How have Manchester United become a club full of people 'learning on the job'? | The Athletic

[Hoof the ball]

Adam Crafton, Oliver Kay, Laurie Whitwell, Mark Chapman discussing this on The Athletic Podcast.

About 14 mins long.

 

[Champ]

Love to know what Begiristain was doing at Barca when he got appointed, if not learning on the job, or Van Der Sar at Ajax, or Rummenigge at Bayern etc etc.

The Athletic are beginning to be the biggest trolls in modern football journalism, what with their obsession with poor Tifo videos and podcasts deliberately designed to ruffle the feathers of fans.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

It's OK having one person learning on the job, not just about the whole managing and coaching setup.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

What is Mike Phelan's excuse then?

 

[::sonny::]

Because Mourinho and Van Gaal didn’t worked

 

[DomesticTadpole]

What is Mike Phelan's excuse then?

That he worked with one of the greatest managers of all time, now he has Ole. He now doesn't have SAF's aura and experience to fall back on.

 

[Revan]

Love to know what Begiristain was doing at Barca when he got appointed, if not learning on the job, or Van Der Sar at Ajax, or Rummenigge at Bayern etc etc.

The Athletic are beginning to be the biggest trolls in modern football journalism, what with their obsession with poor Tifo videos and podcasts deliberately designed to ruffle the feathers of fans.

Learning in the job is fine. Everyone learning in the job is not fine though.

For example, we have Ole, McKenna and Carrick learning in the job from the coaching stuff. We have Mutrough and Fletcher learning in the job as DoF and technical director. We will have Arnold learning in the job as CEO in two months.

It is a bit too much, isn't it?

 

[Ikon]

Learning in the job is fine. Everyone learning in the job is not fine though.
For example, we have Ole, McKenna and Carrick learning in the job from the coaching stuff. We have Mutrough and Fletcher learning in the job as DoF and technical director. We will have Arnold learning in the job as CEO in two months.
It is a bit too much, isn't it?

And the point is, WHO are they actually learning from, because the only experienced head I see is Phelan.
So when we say 'learning on the job' what we really mean is "fumbling about in the dark, and hopefully learning from their own mistakes"

 

[Pexbo]

The point in the title was a good one and one that Crafton raised well, it’s just a shame the other three essentially glossed over it because they wanted to raise their own questions and comments that have been discussed god knows how many times.

Crafton was actually visibly a bit perplexed that they all started responding to his point as if he had said something else entirely.

 

[Flytan]

Any well run club would never have hired Ole permanently in the first place. It's that obvious. He was hired because the power people in the club (SAF included) have deluded themselves into living in the past whether they legitimately think it's the best way (SAF) or because it appeals to the fans which earns them more money (rest).

 

[Bastian]

Don't worry. They are all working very hard, so hard in fact that it is affecting their personal lives. And they won't stop until they've rectified all their mistakes with new mistakes.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Adam Crafton, Oliver Kay, Laurie Whitwell, Mark Chapman discussing this on The Athletic Podcast.

About 14 mins long.

Shite that, spending way too much time banging on about “how good is Maguire”, “why is Fred the go to man”, “how is Lingard not getting more chances” etc. As if any of those things are the real issue here.

Not enough time talking about how fecking horrendously naive we are and how we have no style of play or gameplan after 3 years of this management.

 

[Desert Eagle]

And the point is, WHO are they actually learning from, because the only experienced head I see is Phelan.
So when we say 'learning on the job' what we really mean is "fumbling about in the dark, and hopefully learning from their own mistakes"

great point

 

[Revan]

And the point is, WHO are they actually learning from, because the only experienced head I see is Phelan.
So when we say 'learning on the job' what we really mean is "fumbling about in the dark, and hopefully learning from their own mistakes"

Yup, indeed. Fergie for example could have afforded some newbie coach under him, cause he had the likes of Queiroz and later Maulensteen. Carrick and McKenna have each other. To be fair, it is a fecking disgrace that Ole does not do coaching (the main job of the manager), but that is for another matter.

Arnold is learning under Woodward. Who was a total failure.

Fletcher is learning under Murtough. Whose experience was running the academy and the women's team.

it is fecking absurd. No person in the hierarchy is anywhere remotely near qualified to do the job they are doing.

 

[Woodzy]

Because mates.

 

[monosierra]

Its just not good enough. We are not a start-up in its nascent days. This is supposed to be a top football club with world class players. If the new coaching staff is indeed bringing in fresh ideas and innovative tactics like Nagelsmann or young Klopp was, then it is fine as well. But we are not playing like a team that has been coached, drilled, or strategized well. And even then, those 2 examples took years before moving on to bigger clubs that expect to contend for trophies.

The United way is NOT winning matches by the skin of our teeth when it shouldn't even have been that close.

 

[#07]

Shite that, spending way too much time banging on about “how good is Maguire”, “why is Fred the go to man”, “how is Lingard not getting more chances” etc. As if any of those things are the real issue here.

Not enough time talking about how fecking horrendously naive we are and how we have no style of play or gameplan after 3 years of this management.

Actually, for me, the real question is: Why did Ole abandon his most successful, most well coached idea of counter attacking football.

This is the million dollar question, the one I want answered, the one the press aren't talking about it.

Gary Neville has alluded to it. Rio Ferdinand has too. Scholes has pretty directly said it. Yet in Ole's pressers and among the press pack in general there's no real analysis of this question.

Up until recently everyone knew what we were: A counterattacking team. That was our default and we did it well.

Ole and the coaching staff decided to abandon that. Nobody's asking them why. We deserve answers. 100 per cent, last season Ole would not have set up to play Liverpool by chasing them about randomly. We have seen Ole face Klopp enough times to know, usually, he goes cautious. He plays for quick breaks. Why change it now? Its delivered the worst result in the history of Man Utd. Why aren't people asking him directly: 'Why did you do this? What did you expect to happen by doing this?'

That's what annoys me most about football journalists. They offer next to no insight.

People still talking about player X and player Y are missing the big picture. The whole structure and approach is wrong. You could have Roy Keane and Bryan Robson in our midfield. It wouldn't matter if our lines are so far apart that they're constantly outnumbered.

Why is nobody asking Ole about his actual tactics? Cos the way I see it: This is his fault. He has made the decision to leave the counter attacking and go with this garbage that we're watching.

 

[ExoduS]

We did the right thing hiring Ole full time. Results were good and playstyle was easy on the eye. What happened after is a disaster and could have probably happen to another manager.

Ole made some disasterous decisions afterwards and that is on him not on those who hired him.

He was given an opportunity of a lifetime and he blew it. He is a nice, but weak man. Being a manager of a top club requires much much more.

 

[telstar96]

And the point is, WHO are they actually learning from, because the only experienced head I see is Phelan.
So when we say 'learning on the job' what we really mean is "fumbling about in the dark, and hopefully learning from their own mistakes"

And what a worse environment to expose this fact than one of the biggest clubs in the world with expectations to win league titles and European trophies. Regardless of how talented these guys could be in the future, they're being set up to fail with this level of responsibility whilst having zero credibility.

 

[Regalia]

Because mates.

And vibes. And something something about a wheel.

 

[pocco]

Without watching, who does it suggest is learning on the job? Surely not Ole, who has been managing as long as Pep. Where was Ole when Pep was going toe to toe with Fergie and winning, about 10 years ago?

 

[Adam-Utd]

Actually, for me, the real question is: Why did Ole abandon his most successful, most well coached idea of counter attacking football.

This is the million dollar question, the one I want answered, the one the press aren't talking about it.

Gary Neville has alluded to it. Rio Ferdinand has too. Scholes has pretty directly said it. Yet in Ole's pressers and among the press pack in general there's no real analysis of this question.

Up until recently everyone knew what we were: A counterattacking team. That was our default and we did it well.

Ole and the coaching staff decided to abandon that. Nobody's asking them why. We deserve answers. 100 per cent, last season Ole would not have set up to play Liverpool by chasing them about randomly. We have seen Ole face Klopp enough times to know, usually, he goes cautious. He plays for quick breaks. Why change it now? Its delivered the worst result in the history of Man Utd. Why aren't people asking him directly: 'Why did you do this? What did you expect to happen by doing this?'

That's what annoys me most about football journalists. They offer next to no insight.

People still talking about player X and player Y are missing the big picture. The whole structure and approach is wrong. You could have Roy Keane and Bryan Robson in our midfield. It wouldn't matter if our lines are so far apart that they're constantly outnumbered.

Why is nobody asking Ole about his actual tactics? Cos the way I see it: This is his fault. He has made the decision to leave the counter attacking and go with this garbage that we're watching.

I don't think we could win the league counter attacking.

It's something that we did eventually need to modernise towards - we just can't do it properly.

 

[Rash Decision]

Actually, for me, the real question is: Why did Ole abandon his most successful, most well coached idea of counter attacking football.

This is the million dollar question, the one I want answered, the one the press aren't talking about it.

Gary Neville has alluded to it. Rio Ferdinand has too. Scholes has pretty directly said it. Yet in Ole's pressers and among the press pack in general there's no real analysis of this question.

Up until recently everyone knew what we were: A counterattacking team. That was our default and we did it well.

Ole and the coaching staff decided to abandon that. Nobody's asking them why. We deserve answers. 100 per cent, last season Ole would not have set up to play Liverpool by chasing them about randomly. We have seen Ole face Klopp enough times to know, usually, he goes cautious. He plays for quick breaks. Why change it now? Its delivered the worst result in the history of Man Utd. Why aren't people asking him directly: 'Why did you do this? What did you expect to happen by doing this?'

That's what annoys me most about football journalists. They offer next to no insight.

People still talking about player X and player Y are missing the big picture. The whole structure and approach is wrong. You could have Roy Keane and Bryan Robson in our midfield. It wouldn't matter if our lines are so far apart that they're constantly outnumbered.

Why is nobody asking Ole about his actual tactics? Cos the way I see it: This is his fault. He has made the decision to leave the counter attacking and go with this garbage that we're watching.

I think Ole came in with a three year plan that must have included winning big trophies along with front foot, attacking football once he had gotten his squad together in his third season. He’s trying to deliver on that now but never realised how woefully inadequate he and his team are to do so. Purely my speculation of course.

 

[pascell]

And the point is, WHO are they actually learning from, because the only experienced head I see is Phelan.
So when we say 'learning on the job' what we really mean is "fumbling about in the dark, and hopefully learning from their own mistakes"

Wouldn't surprise me if they're all learning off Phelan.

 

[Enigma_87]

We did the right thing hiring Ole full time. Results were good and playstyle was easy on the eye. What happened after is a disaster and could have probably happen to another manager.

Ole made some disasterous decisions afterwards and that is on him not on those who hired him.

He was given an opportunity of a lifetime and he blew it. He is a nice, but weak man. Being a manager of a top club requires much much more.

we actually didn't. Had he be evaluated in May instead of February I doubt he'd be given another year.

 

[#07]

I think Ole came in with a three year plan that must have included winning big trophies along with front foot, attacking football once he had gotten his squad together in his third season. He’s trying to deliver on that now but never realised how woefully inadequate he and his team are to do so. Purely my speculation of course.

You're probably right. However, he should be challenged on this by the media. Instead of them going back to the tired questions about Van de Beek.

They should be demanding he explains his idea. Plus they should be asking, if he sees its not working (which we can all see), why he keeps going with it.

 

[gajender]

Get a good manager in who knows what he is doing these things would suddenly seem trivial.

 

[Tom Cato]

Without watching, who does it suggest is learning on the job? Surely not Ole, who has been managing as long as Pep. Where was Ole when Pep was going toe to toe with Fergie and winning, about 10 years ago?

Coaching the Manchester United reserve setup at the start of his career.

 

[tomaldinho1]

The Athletic's standards have plummeted and they are just wums, preying on fan hysteria.

Ole is not inexperienced, he started coaching first team football in 2010, 1 year after Pep. Phelan is very experienced. That's the Manager & Assistant Manager and probably combined one of the most experienced pairings in the league.. Issue isn't people learning on the job, it's just bad hiring.

 

[Blood Mage]

I don't agree with the learning on the job narrative, Ole has been coaching for years. The fact is he's as good now as he'll ever be and he isn't good enough, that's all there is to it. Carrick and Fletcher are learning on the job maybe but that's it.

 

[GregM40]

Why is nobody asking Ole about his actual tactics? Cos the way I see it: This is his fault. He has made the decision to leave the counter attacking and go with this garbage that we're watching.

Agreed. I think the problem was we couldn't beat teams who just sat back against us if we were set to constantly counter, but that's not to say we shouldn't be reverting to these tactics in games such as the one on Sunday. We can't control possession against literally anyone so not sure how we go toe to toe with the best teams in the league, or even anyone at this rate!

We should undoubtedly revert to a counter attacking system against City as it has worked numerous times, albeit usually better away from home, but gives us a fighting chance at least.

 

[Norman Brownbutter]

We did the right thing hiring Ole full time. Results were good and playstyle was easy on the eye. What happened after is a disaster and could have probably happen to another manager.

Ole made some disasterous decisions afterwards and that is on him not on those who hired him.

He was given an opportunity of a lifetime and he blew it. He is a nice, but weak man. Being a manager of a top club requires much much more.

No we didnt. All we saw at that point was "good vibes". We had no idea how he could manage the team after a loss, or a run of losses. We had no idea how he could invigorate a team that was mentally struggling. We confused being happy about Jose being gone, with joy that Ole was coming in. It didnt matter who came in, the cloud of Jose being gone was always going to lift everyones spirits. After that night in Paris, we went 5 wins in 24 games. Thats relegation material, and its when we started heavily relying on individual moments of brilliance. Bruno came in and started well, once again papering over the cracks.

The right thing, was to wait until the end of the season as was the plan so that we could get a full picture of the man in charge. Its not like anyone else was coming in for him and we had to lock him down. We just gave him another big contract, again before it was needed. Because just like before, no one else wants him. Three years in charge of united and not even Cardiff fans want him back. Which is pretty damning in itself.

 

[Desert Eagle]

Actually, for me, the real question is: Why did Ole abandon his most successful, most well coached idea of counter attacking football.

This is the million dollar question, the one I want answered, the one the press aren't talking about it.

Gary Neville has alluded to it. Rio Ferdinand has too. Scholes has pretty directly said it. Yet in Ole's pressers and among the press pack in general there's no real analysis of this question.

Up until recently everyone knew what we were: A counterattacking team. That was our default and we did it well.

Ole and the coaching staff decided to abandon that. Nobody's asking them why. We deserve answers. 100 per cent, last season Ole would not have set up to play Liverpool by chasing them about randomly. We have seen Ole face Klopp enough times to know, usually, he goes cautious. He plays for quick breaks. Why change it now? Its delivered the worst result in the history of Man Utd. Why aren't people asking him directly: 'Why did you do this? What did you expect to happen by doing this?'

That's what annoys me most about football journalists. They offer next to no insight.

People still talking about player X and player Y are missing the big picture. The whole structure and approach is wrong. You could have Roy Keane and Bryan Robson in our midfield. It wouldn't matter if our lines are so far apart that they're constantly outnumbered.

Why is nobody asking Ole about his actual tactics? Cos the way I see it: This is his fault. He has made the decision to leave the counter attacking and go with this garbage that we're watching.

I think the answer is Ronaldo and Oles belief that better players automatically = better football. Bit harder to play counter attack with an aging Ronaldo I reckon. Getting Varane and Sancho has also resulted in a bolder Ole and his suicidal 4-2-4 formation.

 

[Abraxas]

Yes, this is a very real problem.

I don't consider Ole to be "learning on the job" though. Not in any aspect. He knows the club as well as just about anybody. Yes, it's his first big job. But at this point he's not a rookie within management. He's managed hundreds of football matches. I'm not sure where it comes from, he must be close to his maximum of what he can do as a manager in the respect that he's not old and weathered, but he's got matches under his belt at a top level that he should have learnt from.

The other staff do not have the background and experience one would expect, however. Particularly on the strategic side, we have men that don't have a history in sporting operations and that isn't a good point as they also answer to men that are absent. There is no accountability there. I don't think it took long to realise Gill was a gigantic loss. But Gill isn't the only qualified man, the Glazers simply refuse to appoint outside their bubble.

 

[The White Pele]

It’s down to the fact that we had no footballing structure in place at the club until long after Ferguson left and are now trying to build one.

Therefore we have new roles at the club to be filled and no organic succession happening. I think we have been a bit reluctant to just bring people in from elsewhere because of this feeling that United needs an identity of its own and not just to mimic what has been done elsewhere.

I agree that we need our own identity but we have not identified and managed internal candidates into these roles well enough and they have no predecessors to look up to and learn from. Without any outside perspective my concern would be that we have no idea of what success looks like in these roles.

Who can judge if Fletcher is a good technical director or even that his responsibilities are the right ones if there is no benchmark from before to judge against.

 

[OmarUnited4ever]

Learning in the job is fine. Everyone learning in the job is not fine though.

For example, we have Ole, McKenna and Carrick learning in the job from the coaching stuff. We have Mutrough and Fletcher learning in the job as DoF and technical director. We will have Arnold learning in the job as CEO in two months.

It is a bit too much, isn't it?

Exactly this, and other clubs like Bayern, have a setup in place and a succession plan for key figures, so if one key people leaves, the newly appointed person, although learning on the job, will have the support of an existing setup.

Right now even though there a football structure at the club, it still has a lot of new and inexperienced people in it, except for few names like Phelan, Bout & Lawler

 

[Jibbs]

Mates-cheaters United

 

[Enigma_87]

Yes, this is a very real problem.

I don't consider Ole to be "learning on the job" though. Not in any aspect. He knows the club as well as just about anybody. Yes, it's his first big job. But at this point he's not a rookie within management. He's managed hundreds of football matches. I'm not sure where it comes from, he's not a rookie anymore - he must be close to his maximum of what he can do as a manager in the respect that he's not old and weathered, but he's got matches under his belt

The other staff do not have the background and experience one would expect, however. Particularly on the strategic side, we have men that don't have a history in sporting operations and that isn't a good point as they also answer to men that are absent. There is no accountability there.

In a tin pot league and on road to double relegation stint at Cardiff. He was an absolute rookie at the job.

 

[ti vu]

Adam Crafton, Oliver Kay, Laurie Whitwell, Mark Chapman discussing this on The Athletic Podcast.

About 14 mins long.

It is boiled down to let find another SAF deluded plan really. Even as great as he was when the took our job, he needed time to learn on the job. He himself, and the people at the club bought into the wrong idea about time is the solution to our issue.

However, it's not gonna work with 99.99% the manager, especially the football world is very different now. You need a manager with huge huge potential, and if he's that good, he would have at least demonstrated it already at a decent level. The club is bigger now, and with higher demand now considering there is more competition and more is at stake. A few years of mediocrity would take as long if not longer to rectify as well as requiring costly investment. Now, good upcoming managers ain't going under radar that frequent and for so long.

 

[Hoof the ball]

Actually, for me, the real question is: Why did Ole abandon his most successful, most well coached idea of counter attacking football.

Weaker teams learned that they were most vulnerable against Ole's 4-2-4 (With Bruno right up it basically is) when they attacked us, and so a whole range of mid-table clubs and lower-half clubs started conceding possession and asking us to attack them with men behind the ball, leading to a recurring problem; Our inability to break them down, and our inability to prevent an effective counter-attack. And thus, about 70% of the games we now face teams who don't allow us to counter-attack, ending in frustrating stalemates against defensive blocks, and worse, points dropped versus opposition we shouldn't drop them against.

This is why going back to it won't work, because most teams won't do what Leeds and Atalanta do.

An even more pressing point is this. We have to get away from the idea that we're a counter-attacking team or Pep is a possession team. If you're any one thing you're easy to counter. Pep's City can keep the ball and move it better than anyone, yet, look at their transitions when they win the ball. Their counter-attacking and ability to turn any situation into a 3-on-2 or 3-on-1 situation is excellent. Same with Liverpool. Able to play possession and counter equally. The point is that teams should be looking to be better at transitions in all positions of the field, and not focusing on being a counter-from-deep team specifically. It limits you.