And maybe that could be the reason the club did not fully back Jose in Perisic pursuit, which if true is sad.As it comes clear that Griezman is a club signing (read: marketability) and not the manager, a proper strategy is needed.
We have a failing transfer strategy that has lead to this square pegs syndrome today.
Reasonable article. Frankly, I think a lot the tension could be eased up by Mourinho just being a little more relaxed and happier and not trying to be controversial in the press.
He just seems so absolutely bored and grumpy. He doesn't inspire confidence when you see him on the sidelines, he seems to hate it. He's never been a charmer that way but at least had a charisma about him. I don't see it any more.
I think we all are after watching the last few performances!Reasonable article. Frankly, I think a lot the tension could be eased up by Mourinho just being a little more relaxed and happier and not trying to be controversial in the press.
He just seems so absolutely bored and grumpy. He doesn't inspire confidence when you see him on the sidelines, he seems to hate it. He's never been a charmer that way but at least had a charisma about him. I don't see it any more.
So do I, City have been planning for Pep ever since they got Tixi, we had Fergie at the time and did not forward plan. I think Moyes appointment was a bit of arrogance on our part and then when that failed, LVG was only available and we got him, he stopped the Moyes rot and then started his own.Sure to divide opinions but I agree with him.
.United are looking to appoint a director of football operations, he'll have no influence over transfers. The power is given to the manager...
The under-resourced youth system is now receiving levels of investment similar to Manchester City and Chelsea. Van Gaal's priority was never going to be youth in his last job as a manager.
United also lost Sir Alex Ferguson and chief executive David Gill, a respected figure at the club and in football, in 2013. With them went invaluable know-how, as was immediately evident when Gill's replacement Ed Woodward, a banker, said the team didn't need a lot of "re-tooling".
Guardiola has signed 16 players as City manager, with Mourinho recruiting seven for United.
In terms of basic figures, Guardiola has outspent Mourinho by £75m in his time at the Etihad, but that figure leaps to £110m if add-ons and incentives are included.
Either way, City have invested more in their squad, both financially and in terms of personnel, since Guardiola arrived than United have under Mourinho.
And Guardiola was working with stronger foundations when he walked into the Etihad than those Mourinho inherited at Old Trafford.
What else does a DOF even do? I thought they were only responsible for overlooking the recruitment of the club?Once again, Mitten says the proposed DoF position will have no power over transfers
.
I think that's being a little naive. A DOF would ideally work in tandem with managers. Their job is to overlook the whole direction of the club, to make sure we're recruiting players and managers that suit our 'plan' or identity going forward. I think a DOF or someone of the sort who overlooks that stuff is important in today's game as managers are changed extremely often and without a DOF you're asking for a much greater job from all incoming managers. Instead if a DOF or someone of the sort was present, the manager being hired would suit our style and identity and he'd have a squad of players who would suit him too, albeit they may need a few tweaks and changes.I don't understand the obsession with a Director of Football. The two big instances of them working successfully (City and Bayern) have long connections between their DoF and their manager. If anything I believe a DoF would make it harder to attract a top manager that wants to bring in certain players.
Could someone educate me on the strengths and weaknesses of having one?
The 16 players signed by Pep vs 7 by Mourinho was news to me. And gives a whole new perspective to all that chat about similar total spends. Clearly, the fact we spent so much money on Pogba distorts the comparison in terms of total spend but I’m sure Mou would be much happier if a similar proportion of our squad was signed on his watch.There will be some that won't be bothered to read. Here are some highlights:
I don't disagree with your point. But look at the Persic saga as an example from this summer. There was a player that the manager preferred tactically that (if rumors are true) the club wouldn't sanction a bid for. To me the football is a revolving game tactically. Look at how everyone copied Conte with a 3-4-3 last year with the success he had. When Van Gaal was here and we played 5 at the back other managers followed suit. I think its more important to have the proper players the manager wants rather than the ones the club wants.I think that's being a little naive. A DOF would ideally work in tandem with managers. Their job is to overlook the whole direction of the club, to make sure we're recruiting players and managers that suit our 'plan' or identity going forward. I think a DOF or someone of the sort who overlooks that stuff is important in today's game as managers are changed extremely often and without a DOF you're asking for a much greater job from all incoming managers. Instead if a DOF or someone of the sort was present, the manager being hired would suit our style and identity and he'd have a squad of players who would suit him too, albeit they may need a few tweaks and changes.
If you have a long term manager then it's fine if there is no DoF, the long term manager has certain style and he will only buy players suited to his needs, so no problem. But at clubs like Chelsea who sack manager every other season, you cannot give the manager the power to sign according to his wish because once he is fired the next manager would want to discard the players that he feels doesn't suit his needs and will buy new players so there will be no stability in the squad, just like us right now, Moyes didn't want SAF's hand picked transfers, LvG booted out Moyes' signings, Mourinho did the same to LvG's signings.I don't understand the obsession with a Director of Football. The two big instances of them working successfully (City and Bayern) have long connections between their DoF and their manager. If anything I believe a DoF would make it harder to attract a top manager that wants to bring in certain players.
Could someone educate me on the strengths and weaknesses of having one?
Inter were being difficult with that transfer just like Madrid were with Morata, they were constantly changing goalposts regarding the transfer fee, we rightly turned that down. Mourinho should have had a backup plan.I don't disagree with your point. But look at the Persic saga as an example from this summer. There was a player that the manager preferred tactically that (if rumors are true) the club wouldn't sanction a bid for. To me the football is a revolving game tactically. Look at how everyone copied Conte with a 3-4-3 last year with the success he had. When Van Gaal was here and we played 5 at the back other managers followed suit. I think its more important to have the proper players the manager wants rather than the ones the club wants.
Maybe I'm missing something but it feels like the last few years that our club has been in this same crisis trying to balance "The United Way" vs. a Galatico approach like Madrid for example (how Woodward wants the club to be).
We need both.He seems to think we need a left winger. Surely a right winger is the area in need?
I agree with the rest of his list though: two full backs, CM and a No.10.
The big problem in the Dof thingy is that people are taking it for granted that the Dof appointment will be bang on.My big worry with a DoF is that it’s another uncertainty in uncertain times. If things go badly, how do we know who’s to blane? Maybe we end up with a good manager but a bad DOF? Yet it’s inevitably the manager who will get sacked. Then we rinse and repeat.
Inter were not being difficult. They wanted more money. Simple.Inter were being difficult with that transfer just like Madrid were with Morata, they were constantly changing goalposts regarding the transfer fee, we rightly turned that down. Mourinho should have had a backup plan.
13 of them are involved in the first team, 2 are already gone.The 16 players signed by Pep vs 7 by Mourinho was news to me. And gives a whole new perspective to all that chat about similar total spends. Clearly, the fact we spent so much money on Pogba distorts the comparison in terms of total spend but I’m sure Mou would be much happier if a similar proportion of our squad was signed on his watch.
We do have a more cohesive transfer strategy now. Mourinho is the first manager since Ferguson to have a clear idea entering the market every summer of what he wants. He hasn't gotten all of it but he has addressed areas of need and strengthened us, though not enough obviously, in certain areas of need.If City were not smashing records he'd probably write and article lauding the fact we're 'back on track', with a 'cohesive transfer policy'.
Didn't we bid 45 mil or something then there were ridiculous rumours like them asking Martial for exchange.Inter were not being difficult. They wanted more money. Simple.
We offered £31M. They said no...give us more. We did nothing.
£31M for a top class left winger who is at the peak of his powers, is totally unrealistic.
Let's be realistic for a minute. We cannot just go and sign half a team worth of new players and leave players like Martial sitting out. Martial is a quality player on the left and if we added a RW who can cross the ball, there is nothing wrong with having a player like Martial on the left who likes to dribble and cut inside.We need both.
But it was evident in our last game, that from the left, none of our players have the skill to do a cross. Young can do, though due to his age, we can't expect him to play too many games.
Had we got Perisic in the Summer, in the Burnley game, I have no doubt that we'd have scored 2-3 goals from crosses which Perisic would've delivered.
I think it's a travesty that we have a Lukaku in our team, but the players around him do not have the ability to deliver a decent cross.
And don't even get me started on corners.
I don't even know what transfer 'strategy' looks like, and I expect neither does Mitten. Beyond: players that are successful = good strategy. Players that aren't successful = bad strategy.We do have a more cohesive transfer strategy now. Mourinho is the first manager since Ferguson to have a clear idea entering the market every summer of what he wants. He hasn't gotten all of it but he has addressed areas of need and strengthened us, though not enough obviously, in certain areas of need.
The issue we're seeing with the squad is the failed transfers under Moyes and LVG.
Well we did spend 165m on Pogba and Lukaku. They spent big on fullbacks this window, but also got a lot of very good deals like both Sane and Jesus for around 35m each.The 16 players signed by Pep vs 7 by Mourinho was news to me. And gives a whole new perspective to all that chat about similar total spends. Clearly, the fact we spent so much money on Pogba distorts the comparison in terms of total spend but I’m sure Mou would be much happier if a similar proportion of our squad was signed on his watch.
Spot on. It's another copy and paste article. Some guarded optimism that basically says, we're good but there is more work to do.It all seems a bit meaningless. If players we signed were performing how we anticipated then it'd be a good transfer 'strategy', wouldn't it?
If City were not smashing records he'd probably write and article lauding the fact we're 'back on track', with a 'cohesive transfer policy'. If he's arguing that the club should try to sign players who will help the team, then I agree. But it all seems a bit lazy. People lap it up because it's what some of us want to hear.
Good run of form:
- Write an article mentioning the 'rebirth' of he club, praising he forward planning, say the club is 'back on its feet', etc.
Poor run of form:
- Write article criticising the 'transfer strategy', suggest things need to change, bemoan stuff.
Seems quite formulaic. And as ever with Mitten's articles - an absolute arse-load of padding.
My personal issue with this logic is that who would hire a manager with the intent of only having him on board a few years. If its a stopgap then don't back the manager to the tune of 250 million in a transfer window. When Mourinho was signed I genuinely felt he wanted to be here 6-8 years. He knew to create a lasting legacy he could go to Fergie's club and restore them to the pinnacle of English football. His Ego needs it, and he knew the club needs it as well. That is why the fit made so much sense.If you have a long term manager then it's fine if there is no DoF, the long term manager has certain style and he will only buy players suited to his needs, so no problem. But at clubs like Chelsea who sack manager every other season, you cannot give the manager the power to sign according to his wish because once he is fired the next manager would want to discard the players that he feels doesn't suit his needs and will buy new players so there will be no stability in the squad, just like us right now, Moyes didn't want SAF's hand picked transfers, LvG booted out Moyes' signings, Mourinho did the same to LvG's signings.
That's how I see it anyway.
That's a good point indeed. The issue for me is that decisions are made by one man, not that this man is the manager. If a club puts all its eggs in one basket, it is equally risky whether the basket has the title of a DoF or a manager. I think clubs need enough footballing people in high positions who more or less share a specific footballing vision. Barcelona for example had that consistency of vision for a long time, Txiki Begiristain was just another employee in a long line of people sharing a lot of similar views in how they wanted the club to play. You see the same with Bayern and their armada of former players and legends all involved in the footballing side of decision of making. I remember Fergie talking about them as a good example of how a football club should have that sort of character at the board level.My big worry with a DoF is that it’s another uncertainty in uncertain times. If things go badly, how do we know who’s to blane? Maybe we end up with a good manager but a bad DOF? Yet it’s inevitably the manager who will get sacked. Then we rinse and repeat.