With all due respect, I have no idea who you are, and have no recollection of crossing paths with you before this discussion. I'm also not sure you know what a "strawman" is.
As for how you've tied yourself in knots:
- You argued that van Gaal had Netherlands playing the same way as he had United playing, just with success, except they weren't playing like that at all, and in their most successful performances were out-possessed (sometimes heavily) and were prolific in front of goal, almost the polar opposite of how he had United playing.
- You argued that a reasonably successful stint with a national team and a Bundesliga win (that was immediately followed by a sacking) five years prior to his appointment was somehow evidence of him being good enough to manage Manchester United, but then either refused to ackowledge or outright accepted that other, clearly not good enough managers that achieved club success five years ago and other clearly not good enough managers that have done well with national sides, were in fact, clearly not good enough to manage Manchester United.
- You have, on multiple occasions now, mentioned van Gaal not having a creative outlet, as if that is somehow some evidence that he'd have liked Bruno, ignoring that he bought and sold Di Maria, as well as shipping out Nani, Kagawa, Januzaj and Zaha, who were all potential "creative outlets", while retaining Rooney, Carrick and Mata. He also oversaw the departures of Evra, Rafael, Hernandez, Welbeck and van Persie, who very much fit the description of "risk takers" to some degree.
- You framed van Gaal's transfers and squad as being solely down to the club, especially where he missed out on first choice targets like a prohibitively expensive Neymar, but remain steadfast that Ten Hag has not been similarly let down by the club being unable to sign, among others, Min-Jae, de Jong, and Kane.
- You have, on multiple occasions now, banged on about me saying something about van Gaal and dribblers. This is the first and only time I mentioned "dribblers" or "dribbling":
I also followed it up with this acknowledgement:
So speaking of "strawman" arguments, it looks like we've found one. Particularly as "he didn't sign Neymar" and he likes "dribblers" are about the only examples of "risk" you can acknowledge van Gaal was amenable to, when Bruno, the player you are adamant he would have liked, is not remotely known for his dribbling prowess. Again, I acknowledged he might have found a place for Bruno, but it wouldn't have been in the midfield, and would have been on the wing, in a similar role to the one he gave Mata. I will also point out that just as some posters agreed with you that he might have found a use for Bruno, some also agreed with me in that he'd have hated him. I actually think both are true. He'd have hated him, but shoved him out wide as he'd have been one of very few sparks of genius we relied upon to create a goalscoring opportunity.
- Finally, you've tied yourself in knots because despite your claims of "playing devil's advocate" and "not being able to stand van Gaal", you have repeatedly argued for van Gaal being anything but a disappointment during his spell here, all to compound the point that Ten Hag has been equally (if not more) disappointing this season. A point that required absolutely no comparison to van Gaal to be made or agreed with.
I don't know what more you want in terms of "sources" when we know he fell out with Di Maria and Herrera over criticisms of their apparent "risk taking", Rafael has literally written in the Da Silva's autobiography about his criticisms and bollockings about "risk taking" and he sold or loaned out basically any player that fit the description of "risk taker", including one he'd signed himself the season before.
You're entitled to your view that van Gaal would have found a use for Bruno, but I think all of the evidence we saw from van Gaal and how he treated players of that sort of style is enough for me to also hold the view that van Gaal would either of tried to turn him into basically an entirely different player, or simply not have a space for him in the squad. Your vociferous arguing for the virtues of a clearly past-his-best Louis van Gaal have reached laughable levels.
I remember you for the wrong reasons, so I wouldn't take too much joy from it. I know what a strawman is, but I'm thinking maybe you don't or are just lacking in any self awareness. Or simply just value your opinion more than I do. You have made a few, such as saying that I claimed LVG being sacked by Bayern was a sign he would be successful here. For one, I never said anything of the sort. But I also never said I thought LVG would be successful, even if I do believe Bruno would have been a good influence on the football he had us playing, as it was that boring.
Re point 1: I pointed out that he did outpossess some teams for Netherlands. But this was all a futile argument as, as I mentioned, there are no time limits in football on what you can coach. As I said, Pep has successfully coached his role for over 10 years, Fergie for 27 years. I could go on. But the biggest issue with your argument is that you were talking about success in terms of trophies, whilst I said he had showed he can make it work at the top level. You are trying to claim that a) he was a strict, safe possession coach in one breath, then using an example from weeks earlier where he didn't always adopt those principles. A bit of a contradiction there. I pointed out the games he did dominate possession with Netherlands, against decent sides too.
Re point 2: again, you're just talking horse shit again. I never refused to acknowledge that other managers, with success 5 years ago, weren't good enough for United. I said Poch is managing a top team and Valverde is still a good manager. Somebody else mentioned to you that he actually won a trophy just 2 weeks ago. I mentioned that there were posters just last week saying he's a good option for us. You then tried to create a fast argument by asking if I wanted Southgate, which is ridiculously irrelevant, and I obviously said no. But I pointed out other national team coaches that I do like. You need to try harder than to just try and make shit up, Alex.
Re point 3: not sure actually what your point is. He did want some risk takers? He didn't want others? This all ignores the slightly big elephant in the room of the point that most of these players he got rid of were past their best (apart from Evra I'd say, but i vaguely remember there were other family reasons for him leaving), but that's another conversation that I would rather stick needles in my eyes than have with you.
Re point 4: I simply believe that, like other coaches, he was obviously let down by recruitment and I've outlined why. I think the players we've signed ETH have seemingly been high up his list and he's said himself he has more control than previous managers, something he requested to even take the job. Probably after seeing what happened under LVG, Ole, Jose etc. Whilst he didn't get these 3 players, I do believe the others were high on the list, and he was in the middle of our whole transfer strategy, along with his agent. Thankfully he wasn't allowed the likes of Brobbey or fecking Arnautovic.
Re point 5: OK, so you mentioned dribbling, and I followed up on that point. Well done. He's had other creative outlets in his teams in the past, and played Sneijder for Netherlands just weeks before coming here, he gave a chance to a young Xavi and Iniesta at Barca. You started out by saying "he would have hated Bruno" to finally admitting he would have played him. At least we're getting there now.
Re point 6: as I keep saying, I'm not trying to claim him to be anything more than he was. He was boring, I recognise every single point you make. But, as I keep mentioning, my original point was simply that he may have benefitted from having Bruno. That's all my point was. You're vigor in trying to pull me into different debates keeps me going because I'm not going to just give in to your bullshit. I have zero skin in this game. If anybody ever mentions LVG to me, I always respond accordingly as to how shit it all was. But your incessant need to debate such a basic point is keeping me going.
Re point 7: I think you're missing the nuance of the risk taking argument. He fell out with Di Maria over mistakes and carelessness, but he signed him for his dribbling ability. Are you trying to now claim that dribbling is a risk free approach in football? Neymar, another player he apparently wanted to sign, according to the man himself, plays risky passes as well as dribbling in dangerous situations. Yes he's a different player to Bruno, but it's a relevant example of risk he wanted as this is a player he wanted to add to his United team. And he didn't sell all his risk takers, because he kept Martial and allowed him freedom to run at players. The one highlight of his time here, for me.
Re the final paragraph, I've covered most of this already. It would be a guessing game as to where he'd have played Bruno, but he played various systems here so I don't think it would have been as clear cut as out wide or nothing. It would depend on the system he went with. I think he'd have played though, as he played Rooney in midfield, who functioned a lot like Bruno but, in all honesty, probably not as good at that point in his career or in that position. But he liked to look for long balls to stretch play, or to set counters.
