Are some seriously suggesting that a manager does not provide the decisive factor in whether a player signs for a respective club? Of course they are. Other issues such as history, status of the club, and current progress also play a huge influence, but the manager is pretty much key. I'm rather alarmed that some do not feel this is the case.
Ole Gunnar Solskjær | 2021/22 Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, it's just weird.Tbf that Di Matteo example is pretty odd to say for those who defend appointing Ole. Di Matteo won CL and FA cup. Ole won absolutely nothing yet Di Matteo should have not been given a chance, whilst Ole should?
I think it's evidence that deep down even the most vocal supporters of the OGS appointment have a sinking feeling that it is not going to work out.
Di Matteo appointment is carbon copy of what we have been doing with Ole(except the trophies). A manager with little credentials goes on a good run and is given the job. Manager who was a foreign player that played at the club in the past.
In essence those that are backing up Ole's appointment now should have backed up Di Matteo's appointment at Chelsea otherwise their argument makes no sense.
You said that Di Matteo was destined to fail, well considering all the concerns said in here and in other threads how is that different to Ole?
That's exactly what's happening Jeff. Tying themselves in knots in an attempt to avoid having to admit there are any negatives in the appointment of OGS.
I have already said why I believe Ole is the right man and like his ideas. If you read properly i also said I don't know whether he can implement his ideas but I like how he wants to set up. That's why I want him to have a proper preseason and have a go.
Am I 100% sure he will be a success? No. I have my doubts but I will give benefit of doubt as I believe he has right ideas (which was implemented before the injury problems). Having right ideas is one thing and implementing them with players following them is the biggest challenge. That's something that can be proven with time.
Again this is the problem in these arguments, you keep repeating the same thing again and again, at this point it's just better to paste the links from previous argument.
No, mate this is different argument. We're talking about Di Matteo and Ole appointments as a direct comparison. Di Matteo obviously had some ideas and were backed up with results. In essence the two examples are the same. If we were a decade back why would you say Di Matteo is bound to fail? We had no evidence (apart from lack of credentials) that Di Matteo would crash the way he did.
I really don't see any difference behind both appointments. I'm sure a lot of Chelsea fans would have agree that in the long term he would be a poor appointment whilst others would have wanted to give him a chance. Isn't it the same like the Ole situation?
Well come on - you aren't prepared to concede that some players may not be massively inspired by the thought of coming to play under OGS so you're inventing a parallel reality where the manager is unimportant in the player's decision making process.
Abramovich back in that period had zero patience. United probably have too much faith in their Managers and tend to give them too much time. OGS managed our youth team, youth is a big part of United, youth isn't/wasn't at Chelsea. It's being able to understand that different clubs value different attributes in Managers right? Chelsea were also successful at that point no? We are witnissing the worst level of football at the club in the past 25 years.
We can therefore afford to give OGS more time than Di Matteo did at Chelsea. We can afford a risky Manager appointment in OGS because currently our level is pretty bad. Chelsea at the time was riding high at their peak, so getting an inexperienced rookie to take over was an unnecessary risk.
One more point you pulled out of nowhere. I said they play small part, not big one. If that's the case we wouldn't have signed Sanchez and Jorginho would be playing for City.
They consider whole package, something we can't offer except wages.
It's not. I don't know how many back him or want him gone. I'm posting my point of view. I saw something that wasn't implemented by other ManUtd managers, he stressed on something that was ignored before. For me he is right choice. Again only time will tell whether he can implement them.
Ole managed our youth team for an year or two about a decade ago. The whole staff there has changed, let alone the players. Gives really no edge over the Di Matteo appointment. Chelsea also finished 6th at the time for the first time in 10 years.
Really makes no sense. If you are in upward trajectory and an established club you can afford to appoint an inexperienced rookie like at Barca, Real or Bayern with Kovac. Worst thing that could happen - they won't be champions that year. Appoint an inexperienced rookie at a club in turmoil - the worst thing that can happen is bottom half finish, no CL, another rebuilding job for the next manager.
That is some strange logic that you've got going on there.
Theres negatives and positives like every Managerial appointment.
I would hope that most United fans are willing to give Ole the benefit of the doubt until the transfer window is over and he has at least one pre season with the players. Surely every Manager we employ deserves that chance? At least give the Manager enough time to allow him to bring in his own players.
We're not talking about Ole alone - Di Matteo also had his own ideas and his own set of good results so really makes no sense not to back that appointment, apart from hindsight, yet think Ole is the right one.
Considering how the pre-season is coming along and the window so far compared to other teams in rebuild it's like what was to be expected - big words, close to zero actions.
Pulled from nowhere?! Anyone with eyes can read it over the last few pages of this thread.
You are pulling out individual examples of where players have, say, chosen money, or a club that was more successful at that time, and using those individual examples of evidence of a bigger picture. But they are just one offs that don't prove anything on their own. And of those particular examples that you just chose, both of those players were signing for managers with great reputations. What we're talking about at United is a manager that I doubt very much whether any player would actively choose to play for given his CV and the way things fell apart last season.
Correct me if i'm wrong (not bothering to check back and look at stats etc). But Di Matteo won the CL/FA Cup and they were already having a poor season prior to him taking over? So the league position wasn't down to him right? But before that season Chelsea were riding high in the Premier League?
From Chelseas perspective, they only had one direction to fall and thats down. They couldn't go much higher as they were already winning trophies and fighting for titles. So picking Di Matteo an inexperienced rookie while they were riding high is a dumb move. If you're on top you want to remain on top and to do that you pick a proven winner. You don't need to take unnecessary risks.
But we're in a shit position right now. We were resigned to having no CL when Ole took over, we all understood our squad needed another rebuild. We could go up or down but we have the financial muscle to afford to take on a risky employment. We have the financial muscle to also allow the risky appointment some time to change things up and see if that would work. After all, we've tried going down the experienced route with our last two Managers and they've both ended shit. I don't see a problem with trying something different but Chelsea at that time didn't imo.
I not sure on this, when he first came in it was all the Man Utd way, The Gaffer this, the Gaffer that, once it all went wrong he seemed to distance himself from dwelling on the past. I'm all for signing young hungry players, but they have to be of the highest quality, otherwise if it fails we are in danger of yet another re-set with another bunch of players the next coach doesn't want.
And when you're in the shit you pick somebody mediocre?
I hear you, and I think many on here probably do.. but the thing is (for me...) I am not quite sure what OGS ideas actually are? Play slow, quick, press, width, natural wingers, flying full-backs.. back-three, back four... a No 10.. two forwards, one forward... ??????
Klopp has a style and identity; Pep does; Rafa does; Dyche does; Nuno Santo at Wolves does; even flamin' Hodgson at the Eagles does...
I am sorry, but I am yet to know what OGS style of play actually means.
And trust me, I am no Ole' hater... I just have my doubts about him in that role, and any managerial role in fact. He proves me wrong, and I am one very happy red! But I am yet to be convinced...
Thats not Oles problem. Go redirect that annoyance at Woodward and co. He's allowed to express his desire for big changes in the squad, its then up to the Chairmen to get it done.
You have two options, pick experienced Managers (we did that with LvG/Jose) or pick a risky young Manager (we're trying that with Ole).
From what Ole has said in the press he wants us to play like we did early on. Thats the type of football he played at Molde too, fast, energtic football. He stopped us playing that way as our players crumbled with fitness issues after 10 games. Which isn't a shock given our team barely ran under LvG and Jose. Thats the story he's told in the press anyway.
Would be nice to see our players capable of running for a full 90minutes at least.
Well firstly Ole's got about a decade's worth of managerial experience - he's not some rookie whizzkid like Pep was when Barca appointed him. And it's surely not a binary choice is it? I just want the best man for the job, and I want to feel like the club has gone through a rigorous process to find that person - I don't want to feel like they have just given a guy the job cos he had it on a caretaker basis and did well for 10 games.
Nah, at least from memory(won't bother to verify as I'm kinda sure about that) they were hovering around top 4 but since he took over they didn't prioritize the league and generally had some disappointing results ending up 6th. Di Matteo had around average results int he league - his cups form got him the job.
I wouldn't say they did better than us at 2nd under Mourinho in the year prior. They won nothing and were on the decline in the league compared to the title they one 2 years prior.
I completely disagree that you need a manager not qualified enough for a big team when you are in the shit. It's exactly the opposite to me.
You have to ask how many Chelsea fans were behind those ideas.
According to Einstein (allegedly) insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" so what have we got to lose by trying a risky young manager alongside a transfer policy of young hungry players. If it does not work out at least we have increased the potential for the next one and if it does work out then great and the same people on here will be saying they had no doubts etc....
Hopefully they can read better than you then. I didn't say Manager play no part, I said they are small part in the complete package.
Last edited:
Yet it was Ole who gave those rebuilding speeches that aren't living up at the moment.
Ole is 4 years younger than Moyes when he was appointed, let's not pretend he hasn't got a 10 years worth of managerial career prior.
Picking a risky manager (like Moyes) when you are in the shit usually ends up being in the shit and zero improvement - like Moyes. The worst appointment for us so far was the worst manager out of the lot - Moyes. Ole might end up beating that if he extends that last season form and lose us another transfer window buying players from the Championship.
He also explained how he had to change his methods when players were dropping like flies. So we have to give benefit of doubt and time to implement his tactics, which needs better fitness than the shambolic record of ours.
When he took over and before the injury crisis, we played with intensity, higher work rate and pressed opponents. We played with pace and for the first time in the season we were out sprinting our opponents. Then the injury crisis started and it was obvious we lacked fitness and we were back to shit football. I mean it's not secret that our players lacked fitness going by the records posted from 2016.
Well as you're clearly so good at reading do you want to show me where I said that you had said this?
What have we got to lose? That implies that you think things can't get any worse? They can, and they probably will.
The "proven winners" have not worked out. I'm so confused as to why so many seem unwilling to give Ole a chance!? He doesn't deserve that much??
Hilarious, Jose wasn't backed and it was Woodward's mistake. No we didn't sign players but it's on Ole because he gave some speech.
What exactly does this mean then?
You find it confusing that others are concerned about the United job being given to a guy who got sacked by Cardiff last time he managed at this level and who presided over the worst run of form for 60 years?
I keep reading stuff like this 'unwilling to give him a chance' comment - he's getting a chance, he's in the job, all we're doing is discussing whether we think he's going to make a success of it.
'unimportant' does not mean 'plays no part' - it equates exactly to what your argument has been - i.e. that the manager is just a small part of the decision making process.
It's pretty straightforward - if something plays a 'big part' then it is important in the decision making process. If it plays a 'small part' then it is unimportant in the scheme of things.
Funny how this is always posted and not the other stat when players were fit.
https://talksport.com/football/502750/manchester-united-crystal-palace/
Two proven and world class managers were given chances and fecked it up. In your world, we'd be better off with Moyes who was proven at PL level but as soon as he walked through the door was like a virgin in a brothel.
- Status