Erik ten Hag - Manchester United manager / awaiting clarity from the club over his position

[mu4c_20le]

Why on Earth people insist on this? Here is a graph:

x-asis is the year, y-axis number of points.

Except in the fourth year when there was a massive jump, he basically improved over each season with almost the same amount of points.

Year 1 to 2: +5 points
Year 2 to 3: +8 points
Year 3 to 4: +15 points
Year 4 to 5: +5 points (assuming he wins the match this weekend).

That is very close to linear.

Now, see the Arteta vs EtH graph:

Do you see the similarities between them? No, you do not. Because there aren't any.

NB: You get a similar picture in goals scored, goal difference etc.

This is peak caf

 

[Winrar]

Yes but you're not looking at the big picture. This is who we are at the moment. And if we start sacking the manager all the time we'll just end up another Everton/Watford/Burnley.

Loads of top clubs chop and change their managers often and see success. Madrid, Barca, Bayern, etc.

 

[Revan]

This is peak caf

Indeed. Caf defies maths.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

Indeed. Caf defies maths.

To be fair, as much as I’d want baldy out, two data points does not make a trend.

 

[Revan]

To be fair, as much as I’d want baldy out, two data points does not make a trend.

No, of course.

The point is more in Arteta. Saying progress is not always linear is fine, that is often the case. Saying that in context of Arteta, unless you want to be very pedantic, is quite wrong. Arteta's progress in Arsenal has been as close to linear as you can realistically expect.

 

[Herman Toothrot]

To be fair, as much as I’d want baldy out, two data points does not make a trend.

@Revan could you do it over 75 data points instead?

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

@Revan could you do it over 75 data points instead?

You don’t need to, any manager that finishes a premier league season with a negative goal difference has no business managing a team with champions league qualification as a bare minimum ambition.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

I wouldn't focus on the costs. Football prices have gone crazy, and frankly, it doesn't really help. It's kind of irrelevant how much we have spent thus far because, as we have established, the decision-makers in the past decade have been hugely underqualified. What matters is getting it right from here on out because, make no mistake, this team and club are going nowhere (under any managers) unless we sort our shite out on that front. The reality of the situation is that we still need 7/8 new players for the first-team and first-team squad. As for what that costs, who knows and frankly, who cares, providing they actually get it right this time?

"I'm going to hand-wave away a fact that makes the manager's poor performance this season look even worse"

 

[Apokalips]

Yeah people acting like last night was some sort of revelation instead of just a good watch with the youngsters carrying us.

Embarrassing really. Have some fecking pride as supporters. People being worried about “turning on the next manager” when THATS WHAT YOURE SUPPOSED TO DO when incompetence is shown. This culture of “support everyone no matter what and trust in the lads” is just a great way to continue being the biggest disappointment in the footballing world. People need to relearn some proper standards.

It's weird because fans always want Keane and Rooney etc to come in and give the players an earful to embarrass them for not performing to Manchester United standards, but if anyone wants to hold the manager to those standards fans get defensive and flail around with weird logic and false statements about "these same players" etc.

For some reason fans want to wrap the manager in cotton wool like he's a protected species. Some act like the manager is the most sacred person at the club but at the same time he is not the most important component to how we set up and perform in games.

I'm so sick of this misrepresentation of Arteta's start. How many times is it going to have to be corrected in this thread? 50 times? 500? It's not difficult to go and look back at 19/20-21/22 seasons and see Arsenal's progression under Arteta.

He had his roughest period in the first 4 months of his first full season, when he was less than 12 months into the job, and when he'd just won the FA cup, which bought him enough good will to survive it. He also only made 2 significant signings in his first summer, and of those Partey only started playing at the end of October, with Arteta's rocky spell peaking 1 month later.

They turned it around after Christmas and he still ended up improving on the prior half-season by no. wins, goal difference and points. Then in his second full season they again improve by all these metrics and finish 5th.

So he started in a far worse position than ETH, a much lower baseline, spent a lot less money (less than half) in his first 2 seasons, and improved incrementally.

Can this be stickied somewhere.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

What I foresaw Arteta doing is surely irrelevant. He kept his job because he met performance milestones and goals on each step of the way. Progression was consistent and only in one direction, never took a giant step backwards. He didn't go from 3rd to 8th or from +15 GD to -3.

Klopp's first 4 seasons had similar progression.

Both also had an identifiable style of play that was easy on the eye. Opposite to the hideous "best transition team in the world" football Ten Hag has us playing. The only reason neutrals enjoy watching our games is because they enjoy watching our unlikeable array of players getting absolutely battered for 90 minutes, concede 25 shots and usually lose or capitulate in a mortifying way.

Again I think this is hindsight. I agree Klopp did, but Arteta and Arsenal less so. They looked soft-centred and easy to beat and it wasn't till he had shifted an entire team of players that they started to look a more coherent package. A large part of that is because the board was willing to back him with big players leaving and smart acquisitions who have become some of his best players. Ten Hag hasn't had the luxury of replacing an entire team, and most certainly hasn't benefitted from working under our previous recruitment team.

 

[bosskeano]

IF and I say IF we play with a more defined defensive structure like we did against Newcastle, along with having some quality defensive players at CB....he just might keep his job

we can't though play that wide open kamikaze style football with the lack of athletes we have in this squad

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

Is this an argument in favour of keeping Ten Hag?

Just want to be sure because - “Would you rather finish 8th, 8th and then 1st or 4th, 3rd and then second?” followed by “progression isn’t always linear”; framed as the aforementioned would be crazy.

My position has been clear for awhile now. I would keep Ten Hag because I don't think the options out there are better, however I certainly don't think he's infallible and he's made his share of mistakes. However what I want is largely irrelevant and I still fully expect his head to roll season end.

 

[Revan]

My position has been clear for awhile now. I would keep Ten Hag because I don't think the options out there are better, however I certainly don't think he's infallible and he's made his share of mistakes. However what I want is largely irrelevant and I still fully expect his head to roll season end.

If the options there are not better, whom you consider better options? Are you waiting for Pep, Klopp or Ancelotti to become available?

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

How do you know?

Under Mourinho we signed quite a few of young players too. Lindelof was 23, Bailly was 22, Pogba was 23, Lukaku was 24, Dalot was 19.

I see no reason to give him credit for wasting close to 400m, making us significantly worse in the process.

I just think this ignores all context so I'll leave it be as its been done to death.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

Arsenals progress under Arteta has been linear though. They’ve been better each season since he started, and have got more points and/or a better position in the league each season. Arteta hasn’t had a season like we’ve just had where we went backwards, probably because they didn’t have the initial good season until the foundations had been put in place by the manager and DOF.

So because Ten Hag did better than expected last season he's judged differently? Going backwards can happen, and does happen all the time particularly in the wider context of our season.

 

[Revan]

I just think this ignores all context so I'll leave it be as its been done to death.

I mean we have a worse keeper than when he came here, we have a worse defense (ok, maybe injuries), we definitely have a worse midfield, and we have a worse attack. We score less, we concede more, we do fewer shots, we concede more shots, we have less possession than before, we get spanked more. There isn't a single department where we are better than when he came.

I guess the context is, well actually there is no context. We are worse full stop.

But hey, as we saw with Arteta, the progress is not always linear (despite that it was with him), and given 6 years any monkey can become SAF. In God, I mean manager, we trust.

 

[The Firestarter]

I find it somewhat interesting that one rather meaningless game against Newcastle, with two teams fighting for the last European spot in a competition they probably don’t even want to be in, is actually swaying a significant number of people on here towards keeping him and is changing the general narrative of this thread quite substantially.

And it was the same chaotic performance as ususal. We certainly showed more effort , and had better luck for a change. But just shows the usual kneejerkery that happens around here.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

Arsenals progress under Arteta has been linear though. They’ve been better each season since he started, and have got more points and/or a better position in the league each season. Arteta hasn’t had a season like we’ve just had where we went backwards, probably because they didn’t have the initial good season until the foundations had been put in place by the manager and DOF.

I didn't see it like that and I think many Arsenal fans didn't either. He had three poor seasons followed by a big jump, a couple points here and there isn't the difference maker. Very few people expected the jump that has eventually happened to occur and that happened because he was backed in a big way with fantastic recruitment.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

"I'm going to hand-wave away a fact that makes the manager's poor performance this season look even worse"

Its a fact that the money spent on this squad has been a disaster for a decade. Thats everything to do with the structure above the manager. If we don't get the recruitment right it doesn't matter who our manager is.

 

[Drainy]

ok, maybe injuries

Maybe we've had injuries. Possibly

 

[hobbers]

Ten Hag hasn't had the luxury of replacing an entire team

But he has had more players through the door (that he asked for) for more money in his first two summers of any manager of a big club ever, maybe except for Pep (not sure) and Jose when he arrived at Chelsea.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I find it somewhat interesting that one rather meaningless game against Newcastle, with two teams fighting for the last European spot in a competition they probably don’t even want to be in, is actually swaying a significant number of people on here towards keeping him and is changing the general narrative of this thread quite substantially.

I don't think it's swayed anyone, it's interesting United/Newcastle, the teams that finished 3rd and 4th, are where they are but then you look at which teams have had the worst injuries and it's Chelsea, United, Newcastle and Brentford and they are all having ropey seasons.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

If the options there are not better, whom you consider better options? Are you waiting for Pep, Klopp or Ancelotti to become available?

Its simple for me do the meet all the needs of the club:
- Playing youth and integrating them correctly.
- Building towards a pro-active style of play.
- Respecting the heritage of the club.
- A track record of winning titles is preferable, but at the very least showing they can overperform against expectations set against them and their side.
- Experience of managing big players and big personalities at the top level is again preferable.

Based on those parameters (which I hope INEOS will stick too in their game model) I don't think any of the currently available managers really meet all those expectations. Of the managers we have been linked with, I'd take Ange for sure. I'd be willing to gamble on Mckenner too. The other candidates I either haven't seen enough of personally, or I don't believe they meet all the above (i.e. Tuchel). Ten Hag has made mistakes, but if you are looking at the overarching vision of the club, he does tick the boxes, and I don't think he's turned into a terrible coach overnight.

 

[stevoc]

Ten Hag has multiple set ups, shown by the teams he's managed and how they've evolved. I agree this one us probably an example of "how to be open and lose a lot of games" though

But I think the point from my side is that he's adaptable to different styles, and this broken style is steps toward a model that was aligned with Murtough (fast counter transition whatever bullshit).

The Berrada and Wilcox model may be possession focused who knows. If it is, he's got pedigree in implementing that style from Ajax. Whether that can be translated to United is another question, but I don't think he's been trying to do that up until he's told otherwise.

That's the thing though I do believe he is capable of being adaptable and a bit more pragmatic when needed. But going off this season he has displayed an unhealthy stubbornness.

I doubt whatever he's persevered with this season came from Murtagh. I think this was Ten Hags idea and he was too proud to change it when it clearly wasn't working.

Not sure I can see Ineos being open to continuing this experiment. And if they don't I'm interested to see if they think Ten Hags open to taking direction from them.

 

[Rojofiam]

You writing 50 word essays in front of each signing and then trying to discount some with some weird logic is not going to change the fact that 400m were spent since ETH has been here on his signings.

Yes, you are right, I have a hard time comprehending balderdash.

So you don't want to assess every signing one by one, because that would paint a different picture to your one sentence long "400m wasted to get to 8th place" agenda-driven, wrong narrative. I get it, you don't want to delve into it, because you'd be proven wrong.

https://archive.ph/5LJLj

I recommend you to read this and don't reply to me again unless you have more to say than "400m" "his signings" etc.

 

[Redstain]

Ten Hag hasn't had the luxury of replacing an entire team, and most certainly hasn't benefitted from working under our previous recruitment team.

Slight reconstruction really look at the first season Arsenal challenged for the league this is the bulk of first team quality who they signed: G.Jesus, Partey, Odegaard, Zinchenko, Ramsdale and White. Erik has had: Casemiro, Anthony, Martinez, Eriksen, Mount and Hojlund that's enough to form a definitive first team.

The success with Arteta isn't in the example of Arsenal signing quality players, but the system the players have flourished under. I think with the exception of Rice every single pivotal player Arsenal have purchased has outdone themselves taking into consideration what their perceived value was before moving across.

This is a stark contrast to Erik where the more players he's accumulated the more disillusioned the team has looked as time progresses itself. Most important trajectory with a manager is what they are building towards and nothing with Erik has shown sustainability from a tactical / systemic perspective. He's spent the whole season implementing a failing system that was disproportionate the first game of the season with a fully fit team.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

I mean we have a worse keeper than when he came here, we have a worse defense (ok, maybe injuries), we definitely have a worse midfield, and we have a worse attack. We score less, we concede more, we do fewer shots, we concede more shots, we have less possession than before, we get spanked more. There isn't a single department where we are better than when he came.

I guess the context is, well actually there is no context. We are worse full stop.

But hey, as we saw with Arteta, the progress is not always linear (despite that it was with him), and given 6 years any monkey can become SAF. In God, I mean manager, we trust.

1) Disagree, Onana is a significant upgrade on the past few seasons of De Gea and will be far better in a top team (which we are aspiring for).
2) As you stated, we have a weaker defence this season after it's been completely and utterly ravaged by injuries, with our best CB being injured the entire campaign. Take Van Dyke out of Liverpool or Saliba out of Arsenal, and they are different teams.
3) We are significantly weaker in attack than any period post-Fergie. Bruno is the only player in the attack you can hang your hat on. Any manager will struggle with this collection as it's clearly a young attack based on potential rather than current delivery. I'll concede that Antony is a massive red flag over Ten Hag, as he's been awful, but I still think that comes back to our incompetent recruitment team above anything else.
4) Over the course of the season, I agree. In isolated games and moments when everyone is fit, I don't agree. The performances against Barcelona last season, Bayern early in this season, and Liverpool this season (to name a few) have been as good as any performances we have served up. Now, the unknown is whether the inconsistencies are caused by coaching, tactics or personnel. We have shown in certain moments and certain games that we are capable of reaching a very high level, but it's the inconsistency that is killing us. I'd argue a lot of that inconsistency will occur regardless of a manager with this current squad because there are too many players who are either individually not good enough or simply don't fit the tactical game plan.
5) The context is absolutely important, and if you aren't willing to recognise that, then we will just be here in three years' time again with the next manager. The manager and wider team can only perform relative to realistic expectations. That is not an erosion of standards; it's an acceptance that so much work still needs to be done.
6) Final point: absolutely nobody has said this. I'm not supporting with blind faith but with a reasoned analysis based on where we are. You can disagree; that's fine. You can want a new manager; that's also fine. But pretending that anyone willing to give Ten Hag another season is blindly believing he's an infallible god is nonsense and frankly lowers the entire discussion on the board.

 

[VP89]

That's the thing though I do believe he is capable of being adaptable and a bit more pragmatic when needed. But going off this season he has displayed an unhealthy stubbornness.

I doubt whatever he's persevered with this season came from Murtagh. I think this was Ten Hags idea and he was too proud to change it when it clearly wasn't working.

Not sure I can see Ineos being open to continuing this experiment. And if they don't I'm interested to see if they think Ten Hags open to taking direction from them.

Well he's come out and said he's playing the way that the higher ups wanted and he was aligned with that.

He also said he isn't playing Ajax style because he doesn't have the players. He has said on top that they made a decision (not him) to focus on youth project players in attack. So it's quite likely he's adapting to the style he's been narrated, and I think hed be adaptable to the narrated style from Wilcox too.

What I do agree with you on is stubbornness. I'm sure Murtough didn't hold a gun to his head when the style wasn't working and force him to continue with it. He likely had too much pride than to see it fail.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

But he has had more players through the door (that he asked for) for more money in his first two summers of any manager of a big club ever, maybe except for Pep (not sure) and Jose when he arrived at Chelsea.

I don't agree, he's had a comparable squad turnover to most managers. The situation with our current squad is that irrespective of any manager we absolutely do require a significant turnover of players to improve. Unless you believe this squad is actually good enough?

 

[The Mitcher]

To be fair, as much as I’d want baldy out, two data points does not make a trend.

It's not about proving a trend, it's about debunking the idea that Arsenal's progression was not linear.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

Slight reconstruction really look at the first season Arsenal challenged for the league this is the bulk of first team quality who they signed: G.Jesus, Partey, Odegaard, Zinchenko, Ramsdale and White. Erik has had: Casemiro, Anthony, Martinez, Eriksen, Mount and Hojlund that's enough to form a definitive first team.

The success with Arteta isn't in the example of Arsenal signing quality players, but the system the players have flourished under. I think with the exception of Rice every single pivotal player Arsenal have purchased has outdone themselves taking into consideration what their perceived value was before moving across.

This is a stark contrast to Erik where the more players he's accumulated the more disillusioned the team has looked as time progresses itself. Most important trajectory with a manager is what they are building towards and nothing with Erik has shown sustainability from a tactical / systemic perspective. He's spent the whole season implementing a failing system that was disproportionate the first game of the season with a fully fit team.

Good post, and I don't disagree with you. I just place a larger part of the blame on the recruitment team that has failed us over a ten-year period as opposed to placing all that blame on the manager. Of those signings, Martinez improves us tenfold; he's our best CB by a distance but hasn't been available all season; that's like Arteta missing Saliba a full season and that absolutely would have a significant impact on them as a side. Because we have wasted so much money prior to Ten Hag, he's also been made to make do with some signings. Eriksen, for example, I'd argue is a good signing for free to help within a season, but we clearly couldn't expect him to make a significant long-term impact at his age. Hojland is a project, and while he's struggled individually at times, I think he will prove to be a fantastic signing, but as with any young player, you take highs and lows. The obvious exception is Anthony and I agree completely he's a red flag on Ten Hag. The money wasted on him could have got us two better and more suited players. How much of that, again though, falls on a recruitment team that hasn't managed to find us many successes over a ten-year period, far before Ten Hag even arrived?

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

Why on Earth people insist on this? Here is a graph:

x-asis is the year, y-axis number of points.

Except in the fourth year when there was a massive jump, he basically improved over each season with almost the same amount of points.

Year 1 to 2: +5 points
Year 2 to 3: +8 points
Year 3 to 4: +15 points
Year 4 to 5: +5 points (assuming he wins the match this weekend).

That is very close to linear.

Now, see the Arteta vs EtH graph:

Do you see the similarities between them? No, you do not. Because there aren't any.

NB: You get a similar picture in goals scored, goal difference etc.

Sorry, I missed this one replying to about 20 different posts. Interesting data thanks for presenting it. What I see here, though, is three years of an Arsenal team barely scraping 70 points and then jumping almost out of nowhere to close to closer to 90; sure, it looks linear on a graph, but in reality, nobody expected a team to jump up that quickly in one season. Ten Hag, by comparison, overperformed last season (arguably to the absolute maximum the team could achieve). Would it have been better to underperform last season and start at 60 points just to make this season more palatable? Arsenal looked to be going nowhere, its revisionism to pretend they had some masterful style of play developing, they were poor for 2 and a half seasons then after finally sorting out their squad they made a significant (and unpredictable) leap.

 

[Revan]

Sorry, I missed this one replying to about 20 different posts. Interesting data thanks for presenting it. What I see here, though, is three years of an Arsenal team barely scraping 70 points and then jumping almost out of nowhere to close to closer to 90; sure, it looks linear on a graph, but in reality, nobody expected a team to jump up that quickly in one season. Ten Hag, by comparison, overperformed last season (arguably to the absolute maximum the team could achieve). Would it have been better to underperform last season and start at 60 points just to make this season more palatable? Arsenal looked to be going nowhere, its revisionism to pretend they had some masterful style of play developing, they were poor for 2 and a half seasons then after finally sorting out their squad they made a significant (and unpredictable) leap.

I think the main difference is that the 'non-linear progress' and 'two steps forward, one back' never really happened with Arteta. It was some incremental progress for 2 seasons, followed by a really great season, and then some further incremental progress. But they consistently improved.

I think we can clearly say that is not the case with EtH, and this season, can be described as a 'horror' season. Even the most EtH sceptics would have laughed at the beginning of season if someone predicted that it would be this bad. So, I do not think that there are many analogies between EtH and Arteta. BTW, even if EtH would have had a very bad season last one, nothing would have justified this season (which is actually worse than Arteta's second).

Furthermore, the other big difference is that Arteta was a rookie manager, in his first job, having had just a couple of years experience in coaching. He was supposed to fail, and to learn in tje job. At the contrary, this is EtH's 5th managerial jobs, and he has been coaching since 2004. So I think it is a bit similar to comparing Garnacho and Rashford, you expect Garnacho to learn from experience but less so for Rashford who is already heavy experienced.

 

[DJ_21]

But he has had more players through the door (that he asked for) for more money in his first two summers of any manager of a big club ever, maybe except for Pep (not sure) and Jose when he arrived at Chelsea.

People keep mentioning the transfers and the money he’s spent. Surely that blame goes to the people actually signing the players no? ETH has had no one to say no to him or try and sign an alternative. This is what we’re getting in the summer, they’ll be people making sure ETH or whoever the new manager may be isn’t wasting money and signings on useless players.

 

[JPRouve]

I think the main difference is that the 'non-linear progress' and 'two steps forward, one back' never really happened with Arteta. It was some incremental progress for 2 seasons, followed by a really great season, and then some further incremental progress. But they consistently improved.

I think we can clearly say that is not the case with EtH, and this season, can be described as a 'horror' season. Even the most EtH sceptics would have laughed at the beginning of season if someone predicted that it would be this bad. So, I do not think that there are many analogies between EtH and Arteta. BTW, even if EtH would have had a very bad season last one, nothing would have justified this season (which is actually worse than Arteta's second).

Furthermore, the other big difference is that Arteta was a rookie manager, in his first job, having had just a couple of years experience in coaching. He was supposed to fail, and to learn in tje job. At the contrary, this is EtH's 5th managerial jobs, and he has been coaching since 2004. So I think it is a bit similar to comparing Garnacho and Rashford, you expect Garnacho to learn from experience but less so for Rashford who is already heavy experienced.

And Arsenal had not been in the top 4 for 3 straight seasons, they were a bona fide EL team. So we have two things when it comes Arteta and Arsenal, they improved every seasons and he joined them from a lower point.

The goalpost moving is unreal and not necessary, people can just choose an other example, one that would actually fit.

 

[Scandi Red]

I admire the zen-like patience of the 27% who voted keep.

 

[hobbers]

People keep mentioning the transfers and the money he’s spent. Surely that blame goes to the people actually signing the players no? ETH has had no one to say no to him or try and sign an alternative. This is what we’re getting in the summer, they’ll be people making sure ETH or whoever the new manager may be isn’t wasting money and signings on useless players.

But the point I'm making there is that he got more of his choices of signings in the door, at any expense, in his first two seasons than most other managers in similar positions re expectations and spending power. Including Arteta and Klopp.

He signed 11/25 players in our current squad. If you include youth players promoted (Garnacho, Mainoo, Kambwala) and major new contracts (Shaw, Rashford, Dalot) that number jumps to 17/25.

That's an unusually high amount of influence for a manager to have on a squad in only 18 months.

 

[mu4c_20le]

I admire the zen-like patience of the 27% who voted keep.

It shot up 7% since palace

 

[Posh Red]

But the point I'm making there is that he got more of his choices of signings in the door, at any expense, in his first two seasons than most other managers in similar positions re expectations and spending power. Including Arteta and Klopp.

He signed 11/25 players in our current squad. If you include youth players promoted (Garnacho, Mainoo, Kambwala) and major new contracts (Shaw, Rashford, Dalot) that number jumps to 17/25.

That's an unusually high amount of influence for a manager to have on a squad in only 18 months.

And that’s exactly the problem. We haven’t seen the other top managers left to their own devices in such a way. Who knows how well they would have done if they had to rely on their own knowledge of the transfer market, rather than benefitting from ongoing expert assistance.

 

[spwd]

Thats on you to think that he is a Moyes level manager which is far from truth.

This is bonkers. Please explain why he's a far better manager than moyes because he quite clearly isn't.