Is the United Way an actual style of football or emotional romanticising of previous eras?

[Abraxas]

How could it possibly be a playing style. The idea we had a dogmatic approach over a hugely successful, and long period makes no sense. We had to adapt, just like we have to adapt now, whether we have failed to or simply implemented ideas wrongly.

If anything, it's probably better to say the United Way encapsulates a few key principles and most of it isn't much to do with playing style. It's probably not particularly unique either, but that doesn't mean it's unimportant.

Attacking football, i.e. taking the game to the opposition. This doesn't mean black or white, we either counter attack or we win possession and control the ball. We aim to do both against the vast majority of sides. We did that in our best days and the top sides do it now.

Winning. People constantly talk about what is acceptable in the pursuit of aesthetics but it's a moot point because we have to do both. The fact is not many sides fiddle their way to titles, the majority of them are won by dominant sides.

Giving youth a chance. No point at all in the youth structure and these seemingly talented players we poach from round Europe if the footballing structure is reluctant to take risks.

To me that's all that stands out as particularly crucial and most of it is just common sense and doesn't require adherence to decades old ideas.

 

[Blood Mage]

It's becoming an empty platitude for sure since we haven't been honouring our supposed traditions (attacking football, winning trophies, youth development) for eight years. The only 'United Way' I see nowadays is incompetent people clinging onto jobs at the club because they have mates in the boardroom. A boys club culture which I hope Rangnick tears down.

 

[mav_9me]

The only United way is general attacking football. And having youth as a big part of the first team. Tbh the United way is really Busby and Fergie way no?

 

[Daengophile]

Bollocks.

I'm going to assume that Mensa rejected your application.

Very quickly

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Nostalgia.

 

[monosierra]

To most fans and to the marketers - that is, those who came to know the club with the success under SAF - it is a romanticism sprung from our success in the '90s/'00s that has devolved into the idea that United is destined for greatness and that we will somehow pull out a last minute winner out of nothing - which unfortunately translates into "Give it more time, it will work out in the end!" when it came to running the club.

Now if you consider United's entire history, especially its role as a pillar of the local community, then it speaks to the club ethos and values - not so much the type of game played but the things the club does as an institution. This has eroded somewhat as the club has turned into a portion - a big portion but a portion nonetheless - of a global marketing juggernaut.

 

[Grande]

Because "magic" is vague and every team can say they have it, grit is something every team has or works towards, every team has speed, youth and drama is every team.

Not only this but we are not stand out in these, nor have we been consistent in these.

A lot of hollow words with player names written next to them.

Why are you comparing United to managers and not clubs?

Depends what you mean by favourite team, I think Peps Barcelona played the best football. My fav United team was probably 2008, though I did like the earlier 90s team.

That 2008 team had a well organised team, it was well balanced, it was dangerous with some amazing link up play from the forwards, we attacked space well and instinctly.

It seems to me you don’t really know too much about earlier generations of Man United, which is fair and not a necessity, but it is a good idea to be less self assured about dismissing it then.

Internal history matters, it’s not just a question of words, and wether it’s vague or crystal clear doesn’t remove the reality of it. If you don’t believe it, you may wonder why Dave Sexton was fired after winning seven consecutive matches at the end of his last season (a club record then, I believe). Yes, we finished eightome would have seen it as a turn around for a manager who had impressed at his previous job, but Sexton’s biggest problem was that the football was considered too dull and cautious by United fans, and that affected the board as well. His brand of football was accepted at Chelsea on the whole and QPR, but he became very unpopular at a club where lot’s of people remembered Georgie Best and the tune on the terraces was Glory, Glory. Van Gaal’s sacking after winning the FA cup final also had aspects of this.

Some clubs have ‘hangups’ like this, most don’t. It can be a hindrance to success in some ways. But the truth is also that it’s part of what builds cohesiveness in a big organization, and it’s a huge part of what makes some clubs into world phenomenons and economical juggernauts which again brings more success.

Alex Ferguson studied the United history deeply, and used it extensively when talking to players, board and staff. Why do you think he did so? And don’t you think it played a part in the board accepting results from him that would have seen any previous United manager sacked several times over?

We both agree many clubs if not all love guts, exhilaration and panache to a large degree, but that completely misses the point. The point with the DNA term (which Rangnick is a big fan of) is that at some clubs the expectations of certain ethos is so strong that you have very little chance of success if you work against it rather than within it. Simeone could never have a lengthy spell at Barca or Real for this reason, at Ajax you have a hell of a climb if you disavow the tenets of total footbal, while at Athletic you have to be a basque. Arsenal love attacking football, but George Graham’s 1-0 football was fully accepted there. As long as you win enough, almost anything is accepted to a degree, but most managers have ups and downs, and that’s when a Solskjær will get more leeway than a Mourinho at United.

 

[MattJ166]

I don't see the United way as a playing style, but a culture. We're set up and have always set up as the gentlemen of football. We expect a certain standard of behavior for the majority of our staff, players and management alike. Unlike a team like PSG, we expect players will honor and respect the club off the pitch and in turn the club will do the same for the players. Under Fergie, this came in the form of giving youth a chance and letting players who would otherwise have been pushed out due to their age stay a bit longer and leave in an honorable manner.

I think this probably best summarises what it means for me when I think of the United way. Yes we could be absolute b*stards on the pitch and the desire to win was always there but the United way is how we operate holistically. Very rarely would you find a United player in too much scandal, although it obviously happened (Giggs, Best i'm looking at you lads). We will always give youth a chance and that youth is primarily English / Irish youth which helps support our local lads, if a player has played for us the club will do it's best to look after them in any way, shape or form and they will always be welcome back (One of the reasons Mourinho was so toxic). I also think it's why so many people get on Pogba's back as his agent is constantly bad mouthing the club and leaking that he wants to leave.

The club is or rather was loyal to it's players and we expect that loyalty in return.

The attacking football is a supplementary bonus to our ethos.