an Arsenal fan trying to mediate a discussion about the Manchester United manager.

Yep, who would have thought such a thing could happen in a thread about United’s Manager.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

What he said is true, it’s what you’re saying he said that isn’t true.

You’re the only person that mentioned full control. In fact, you’ve quoted him as saying “I don't think any manager in football has TOTAL control”.

This happens every other page in this thread and it’s kinda weird.

Here's what the poster said initially that I was responding to :

I reckon if you asked ten Hag, he'd be bold enough to accept responsibility for how the squad building has gone since he came in. The club shouldn't have ceded to him but as he said, that was the only way to get him on board. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Which at least implies full or near total control, hence the "live by the sword, die by the sword" bit.

 

[Alex99]

Yep, who would have thought such a thing could happen in a thread about United’s Manager.

...yes, it's weird that you spend so much time in here.

 

[Daydreamer]

...yes, it's weird that you spend so much time in here.

There’s fans from loads of different clubs in the Arteta / Arsenal threads. I don’t think it’s weird they have things to say about a club they don’t support - it is a forum after all.

This back-and-forth we’re having right now does feel kinda weird, though. I’m not entirely sure what your problem is.

 

[criticalanalysis]

Big, physical and mobile. Haaland and Nunez are not lumps, they are just about as fast and athletic as anyone on those teams. And that's why they are in the system of those elite managers. Those managers do not need a battering ram. Having a lump like Haller up top shows which category of manager you belong to.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticise ETH for but this bit is silly. Haller was very successful for him, Ajax and their budget. ETH's next permanent striker big purchase was Hojlund, who looks very promising. Does that say anything about 'which category of manager' he belongs to? Nope.

 

[Alex99]

There’s fans from loads of different clubs in the Arteta / Arsenal threads. I don’t think it’s weird they have things to say about a club they don’t support - it is a forum after all.

This back-and-forth we’re having right now, does feel kinda weird, though. I’m not entirely sure what your problem is.

This is a Manchester United forum so I imagine most of the people commenting in any thread will be Manchester United fans, although a non-Manchester United topic may attract more of the non-Manchester United fans.

This is quite different to an Arsenal fan on a Manchester United forum constantly injecting himself into discussions between Manchester United fans about the Manchester United manager, seemingly under some guise of being some sort of neutral mediator.

The amount of times you've highlighted or quoted one part of a post from someone not willing to blame Ten Hag for absolutely everything is bizarre, and at this point, tantamount to trolling. You basically come in here to stir the pot, but I guess you've succeeded, so well done.

 

[mu4c_20le]

This is a Manchester United forum so I imagine most of the people commenting in any thread will be Manchester United fans, although a non-Manchester United topic may attract more of the non-Manchester United fans.

This is quite different to an Arsenal fan on a Manchester United forum constantly injecting himself into discussions between Manchester United fans about the Manchester United manager, seemingly under some guise of being some sort of neutral mediator.

The amount of times you've highlighted or quoted one part of a post from someone not willing to blame Ten Hag for absolutely everything is bizarre, and at this point, tantamount to trolling. You basically come in here to stir the pot, but I guess you've succeeded, so well done.

I actually get why neutral or rival fans might be confused about our certain members loyalty towards our manager. If you look at any of our rival forums or reddit subs, they all want him to stay.

 

[redcucumber]

I'm pushing back because what you're saying isn't true. Here's the quote:

"I don't want to be the sole ruler, I stand for cooperation, but control in transfers is a condition for me."

Unless you ignore the first line I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that he wanted/asked for full control over transfers. That's without acknowledging the fact that both ETH and Murtough have a veto which is a pretty large piece of evidence that goes against your point.

I can get on board with criticizing his setup and in game management but our ire for the poor recruitment should really be directed at Murtough and those above him.

I guess I'm quite bullish on this point but my view is that if Murtough really ceded control to ETH, the outcome is still Murtough's responsibility since ETH isn't a scout or DoF. Also, if Murtough didn't cede that much control then it's clearly still Murtoughs responsibility.

Are you in an argumentative mood, or something? I said in that quote you posted that he doesn't have total control. I can't tell if you're being willfully obtuse due to your fixation on defending your initial argument or because you are genuinely struggling to grasp (or don't even want to consider) an alternative perspective. It's tiring, either way, so I'll leave ye to it.

The fact every avenue circles back to it all being Murtough's fault says it all. I reckon both are to blame and both should be removed from their positons.

 

[Alex99]

I actually get why neutral or rival fans might be confused about our certain members loyalty towards our manager. If you look at any of our rival forums or reddit subs, they all want him to stay.

I'd understand Arsenal fans on an Arsenal forum saying "yeah, he's shit. Hope they keep him." That's not what's happening here though.

It's definitely weird that an Arsenal fan has made about 50 posts in here in the last 3-4 weeks, most of which have followed the exact same pattern of highlighting part of a post that's remotely defensive of Ten Hag and using it to stir the pot. I think I've had two almost identical exchanges with him.

I don't think there are that many United fans in here that want to keep him. There was one mad post about even next season being a free hit for him, and a few are willing to see how he does under something resembling a proper structure (although I imagine many of them wouldn't have any complaints if he was replaced in the summer), but the majority now seem to fall somewhere between "get him gone at all costs" and "get him gone, but maybe not if we're just going to hire Southgate."

 

[Daydreamer]

This is a Manchester United forum so I imagine most of the people commenting in any thread will be Manchester United fans, although a non-Manchester United topic may attract more of the non-Manchester United fans.

This is quite different to an Arsenal fan on a Manchester United forum constantly injecting himself into discussions between Manchester United fans about the Manchester United manager, seemingly under some guise of being some sort of neutral mediator.

The amount of times you've highlighted or quoted one part of a post from someone not willing to blame Ten Hag for absolutely everything is bizarre, and at this point, tantamount to trolling. You basically come in here to stir the pot, but I guess you've succeeded, so well done.

I don't think I've ever claimed to be a neutral mediator - I'm a Gooner who thinks ETH is doing poor job managing United. As an Arsenal fan who grew up watching SAF and Wenger do battle, United and Spurs were the first fixtures I looked for on the fixture list. I've always respected United as a club and RedCafe as a forum - particularly it's welcoming of rival fans.

And if there is one thing I don't think I can be honestly accused of, it's quoting out of context. If anything, I would have thought it's the opposite - my posts are often too long and detailed with too many quotes.

You're right, I don't have that much to say to those who think ETH is primarily responsible for how United play. That seems to be the majority opinion and I happen to agree with it. If someone expresses that they think the buck stops with the Manager (particularly one that has said that's the case to the press) then there isn't really much to discuss. Naturally, I have far more questions for those with other views. If that comes across badly, I'm genuinely sorry.

You seem intent on policing this thread and this discussion has become very strange. Shall we agree to draw a line under it?

 

[Robbie Boy]

If you look at any of our rival forums or reddit subs, they all want him to stay.

A common theme post-Fergie.

 

[Piskin]

We need a better manager at the end of the season, this current situation is not going to get any better. Look how far we are off the top teams and look at our goal difference. We need at least 6 quality players to come in and a quality manager to work with them. The football we are playing is beyond dire and if that continues the supporters will turn against Ten Hag in droves. Just look at the quality of play by City & Liverpool last Sunday, our quality of play, tactics & transfer ability is bog standard. We have been mostly awful since the 7-0 thrashing by Liverpool last year and are in danger of more thrashings to come with this current set up.

 

[Dec9003]

Some on here think he doesn‘t have a clue, which is a baffling take.

Nobody said this, or if they did, quote them?

 

[doomy20]

I am not from England but having someone like Potter, Southgate would end everything. I want some Spanish guy or something playing high risk, attacking football with the material he has. If not, give Eric another year