Is there anyone left who wants to defend lvg now?

[Rolandofgilead]

i'm not sure that I am defending LVG or if i am just playing devils advocate but whichever it is, here goes.

One of the biggest criticisms that LVG has faced is playing boring, negative football. It's something most of the posters on here haven't faced before, finishing outside of the top 3 isn't something many of the posters on here have faced before, I have i remember finishing 13th and believe me in jan/feb of that year relegation was looking like a real possibility. Now I don't say this to claim to be a 'red that is tops' I say it to point out that despite the clubs rip-roaring success over the past 2 decades, it hasn't always been that way and I think that the decline in form and possibly status over the past 2 years has felt worse then it actually is due to the fact that a lot of the fan base is used to winning.

Is it possible that the negative, defensive and boring football played is actually serving a purpose? I ask because it seems to me that on the two occasions that we have attempted to attack this season that I recall have ended in a 3-2 defeat away at Wolfsburg and a 3-3 draw away at Newcastle. Is it a case that we sit deeper and neglect to attack at will simply because we know that our back four isn't up to the job? I mean, looking at it objectively, Chris Smalling was taking so much abuse from this forum last year and many on here were actually asking for him to be sold in the summer, yet after a lot of 0-0s he was suddenly heralded by the very same posters as the second coming of Bobby Moore. In both games mentioned above where we attacked more and threw more caution to the wind, Smalling was exposed and had his 2 worst games of the season. Follow this up with his defensive partner for much of the season being Daley Blind an unrecognised centre half who struggles for both height and pace and our centre half partnership isn't exactly something to write home about. Then the other options to partner smalling is either Phil Jones, who as we know is prone to the odd injury as well as the odd mishap or Marcus Rojo and to be frank, the jury is still well and truly out on him.

Then we move on to the full back situation. at the start of the season we had Darmain playing down the right side and Luke Shaw down the left. it was golden because they brought attacking options, both love to get forward, both have decent end products when they get forward and both are defensively solid, so when Luke Shaw had his leg broken we were left very short in the left back department and as a result we have switched Darmain over to the left side and play Ashley Young down the right, which is fine as far as attacking options go, at least down the right side as Ashley loves to bomb on, but it causes problems for two reasons. 1 Because Darmains left foot is weaker then his right and 2 Because Ashley Young is not defensively solid. So it leaves us with full backs that aren't as strong as at the beginning of the season and centre halves that will crumble under serious pressure or when exposed on the counter attack.

I bring up the full backs as an issue because it is one NOW, but as i said before, at the start of the season it wasn't an issue, but the centre half partnership still was an issue, could this be why we were reported to have attempted a move for John Stones? could it be why we were linked so heavily to Sergio Ramos? possibly, but it could also be the reason that we set up in such a negative, protective 4-2-3-1.

Once you have set up to protect and not to concede you then have a problem if your strike force isn't firing, which it clearly hasn't been. If we create five clear cut chances in a game, we can expect to take 1, surely? But Rooneys form until recently has been poor, although to his credit he has started 2016 with a bang and is still our top scorer with 11 this season, memphis took time to adapt and in recent weeks has looked sharper, Martial is going to be one hell of a player IMO but it wil also take time to adapt no matter how much we spent on him. Mata has been awful in the past 2 months but players suffer dips of form, that's a footballing fact.

So we need to find a balance, we need to be able to absorb pressure and protect the back four whilst being able to take our chances, something we haven't managed to find so far this season, but for me LVG is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. if he sets up to protect the back four who clearly need it, even if we win the game 1-0 the fans complain - which is absolute madness to me! if he sets up to play 'the united way' we will concede goals and draw the game 3-3 or worse still lose 3-2 or worse. So what does he do? There is also the possibility that teams come to play against us and sit deep and cut out our chances and throttle our attack whilst hitting us on the counter attack. Norwich did this to tremendous effect at OT this season, this game plan again, exposes our back four and saps the confidence away from our forward players. When you take all of these things into account, is LVG and his style of football purely to blame for our misfortunes this term? or is he simply doing what is best in protecting a back four whilst playing with attacking players low on confidence against opposition that sit deep and soak up the pressure?

TL;DR - Stop being lazy and read it.

 

[kouroux]

i'm not sure that I am defending LVG or if i am just playing devils advocate but whichever it is, here goes.

One of the biggest criticisms that LVG has faced is playing boring, negative football. It's something most of the posters on here haven't faced before, finishing outside of the top 3 isn't something many of the posters on here have faced before, I have i remember finishing 13th and believe me in jan/feb of that year relegation was looking like a real possibility. Now I don't say this to claim to be a 'red that is tops' I say it to point out that despite the clubs rip-roaring success over the past 2 decades, it hasn't always been that way and I think that the decline in form and possibly status over the past 2 years has felt worse then it actually is due to the fact that a lot of the fan base is used to winning.

Is it possible that the negative, defensive and boring football played is actually serving a purpose? I ask because it seems to me that on the two occasions that we have attempted to attack this season that I recall have ended in a 3-2 defeat away at Wolfsburg and a 3-3 draw away at Newcastle. Is it a case that we sit deeper and neglect to attack at will simply because we know that our back four isn't up to the job? I mean, looking at it objectively, Chris Smalling was taking so much abuse from this forum last year and many on here were actually asking for him to be sold in the summer, yet after a lot of 0-0s he was suddenly heralded by the very same posters as the second coming of Bobby Moore. In both games mentioned above where we attacked more and threw more caution to the wind, Smalling was exposed and had his 2 worst games of the season. Follow this up with his defensive partner for much of the season being Daley Blind an unrecognised centre half who struggles for both height and pace and our centre half partnership isn't exactly something to write home about. Then the other options to partner smalling is either Phil Jones, who as we know is prone to the odd injury as well as the odd mishap or Marcus Rojo and to be frank, the jury is still well and truly out on him.

Then we move on to the full back situation. at the start of the season we had Darmain playing down the right side and Luke Shaw down the left. it was golden because they brought attacking options, both love to get forward, both have decent end products when they get forward and both are defensively solid, so when Luke Shaw had his leg broken we were left very short in the left back department and as a result we have switched Darmain over to the left side and play Ashley Young down the right, which is fine as far as attacking options go, at least down the right side as Ashley loves to bomb on, but it causes problems for two reasons. 1 Because Darmains left foot is weaker then his right and 2 Because Ashley Young is not defensively solid. So it leaves us with full backs that aren't as strong as at the beginning of the season and centre halves that will crumble under serious pressure or when exposed on the counter attack.

I bring up the full backs as an issue because it is one NOW, but as i said before, at the start of the season it wasn't an issue, but the centre half partnership still was an issue, could this be why we were reported to have attempted a move for John Stones? could it be why we were linked so heavily to Sergio Ramos? possibly, but it could also be the reason that we set up in such a negative, protective 4-2-3-1.

Once you have set up to protect and not to concede you then have a problem if your strike force isn't firing, which it clearly hasn't been. If we create five clear cut chances in a game, we can expect to take 1, surely? But Rooneys form until recently has been poor, although to his credit he has started 2016 with a bang and is still our top scorer with 11 this season, memphis took time to adapt and in recent weeks has looked sharper, Martial is going to be one hell of a player IMO but it wil also take time to adapt no matter how much we spent on him. Mata has been awful in the past 2 months but players suffer dips of form, that's a footballing fact.

So we need to find a balance, we need to be able to absorb pressure and protect the back four whilst being able to take our chances, something we haven't managed to find so far this season, but for me LVG is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. if he sets up to protect the back four who clearly need it, even if we win the game 1-0 the fans complain - which is absolute madness to me! if he sets up to play 'the united way' we will concede goals and draw the game 3-3 or worse still lose 3-2 or worse. So what does he do? There is also the possibility that teams come to play against us and sit deep and cut out our chances and throttle our attack whilst hitting us on the counter attack. Norwich did this to tremendous effect at OT this season, this game plan again, exposes our back four and saps the confidence away from our forward players. When you take all of these things into account, is LVG and his style of football purely to blame for our misfortunes this term? or is he simply doing what is best in protecting a back four whilst playing with attacking players low on confidence against opposition that sit deep and soak up the pressure?

TL;DR - Stop being lazy and read it.

No.

 

[Hostekule]

i'm not sure that I am defending LVG or if i am just playing devils advocate but whichever it is, here goes.

One of the biggest criticisms that LVG has faced is playing boring, negative football. It's something most of the posters on here haven't faced before, finishing outside of the top 3 isn't something many of the posters on here have faced before, I have i remember finishing 13th and believe me in jan/feb of that year relegation was looking like a real possibility. Now I don't say this to claim to be a 'red that is tops' I say it to point out that despite the clubs rip-roaring success over the past 2 decades, it hasn't always been that way and I think that the decline in form and possibly status over the past 2 years has felt worse then it actually is due to the fact that a lot of the fan base is used to winning.

Is it possible that the negative, defensive and boring football played is actually serving a purpose? I ask because it seems to me that on the two occasions that we have attempted to attack this season that I recall have ended in a 3-2 defeat away at Wolfsburg and a 3-3 draw away at Newcastle. Is it a case that we sit deeper and neglect to attack at will simply because we know that our back four isn't up to the job? I mean, looking at it objectively, Chris Smalling was taking so much abuse from this forum last year and many on here were actually asking for him to be sold in the summer, yet after a lot of 0-0s he was suddenly heralded by the very same posters as the second coming of Bobby Moore. In both games mentioned above where we attacked more and threw more caution to the wind, Smalling was exposed and had his 2 worst games of the season. Follow this up with his defensive partner for much of the season being Daley Blind an unrecognised centre half who struggles for both height and pace and our centre half partnership isn't exactly something to write home about. Then the other options to partner smalling is either Phil Jones, who as we know is prone to the odd injury as well as the odd mishap or Marcus Rojo and to be frank, the jury is still well and truly out on him.

Then we move on to the full back situation. at the start of the season we had Darmain playing down the right side and Luke Shaw down the left. it was golden because they brought attacking options, both love to get forward, both have decent end products when they get forward and both are defensively solid, so when Luke Shaw had his leg broken we were left very short in the left back department and as a result we have switched Darmain over to the left side and play Ashley Young down the right, which is fine as far as attacking options go, at least down the right side as Ashley loves to bomb on, but it causes problems for two reasons. 1 Because Darmains left foot is weaker then his right and 2 Because Ashley Young is not defensively solid. So it leaves us with full backs that aren't as strong as at the beginning of the season and centre halves that will crumble under serious pressure or when exposed on the counter attack.

I bring up the full backs as an issue because it is one NOW, but as i said before, at the start of the season it wasn't an issue, but the centre half partnership still was an issue, could this be why we were reported to have attempted a move for John Stones? could it be why we were linked so heavily to Sergio Ramos? possibly, but it could also be the reason that we set up in such a negative, protective 4-2-3-1.

Once you have set up to protect and not to concede you then have a problem if your strike force isn't firing, which it clearly hasn't been. If we create five clear cut chances in a game, we can expect to take 1, surely? But Rooneys form until recently has been poor, although to his credit he has started 2016 with a bang and is still our top scorer with 11 this season, memphis took time to adapt and in recent weeks has looked sharper, Martial is going to be one hell of a player IMO but it wil also take time to adapt no matter how much we spent on him. Mata has been awful in the past 2 months but players suffer dips of form, that's a footballing fact.

So we need to find a balance, we need to be able to absorb pressure and protect the back four whilst being able to take our chances, something we haven't managed to find so far this season, but for me LVG is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. if he sets up to protect the back four who clearly need it, even if we win the game 1-0 the fans complain - which is absolute madness to me! if he sets up to play 'the united way' we will concede goals and draw the game 3-3 or worse still lose 3-2 or worse. So what does he do? There is also the possibility that teams come to play against us and sit deep and cut out our chances and throttle our attack whilst hitting us on the counter attack. Norwich did this to tremendous effect at OT this season, this game plan again, exposes our back four and saps the confidence away from our forward players. When you take all of these things into account, is LVG and his style of football purely to blame for our misfortunes this term? or is he simply doing what is best in protecting a back four whilst playing with attacking players low on confidence against opposition that sit deep and soak up the pressure?

TL;DR - Stop being lazy and read it.

All I read are poor excuses. Why even try defending him at this point?

 

[Summit]

I have i remember finishing 13th and believe me in jan/feb of that year relegation was looking like a real possibility. Now I don't say this to claim to be a 'red that is tops' I say it to point out that despite the clubs rip-roaring success over the past 2 decades, it hasn't always been that way and I think that the decline in form and possibly status over the past 2 years has felt worse then it actually is due to the fact that a lot of the fan base is used to winning.

I get that, Roly, but back then had our team recently spunked 250m on players for LvG? Had we sold players of the likes like Di Maria, RvP, Hernadez, Nani et al just because LvG said they had nothing to offer in his team?

I too starting supporting United when we weren't winning anything, but I'm sorry, our success over the last two decades and claim to be one of the worlds richest clubs imo should never see us in the position we are in now. Poor board decisions time and time again are what's letting us down and I feel the board are yet again making another poor decision in keeping LvG!

 

[Rolandofgilead]

I get that, Roly, but back then had our team recently spunked 250m on players for LvG? Had we sold players of the likes like Di Maria, RvP, Hernadez, Nani et al just because LvG said they had nothing to offer in his team?

I too starting supporting United when we weren't winning anything, but I'm sorry, our success over the last two decades and claim to be one of the worlds richest clubs imo should never see us in the position we are in now. Poor board decisions time and time again are what's letting us down and I feel the board are yet again making another poor decision in keeping LvG!

Like I said I'm purely playing devils advocate here, but let's just say we do ship him out, who comes in?

For what it's worth. I am desperate for us to switch to a 4-3-3 and see us move the ball with pace.

Edit: also in fairness, Nani was nowhere near as good as he was made out on here, same goes for Welbeck. Di Maria was a twat and RVP was poor in his final year here.

 

[Arruda]

These discussions are fairly similar to the ones we had at Porto about Lopetegui for the past 18 months (we got rid last week). I wonder if, in these scenarios, the "I've defended him until now, but it's enough" crowd think they're some example of wise moderation or that they're simply the last ones to understand/accept what is fairly obvious for the majority.

 

[NJM78]

Like I said I'm purely playing devils advocate here, but let's just say we do ship him out, who comes in?

For what it's worth. I am desperate for us to switch to a 4-3-3 and see us move the ball with pace.

Edit: also in fairness, Nani was nowhere near as good as he was made out on here, same goes for Welbeck. Di Maria was a twat and RVP was poor in his final year here.

This should be irrelevant if the current man is performing consistently at a poor level and is too stubborn or tactically inept to get the best out of a team that for the most part he has presided over for the past 18 months.
6 wins in 20, eliminated from piss poor CL group, knocked out at home in the league cup to a lower league team, 6th in the league are currently the van Gaal highlights reel. We have only taken 39 points form the last 81 available in league football! This is totally unacceptable for a club of our stature and the money spent.
Giggs could step in and despite his inexperience it would lift the squad morale imo and maybe we could salvage fourth. Jose whether people like him or not is still in the top two managers of world football - he is available. Even if not him the club could let Giggs take us to the end of the season and then reassess, he may even prove to be very good and could then take over from next season as the main man or it will show the board that he is still not ready and they can go for someone else. All I can think of though is the longer we leave our club plodding along and being a pale almost embarrassing shadow of its former self then we are hardly going to attract the best managers out there especially without CL to offer which is looking very likely.

 

[Rolandofgilead]

This should be irrelevant if the current man is performing consistently at a poor level and is too stubborn or tactically inept to get the best out of a team that for the most part he has presided over for the past 18 months.
6 wins in 20, eliminated from piss poor CL group, knocked out at home in the league cup to a lower league team, 6th in the league are currently the van Gaal highlights reel. We have only taken 39 points form the last 81 available in league football! This is totally unacceptable for a club of our stature and the money spent.
Giggs could step in and despite his inexperience it would lift the squad morale imo and maybe we could salvage fourth. Jose whether people like him or not is still in the top two managers of world football - he is available. Even if not him the club could let Giggs take us to the end of the season and then reassess, he may even prove to be very good and could then take over from next season as the main man or it will show the board that he is still not ready and they can go for someone else. All I can think of though is the longer we leave our club plodding along and being a pale almost embarrassing shadow of its former self then we are hardly going to attract the best managers out there especially without CL to offer which is looking very likely.

Salvage 4th?

There's 17 games to go?

 

[JPRouve]

Salvage 4th?

There's 17 games to go?

And we have 3 wins in the last 10 PL games, 13pts out of 30 available and we are not improving.

 

[NJM78]

Salvage 4th?

There's 17 games to go?

Exactly we have taken 39 points from the last 81 available and currently sit on 34 at this ratio we may be lucky to reach 60 points by the end of the season which I do not believe will get us 4th. So salvage for me is an appropriate word.

 

[Cassidy]

Salvage 4th?

There's 17 games to go?

Yes, at the rate we're going top 6 is what we'll get

 

[Classical Mechanic]

These discussions are fairly similar to the ones we had at Porto about Lopetegui for the past 18 months (we got rid last week). I wonder if, in these scenarios, the "I've defended him until now, but it's enough" crowd think they're some example of wise moderation or that they're simply the last ones to understand/accept what is fairly obvious for the majority.

We supposedly have an ethos of letting a manager breathe and giving them time. LVG should get until it is mathematically impossible for us to get top 4 before he is sacked. I think his contract is only two years anyway.

We have every chance of getting top 4 still.

Most of us accept that the team isn't good enough to win the league.

The other thing that irks me is all the complaints you hear across the board with fans 'he never gives our youngsters a chance'. Now we have a manager that does and the fans complain!

 

[esmufc07]

My only defence of him would be he has been unlucky with his injuries, but to that point he has trimmed the squad too much and left himself with a very light squad. Last season he didn't even have Europe to contend with and he complained about the demands of the Premier League, so I'm not quite sure what his intention was selling most of the squad players we had.

I do think he has done a good job in regards to the squad overhaul. As others have pointed out we are really not far away from being an excellent side again. Whether Louis is the man to take us up to the next level remains to be seen. My gut feeling is he isn't.

Still, he's a likeable chap. Far too many personal insults on here.

 

[SqueakyWeasel]

@OP question : Obviously not according to this poll I just answered in today's UK Telegraph

 

[K2K]

These discussions are fairly similar to the ones we had at Porto about Lopetegui for the past 18 months (we got rid last week). I wonder if, in these scenarios, the "I've defended him until now, but it's enough" crowd think they're some example of wise moderation or that they're simply the last ones to understand/accept what is fairly obvious for the majority.

It was the same with David Moyes, they will always be those that in the face of overwhelming evidence will back a manager.

Some just want to call it and be proven right if the manager turns it around, some do to it as they feel its what a real fan should do, some see it as playing devil's advocate,ive even heard one say he does it because he's bored.

They are many reasons.

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Not you too.

With Santiago we understand. You are usually more rational.

This is a Germany NT that has reached a major final in every decade. With them being in the Euros final a year before Van Gaal's arrival in Germany, and 3rd in the WC two years prior. Their win was the culmination of Low and Klinsmann work that started while years before Van Gaal.

I already pointed out that the choice by the DFB to change to an attacking style was made almost a decade before. I'm justing saying it was helped by the fact that Bayern made a switch to posession based attacking football, because they had about 7 or 8 players in the core of the squad who had been training on it with their club for years and played together in that style for years. It's much more difficult to have players get used to eachother in a different style with just the international weeks and the WC preparation to work on it.

That choice of the DFB is the main reason they kept their record of having reached a major final in every decade. In 2000 they were in panic, they were beaten by Bulgaria at the last WC, and the Euro 2000 was a disaster. They had lost their edge, the quality to always get to a final, the German way had lost it's way. So they changed, they looked around who played better football, and they judged that the Dutch school and the Barcelona way (nearly the same) was the direction to move in. Especially with the 2006 WC in Germany coming up, of course they wanted to win it, but even more important was that Germany wanted to show the world what a nice country and nice people they had become, thet wanted their football to be liked by non-Germans.

Van Gaal only had two years in Germany with Bayern, one of which was a disaster which he was fired in.

Nontheless he was the one that made the big change at Bayern, that was also what he was hired to do. It was his job to have an influence beyond his years on the payroll and he did his job.

Its grasping for straws attributing success to LVG, and just shows the bizarre level some of you guys will go to pump him up.

Van Gaal has a good CV , there's no need for this fictitious attribution of success.

I don't see it as a much relevant argument in some kind of discussion about his future at United. Because it doesn't make the difference in that kind of decision and shouldn't be. The short and mid length term are way too important in football to mix long term effects and side effects in the discussion. But I do recognize the fact that club managers often do influence national teams through a dominant club. England has probably never had a situation that 7 players on the pitch are from the same club, a club with a specific style, but Germany has, Spain has and the Netherlands has.

It's a competitive environment, managers influence other managers, managers influence players, managers influence clubs, managers influence youth academies, clubs influence other clubs, clubs influence national teams. The past 25 years this process has led to a certain school of thought in football taking over from cataneccio, good old 4-4-2, kick and rush and counterattacking. It is the dominant school in the CL and in WC's and EC's. Van Gaal is one of the protaganists from that school, and probably the most influential one. The influence is direct and indirect.

I don't see a point in arguing that that makes him a better manager for United, but I don't see any reason to deny that influence either. The relevant point is that United is now following that school, and the performance of the manager and the eventual choice for a successor should be judged in the light of that.

 

[Parma Dewol]

i'm not sure that I am defending LVG or if i am just playing devils advocate but whichever it is, here goes.

One of the biggest criticisms that LVG has faced is playing boring, negative football. It's something most of the posters on here haven't faced before, finishing outside of the top 3 isn't something many of the posters on here have faced before, I have i remember finishing 13th and believe me in jan/feb of that year relegation was looking like a real possibility. Now I don't say this to claim to be a 'red that is tops' I say it to point out that despite the clubs rip-roaring success over the past 2 decades, it hasn't always been that way and I think that the decline in form and possibly status over the past 2 years has felt worse then it actually is due to the fact that a lot of the fan base is used to winning.

Is it possible that the negative, defensive and boring football played is actually serving a purpose? I ask because it seems to me that on the two occasions that we have attempted to attack this season that I recall have ended in a 3-2 defeat away at Wolfsburg and a 3-3 draw away at Newcastle. Is it a case that we sit deeper and neglect to attack at will simply because we know that our back four isn't up to the job? I mean, looking at it objectively, Chris Smalling was taking so much abuse from this forum last year and many on here were actually asking for him to be sold in the summer, yet after a lot of 0-0s he was suddenly heralded by the very same posters as the second coming of Bobby Moore. In both games mentioned above where we attacked more and threw more caution to the wind, Smalling was exposed and had his 2 worst games of the season. Follow this up with his defensive partner for much of the season being Daley Blind an unrecognised centre half who struggles for both height and pace and our centre half partnership isn't exactly something to write home about. Then the other options to partner smalling is either Phil Jones, who as we know is prone to the odd injury as well as the odd mishap or Marcus Rojo and to be frank, the jury is still well and truly out on him.

Then we move on to the full back situation. at the start of the season we had Darmain playing down the right side and Luke Shaw down the left. it was golden because they brought attacking options, both love to get forward, both have decent end products when they get forward and both are defensively solid, so when Luke Shaw had his leg broken we were left very short in the left back department and as a result we have switched Darmain over to the left side and play Ashley Young down the right, which is fine as far as attacking options go, at least down the right side as Ashley loves to bomb on, but it causes problems for two reasons. 1 Because Darmains left foot is weaker then his right and 2 Because Ashley Young is not defensively solid. So it leaves us with full backs that aren't as strong as at the beginning of the season and centre halves that will crumble under serious pressure or when exposed on the counter attack.

I bring up the full backs as an issue because it is one NOW, but as i said before, at the start of the season it wasn't an issue, but the centre half partnership still was an issue, could this be why we were reported to have attempted a move for John Stones? could it be why we were linked so heavily to Sergio Ramos? possibly, but it could also be the reason that we set up in such a negative, protective 4-2-3-1.

Once you have set up to protect and not to concede you then have a problem if your strike force isn't firing, which it clearly hasn't been. If we create five clear cut chances in a game, we can expect to take 1, surely? But Rooneys form until recently has been poor, although to his credit he has started 2016 with a bang and is still our top scorer with 11 this season, memphis took time to adapt and in recent weeks has looked sharper, Martial is going to be one hell of a player IMO but it wil also take time to adapt no matter how much we spent on him. Mata has been awful in the past 2 months but players suffer dips of form, that's a footballing fact.

So we need to find a balance, we need to be able to absorb pressure and protect the back four whilst being able to take our chances, something we haven't managed to find so far this season, but for me LVG is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. if he sets up to protect the back four who clearly need it, even if we win the game 1-0 the fans complain - which is absolute madness to me! if he sets up to play 'the united way' we will concede goals and draw the game 3-3 or worse still lose 3-2 or worse. So what does he do? There is also the possibility that teams come to play against us and sit deep and cut out our chances and throttle our attack whilst hitting us on the counter attack. Norwich did this to tremendous effect at OT this season, this game plan again, exposes our back four and saps the confidence away from our forward players. When you take all of these things into account, is LVG and his style of football purely to blame for our misfortunes this term? or is he simply doing what is best in protecting a back four whilst playing with attacking players low on confidence against opposition that sit deep and soak up the pressure?

TL;DR - Stop being lazy and read it.

I can see where you're coming from. But then I'm one of those who believes LvG will turn it around, so I'd best go back into hiding.

 

[Esquire]

Stop lying.

The season before Van Gaal arrived , Barca won the Spanish cup and super cup and the European cup winners cup under Sir Bobby Robson.

Cruyff is Barca's most succesful manager with 4 league titles and Barca's first European cup.

That guy is one of the best WUMs I've seen here. Admire his courage.

You fact-slapped him pretty hard...

 

[langster]

So we need to find a balance

I fecking knew LvG was on here somewhere! I just never thought it would have been you. Great disguise though. 5/7!

 

[langster]

I too starting supporting United when we weren't winning anything

I thought Newton Heath used to do quite well?

 

[SteveJ]

I fecking knew LvG was on here somewhere! I just never thought it would have been you. Great disguise though. 5/7!

 

[Balu]

I don't see a point in arguing that that makes him a better manager for United, but I don't see any reason to deny that influence either.

It's the crazy exaggeration of that influence that's so annoying, because it's so disrespectful to other managers. For example, Schweinsteiger's move to central midfield is solely credited to van Gaal. What's interesting is that Schweinsteiger talked in an interview in 2010 with the magazine 11 Freunde about that change. Heynckes as interim manager after he took over from Klinsmann in 2008/2009 was the first one to play Schweinsteiger in CM, van Gaal moved him back to the wing and had to be convinced by the players to continue with him in a central role.

Here's the link and the relevant quote in German:

Jupp Heynckes war der erste, der Sie im zentralen Mittelfeld auf der Sechserposition einsetzte. Louis van Gaal hat Sie dann zunächst wieder auf die Außenbahn beordert.

Eigentlich wollte Louis van Gaal ein anderes System spielen. Aber das klappte nicht so gut, weil Franck (Ribéry, d.Red.) lieber auf der Außenbahn spielen wollte. Also hat der Trainer sich unsere Sicht auf die Dinge angehört. Ich denke, das ist eine große Qualität von ihm, dass er unsere Ideen in seine Arbeit mit einbezieht. Auch andere Spieler wollten, dass ich zentraler spiele, also hat er sich drauf eingelassen.

http://www.11freunde.de/interview/bastian-schweinsteiger-ueber-seine-karriere-1

Spoiler: a direct translation by me

Question: Jupp Heynckes was the first manager, who played you in the central midfield as a number 6. Lous van Gaal then ordered you back to the wing.

Answer:
Louis Van Gaal actually wanted to play a different system. But that didn't work very well, because Ribery prefered to play on the wing. So the manager listened to our view on the matter. I think, that's a big quality of him, that he listens to our ideas and includes them in his work. Other players wanted me to play central as well, so he accepted it.

Heynckes gets nowhere near enough credit for all the influence he had. It's little things like the one above or the fact that he was actually the one who suggested van Gaal to the Bayern board. He came out of retirement to take over as interim manager, caught fire again and advised the board wisely in many ways before he decided to become a full time manager again. He took over at Leverkusen and then got his chance at Bayern again. He's been the manager who turned Kroos and Boateng into world class players, the one who made Alaba a regular and a world class leftback after van Gaal prefered Contento (another academy player, who now plays for Bordeaux) over him at leftback the previous season, which lead to Alaba pushing for a loan deal away from van Gaal.

Spoiler: Alaba's first 3 seasons at Bayern compared, if you don't believe me

09/10 under van Gaal:
Alaba: 3 starts, 3 subs, 330 minutes
Contento: 11 starts, 3 subs, 1121 minutes

10/11 under van Gaal (only the first half of the season because then Alaba left)
Alaba: 0 starts, 3 subs, 52 minutes - started the season with the 2nd team, played the first full games there and got injured for 2 months, never given a chance after his return and then went on a 6 months loan in January, where he was instantly a regular in a midtable Bundesliga side.
Contento: 12 starts, 1 sub, 995minutes. Got injured in matchday 5, was replaced by Pranjic. Returned after 2 months and was instantly a starter again.

11/12 under Heynckes, Alaba returned from 6 months loan spell:
Alaba: 26 starts, 21 subs, played in 47 out of 55 games, 2783 minutes in total
Contento: 8 starts, 7 subs, 811 minutes

Now please, can anyone tell me why Heynckes gets zero credit for Alaba but van Gaal so much? I just don't get it.

Yet looking at for example your posts on the Caf, you described Heynckes as a counterattacking manager (which couldn't be further from the truth), who took over a brilliant squad that only had to be tweaked to dominate Europe (again simply not true). It's just so crazy disrespectful. Heynckes replaced the complete central defensive core of the team (Neuer, Boateng, Dante, Martinez came in), added Mandzukic as a new striker, made Alaba a regular and played Kroos as the 10. He taught Robben a very valueable lesson by benching him and forced the wondrous transformation from one of the most egoistic players to a winger, who did his fair share of defensive work. He got Ribery playing brilliantly again after he had his worst spell at Bayern during van Gaal's 2 seasons and introduced a brilliant pressing system.

Now regarding the influence in Germany's World Cup win:

Spoiler: Comparing line-up's, van Gaal, Heynckes at Bayern and Germany in 2014

Van Gaal's best line-up at Bayern was probably:

Ribery Olic Robben
Müller
Schweinsteiger van Bommel
Badstuber Demichelis van Buyten Lahm
Butt​

Heynckes' prefered line-up which we played most in the treble winning season:

Ribery Mandzukic Müller
Kroos
Schweinsteiger Martinez
Alaba Dante Boateng Lahm
Neuer​

And then if we look at the World Cup winning side, that started the final in 2014:

Özil Klose Müller
Kroos Kramer
Schweinsteiger
Höwedes Hummels Boateng Lahm
Neuer​

Is it really worth discussing van Gaal's influence in that World Cup win, when no one really cares about Heynckes' influence? Fair enough if you want to give credit to van Gaal, but at least do the same for other managers to put it into perspective and stop creating that mythical figure while ignoring the work everyone else did. Because otherwise it's just silly.

 

[Di Maria's angel]

I'm beginning to think I need to thank van Gaal for laying the foundations for my house.

 

[SalfordRed1960]

It was the same with David Moyes, they will always be those that in the face of overwhelming evidence will back a manager.

Some just want to call it and be proven right if the manager turns it around, some do to it as they feel its what a real fan should do, some see it as playing devil's advocate,ive even heard one say he does it because he's bored.

They are many reasons.

Or it could be because the lazy option is put all blame on the manager.

All evidence suggests something is not right. But just maybe, those that keep the belief do not do it out of Blind loyalty or any of the reasons you mention, but actually see something that maybe you and others do not.

The football has been far from acceptable for all, not just the LVG bashers, who were in full force after the post match PC. The standard or quality of the team is significantly lower than what most on here are use to, but relative to the PL teams it is still one of the top teams and has just as much chance as the other teams ( this season) of making top 4.

To blindly say we are shit, LVG is shit, we are going to lose every game, it will be a borefest, 0-0 written all over it, LVG should be sacked, board are incompetent, I have contempt for LVG and the board, all because we did not smash the teams near the bottom of the league is just following the noise started by a few. There are only a few on here who did not like LVG from the start. Interestingly, they are not the ones bashing LVG every say and saying I told you so.

The fact that the LVG bashers would also take Hughes, Jose and a few other managers and are calling Klopp a Flopp so early in his reign puts their opinions into perspective.

 

[K2K]

Or it could be because the lazy option is put all blame on the manager.

All evidence suggests something is not right. But just maybe, those that keep the belief do not do it out of Blind loyalty or any of the reasons you mention, but actually see something that maybe you and others do not.

The football has been far from acceptable for all, not just the LVG bashers, who were in full force after the post match PC. The standard or quality of the team is significantly lower than what most on here are use to, but relative to the PL teams it is still one of the top teams and has just as much chance as the other teams ( this season) of making top 4.

To blindly say we are shit, LVG is shit, we are going to lose every game, it will be a borefest, 0-0 written all over it, LVG should be sacked, board are incompetent, I have contempt for LVG and the board, all because we did not smash the teams near the bottom of the league is just following the noise started by a few. There are only a few on here who did not like LVG from the start. Interestingly, they are not the ones bashing LVG every say and saying I told you so.

The fact that the LVG bashers would also take Hughes, Jose and a few other managers and are calling Klopp a Flopp so early in his reign puts their opinions into perspective.

You are getting wound up over nothing.

I gave four different reasons why some people are backing him. That's the ones i thought of. Yours could easily be a 5th.

I do not necessarily share your view with regards to Van Gaal, but it may be that you do see somethings that the rest of us. It could also be that we see things that you guys dont.

I for one have had my own opinion that Van Gaal is perhaps not good enough at this stage of his career. Its not an opinion forced upon by the media or blindly following others as those with an opposing view have tried to insinuate. Just as you have yours of why he should stay.

Of course we have many problems than just the manager. This imo doesnt make this problem any less important.Solving this one would be the start, and not a magical fix.

 

[SteveJ]

I'm beginning to think I need to thank van Gaal for laying the foundations for my house.

 

[bleedred]

I'm beginning to think I need to thank van Gaal for laying the foundations for my house.

If LVG played better football, you would have spent more money/time on Utd than usual, leaving you nothing for your house, so yeah in a way he should get credit for it.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

@Rolandofgilead

Your points are all valid. As far as i'm concerned, LvG is still a great manager and nothing will change that. Observing his Ajax side at a young age it was the first time i realized that's there's more depth to this sport than watching two teams of 11 chasing the ball all around the pitch. I've been following his career since then and i was really happy when we appointed him because i do have a soft spot in my heart for his Ajax side.

And because i believe he's a good manager i always tried to understand the logic behind his decisions at United. It's true that he didn't trust our defenders that much and that's the reason why he decided to start building the first team around the now infamous 3-5-2. It's also true that the lack of agility and stamina levels in our midfield led him to experiment with the diamond as well as with the 3-5-2. The utilization of Mata in a central role only when there's enough protection behind him (again in the 3-5-2 or the diamond) also made absolute sense to me. You can find logic behind most of his tactical decosions, that's not my problem with him. I remember i wrote a post to defend him after the away game against QPR last season when the majority here wanted his head on a plate for playing with three CBs against a relegation side (we had won 2-0 that one despite a rather poor performance).

I think that since that awkward Leicester game last season, he's been struggling to cope with the particularities of the PL. He's trying to create a plan that will make his philosophy about how the game should be played "compatible" with the the directness and the sheer physicality of English football. That 5-3 defeat could be described as trademark English football: The small club is two goals behind but doesn't give up. Instead of that the players do what in tactical terms could be seen as unthinkable: They increase the tempo and try to create as many chances as the they can against a superior side. I'm not British but the people who introduced me to English football had told me that this is the reason why this league is so popular around the world, i clearly remember that.

I' was also willing to give LvG the benefit of the doubt. His brand of football is very different to what players on the island are accustomed to. It's not easy to teach off the ball movement in between the lines, triangles, composed passing and high levels of concentration to players who are more used to the run n' gun game, players who almost always look to attack the space behind the defenders with pace, players who aren't that good at opening up spaces for their teammates in combinations of three but know better to create spaces for themselves in combinations between two players (either be the passer or the receiver). I'm not saying that the new style is more difficult, i don't know that. I surely know that it's different though. But at some point he has to show something good on the pitch. 18 months and three transfer windows is enough time in modern football to create something.

So, here is LvG caught between two worlds and therein lies my concern about what he's trying to achieve at OT: Time and a sense of perspective. Firstly, how much time does he need in his three year contract in order for us to start seeing glimpses of a true LvG side on the pitch? Because i know it full well that his sides like to attack and win games by outscoring the opposition. And i was more than willing to give him time to adopt and i could "forgive" all his little tactical manoeuvres with formations and players being tried in several roles because he found himself in a league he barely knew and managing players who hadn't been "exposed" to possession football never before.

But in order to compete for the big prizes, you must be able to impose your game plan to your opponents. Which means that you must be able to both defend properly and create an adequate number of chances per game that will put your players' attacking qualities to good use. In other words, you are right to say that slowing the tempo and limiting the number of chances on both ends of the pitch is probably the best option we have in order to win games but we're not actually depending on our defense in the same way, let's say, Simeone and Mourinho are. The teams these two manage create more than enough chances to win games. We're trying to mask our problems and in the end i'm not the one who's trying to use a high defensive line with a slow CB like Blind and with only ttwo FBs (Shaw and Young most times) who can defend well in 1v1 situations. It's also common knowledge that most of our attacking players, especially Rooney-Mata-Herrera, have problems with the new tactics and 18 months in LvG's reign at OT Rooney's been mostly poor, Mata has turned from hero to villain and Herrera... well how did Scholes put it? "What's his position, where is he effective?". Martial and Memphis also had their breakthrough seasons at clubs that used the counter attack a lot. Now, they can't create many chances under LvG's instructions and we're trying to make up for that not by defending better but by... attacking less. And tbf this shouldn't be the case after one season and a half.

So, what's the plan? Keep trying to punch through the wall until by some kind of miracle ours players become better in possession based tactics? If that's the case, why is Pep (most likely) going to City? Because if Guardiola had agreed to take over from LvG in a year and a half, people would be able to see some light at the end of the tunnel.

If that's not the case and we don't have a plan other than appointing a manager who will have absolute freedom to do whatever he wants with the tactics, the transfers and the academy, why should people show patience with LvG?

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

It's the crazy exaggeration of that influence that's so annoying, because it's so disrespectful to other managers. For example, Schweinsteiger's move to central midfield is solely credited to van Gaal. What's interesting is that Schweinsteiger talked in an interview in 2010 with the magazine 11 Freunde about that change. Heynckes as interim manager after he took over from Klinsmann in 2008/2009 was the first one to play Schweinsteiger in CM, van Gaal moved him back to the wing and had to be convinced by the players to continue with him in a central role.

I don't do crazy exaggerations. I'm just pointing out that managers can have an influence beyond their spell at a club and even outside the club, especially if it are managers of the building kind.

Here's the link and the relevant quote in German:

http://www.11freunde.de/interview/bastian-schweinsteiger-ueber-seine-karriere-1

Spoiler: a direct translation by me

Question: Jupp Heynckes was the first manager, who played you in the central midfield as a number 6. Lous van Gaal then ordered you back to the wing.

Answer:
Louis Van Gaal actually wanted to play a different system. But that didn't work very well, because Ribery prefered to play on the wing. So the manager listened to our view on the matter. I think, that's a big quality of him, that he listens to our ideas and includes them in his work. Other players wanted me to play central as well, so he accepted it.

That's a very relevant point in lots of discussion here, enough of those with replies that suggest Van Gaal is a stubborn dictator who imposes rigidity on frightened and stifled players, but not in this one.

Yet looking at for example your posts on the Caf, you described Heynckes as a counterattacking manager (which couldn't be further from the truth), who took over a brilliant squad that only had to be tweaked to dominate Europe (again simply not true).

I've always given credits to Heynkes, just not for the job he didn't do. Van Gaal was hired to do a specific job, Heynkes job was a different one

Is it really worth discussing van Gaal's influence in that World Cup win, when no one really cares about Heynckes' influence? Fair enough if you want to give credit to van Gaal, but at least do the same for other managers to put it into perspective and stop creating that mythical figure while ignoring the work everyone else did. Because otherwise it's just silly.

This is not a topic about Heynkes, which probably has a lot to do with the fact that Heynkes isn't very relevant to United, he's not even mentioned as a possible successor when Van Gaal is sacked.

 

[sunama]

What exactly is Mourinho going to do better?

Mourinho has a track record of winning trophies. This is a fact (not opinion or conjecture).
If he joined MUFC and didnt win any trophies, this would be the first time in his career that that would have happened.

Incidentally, LVG also has a track record of winning leagues for every team he manages, though he hasn't won a title for over a decade.
Mourinho won the title a few months ago.

 

[Balu]

I don't do crazy exaggerations. I'm just pointing out that managers can have an influence beyond their spell at a club and even outside the club, especially if it are managers of the building kind.

Of course you do crazy exaggerations if you paint a massively one-sided picture about van Gaal's direct and indirect influence on trophies won by other managers while denying that they also did a 'building' job. You actually gave a perfect example by denying exactly that in regards to Heynckes' work in your reply.

And no, that's not off topic in this discussion when the main defense for van Gaal right now consists of this intangible influence that supposedly no other manager can provide supported by a picture of his work at Barca and Bayern that doesn't tell what really happened.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Mourinho has a track record of winning trophies. This is a fact (not opinion or conjecture).
If he joined MUFC and didnt win any trophies, this would be the first time in his career that that would have happened.

Incidentally, LVG also has a track record of winning leagues for every team he manages, though he hasn't won a title for over a decade.
Mourinho won the title a few months ago.

What?

LVG won the German League in 2010/11, won the German Cup and got them to the final of the Champions League.

That was his last club job.

 

[Lynty]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.- Albert Einstein

That is the only reason why I want him sacked. We do not have the players to fulfill his vision/philosophy, our players thrive upon a more brazen brand of football, yet long after this was apparent - Van Gaal continues to employ the same tactics game after game. He refuses to change shape to compensate for injuries or lack of form, and instead squeezes players into unsuitable positions.

I think with a different set of players Van Gaal would be contending for the title, but never with this United team. He's not a bad manager, just a bad fit.

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Of course you do crazy exaggerations if you paint a massively one-sided picture about van Gaal's direct and indirect influence on trophies won by other managers while denying that they also did a 'building' job. You actually gave a perfect example by denying exactly that in regards to Heynckes' work in your reply.

I've got the feeling you're reading someone else's words into mine.

And no, that's not off topic in this discussion when the main defense for van Gaal right now consists of this intangible influence that supposedly no other manager can provide supported by a picture of his work at Barca and Bayern that doesn't tell what really happened.

I already said I don't see as very relevant to the question whether he should stay or go, but I suppose that didn't get through to you either. It's people who want him sacked who feel the need to make his past achievements look bad and ridicule his influence.

 

[ghagua]

Or it could be because the lazy option is put all blame on the manager.

All evidence suggests something is not right. But just maybe, those that keep the belief do not do it out of Blind loyalty or any of the reasons you mention, but actually see something that maybe you and others do not.

The football has been far from acceptable for all, not just the LVG bashers, who were in full force after the post match PC. The standard or quality of the team is significantly lower than what most on here are use to, but relative to the PL teams it is still one of the top teams and has just as much chance as the other teams ( this season) of making top 4.

To blindly say we are shit, LVG is shit, we are going to lose every game, it will be a borefest, 0-0 written all over it, LVG should be sacked, board are incompetent, I have contempt for LVG and the board, all because we did not smash the teams near the bottom of the league is just following the noise started by a few. There are only a few on here who did not like LVG from the start. Interestingly, they are not the ones bashing LVG every say and saying I told you so.

The fact that the LVG bashers would also take Hughes, Jose and a few other managers and are calling Klopp a Flopp so early in his reign puts their opinions into perspective.

Once the season starts, then the manager is solely responsible. If a player is not performing, then he needs to be held account by the manager and replaced if needed. If there is no replacement, then once again the manager is responsible for not having an adequate backup.

 

[Red-Jeff]

Once the season starts, then the manager is solely responsible. If a player is not performing, then he needs to be held account by the manager and replaced if needed. If there is no replacement, then once again the manager is responsible for not having an adequate backup.

A bit black and white, no?

 

[ghagua]

A bit black and white, no?

It might be, but who is responsible? If it was a penny pinching club, you can make an excuse for not having a decent backup, but that's not the case here at United.

 

[Red-Jeff]

It might be, but who is responsible? If it was a penny pinching club, you can make an excuse for not having a decent backup, but that's not the case here at United.

I think there's plenty of responsibility to go around but I do get your broader point that the buck stops with the manager with regards to how the team is playing. For me the players definitely deserve some blame, they have not met some very basic expectations this season.

 

[SalfordRed1960]

Once the season starts, then the manager is solely responsible. If a player is not performing, then he needs to be held account by the manager and replaced if needed. If there is no replacement, then once again the manager is responsible for not having an adequate backup.

Far far too simplistic.

How should he be held accountable for Depay's stupid header against stoke or Smalling's brainfart against Newcastle OR Fellani, Herrera, Rooney, Lingard's inability to put the ball in the back of the net from very simple chances across a whole host of games.

There is no doubt he is the one that will be held accountable if the team does not meet the agreed targets, that accountability could be his job. But to hold him accountable for every single under performing player is far too simplistic.

 

[Rozay]

I still like Van Gaal personally, and I know I've said this many times, but I think the media focus and criticism of him has been way, way over the top. They seem to genuinely believe they know more about managing than him for a start.

Ultimately, they don't like him much, and as a result, United's style of play probably forms about 50% of everything football related written, or at least tweeted.

If it were Giggs, it would be different, because they like him. Koop has been praised for bringing on Benteke and Caulker last night to go up top, and I couldn't help but wonder what they would be writing if Van Gaal had done similar.

The reporting of the Sheff Utd match was a new low for me. You would genuinely think we'd lost the match if you didn't see he score, and never have I seen a victory reported in such a manner for days afterwards, where it was actually a bigger story that we didn't beat a defensive League One team 5-0 than it was that Swansea were actually knocked out by a League 2 side. United (and other big clubs) have always had similar Cup Ties over the years, under Fergie too (whose reign they have now retrospectively turned into Barcelona at their best), many of which ended up in defeat.

They are reaching now, and they will win ultimately I suspect. Van Gaal has been far from great, but the general reaction has been way over the top is my only view. Never in my entire time watching football (about 20 years give or take) have I seen such importance placed on a team's style of play. Never. It has basically been the biggest story in English football this season, which is unfair I think. We all know that as a team we are not the finished article, and while I totally agree that we have not been very entertaining at all, I for one am prepared to wait a little longer than halfway through season 2 for that to happen. My bigger concern, and the larger criticism I would have of the manager is if he fails to meet his objectives of firstly qualifying for the CL, then secondly actually being competitive for the League. The style of play thing is something I always felt would be the last bit of our journey, and I was happy for a good foundation to be built this season, while becoming more expansive next term. We were on course for that but for a disastrous December, but it did seem like everyone had been waiting for that December so that they can tear LVG down, as any praise for being at the top earlier always seemed grudging.

If Van Gaal can't at least qualify for the CL this season I will judge him too, but I just think not being the most attractive team to watch has been made into a far bigger footballing crime an it is, and that I have ever known it to be. Since when did the press care so much about how many shots etc? It started because despite it, we were getting results, so they couldn't attack that.