I've mentioned before how you have an incredible ability to twist and turn arguments to suit your agenda. That doesn't make them right though - it just makes your posts on the topics of Sancho and Ten Hag incredibly frustrating. For example:
Given the public nature of his statement, it therefore makes sense to demand that Sancho apologize in public for that post. It doesn't mean that he has to apologize for not working hard enough; Ten Hag anyway didn't say that, because 'performance' is a broad term. But at which football club do you think Sancho would have been able to get away with this sort of public statement without any public apology or retraction? What specifically is egotistical from Ten Hag in not accepting this sort of clearly unacceptable public statement?
And you can the use of McTominay and Maguire whatever you like, but their use actually goes against your characterization of Ten Hag. As an egotistical dictator, isn't he supposed to freeze them out or otherwise mistreat them, as unwanted players that failed to leave? Instead, they are having key roles now, and Ten Hag is actually adapting his tactics to their presence on the pitch. You turning this into a negative on Ten Hag is red flag by itself.
You don't know any of those for certain about Ten Hag. You without fail take for granted any rumours or news that paint a negative picture of Ten Hag, and dismiss whatever is positive about Ten Hag. It's confirmation bias, not good reasoning.On the dictatorship point, even LvG showed some flexibility towards the end of 2015 when he responded to player criticisms about training. ETH is “my way or the high way” to an extreme extent. He is taking advantage of a vacuum of power at the club. We almost exclusively get his signings, he seems unresponsive to complaints about the training schedule and its intensity, while persisting with the same failing tactics.
Ten Hag only said that Sancho wasn't selected based on 'performance in training'. That's a pretty mild comment. It was Sancho was escalated that into a major row through his Twitter post, where he accused the manager of lying. (I know, it was more vague, as he only wrote 'I will not allow people saying things that [are] completely untrue.' But if he didn't refer to Ten Hag there, that could have been cleared up very easily and no row would have ensued.) I don't know either what Sancho thought to achieve with that and how it was supposed to advance his career, but it is what it is, he did post it.Totally banishing Sancho in that manner unless a public apology was given is considerably egotistical behaviour. Why can’t he accept a private apology and draw the line there? It was him and not Sancho who initially brought the issue to the public sphere.
He boxed Sancho into a situation where a public apology would imply the manager is correct about his professional application. Why would it be in Sancho’s interests to decrease his future earning potential and career prospects like that, just to continue holding bench? What would Ten Hag have gained from a public apology apart from humiliating Sancho? Would it increase his authority in the dressing room? Clearly not, as evidence by dissent towards towards his treatment of Sancho.
Given the public nature of his statement, it therefore makes sense to demand that Sancho apologize in public for that post. It doesn't mean that he has to apologize for not working hard enough; Ten Hag anyway didn't say that, because 'performance' is a broad term. But at which football club do you think Sancho would have been able to get away with this sort of public statement without any public apology or retraction? What specifically is egotistical from Ten Hag in not accepting this sort of clearly unacceptable public statement?
This is a great example of you jumping on rumours in the way that's most negative for Ten Hag. Apart from your logical leaps, where is the actual evidence that he considers Varane and Casemiro detrimental to standards or a threat to his authority? Why can't they just be expensive players that are becoming surplus to requirements and are therefore allowed to leave in January or this summer if they want? Your interpretation just smells of confirmation bias of someone you have develop a deep-seated dislike for.In addition, the current issues with Cas and Varane, experienced players the squad needs who have won far more than anyone else including the manager, are also dictatorial. If you want to raise standards at the club do you alienate such players or do you try to use their influence to get them onboard and behind the project? Less than a year ago they were an instrumental part of a trophy winning team and now all of a sudden they are detrimental to these apparent standards he is trying to raise? Make it make sense!
The fact he’s trying to get rid of these two legends of the game implies that they are a threat to his authority. It’s deeply concerning that he is falling out with every player in our squad who has a high standing in the game. It just smells of insecure control-freak that can’t handle big personalities and prefers to surround himself with yes-men that do as their told without complaint. This might work at a smaller club like Spurs or Arsenal, but at United you need to be able to work with superstars. Or, at least, the United of yesteryear. Not this version of United where being a point behind a City side in a crisis is celebrated as some sort of achievement while Arsenal and Liverpool are fighting for the title!
This is another example of your theory basically being unbeatable: any evidence to the contrary you simply dismiss as being unreliable. If you get to that point, you've gotten into the realm of pseudo-science and conspiracy theories - it's a key characteristic.2. You said: “It does appear… by main players' interview this week that the stories of a deep dressing room rift/crisis/whatever were indeed vastly exaggerated, if not simply untrue”. Do you honestly think someone is going to come out publicly and say its true? These leaks are players putting pressure on the club to either get Ten Hag to be more accomodating or to get rid.
I didn't say the tactic worked perfectly, I just said that it's odd to speak of 'disgusting tactics' right after the game. 'Disgusting tactics' I associate with parking five defensive busses along the box, or deliberately kicking the shit out of opposition. An imperfect attacking tactic that provides plenty of entertainment may not be genius, but it's hardly 'disgusting'.3. Using the Chelsea game as an example of tactical success is hilarious. Chelsea are terrible and have been so all season, largely because they play a similar way to us. Their squad is also poor and they lack experience. That being said, our tactical weaknesses were still on show and a better team would have beaten us convincingly. Chelsea’s goal took advantage of our man-to-man press as team have done all season to attack us through the middle. Enzo moved wide, McTominay followed him, the passing line through the middle was open for Mudryk to get on the ball and set up Palmer. The man-to-man press is still being exploited. McTominay saving our skin again is also funny considering that Ten Hag tried to get rid. Likewise for Maguire. The fact we’re relying on players he tried to get rid of should be a red flag by themselves.
And you can the use of McTominay and Maguire whatever you like, but their use actually goes against your characterization of Ten Hag. As an egotistical dictator, isn't he supposed to freeze them out or otherwise mistreat them, as unwanted players that failed to leave? Instead, they are having key roles now, and Ten Hag is actually adapting his tactics to their presence on the pitch. You turning this into a negative on Ten Hag is red flag by itself.
Yes, but the Chelsea result was a team win that resulted from everyone working their socks off in support of the tactic adopted. There have been plenty of instances, also this season, that moments of individual brilliance one the club games; but not the Chelsea match. I'm not saying this one match is conclusive evidence of squad support for Ten Hag (or at least of the starting 11), but it's about as reliable as those rumours about unrest. But as usual, your confirmation bias makes you reject one and accept the other - and then draw harsh conclusions on the basis of that.4. You’re suggesting that there is no mutiny due to the result against Chelsea. You can’t cite our wins as a measure of squad morale being high. We’re likely to win most of our games because we simply have better players. Even in the darkest days of the Moyes, LvG, Jose, Ole and Ralf periods we still won consistently. But what do our performances say? There are too many games whereby we have been dominated across the entire 90 minutes and even in those where we beat weaker teams, we did so unconvincingly and could have easily lost heavily.
That's again assuming those reports of dressing room unrest are true - as discussed above.7. I understand that it is the club’s duty to protect Ten Hag. Can’t really complain about the banning of the journalists, even if it was ordered by Ten Hag himself. That being said, the circumstances that led to it, namely the grievances of the dressing room, are a red flag and they were totally avoidable had Ten Hag been more competent.