My Summer Manifesto

Lu Tze said:
Good post as always but too sensible and the strategy isn't exclusively based around signing FM wonderkids and creating an endless series of Ferguson clones in a hidden lab at Carrington. 7/10
Click to expand...
Definitely oversights on my part.
 
simonhch said:
If there's a forum award for longest post in history, I'm quietly confident I've just clinched it. I haven't been around much these past few months as life has had me buried in lengthy academic and professional writing, so rather than drip-feeding thoughts across multiple threads, I resolved to get everything out in one go. Consider this my summer manifesto.

The Summer Rebuild: A Roadmap

Let's get the obvious out of the way first. We are going to lose a lot in central midfield this summer. Casemiro is definitely gone when his contract expires, and that is a serious amount of experience walking out the door. Ugarte will also be moving on. I won't pretend that's a devastating footballing loss given his performances haven't justified the investment, but it is still a body leaving, and bodies matter when you consider what next season is going to ask of this squad.

Because here's the thing; assuming we qualify for the Champions League, and I think that’s assured now, next season is going to be enormous. CL football, the league (where anything less than qualifying for Europe's top table again should be considered a failure), the FA Cup, the Carabao Cup. We are realistically looking at 60+ games, possibly more. That fixture volume changes everything about how you build a squad.

The "Two Players Per Position" Imperative

I've said this before and I'll say it again: the only sensible framework for squad construction at this level is two viable players per position. Not two players where one is a real starter and the other is a warm body — two players who can each credibly start for a team with title aspirations. In practice, I think you'll have a core of six to eight players who are “undroppable” first choices, another ten to twelve who are fiercely competing for those starting slots and can step in without any material drop in quality, and then two to six younger developmental players; high ceiling, high potential, not yet at the elite level but hungry and improving. Every signing should fall into one of those three buckets. If a player doesn't fit any of them, he shouldn't be here.

Midfield is the Priority

After Casemiro and Ugarte depart, our only genuine, recognised central midfielder is Kobbie Mainoo. That is an extraordinary situation to be in going into a Champions League season. We need three midfielders this summer to give us four credible CMs.

So let me start with the obvious. Anderson is probably exactly the right profile — a homegrown 6/8 with the quality to be a United player — but the likely asking price of around £125m is prohibitive at the best of times, and even more so when we have further expensive signings to make across the squad. More fundamentally, I don't think he's worth that kind of investment. He's very good, but he is not a generational talent who redefines a team's entire profile, and at that price you need to be buying someone who does exactly that.

My preferred primary target, and one I genuinely hope has legs, is Aurélien Tchouameni. He is a proper "6". Positionally disciplined, so comfortable positionally and in possession that he's filled in effectively at centre back for Real and brings elite club and competition experience that you simply cannot manufacture. His press resistance, passing quality, and physicality would excel in the Premier League. In almost every respect, aside from the set piece threat Casemiro provides, he would be an upgrade. At just 26, he is at the perfect age to anchor our midfield for the next five or six years, at least, and if he could be secured for around £80m, this club should not hesitate for a single second.

What excites me most about a Tchouameni signing is the partnership it creates. Him alongside Kobbie Mainoo would, in my opinion, become one of the best midfield pairings in Europe within a couple of seasons. Their qualities are near-perfectly complementary. Tchouameni's physical presence, positional intelligence, and elite experience alongside Mainoo's dynamism, ball retention, and technical ingenuity. It's the kind of partnership you build a team around.

But we need a third player who is ready to play and start, someone who can partner either Tchouameni or Mainoo in a double pivot, or operate as part of a three alongside both. The player who stands out most clearly to me (and I'll be honest, I'm a very big fan) is Mateus Fernandes from West Ham.

I think he is the complete package. The perfect modern midfielder. His long-range passing and vision are exceptional, his first touch is elite, and his ball-carrying in tight spaces is a joy to watch. He presses with real intensity and consistency, with the stamina to sustain it across 90 minutes, but crucially he is also extremely difficult to press himself. He has a low centre of gravity and serious lower body and core strength that makes him incredibly hard to shake off the ball, which is a physical attribute that doesn’t get enough attention. His playmaking and tempo control are underrated too; he drops between the centre backs naturally and uses that space to dictate the pace of play. Defensively, his ability to read passing lanes and cut off attacks before they develop is genuinely excellent already. And then there's the transition…..when Fernandes accelerates through a midfield gap to trigger a rapid attack, it is something else. Truly elite. That combination of being devastating in a counterattacking system while also being completely comfortable in a possession-based one is extraordinarily rare, and it fits our profile perfectly under any Head Coach we're likely to employ.

At this stage of his career, moving to a club of our size, I believe he would be content to be initially rotational. Which is important for the profile we need for that third CM spot. We will sorely regret letting this player go elsewhere. I believe he should be a priority signing. Alarmingly PSG are already sniffing.

The third signing, so our fourth CM, stays in the developmental bracket. A player like Bouaddi, Mokio, or Smit: potentially elite young talent, high ceiling, happy to fulfill a squad role while they develop, with every expectation they push their way up the pecking order. After the Yoro deal, our relationship with Lille is strong, and Bouaddi, in particular, feels like a very achievable piece of business and is the best of the trio from what I have seen. A quartet of Mainoo, Tchouameni, Fernandes, and Bouaddi — all technically excellent, blending experience with elite young talent — is the foundation of a midfield that can be genuinely dominant for years, and is a sign of the sort of strategic long term thinking that lasting success is built on.

The Alternatives and the Fallback Options

Given that the best laid plans rarely survive contact with the transfer market, and the last thing anyone wants is a repeat of the Frenkie De Jong debacle, i.e. more than one summer consumed by a deal that never happened while better, more attainable options slipped away. The good news is that I think we now have a genuinely competent recruitment operation, as evidenced by last summer's business, and that gives me confidence that alternatives will be properly identified and pursued in parallel. At least, that’s what should be happening.

So who fills the gaps if primary targets fall through?

Carlos Baleba features prominently on most lists, and with caveats, rightly so. The obvious concern is the mental fortitude/character question. His form demonstrably suffered after his head was turned by United last summer, and that's not a trivial thing to dismiss. But at a reasonable price, somewhere under £60m including add-ons, he has the potential to be an excellent squad addition and possibly an elite performer in time. My concern is using him as a primary alternative to Tchouameni rather than to Fernandes. A double pivot of Baleba and Mainoo is short on experience and proven sustained form. That is a significant gamble, and one I don't think we can afford to take at this stage of the rebuild. Baleba as the Mateus Fernandes fallback? Fine. Baleba as our primary defensive midfielder? That's a different proposition entirely.

So if Tchouameni is unavailable, and Anderson is too expensive or also unavailable, then who? We need someone with a longer resume, attainable — not necessarily cheap, because I'm not sure cheap exists in this market anymore — but affordable and genuinely within reach. Three names stand out. First is Wharton, who is more of an 8 than a 6, and there are very real questions about whether his price tag is justifiable for his profile. Second….Tonali. At 25 he has the engine and proven Premier League quality to make an impact, and while I don't think he ever quite reaches the very top tier, he's a player with real credentials. Finally, Angelo Stiller is the highest-risk option of the three I am putting forward, given the lack of Premier League experience, but also arguably the most interesting profile. He blends defensive tenacity and positional discipline with excellent technique, a genuine passing range, and real playmaking ability. Of the three, he's the biggest gamble but also the player whose ceiling is hardest to cap. Professionals at the club with more insight, more data and more experience are in a better position to analyse, but the balance between quality, characteristics, and price feels like the best of the bunch to me.

The Full Back Situation: More Pressing Than It Looks

Left back requires attention, and more than a budget solution. Shaw needs to be rotated aggressively next season. His fitness record makes that non-negotiable. While Mazraoui showed at AFCON that he can play the position to a high level, we need a genuine left back who can compete and rotate with Shaw, and ideally one who offers a different, more attacking profile rather than just a like-for-like cover option.

The standout experienced option for me is David Raum. He is a superb attacking full back, genuinely excellent going forward, and would be affordable in relative terms. The caveat is that at 28 he is not a long-term successor to Shaw, his would be a signing that solves a problem for two or three years, not one that defines the position for a decade. But solving the problem for two or three years is actually what we need right now, and Raum does that very well.

The best option among those potentially available is Lewis Hall. We are looking at around £60m, maybe more, which is an extremely meaningful investment, but I believe one worth making if it fits within our financial capabilities and, critically, doesn’t compromise the midfield recruitment drive. The midfield is the overwhelming priority and nothing should be allowed to compete with it for funds. If Hall is achievable after the midfield is addressed, he should be pursued seriously. Other interesting profiles worth monitoring are the technically excellent Adrian Turffert and the lightning quick Nathaniel Brown, both offer different attributes and are worth having on the list as the window develops.

On Harry Amass — everything I said before, in previous posts, stands. He has proven he can compete physically in men's football after a full season in a demanding Championship, and the technical quality was never in question. But to be clear about his role: next season he is a squad player and a quality third choice, getting serious minutes in cup competitions and hopefully using that platform to establish himself as a genuine long-term successor to Shaw. That is a realistic and valuable role for a player of his age and trajectory. It is not, however, a reason to avoid signing a senior left back ready to compete from day one.

At right back, I am wary of saying that “just good enough” is good enough, but given other priorities it's acceptable for one more season, not excellent. Dalot and Mazraoui will do the job, but it is a position that needs genuine upgrading. The following summer that has to happen as part of the long term rebuild, and we should already be doing the groundwork now. Names like Kayode are near the top of most emerging lists for that position, and while his price is only likely to go up, another year at Brentford is only going to do him good.

One idea worth serious consideration for next season, however, is giving Yoro some game time at right back. I know the instinctive reaction is to resist playing centre backs out of position, and generally I share that instinct. But there are rare instances where it works exceptionally well, not just for the team, but for the player's own development. Think of the work we did with Phil Jones, and particularly Wes Brown, who excelled there so completely that he became our primary right back and one of the best in the league for a period. Culminating in our 2008 CL victory. Yoro has the technical ability, the mobility, and the dribbling capability to excel in a role that requires a defensively solid, tactically intelligent supporting full back, especially if we are deploying a more attacking option on the left. Not every full back has to be an overlapping speedster, and one of Yoro’s stand-out qualities is his ball carrying from the back line. Aside from the obvious tactical flexibility of morphing into a three in the build up phase, it would improve our aerial presence during set pieces at both end of the pitch. Importantly, it would also broaden his game and sharpen his awareness of the full pitch in ways that only benefit his long-term development as an elite centre back, which is absolutely where his future lies. Some minutes at right back next season is not a deviation from that path, instead I think it could actually accelerate it.

The Forward Department and the Bruno Question

The AMC role is Bruno's, full stop, with Mount as the understudy. I'd move Mount on and find a replacement if the right situation arose, but I don't think it will, and frankly Mount's versatility and quality are going to be genuinely useful in a 60-game season. The enduring fitness question mark is real, but it's the hand we're playing. For the sake of brevity (I can hear you laughing) I will not address today Bruno’s age, and eventual succession plan, but suffice to say I can see us moving towards a more compact and controlling midfield three instead of the double pivot and “10” that we deploy currently.

In the wide forward areas, the Dorgu, Cunha, Amad, and Mbuemo quartet delivers exactly the two players per position imperative I outlined at the top of this post. Dorgu is growing into a real threat, and that left-footed attacker operating from the left is incredibly rare in an era of inverted wingers. I think he can potentially be a key player next season. Between those four we have real quality, variety, and cover across the wide positions, and no…I am not worried about the form of Mbeumo and Amad. I see two players of enormous quality who are suffering from a post AFCON blip. I retain a lot of faith in their quality. Sesko up front is already an excellent forward anchor, but I think we’ve only see the tip of the iceberg with him. He’s a potential unicorn. The speed, mobility, technique of a smaller false nine, and the benefits of a more traditional target man. The problem is that with Zirkzee likely leaving (as he should), we are a man short up front, and that gap needs addressing.

The approach to solving it can and should be flexible. The most obvious answer is a like-for-like striker replacement, but the market for that profile is extremely thin. Watkins would be a superb rotation option alongside Sesko — the right age, the right quality, the right profile to complement rather than duplicate — but his price tag would be wildly inappropriate for what would be a squad rather than starting role, and I can't see that deal making sense for any party except Aston Villa. Unless we want to take a short-term punt on someone like Danny Welbeck on a free for one season, which has a certain nostalgic charm but isn't really a serious answer, then a more agile approach is needed.

What I mean by agile is this: rather than hunting a pure striker in a shallow market at inflated prices, we consider a versatile forward who gives us options and flexibility across the entire front line. Someone whose arrival frees up Mbuemo, Cunha, or even Amad to operate in a different way, as a roaming pressing forward, a false nine, or second striker, without us losing attacking quality or tactical clarity. That kind of signing multiplies options rather than simply filling a vacancy.

Diomande has been mentioned in this context and I understand why, he has the profile of a potentially elite wide forward and the physical attributes to cause problems in the Premier League. But his period of proven excellence is relatively short, and the Bundesliga is not the proving ground that justifies the fee his club are reportedly demanding (somewhere north of £100m). That’s before we even take into consideration the pattern of high value Bundesliga imports who flatter to deceive. For that kind of money I want an indisputable star and automatic starter. Diomande is not that. At least not yet. He may well become it, but we would be paying the price for what he might be rather than what he demonstrably is, and that is a gamble I don't think the budget allows us to take after the midfield spend. Someone else is either going to get a superstar, or get horribly burned.

So, we have to cast the net wider. Names like Mateus Mane have come up in recent links and represent the kind of younger, hungry, more budget-conscious, high upside profile that might fit our needs and financial reality better than a marquee purchase. In that mold I also really like Rodrigio Gomes, also at Wolves, and Eli Junior Kroupi (who would be more expensive but has real quality). We should also not overlook what is coming through our own academy. Lacey and Thwaites both deserve genuine first team integration next season, players with real upside who have shown enough to suggest they could become significant contributors. JJ Gabriel is the longer-term proposition. An exceptional talent who isn't ready yet, but who will train with the first team squad and maybe get his cup minutes. Then there is Chido. The forward line of the next three to four years may already be within our walls to some degree.

Defensively, We're in Good Shape (For Now)

Maguire's contract extension was an easy and correct decision. Leadership, experience, professionalism, mental strength, reliability, and quality at that price is a no-brainer. Lisandro Martinez is a unique asset whose competitive fury combined with his distribution is something you can't just go and easily replicate. That said, his injury record is troubling and if there was one to leave, and be replaced by a high-quality replacement, it would probably be him. In Yoro and Heaven we have two players from whom I expect massive strides over the next two to three seasons. But patience will be required (good luck with the fanbase). Both are already good enough to start (rotationally) for a top team but are still developing the situational maturity and consistency to be the absolute spine. That evolution is coming, and I think we’ll see it accelerate as they accumulate more experience.

Then there is De Ligt. Look, the fitness record is a serious concern and I won't pretend otherwise. But when he plays, you're watching one of the best centre-backs in the world. That quality doesn't disappear. The priority right now should be getting him fit and firing for next season (because he won’t be leaving this summer) and getting everything out of him, because the ceiling when he's healthy and available is exceptional.

Recruitment, Infrastructure, and the Long Game

Let's talk about something that doesn't get nearly enough serious analysis in fan discourse, and that's the structural question sitting underneath all of this transfer discussion. Because before we can properly evaluate who we sign, we need to honestly confront the context in which those signings will be made.

The “Head Coach” appointment this summer is genuinely difficult. In the absence of Luis Enrique, who we can all agree is several tiers above the other candidates, I don't see anyone on the available list who is both outstanding and risk-free. The names being hyped right now, like Marco Silva, Andoni Iraola, and Oliver Glasner, are all being discussed with an enthusiasm that isn't always grounded in rigorous analysis. There's a pattern in football discourse where a coach who has overperformed with a focused, well-run mid-table club becomes briefly anointed as the next great thing, often without serious examination of their difficult periods, their tactical limitations at the elite level, or crucially how much of their success was driven by the exceptional recruitment and football operations infrastructure around them rather than by their own genius.

We've seen this movie before. Frank and Potter both looked exceptional within the finely tuned, data-driven ecosystems at Brentford and Brighton respectively. The moment they stepped outside those environments, the clubs they left behind continued to thrive, and in some cases improved, while the coaches themselves struggled badly. The ecosystem made the coach look better than the coach made the ecosystem. That's not a slight on either individual; it's just an honest read of what happened.

Accepting Probability Before Making the Appointment

Here is something I think we as a fanbase need to genuinely accept before the next manager walks through the door: if we hold expectations at the appropriate level (title challenge, or close to it) then the probability of this appointment failing is, statistically, higher than the probability of it succeeding. That's not pessimism. That's just modern football, and it's easily observable recent history not only at United but at almost every major club around us. Appointment after appointment, at club after club, has demonstrated that even talented coaches fail regularly at the biggest clubs. The variables are too many, the margins too thin, the external pressures too intense.

This isn't an argument for lowering expectations. It's an argument for building a club that doesn't collapse when the inevitable happens. Because there will be another wrong appointment after this one. And another after that. That's not ineptitude, it's just the reality of the industry.

The data point we should be obsessing over is not whether or why we got the Amorim appointment wrong. It's whether we have built, or are building, the structural excellence in every other domain that allows the club to absorb a wrong appointment, make a change, and continue on strategic track without missing a beat and without needing to rebuild the squad from scratch. That means elite medical and performance infrastructure. It means genuine player development and support systems. It means academy excellence. It means organisational culture that is consistent and strong regardless of who is in the dugout. And above all else — equal to or greater than any of the above — it means recruitment.

The Squad Must Be Bigger Than Any One Coach

This is where I want to be direct, because I know some people push back on this. The squad should be built around a long-term vision of player and squad development, consistent with a defined game model that retains room for tactical and stylistic agility, but is fundamentally impervious to the whims or preferences of any individual head coach. The head coach absolutely has a voice in recruitment. Of course they do. But they are not the driving force, they do not have final say or power of veto, and they do not dictate a wholesale change in game model that necessitates tearing up the squad and starting again.

United have given us arguably the greatest example in football history of what happens when you get this catastrophically wrong. Moyes to Van Gaal to Mourinho. Each appointment was philosophically diametrically opposed to the last. Van Gaal — a coach so committed to possession and control that he reportedly discouraged players from shooting first time, preferring they bring the ball under control first — followed by Mourinho, whose entire football philosophy was documented by his own biographer as being built around surrendering the ball and exploiting the opposition's mistakes. You could not construct two more opposed football philosophies if you tried. Neither was right for United. But the deeper, more catastrophic failure was appointing them back to back. The result? Multiple complete squad rebuilds. Hundreds of millions of pounds wasted on players who were right for one coach and useless for the next. All while operating in a "win now" demand cycle that left no room to actually see any project through. A truly world-class own goal, and one the club has repeated in various forms ever since.

I do think INEOS understands this. The criticism of them is real and often valid, but the evidence from last summer's transfer activity suggests a recruitment operation with genuine coherence and strategic intent; building a squad that can function under multiple tactical interpretations rather than one bespoke to a single coach. That has to be the model going forwards.

The Hat Trick

Put Carrick, Iraola, Glasner, Silva, Tuchel, and Nagelsmann into a hat. Draw one out at random. My honest view is that each of them has roughly equal chances of success or failure in this specific role. Not because they are all the same, they are clearly not, and each brings a meaningfully different set of qualities and risks. But because, first, every one of them has obvious strengths alongside genuine vulnerabilities that could prove their undoing at a club of this size and scrutiny, and second, because the success or failure of whoever is drawn will be determined at least as much by the quality of the infrastructure around them as by their own ability.

The idea that we need to find a new Ferguson — one transcendent individual who defines the club for a generation — is not only unlikely, it's the wrong way to think about it entirely. That model belongs to a different era of football. The club's strategic clarity, intellectual expertise, recruitment excellence, and operational consistency is the new Ferguson. That is the enduring light. That is what drives sustained success over time, regardless of who is standing on the touchline.

Get that right, and the coach matters less than people think. Get it wrong, and it doesn't matter who you appoint.
Click to expand...
Tldr?
 
Great post! Agree wholeheartedly with the main points except for striker/forward options. I think a veteran up front is needed alongside Sesko and a developing trio of Chido, Lacey, and Gabriel. Welbeck may be on his last legs but he would bring so much to the squad even if it's for one year (think Jonny Evans' return).
 
Heliax said:
Great post! Agree wholeheartedly with the main points except for striker/forward options. I think a veteran up front is needed alongside Sesko and a developing trio of Chido, Lacey, and Gabriel. Welbeck may be on his last legs but he would bring so much to the squad even if it's for one year (think Jonny Evans' return).
Click to expand...
I am not totally opposed to it, which is why I even mentioned it. But not sure how seriously I take the idea. It’s pretty much zero risk.

And thank you.
 
simonhch said:
Thank you. I genuinely don't mind the "too long" jokes and jibes, because it generally acts as a filter of opinions that are more likely to be knee jerk or hyperbolic. Which is exactly the sort of discourse I have sought to get away from. I've lived through most iterations of the Caf. It used to be highly amusing, and the banter was suitably remorseless and witty, these days it's largely just tired.

On your point, don't get me wrong, I would love the next Ferguson, but I just think it's borderline impossible, and failing that you have to have an organisational structure and philosophy that works.
Click to expand...

How about pompous tw..
 
I read through it quickly. If we were able to get all these signings in it would be an excellent muppet summer. I think a useful addendum would be the estimated cost of this plan

Also, what will the impact of the World Cup be, with a shortened preseason?

Also, what faith do you have in the club ownership and management to put in place this world class structure that any above average coach can work well in?

I do think transfers is only one piece of the puzzle. Whoever we bring in as coach will need to be someone who is tactically flexible, but who is also capable of getting a team to execute their plans. Players and incoming transfers need to have confidence in whoever is in the dugout.

Anyways, the overall reaction to this post reminds me of the OP getting rinsed years ago for admitting to sparring with some Krav Maga maniac and getting battered in the shins. Good stuff. This is a better read
 
Organisational excellence should include those at the top and therefore involve getting a DoF whose vision involves building teams capable of the level we saw on Tuesday night.

The current incumbent has not shown any sign of having that vision or ambition whatsoever.
 
simonhch said:
Thank you. I genuinely don't mind the "too long" jokes and jibes, because it generally acts as a filter of opinions that are more likely to be knee jerk or hyperbolic. Which is exactly the sort of discourse I have sought to get away from. I've lived through most iterations of the Caf. It used to be highly amusing, and the banter was suitably remorseless and witty, these days it's largely just tired.

On your point, don't get me wrong, I would love the next Ferguson, but I just think it's borderline impossible, and failing that you have to have an organisational structure and philosophy that works.
Click to expand...
I’ll admit it was a bit tongue-in-cheek with the Fergie comment, but what I mean seriously with it I think is in line with your general thinking:

Some coaches are special like some players are special, and you can make them average by not adapting to them and make them geniuses by adapting to them. But it pays to identify them and adapt to them.

United identified Ferguson as special out of a bit of luck and desperation I think, and luckily adapted to him by giving him almost total control over five or six years. That suited his talents and how football worked at the time.

City identified Guardiola as special based on the obvious, but also based on understanding what he needed around him to be special: the best players and squad in the league, and sporting administrative set up that catered to his strengths and weaknesses. They had the money and corrupt set up for getting the players, and they planned for the administrative set up through prioritizing it and thinking long term. The result is total dominance of the strongest league in the world in that period, plus a CL and going from needing to be corrupt to now affording not to be.

Liverpool identified Klopp through making a good match up of what the club could be and what Klopp could do, and seeing that they could adapt to what he needed with their structure and let him do what he did best. They used their data friven scouting set up to guve him exactly the profiles he identified rather than the specific players, and supported his vision and man management fully, which was easy because he already was a good match for the club identity, outside perception etc.

These three coaches are at the level worth making exceptions for, but only if you have a situation that matches the abilities that might make them special. That is very different for each case. You could say similar things about RM’s use of Zidane and Ancelotti, or Barca’s and PSG’s use of Enrique.

As you point out, United fecked up with Van Gaal and Mourinho not because they were not special, but because United (Glazer/Woodward) had no idea what it would take to make them special, or if the club could offer such a situation. Getting a good sporting set up and a sensible squad is part of that, identifying who can be a special coach and what would be needed for them to carry out that specialness is the next step.

What can be said for the Solskjær appointment, is that they identified a coach that is not special in this sense, just one of many quite good coaches/managers - but they ‘identied’/got lucky with that the situation at the time catered so well to his strengths that he got more out of the club set up than the two predecessors who in my opinion at that time still were a lot stronger managers/coaches individually.

I was hoping that the hiringof Ten Hag and Amorim were both a case of identifying a special coach and being ready to match their talents with a fitting situation. Looking in hindsight, it seems that Arnold/Murtaugh/Glazers really miscalculated Ten Hags strengths and weaknesses, underestimated the needs of both profile and quality lacking in the squad and how it matched with their ability to fund and recruit to the needed changes. The Amorim hiring also seems more like ‘an interesting idea’ than a well thought out plan by a sporting administration in the middle of finding their feet andunderstanding the club’s situation.

My hope is that the sporting administration has learnt more about themselves and the circumstances of the club to be able to plan better, and are able to do a good enough recruitment scouting to understand which potential coaches are really special, and what it would take for them to realistically be special at this club. I’m fairly certain Guardiola would not look so special if he was thrown into the club the way and in the situation Amorim was, for instance. Maybe better, sure, but nothing resembling a special coach worth adapting a lot to.

If there are no such coaches in view, I agree, it’s about looking at the Carricks, Iraolas, Glasners of the world and see which one of them matches our set up and squad best for the time being, and are alligned with what direction we want to be heading in terms of squad and playing style.
 
Grande said:
I’ll admit it was a bit tongue-in-cheek with the Fergie comment, but what I mean seriously with it I think is in line with your general thinking:

Some coaches are special like some players are special, and you can make them average by not adapting to them and make them geniuses by adapting to them. But it pays to identify them and adapt to them.

United identified Ferguson as special out of a bit of luck and desperation I think, and luckily adapted to him by giving him almost total control over five or six years. That suited his talents and how football worked at the time.

City identified Guardiola as special based on the obvious, but also based on understanding what he needed around him to be special: the best players and squad in the league, and sporting administrative set up that catered to his strengths and weaknesses. They had the money and corrupt set up for getting the players, and they planned for the administrative set up through prioritizing it and thinking long term. The result is total dominance of the strongest league in the world in that period, plus a CL and going from needing to be corrupt to now affording not to be.

Liverpool identified Klopp through making a good match up of what the club could be and what Klopp could do, and seeing that they could adapt to what he needed with their structure and let him do what he did best. They used their data friven scouting set up to guve him exactly the profiles he identified rather than the specific players, and supported his vision and man management fully, which was easy because he already was a good match for the club identity, outside perception etc.

These three coaches are at the level worth making exceptions for, but only if you have a situation that matches the abilities that might make them special. That is very different for each case. You could say similar things about RM’s use of Zidane and Ancelotti, or Barca’s and PSG’s use of Enrique.

As you point out, United fecked up with Van Gaal and Mourinho not because they were not special, but because United (Glazer/Woodward) had no idea what it would take to make them special, or if the club could offer such a situation. Getting a good sporting set up and a sensible squad is part of that, identifying who can be a special coach and what would be needed for them to carry out that specialness is the next step.

What can be said for the Solskjær appointment, is that they identified a coach that is not special in this sense, just one of many quite good coaches/managers - but they ‘identied’/got lucky with that the situation at the time catered so well to his strengths that he got more out of the club set up than the two predecessors who in my opinion at that time still were a lot stronger managers/coaches individually.

I was hoping that the hiringof Ten Hag and Amorim were both a case of identifying a special coach and being ready to match their talents with a fitting situation. Looking in hindsight, it seems that Arnold/Murtaugh/Glazers really miscalculated Ten Hags strengths and weaknesses, underestimated the needs of both profile and quality lacking in the squad and how it matched with their ability to fund and recruit to the needed changes. The Amorim hiring also seems more like ‘an interesting idea’ than a well thought out plan by a sporting administration in the middle of finding their feet andunderstanding the club’s situation.

My hope is that the sporting administration has learnt more about themselves and the circumstances of the club to be able to plan better, and are able to do a good enough recruitment scouting to understand which potential coaches are really special, and what it would take for them to realistically be special at this club. I’m fairly certain Guardiola would not look so special if he was thrown into the club the way and in the situation Amorim was, for instance. Maybe better, sure, but nothing resembling a special coach worth adapting a lot to.

If there are no such coaches in view, I agree, it’s about looking at the Carricks, Iraolas, Glasners of the world and see which one of them matches our set up and squad best for the time being, and are alligned with what direction we want to be heading in terms of squad and playing style.
Click to expand...
TL;DR:

If you need a TL;DR, this is not for you.
 
Good post even if it’s long. More interesting than most of the replies. I agree with a lot of what you said, in particular the following:

-When fit, MDL is a wonderful player. Back injuries are just so difficult.

-Martinez’s skill set is very difficult to replace, though again injuries are a concern

-Extending Maguire was a good move especially when we have so much experience in Cas leaving this summer. There are games next year where we’ll need a backs to the wall defender, or an experienced head next to one of our young CBs.

I actually think an experienced number 9 is something we’ve needed for a few years. I think Hojlund really suffered from the situation he came into in both his seasons here, more prominently in 24/25. Similarly, Sesko could have done with an experienced mentor/alternative the first half of this season. We all so how well coming off the bench suited him after the turn of the year, and the player to player coaching and dimming of the spotlight a more seasoned striker would provide is great for young forwards players. Zirkzee more of a second striker and while I think he grew into things last season before his injury, he might be more suited to continental football and he might be on the way out. Sesko seems more settled now, or at least is scoring goals at a decent clip, and Bruno has done a great job working with him in games, but still. 20/21 Cavani would be perfect. Lewa on a free transfer…?

The best point I think you made was the order of Moyes- LVG- Mourinho being an absolute disaster. Completely different styles of play and philosophies from manager to manager, each with their own flaws too but that almost was a secondary problem, there was no cohesion or through line of thinking. I remember when Palace went Allardyce, De Boer, Hodgson in 2017 a lot of people commenting on how the direction was shifting wildly in such a short space of time. At times under Jose and even Ole we looked like a mixture of 3 different squads.
 
Find it humorous that this dissertation of a post is based on such a non-starter of a transfer as Tchouameni.
 
simonhch said:
If there's a forum award for longest post in history, I'm quietly confident I've just clinched it. I haven't been around much these past few months as life has had me buried in lengthy academic and professional writing, so rather than drip-feeding thoughts across multiple threads, I resolved to get everything out in one go. Consider this my summer manifesto.

The Summer Rebuild: A Roadmap

Let's get the obvious out of the way first. We are going to lose a lot in central midfield this summer. Casemiro is definitely gone when his contract expires, and that is a serious amount of experience walking out the door. Ugarte will also be moving on. I won't pretend that's a devastating footballing loss given his performances haven't justified the investment, but it is still a body leaving, and bodies matter when you consider what next season is going to ask of this squad.

Because here's the thing; assuming we qualify for the Champions League, and I think that’s assured now, next season is going to be enormous. CL football, the league (where anything less than qualifying for Europe's top table again should be considered a failure), the FA Cup, the Carabao Cup. We are realistically looking at 60+ games, possibly more. That fixture volume changes everything about how you build a squad.

The "Two Players Per Position" Imperative

I've said this before and I'll say it again: the only sensible framework for squad construction at this level is two viable players per position. Not two players where one is a real starter and the other is a warm body — two players who can each credibly start for a team with title aspirations. In practice, I think you'll have a core of six to eight players who are “undroppable” first choices, another ten to twelve who are fiercely competing for those starting slots and can step in without any material drop in quality, and then two to six younger developmental players; high ceiling, high potential, not yet at the elite level but hungry and improving. Every signing should fall into one of those three buckets. If a player doesn't fit any of them, he shouldn't be here.

Midfield is the Priority

After Casemiro and Ugarte depart, our only genuine, recognised central midfielder is Kobbie Mainoo. That is an extraordinary situation to be in going into a Champions League season. We need three midfielders this summer to give us four credible CMs.

So let me start with the obvious. Anderson is probably exactly the right profile — a homegrown 6/8 with the quality to be a United player — but the likely asking price of around £125m is prohibitive at the best of times, and even more so when we have further expensive signings to make across the squad. More fundamentally, I don't think he's worth that kind of investment. He's very good, but he is not a generational talent who redefines a team's entire profile, and at that price you need to be buying someone who does exactly that.

My preferred primary target, and one I genuinely hope has legs, is Aurélien Tchouameni. He is a proper "6". Positionally disciplined, so comfortable positionally and in possession that he's filled in effectively at centre back for Real and brings elite club and competition experience that you simply cannot manufacture. His press resistance, passing quality, and physicality would excel in the Premier League. In almost every respect, aside from the set piece threat Casemiro provides, he would be an upgrade. At just 26, he is at the perfect age to anchor our midfield for the next five or six years, at least, and if he could be secured for around £80m, this club should not hesitate for a single second.

What excites me most about a Tchouameni signing is the partnership it creates. Him alongside Kobbie Mainoo would, in my opinion, become one of the best midfield pairings in Europe within a couple of seasons. Their qualities are near-perfectly complementary. Tchouameni's physical presence, positional intelligence, and elite experience alongside Mainoo's dynamism, ball retention, and technical ingenuity. It's the kind of partnership you build a team around.

But we need a third player who is ready to play and start, someone who can partner either Tchouameni or Mainoo in a double pivot, or operate as part of a three alongside both. The player who stands out most clearly to me (and I'll be honest, I'm a very big fan) is Mateus Fernandes from West Ham.

I think he is the complete package. The perfect modern midfielder. His long-range passing and vision are exceptional, his first touch is elite, and his ball-carrying in tight spaces is a joy to watch. He presses with real intensity and consistency, with the stamina to sustain it across 90 minutes, but crucially he is also extremely difficult to press himself. He has a low centre of gravity and serious lower body and core strength that makes him incredibly hard to shake off the ball, which is a physical attribute that doesn’t get enough attention. His playmaking and tempo control are underrated too; he drops between the centre backs naturally and uses that space to dictate the pace of play. Defensively, his ability to read passing lanes and cut off attacks before they develop is genuinely excellent already. And then there's the transition…..when Fernandes accelerates through a midfield gap to trigger a rapid attack, it is something else. Truly elite. That combination of being devastating in a counterattacking system while also being completely comfortable in a possession-based one is extraordinarily rare, and it fits our profile perfectly under any Head Coach we're likely to employ.

At this stage of his career, moving to a club of our size, I believe he would be content to be initially rotational. Which is important for the profile we need for that third CM spot. We will sorely regret letting this player go elsewhere. I believe he should be a priority signing. Alarmingly PSG are already sniffing.

The third signing, so our fourth CM, stays in the developmental bracket. A player like Bouaddi, Mokio, or Smit: potentially elite young talent, high ceiling, happy to fulfill a squad role while they develop, with every expectation they push their way up the pecking order. After the Yoro deal, our relationship with Lille is strong, and Bouaddi, in particular, feels like a very achievable piece of business and is the best of the trio from what I have seen. A quartet of Mainoo, Tchouameni, Fernandes, and Bouaddi — all technically excellent, blending experience with elite young talent — is the foundation of a midfield that can be genuinely dominant for years, and is a sign of the sort of strategic long term thinking that lasting success is built on.

The Alternatives and the Fallback Options

Given that the best laid plans rarely survive contact with the transfer market, and the last thing anyone wants is a repeat of the Frenkie De Jong debacle, i.e. more than one summer consumed by a deal that never happened while better, more attainable options slipped away. The good news is that I think we now have a genuinely competent recruitment operation, as evidenced by last summer's business, and that gives me confidence that alternatives will be properly identified and pursued in parallel. At least, that’s what should be happening.

So who fills the gaps if primary targets fall through?

Carlos Baleba features prominently on most lists, and with caveats, rightly so. The obvious concern is the mental fortitude/character question. His form demonstrably suffered after his head was turned by United last summer, and that's not a trivial thing to dismiss. But at a reasonable price, somewhere under £60m including add-ons, he has the potential to be an excellent squad addition and possibly an elite performer in time. My concern is using him as a primary alternative to Tchouameni rather than to Fernandes. A double pivot of Baleba and Mainoo is short on experience and proven sustained form. That is a significant gamble, and one I don't think we can afford to take at this stage of the rebuild. Baleba as the Mateus Fernandes fallback? Fine. Baleba as our primary defensive midfielder? That's a different proposition entirely.

So if Tchouameni is unavailable, and Anderson is too expensive or also unavailable, then who? We need someone with a longer resume, attainable — not necessarily cheap, because I'm not sure cheap exists in this market anymore — but affordable and genuinely within reach. Three names stand out. First is Wharton, who is more of an 8 than a 6, and there are very real questions about whether his price tag is justifiable for his profile. Second….Tonali. At 25 he has the engine and proven Premier League quality to make an impact, and while I don't think he ever quite reaches the very top tier, he's a player with real credentials. Finally, Angelo Stiller is the highest-risk option of the three I am putting forward, given the lack of Premier League experience, but also arguably the most interesting profile. He blends defensive tenacity and positional discipline with excellent technique, a genuine passing range, and real playmaking ability. Of the three, he's the biggest gamble but also the player whose ceiling is hardest to cap. Professionals at the club with more insight, more data and more experience are in a better position to analyse, but the balance between quality, characteristics, and price feels like the best of the bunch to me.

The Full Back Situation: More Pressing Than It Looks

Left back requires attention, and more than a budget solution. Shaw needs to be rotated aggressively next season. His fitness record makes that non-negotiable. While Mazraoui showed at AFCON that he can play the position to a high level, we need a genuine left back who can compete and rotate with Shaw, and ideally one who offers a different, more attacking profile rather than just a like-for-like cover option.

The standout experienced option for me is David Raum. He is a superb attacking full back, genuinely excellent going forward, and would be affordable in relative terms. The caveat is that at 28 he is not a long-term successor to Shaw, his would be a signing that solves a problem for two or three years, not one that defines the position for a decade. But solving the problem for two or three years is actually what we need right now, and Raum does that very well.

The best option among those potentially available is Lewis Hall. We are looking at around £60m, maybe more, which is an extremely meaningful investment, but I believe one worth making if it fits within our financial capabilities and, critically, doesn’t compromise the midfield recruitment drive. The midfield is the overwhelming priority and nothing should be allowed to compete with it for funds. If Hall is achievable after the midfield is addressed, he should be pursued seriously. Other interesting profiles worth monitoring are the technically excellent Adrian Turffert and the lightning quick Nathaniel Brown, both offer different attributes and are worth having on the list as the window develops.

On Harry Amass — everything I said before, in previous posts, stands. He has proven he can compete physically in men's football after a full season in a demanding Championship, and the technical quality was never in question. But to be clear about his role: next season he is a squad player and a quality third choice, getting serious minutes in cup competitions and hopefully using that platform to establish himself as a genuine long-term successor to Shaw. That is a realistic and valuable role for a player of his age and trajectory. It is not, however, a reason to avoid signing a senior left back ready to compete from day one.

At right back, I am wary of saying that “just good enough” is good enough, but given other priorities it's acceptable for one more season, not excellent. Dalot and Mazraoui will do the job, but it is a position that needs genuine upgrading. The following summer that has to happen as part of the long term rebuild, and we should already be doing the groundwork now. Names like Kayode are near the top of most emerging lists for that position, and while his price is only likely to go up, another year at Brentford is only going to do him good.

One idea worth serious consideration for next season, however, is giving Yoro some game time at right back. I know the instinctive reaction is to resist playing centre backs out of position, and generally I share that instinct. But there are rare instances where it works exceptionally well, not just for the team, but for the player's own development. Think of the work we did with Phil Jones, and particularly Wes Brown, who excelled there so completely that he became our primary right back and one of the best in the league for a period. Culminating in our 2008 CL victory. Yoro has the technical ability, the mobility, and the dribbling capability to excel in a role that requires a defensively solid, tactically intelligent supporting full back, especially if we are deploying a more attacking option on the left. Not every full back has to be an overlapping speedster, and one of Yoro’s stand-out qualities is his ball carrying from the back line. Aside from the obvious tactical flexibility of morphing into a three in the build up phase, it would improve our aerial presence during set pieces at both end of the pitch. Importantly, it would also broaden his game and sharpen his awareness of the full pitch in ways that only benefit his long-term development as an elite centre back, which is absolutely where his future lies. Some minutes at right back next season is not a deviation from that path, instead I think it could actually accelerate it.

The Forward Department and the Bruno Question

The AMC role is Bruno's, full stop, with Mount as the understudy. I'd move Mount on and find a replacement if the right situation arose, but I don't think it will, and frankly Mount's versatility and quality are going to be genuinely useful in a 60-game season. The enduring fitness question mark is real, but it's the hand we're playing. For the sake of brevity (I can hear you laughing) I will not address today Bruno’s age, and eventual succession plan, but suffice to say I can see us moving towards a more compact and controlling midfield three instead of the double pivot and “10” that we deploy currently.

In the wide forward areas, the Dorgu, Cunha, Amad, and Mbuemo quartet delivers exactly the two players per position imperative I outlined at the top of this post. Dorgu is growing into a real threat, and that left-footed attacker operating from the left is incredibly rare in an era of inverted wingers. I think he can potentially be a key player next season. Between those four we have real quality, variety, and cover across the wide positions, and no…I am not worried about the form of Mbeumo and Amad. I see two players of enormous quality who are suffering from a post AFCON blip. I retain a lot of faith in their quality. Sesko up front is already an excellent forward anchor, but I think we’ve only see the tip of the iceberg with him. He’s a potential unicorn. The speed, mobility, technique of a smaller false nine, and the benefits of a more traditional target man. The problem is that with Zirkzee likely leaving (as he should), we are a man short up front, and that gap needs addressing.

The approach to solving it can and should be flexible. The most obvious answer is a like-for-like striker replacement, but the market for that profile is extremely thin. Watkins would be a superb rotation option alongside Sesko — the right age, the right quality, the right profile to complement rather than duplicate — but his price tag would be wildly inappropriate for what would be a squad rather than starting role, and I can't see that deal making sense for any party except Aston Villa. Unless we want to take a short-term punt on someone like Danny Welbeck on a free for one season, which has a certain nostalgic charm but isn't really a serious answer, then a more agile approach is needed.

What I mean by agile is this: rather than hunting a pure striker in a shallow market at inflated prices, we consider a versatile forward who gives us options and flexibility across the entire front line. Someone whose arrival frees up Mbuemo, Cunha, or even Amad to operate in a different way, as a roaming pressing forward, a false nine, or second striker, without us losing attacking quality or tactical clarity. That kind of signing multiplies options rather than simply filling a vacancy.

Diomande has been mentioned in this context and I understand why, he has the profile of a potentially elite wide forward and the physical attributes to cause problems in the Premier League. But his period of proven excellence is relatively short, and the Bundesliga is not the proving ground that justifies the fee his club are reportedly demanding (somewhere north of £100m). That’s before we even take into consideration the pattern of high value Bundesliga imports who flatter to deceive. For that kind of money I want an indisputable star and automatic starter. Diomande is not that. At least not yet. He may well become it, but we would be paying the price for what he might be rather than what he demonstrably is, and that is a gamble I don't think the budget allows us to take after the midfield spend. Someone else is either going to get a superstar, or get horribly burned.

So, we have to cast the net wider. Names like Mateus Mane have come up in recent links and represent the kind of younger, hungry, more budget-conscious, high upside profile that might fit our needs and financial reality better than a marquee purchase. In that mold I also really like Rodrigio Gomes, also at Wolves, and Eli Junior Kroupi (who would be more expensive but has real quality). We should also not overlook what is coming through our own academy. Lacey and Thwaites both deserve genuine first team integration next season, players with real upside who have shown enough to suggest they could become significant contributors. JJ Gabriel is the longer-term proposition. An exceptional talent who isn't ready yet, but who will train with the first team squad and maybe get his cup minutes. Then there is Chido. The forward line of the next three to four years may already be within our walls to some degree.

Defensively, We're in Good Shape (For Now)

Maguire's contract extension was an easy and correct decision. Leadership, experience, professionalism, mental strength, reliability, and quality at that price is a no-brainer. Lisandro Martinez is a unique asset whose competitive fury combined with his distribution is something you can't just go and easily replicate. That said, his injury record is troubling and if there was one to leave, and be replaced by a high-quality replacement, it would probably be him. In Yoro and Heaven we have two players from whom I expect massive strides over the next two to three seasons. But patience will be required (good luck with the fanbase). Both are already good enough to start (rotationally) for a top team but are still developing the situational maturity and consistency to be the absolute spine. That evolution is coming, and I think we’ll see it accelerate as they accumulate more experience.

Then there is De Ligt. Look, the fitness record is a serious concern and I won't pretend otherwise. But when he plays, you're watching one of the best centre-backs in the world. That quality doesn't disappear. The priority right now should be getting him fit and firing for next season (because he won’t be leaving this summer) and getting everything out of him, because the ceiling when he's healthy and available is exceptional.

Recruitment, Infrastructure, and the Long Game

Let's talk about something that doesn't get nearly enough serious analysis in fan discourse, and that's the structural question sitting underneath all of this transfer discussion. Because before we can properly evaluate who we sign, we need to honestly confront the context in which those signings will be made.

The “Head Coach” appointment this summer is genuinely difficult. In the absence of Luis Enrique, who we can all agree is several tiers above the other candidates, I don't see anyone on the available list who is both outstanding and risk-free. The names being hyped right now, like Marco Silva, Andoni Iraola, and Oliver Glasner, are all being discussed with an enthusiasm that isn't always grounded in rigorous analysis. There's a pattern in football discourse where a coach who has overperformed with a focused, well-run mid-table club becomes briefly anointed as the next great thing, often without serious examination of their difficult periods, their tactical limitations at the elite level, or crucially how much of their success was driven by the exceptional recruitment and football operations infrastructure around them rather than by their own genius.

We've seen this movie before. Frank and Potter both looked exceptional within the finely tuned, data-driven ecosystems at Brentford and Brighton respectively. The moment they stepped outside those environments, the clubs they left behind continued to thrive, and in some cases improved, while the coaches themselves struggled badly. The ecosystem made the coach look better than the coach made the ecosystem. That's not a slight on either individual; it's just an honest read of what happened.

Accepting Probability Before Making the Appointment

Here is something I think we as a fanbase need to genuinely accept before the next manager walks through the door: if we hold expectations at the appropriate level (title challenge, or close to it) then the probability of this appointment failing is, statistically, higher than the probability of it succeeding. That's not pessimism. That's just modern football, and it's easily observable recent history not only at United but at almost every major club around us. Appointment after appointment, at club after club, has demonstrated that even talented coaches fail regularly at the biggest clubs. The variables are too many, the margins too thin, the external pressures too intense.

This isn't an argument for lowering expectations. It's an argument for building a club that doesn't collapse when the inevitable happens. Because there will be another wrong appointment after this one. And another after that. That's not ineptitude, it's just the reality of the industry.

The data point we should be obsessing over is not whether or why we got the Amorim appointment wrong. It's whether we have built, or are building, the structural excellence in every other domain that allows the club to absorb a wrong appointment, make a change, and continue on strategic track without missing a beat and without needing to rebuild the squad from scratch. That means elite medical and performance infrastructure. It means genuine player development and support systems. It means academy excellence. It means organisational culture that is consistent and strong regardless of who is in the dugout. And above all else — equal to or greater than any of the above — it means recruitment.

The Squad Must Be Bigger Than Any One Coach

This is where I want to be direct, because I know some people push back on this. The squad should be built around a long-term vision of player and squad development, consistent with a defined game model that retains room for tactical and stylistic agility, but is fundamentally impervious to the whims or preferences of any individual head coach. The head coach absolutely has a voice in recruitment. Of course they do. But they are not the driving force, they do not have final say or power of veto, and they do not dictate a wholesale change in game model that necessitates tearing up the squad and starting again.

United have given us arguably the greatest example in football history of what happens when you get this catastrophically wrong. Moyes to Van Gaal to Mourinho. Each appointment was philosophically diametrically opposed to the last. Van Gaal — a coach so committed to possession and control that he reportedly discouraged players from shooting first time, preferring they bring the ball under control first — followed by Mourinho, whose entire football philosophy was documented by his own biographer as being built around surrendering the ball and exploiting the opposition's mistakes. You could not construct two more opposed football philosophies if you tried. Neither was right for United. But the deeper, more catastrophic failure was appointing them back to back. The result? Multiple complete squad rebuilds. Hundreds of millions of pounds wasted on players who were right for one coach and useless for the next. All while operating in a "win now" demand cycle that left no room to actually see any project through. A truly world-class own goal, and one the club has repeated in various forms ever since.

I do think INEOS understands this. The criticism of them is real and often valid, but the evidence from last summer's transfer activity suggests a recruitment operation with genuine coherence and strategic intent; building a squad that can function under multiple tactical interpretations rather than one bespoke to a single coach. That has to be the model going forwards.

The Hat Trick

Put Carrick, Iraola, Glasner, Silva, Tuchel, and Nagelsmann into a hat. Draw one out at random. My honest view is that each of them has roughly equal chances of success or failure in this specific role. Not because they are all the same, they are clearly not, and each brings a meaningfully different set of qualities and risks. But because, first, every one of them has obvious strengths alongside genuine vulnerabilities that could prove their undoing at a club of this size and scrutiny, and second, because the success or failure of whoever is drawn will be determined at least as much by the quality of the infrastructure around them as by their own ability.

The idea that we need to find a new Ferguson — one transcendent individual who defines the club for a generation — is not only unlikely, it's the wrong way to think about it entirely. That model belongs to a different era of football. The club's strategic clarity, intellectual expertise, recruitment excellence, and operational consistency is the new Ferguson. That is the enduring light. That is what drives sustained success over time, regardless of who is standing on the touchline.

Get that right, and the coach matters less than people think. Get it wrong, and it doesn't matter who you appoint.
Click to expand...
Long read, but worth it - solid points throughout.

The issue of managerial influence on recruitment is really turning into quite a conundrum, across the league. There is, I think, an increasing weight of evidence that bad recruitment correlates rather strongly with manager-driven recruitment. Brendan Rodgers at Liverpool and Leicester exemplifies it rather well. There is also of course ample evidence that analytics-driven recruitment work very well indeed (Brighton, Brentford, Bournemouth). But that's within a specific club operating model, that accepts the necessity to develop players and move them on, and also accepts that winning titles are unlikely. For big clubs, it seems to be more complicated. Chelsea is a fascinating case - they have now lost five managers in four seasons, and an astounding three of those have, to varying degrees, left voluntarily or at least without much regret (Tuchel, Pocchetino, Maresca). At the heart of that has been dissatisfaction with the extent of managerial authority, and especially the recruitment system. This illustrates, I think, that a big club expecting results can't easily employ the sort of recruitment system that works for the three Bs. With Chelsea, it now seems plausible that they have set up a structure that can't accomodate a reputable and ambitious manager, which obviously is not compatible with being a club with title pretensions.

The answer to the conundrum seems obvious to me: Alignment. You need the manager, recruitment, analytics and higher leadership to work on the basis of a shared vision of how the team should play, what is needed and why it is needed. Easier said than done, obviously, but this is what City, Arsenal and Liverpool has been doing. That means having a vision in the first place, appointing managers who fit into that, and then being flexible enough on all sides to evolve that vision. Above all, it means having all those parts working closely together on a day to day basis, building mutual trust and a common understanding. The analytics people need to really understand what the managers sees as needs and what he wants to change, the manager needs to really understand what the analytics people are telling him about pros and cons of various options, and be on board with the factors that shape recruitment possibilities, and so on. This comes from constant interaction, and cannot be achieved if each part of the organisation pursues its own aims and pass each other memos and sit down to quarrel around the table once a fortnight. Even from the distant outside, it seems obvious that United has not been operating in this way. I groan inwardly every time I hear about the transfer committee where the manager, head of recruitment and DoF all have vetoes, presented as if that was some sort of solution. The truth is that if vetoes is even an issue, you have already failed.

One thing I don't think you addressed in your otherwise excellent overview of recruitment needs is the backup GK. Not the most critical problem perhaps, nor the hardest one to solve. But I do think that should be on the list of must-dos for the summer. Bayindir is arguably the worst no 2 in the PL, and should Lammens pull a hamstring or something, that has the potential to blow up the entire season. We have to get someone more adequate. Maybe that's Vitek, but it's got to be someone.
 
justsomebloke said:
Long read, but worth it - solid points throughout.

The issue of managerial influence on recruitment is really turning into quite a conundrum, across the league. There is, I think, an increasing weight of evidence that bad recruitment correlates rather strongly with manager-driven recruitment. Brendan Rodgers at Liverpool and Leicester exemplifies it rather well. There is also of course ample evidence that analytics-driven recruitment work very well indeed (Brighton, Brentford, Bournemouth). But that's within a specific club operating model, that accepts the necessity to develop players and move them on, and also accepts that winning titles are unlikely. For big clubs, it seems to be more complicated. Chelsea is a fascinating case - they have now lost five managers in four seasons, and an astounding three of those have, to varying degrees, left voluntarily or at least without much regret (Tuchel, Pocchetino, Maresca). At the heart of that has been dissatisfaction with the extent of managerial authority, and especially the recruitment system. This illustrates, I think, that a big club expecting results can't easily employ the sort of recruitment system that works for the three Bs. With Chelsea, it now seems plausible that they have set up a structure that can't accomodate a reputable and ambitious manager, which obviously is not compatible with being a club with title pretensions.

The answer to the conundrum seems obvious to me: Alignment. You need the manager, recruitment, analytics and higher leadership to work on the basis of a shared vision of how the team should play, what is needed and why it is needed. Easier said than done, obviously, but this is what City, Arsenal and Liverpool has been doing. That means having a vision in the first place, appointing managers who fit into that, and then being flexible enough on all sides to evolve that vision. Above all, it means having all those parts working closely together on a day to day basis, building mutual trust and a common understanding. The analytics people need to really understand what the managers sees as needs and what he wants to change, the manager needs to really understand what the analytics people are telling him about pros and cons of various options, and be on board with the factors that shape recruitment possibilities, and so on. This comes from constant interaction, and cannot be achieved if each part of the organisation pursues its own aims and pass each other memos and sit down to quarrel around the table once a fortnight. Even from the distant outside, it seems obvious that United has not been operating in this way. I groan inwardly every time I hear about the transfer committee where the manager, head of recruitment and DoF all have vetoes, presented as if that was some sort of solution. The truth is that if vetoes is even an issue, you have already failed.

One thing I don't think you addressed in your otherwise excellent overview of recruitment needs is the backup GK. Not the most critical problem perhaps, nor the hardest one to solve. But I do think that should be on the list of must-dos for the summer. Bayindir is arguably the worst no 2 in the PL, and should Lammens pull a hamstring or something, that has the potential to blow up the entire season. We have to get someone more adequate. Maybe that's Vitek, but it's got to be someone.
Click to expand...
These were really excellent insights thank you, and significantly evolve a big part of the argument I was attempting to spur. Really appreciate the effort. Thank you.
 
Charlie Foley said:
Good post even if it’s long. More interesting than most of the replies. I agree with a lot of what you said, in particular the following:

-When fit, MDL is a wonderful player. Back injuries are just so difficult.

-Martinez’s skill set is very difficult to replace, though again injuries are a concern

-Extending Maguire was a good move especially when we have so much experience in Cas leaving this summer. There are games next year where we’ll need a backs to the wall defender, or an experienced head next to one of our young CBs.

I actually think an experienced number 9 is something we’ve needed for a few years. I think Hojlund really suffered from the situation he came into in both his seasons here, more prominently in 24/25. Similarly, Sesko could have done with an experienced mentor/alternative the first half of this season. We all so how well coming off the bench suited him after the turn of the year, and the player to player coaching and dimming of the spotlight a more seasoned striker would provide is great for young forwards players. Zirkzee more of a second striker and while I think he grew into things last season before his injury, he might be more suited to continental football and he might be on the way out. Sesko seems more settled now, or at least is scoring goals at a decent clip, and Bruno has done a great job working with him in games, but still. 20/21 Cavani would be perfect. Lewa on a free transfer…?

The best point I think you made was the order of Moyes- LVG- Mourinho being an absolute disaster. Completely different styles of play and philosophies from manager to manager, each with their own flaws too but that almost was a secondary problem, there was no cohesion or through line of thinking. I remember when Palace went Allardyce, De Boer, Hodgson in 2017 a lot of people commenting on how the direction was shifting wildly in such a short space of time. At times under Jose and even Ole we looked like a mixture of 3 different squads.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the response. I agree with the highlights you made. It’s that cohesion of strategic thinking that I think is so important.
 
Grande said:
I’ll admit it was a bit tongue-in-cheek with the Fergie comment, but what I mean seriously with it I think is in line with your general thinking:

Some coaches are special like some players are special, and you can make them average by not adapting to them and make them geniuses by adapting to them. But it pays to identify them and adapt to them.

United identified Ferguson as special out of a bit of luck and desperation I think, and luckily adapted to him by giving him almost total control over five or six years. That suited his talents and how football worked at the time.

City identified Guardiola as special based on the obvious, but also based on understanding what he needed around him to be special: the best players and squad in the league, and sporting administrative set up that catered to his strengths and weaknesses. They had the money and corrupt set up for getting the players, and they planned for the administrative set up through prioritizing it and thinking long term. The result is total dominance of the strongest league in the world in that period, plus a CL and going from needing to be corrupt to now affording not to be.

Liverpool identified Klopp through making a good match up of what the club could be and what Klopp could do, and seeing that they could adapt to what he needed with their structure and let him do what he did best. They used their data friven scouting set up to guve him exactly the profiles he identified rather than the specific players, and supported his vision and man management fully, which was easy because he already was a good match for the club identity, outside perception etc.

These three coaches are at the level worth making exceptions for, but only if you have a situation that matches the abilities that might make them special. That is very different for each case. You could say similar things about RM’s use of Zidane and Ancelotti, or Barca’s and PSG’s use of Enrique.

As you point out, United fecked up with Van Gaal and Mourinho not because they were not special, but because United (Glazer/Woodward) had no idea what it would take to make them special, or if the club could offer such a situation. Getting a good sporting set up and a sensible squad is part of that, identifying who can be a special coach and what would be needed for them to carry out that specialness is the next step.

What can be said for the Solskjær appointment, is that they identified a coach that is not special in this sense, just one of many quite good coaches/managers - but they ‘identied’/got lucky with that the situation at the time catered so well to his strengths that he got more out of the club set up than the two predecessors who in my opinion at that time still were a lot stronger managers/coaches individually.

I was hoping that the hiringof Ten Hag and Amorim were both a case of identifying a special coach and being ready to match their talents with a fitting situation. Looking in hindsight, it seems that Arnold/Murtaugh/Glazers really miscalculated Ten Hags strengths and weaknesses, underestimated the needs of both profile and quality lacking in the squad and how it matched with their ability to fund and recruit to the needed changes. The Amorim hiring also seems more like ‘an interesting idea’ than a well thought out plan by a sporting administration in the middle of finding their feet andunderstanding the club’s situation.

My hope is that the sporting administration has learnt more about themselves and the circumstances of the club to be able to plan better, and are able to do a good enough recruitment scouting to understand which potential coaches are really special, and what it would take for them to realistically be special at this club. I’m fairly certain Guardiola would not look so special if he was thrown into the club the way and in the situation Amorim was, for instance. Maybe better, sure, but nothing resembling a special coach worth adapting a lot to.

If there are no such coaches in view, I agree, it’s about looking at the Carricks, Iraolas, Glasners of the world and see which one of them matches our set up and squad best for the time being, and are alligned with what direction we want to be heading in terms of squad and playing style.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. There are cases where exceptionalism is required, and I would suggest that Enrique falls into that category; but failing that there has to be a system in place which appropriately integrates and manages the other 99% of coaching appointments.
 
simonhch said:
The standout experienced option for me is David Raum. He is a superb attacking full back, genuinely excellent going forward, and would be affordable in relative terms. The caveat is that at 28 he is not a long-term successor to Shaw, his would be a signing that solves a problem for two or three years, not one that defines the position for a decade. But solving the problem for two or three years is actually what we need right now, and Raum does that very well.
Click to expand...

One year left on his contract!
 
AFIABM said:
Organisational excellence should include those at the top and therefore involve getting a DoF whose vision involves building teams capable of the level we saw on Tuesday night.

The current incumbent has not shown any sign of having that vision or ambition whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree regarding the importance of the DoF. In such a system the role is arguably the most important we have. I also agree that the jury is still out on Wilcox. I do think it is hard to judge based on the amount of time he has had, but there are some question marks lingering.
 
adexkola said:
I read through it quickly. If we were able to get all these signings in it would be an excellent muppet summer. I think a useful addendum would be the estimated cost of this plan

Also, what will the impact of the World Cup be, with a shortened preseason?

Also, what faith do you have in the club ownership and management to put in place this world class structure that any above average coach can work well in?

I do think transfers is only one piece of the puzzle. Whoever we bring in as coach will need to be someone who is tactically flexible, but who is also capable of getting a team to execute their plans. Players and incoming transfers need to have confidence in whoever is in the dugout.

Anyways, the overall reaction to this post reminds me of the OP getting rinsed years ago for admitting to sparring with some Krav Maga maniac and getting battered in the shins. Good stuff. This is a better read
Click to expand...
Ha! I think I’ve lived through every iteration of the Caf. The banter or hazing back then was actually quality. I had some brilliant online battles with The Black Pearl. It’s all a bit tired and lame these days, so I’ve largely skipped over the “banter” style posts because they haven’t really moved the needle. I’m surprised Ed isn’t in here to mention shins yet.

Anyway, you aren’t wrong vis a vis costs, and the viability of many of the transfers I cited, are debatable. The overarching point is about the importance of recruitment and how we go about it.

I agree with having a coach who is tactically flexible. To work within whatever structure we have, that is a necessity. To be part of a team with a shared vision rather than imposing one.
 
I think we took a break from the Caf and rejoined at a similar time, Simon! I believed your posts being some of the most measured and reasonable you could find on here, and this one definitely lives up to that standard.

One point that you made that I'd like to hone in on is the importance of wider context in determining the success or failure of a manager. I completely agree with your assessment that this is a point that is too often overlooked when considering managerial appointments.

It's hard to quantify it but I'd honestly say that the average manager is probably no more than 20% responsible for the success or failure of a club. The very best, or indeed the very worst, will push that number up. As you pointed out, though, even the likes of Sir Alex, Pep and Klopp can only do so much if the infrastructure at the club is poor, the quality of the squad isn't up to par, or even just the mood at the club isn't ready to meet the moment.

This is why I lean towards Michael Carrick being the most desirable option for our permanent appointment in the summer, despite thinking he's probably the weakest manager of the available candidates in an absolute sense. We've seen how the likes of David Moyes, Graham Potter, and Thomas Frank have failed fairly spectacularly at some of the top clubs in England despite having the CVs to show that they're very good managers in their own right. They simply could not win the respect of their squads. This is one of these absolutely pivotal factors that you can reasonably appraise with much greater clarity in the case of Carrick than any of the alternatives. He's worked with this squad for half a season, he's done a really good job with them, and crucially he seems to have their respect.

I have my reservations about Carrick as I do with all the alternatives, and ultimately I don't think it's going to matter who we appoint if we don't get the midfield rebuild right, but I do think there is quite a strong case to be made for not fixing what isn't broken as far as the manager situation is concerned.
 
Mmm-Qatarian said:
I think we took a break from the Caf and rejoined at a similar time, Simon! I believed your posts being some of the most measured and reasonable you could find on here, and this one definitely lives up to that standard.

One point that you made that I'd like to hone in on is the importance of wider context in determining the success or failure of a manager. I completely agree with your assessment that this is a point that is too often overlooked when considering managerial appointments.

It's hard to quantify it but I'd honestly say that the average manager is probably no more than 20% responsible for the success or failure of a club. The very best, or indeed the very worst, will push that number up. As you pointed out, though, even the likes of Sir Alex, Pep and Klopp can only do so much if the infrastructure at the club is poor, the quality of the squad isn't up to par, or even just the mood at the club isn't ready to meet the moment.

This is why I lean towards Michael Carrick being the most desirable option for our permanent appointment in the summer, despite thinking he's probably the weakest manager of the available candidates in an absolute sense. We've seen how the likes of David Moyes, Graham Potter, and Thomas Frank have failed fairly spectacularly at some of the top clubs in England despite having the CVs to show that they're very good managers in their own right. They simply could not win the respect of their squads. This is one of these absolutely pivotal factors that you can reasonably appraise with much greater clarity in the case of Carrick than any of the alternatives. He's worked with this squad for half a season, he's done a really good job with them, and crucially he seems to have their respect.

I have my reservations about Carrick as I do with all the alternatives, and ultimately I don't think it's going to matter who we appoint if we don't get the midfield rebuild right, but I do think there is quite a strong case to be made for not fixing what isn't broken as far as the manager situation is concerned.
Click to expand...
Thank you, this was a really great response and contribution to the thread, much appreciated. I think you helped clarify my thinking on Carrick because what I didn’t mention, and you zeroed in on, is the impact of some of the more intangible elements like respect. It’s similar to what we saw with Zidane. He came into that Madrid squad without much of a managerial CV, but instantly had the respect of the dressing room, which seemed to make it effortless for him to manage a squad of enormous egos. A battle other managers have fought and lost, unequivocally.

I am not drawing parallels with Zidane, I’m merely making the point that the respect element, which perhaps gets the players to a point where they are listening, not pushing back and being fractured, is half the battle right there. Some of it is down to achievements in the game as a player but a lot of it is down to the personality. That calm, unflappable nature and understated authority. Carrick was a player’s player, and it shouldn’t be a surprise that he is likely a player’s coach too.

With Ten Hag and then Amorim, you feel like they both came in with strong ideas, and strong stubborn personalities. “It’s my way or the highway”. And that put them in conflict with certain players from the outset, and then more and more over their tenures. The freezing out of players, and the players deemed to be of no value. That has an effect on everyone’s psychology; and when things don’t go well, I think it’s really hard to get people to pull together under that type of leadership, especially when you don’t have a track record of success at a big club. It just leads to people questioning your every decision and pushing back.

Don’t get me wrong, the players who have left, all needed to leave - by and large - but the way they were handled was undoubtedly poor, and had systemic effects. You feel with Carrick, the door is open to anyone, and the players who need to leave will be dealt with effectively and quickly without isolating and ostracizing them. We essentially tanked any and all values of a number of players by having a “bomb squad”, and the message to the rest of the squad wasn’t great. It was supposed to say, we have elite standards and if you don’t meet those standards you are not welcome. Fair enough, but you have to get results if you are going to handle it that way, and neither did. You don’t come in and demand or enforce respect, you earn it. Someone like Carrick has an aura because I feel as though he’s authoritative but also treats players the way he’d want to be treated as a player. I think he gets the connection he needs with his squad. I don’t think Amorim or Ten Hag really did within the context of the huge club pressure cooker environment.

Whether Carrick has the tactical and coaching chops to be successful is a different question, he’s shown he competent at the very least. But he does have down in the man management aspect. Which it’s important. I feel like Carrick has the tools to be an excellent head coach, I just wonder whether this has come a tad too soon for him.

Either at, with that part less of a mystery, I feel like he is less of a risk than the other names.
 
This manifesto has had more care and thought put into it than the Reform Party's. It's also less racist.

Simon gets a 10/10 from me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.