They have no clue. We are playing better football, clearly improving, moving up the table, yet we still get people claiming Ole is unable to coach.
Well he is a vastly better manager than Ole, so why not
We were not progressing under Mourinho - performance or results-wise, definitely not for months on end until he was sacked. The atmosphere was also noticeably toxic. Not the same thing at all.
How do you figure?
No, actually he has already been proven at a higher standard than AVB.
He’s definitely a better coach, just look at his team plays with far lesser players. You could argue that they aren’t lesser players, but that’s because he’s coached them so well. He’s definitely the next big thing in football.
Well he's only 33 yet has accomplished great things in a competitive league, dude's younger than Messi and Ronaldo and was coaching U19's four seasons ago.
I think City will appoint Tuchel.
His age is a big part of it, but his team's overperformance is another part.
He's recently served beatings to all time great coaches like Mou and Simeone. So I guess the hype is warranted.
Based on what?
Is there a manager you consider to be better than Ole? Removing United context.
No, but it's the same for players too though.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What’s the barometer for measuring how good a manager is?
That's why I asked you if there's a manager you consider better than Ole; to hear your reasoning for rating said manager above him, as well as your criteria for rating managers in general.
He hasn’t won anything yet. Might burn out at a young age...if that makes you feel better
good pointI never said that but hiring someone like Nagalsman means you have to hire at least two people to do the job Ole is currently doing, and then have them both be a success. What’s his recruitment record like?
I ask because you questioned someone who said Nagelsmann is a better manager, so I assumed you must have some criteria by which you rank managers, criteria which seems to rank Nagelsmann and Ole as equals at least.
I never said they were, you're fishing for something I never said. It's redundant to set arbitrary values so we can place them somewhere in the hierarchy of world football managers. All managers by definition of success are bad until they're good, or if you like they've never won anything until they win something. As you can see this debate is absolutely pointless and there are many good managers around, the issue is being able to apply it across different workplaces and consistently.
Apologies if it comes across this way, feeling a little analytical.
So in your opinion can any manager potentially be as good as another in a role? There's no real difference in level between any manager, just differences in environment?
There's obviously ceilings as in any job role, and that's generally down to the individual's ability to listen, adapt and learn. Environment and circumstance play a huge part, for example, would Mourinho been a success at United if he would have been appointed right after Fergie stepped down? Clearly a good manager but maybe would have been more humble stepping into Fergie's shadow with a team that had won everything.
I don’t know why you assumed the poster knew what he was talking about.
I don't understand the context of that question. Nagelsmann has done a great work in Bundesliga for 5 straight seasons, his teams are always well coached and he has the ability to alter games with tactical changes. He is one of the rare coaches that somehow manages to make his team comfortable in 3 or 4 different set ups. His age is totally irrelevant, that's not why he is rated.
It's a good answer and has some things I agree with, like bringing in coaching staff.
What he did at Hoffenheim was a small miracle, so yes. His age obviously amplifies the hype a lot, but it's much more than just that.
Yes, I would rate him better than Ole in terms of coaching, we have seen his rise has been sharp, adapting in formations but that does not translate to better manager for Manutd.
