Ole Gunnar Solskjær

[NZT-One]

ESPN:

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/37574269/lukaku-confirms-desire-leave-united


Lukaku left summer of 2019, and we also lost Herrerra that summer, who was an important component of our attack. Amad joined in January 2021 having hardly played matches, as a future prospect, hardly anyone to make an impact straight away, before Ole was shown the door less than a year later.

But you are right that we had a very good attack with Ole, which he was credited for getting players firing who had been written off by previous managers.


I'm not sure how much we wanted Grealish, I think it was more media driven, but VdB was certainly a club decision. Ole struggled to get a tune out of him? Well so did every manager after, incl. on loan, and now he's forgotten about in Greece(?). It was a complete miscalculated buy by the club after he had played well in a tournament. This is a trap many clubs have fallen into.

I don't remember scouts saying NOT to buy Fernandes, but they of course warned about his proclivity to lose the ball, which many creative players do.



We shouldn't have signed Sancho after that whole saga, but I blame the club over Ole for letting it happen. Again why I say I think Ole would thrive in the club with the current INEOS-backed support system.

Sancho needed coddling, obvious after his return to Dortmund. Maybe Ole with more time could have man-managed him to do better with us, but we'll never know that.

I credit Ole for a lot, as you can tell. I'm tired of being told my memory is bad when people's arguments against him are either flatly wrong or not on a corresponding timeline.

McKenna was a great up and coming coach who likely thrived and learned a lot from being included in the coaching setup with Ole, Carrick and the others in the club. Allowing him to test his ideas in such a big club with more experienced people to back him. He would never have been given the opportunity by himself.

Don't forget that Ole was a striker coach for Ronaldo and our other strikers back before he took the steps up the ladder. Once you are the manager you have more responsibilities and can't spend all your time on specific areas, you need specialists to give advice, before ultimately you make the decision which tactics/line-up to go with.

Each to their own of course just want to say that I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions from the past. Ole didn't get the best out of our attackers because he somehow unlocked their infinite potential. He freed them from Mourinhos influence and gave them space to attack. Which probably 99% of attackers enjoy more than they enjoy packed defenses. His style of man management was positive, no doubt about that, but I think, it was a little too soft - since quite a few players started their trajectory during that time - namely Lingard, Sancho and Rashford.

It is totally fine to appreciate the vibes aspect of his tenure but we have to acknowledge the cost it came at. And since we are behind the pack as we speak, the idea of more side steps is the last thing we should follow.

 

[thisisnottaken1]

The thing is, if we had had Ole only as an interim and had not appointed him as permanent manager, there would be way less baggage about hiring him as interim right now. It’d be like Chelsea with Guus Hiddink. And the thing is, after we appointed Ole as permanent manager, our form went straight to shit. To be fair, it was understandable at the time, as our form since appointing him as interim was fantastic and we had just come from behind to beat PSG away.

 

[Ole'sgunnarwin]

He won ten out of his first eleven matches here. This lad has been here a year and hasn't won two in a row. Not saying we should go for him but I secretly think he'd do all right here if it's just till the end of the season. He's not the answer long term

 

[Adnan]

ESPN:

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/37574269/lukaku-confirms-desire-leave-united


Lukaku left summer of 2019, and we also lost Herrerra that summer, who was an important component of our attack. Amad joined in January 2021 having hardly played matches, as a future prospect, hardly anyone to make an impact straight away, before Ole was shown the door less than a year later.

But you are right that we had a very good attack with Ole, which he was credited for getting players firing who had been written off by previous managers.


I'm not sure how much we wanted Grealish, I think it was more media driven, but VdB was certainly a club decision. Ole struggled to get a tune out of him? Well so did every manager after, incl. on loan, and now he's forgotten about in Greece(?). It was a complete miscalculated buy by the club after he had played well in a tournament. This is a trap many clubs have fallen into.

I don't remember scouts saying NOT to buy Fernandes, but they of course warned about his proclivity to lose the ball, which many creative players do.



We shouldn't have signed Sancho after that whole saga, but I blame the club over Ole for letting it happen. Again why I say I think Ole would thrive in the club with the current INEOS-backed support system.

Sancho needed coddling, obvious after his return to Dortmund. Maybe Ole with more time could have man-managed him to do better with us, but we'll never know that.

I credit Ole for a lot, as you can tell. I'm tired of being told my memory is bad when people's arguments against him are either flatly wrong or not on a corresponding timeline.

McKenna was a great up and coming coach who likely thrived and learned a lot from being included in the coaching setup with Ole, Carrick and the others in the club. Allowing him to test his ideas in such a big club with more experienced people to back him. He would never have been given the opportunity by himself.

Don't forget that Ole was a striker coach for Ronaldo and our other strikers back before he took the steps up the ladder. Once you are the manager you have more responsibilities and can't spend all your time on specific areas, you need specialists to give advice, before ultimately you make the decision which tactics/line-up to go with.

Lukaku himself has gone on record and said it was all lies about him wanting to leave the club and felt frustrated that the club didn't shut the rumours down about him wanting to leave. And it was after that he decided that he wanted to leave the club. And it doesn't really matter what Solskjaer said to be him, I think the writing was on the wall for Lukaku because he became a bit part player under Solskjaer and hence wanted to leave. Solskjaer is quoted as saying that the decision to let Lukaku leave was the right decision because it allowed him to bring through Mason Greenwood. And again that didn't make a lot of sense because Lukaku was more of central striker while Mason Greenwood was more of a inside forward. I can provide the quotes as well.

I think under Mourinho it all went haywire because he was hell bent on creating chaos not only with the players but also with the club scouts. And it was reported that the scouts told Woodward to not sign Maguire because they felt he didn’t have the quality to raise the level in the team and I assume they were putting forward different names for the position. This didn't go down well with Mourinho and hence the outbursts in press conferences. But what still doesn’t change is that to this date, post Fergie, Mourinho has been our best manager as far as amassing points in a single season and also winning trophies. And with Mourinho, he was the last manager we had, who actually signed players for a purpose. Eventhough I disagreed with a lot he did at the club, the team he left behind had a good attack, a decent midfield of Herrera, Matic and Pogba. And this team only required tweeking to make it more proactive, which Solskjaer failed to do hence the wheels completely came off when he actually went into his final season and attempted to press high in a high defensive block and there was huge gaps that appeared centrally.

Regarding Grealish, I just responded to a post that said Soskjaer wanted him and the club gave him Van de Beek. It also made no sense to sign Sancho either because both Sancho and Grealish prefer playing in the position that was already occupied by Rashford. Van de Beek as a back up player to Bruno for a modest fee along with Amad to develop as the wide right sided forward was the right moves imo. Of course players may not turn out to be good enough and VdB hasn't turned out to be good enough but the VdB signing will not hurt as much due to the low investment in signing him. What's hurt us, is signing Sancho when we didn't need to sign him for a position where we were already strong.

Mckenna was hyped up to be among the very best youth coaches in England. He was first brought into the first team coaching setup under Mourinho who promoted him. Of course you're going learn a lot as a coach in the first team. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Mckenna was actually a coach with ideas on how to develop teams as far as systems go.

Soskjaer in his own words has never been a coach and is someone that observes the coaching aspect which is overseen by others on the training ground. Also I'm not sure how much Ronaldo benefitted from Solskjaer's coaching, because from what we know, Ronaldo was banging goals in for fun before Solskjaer retired. Solskjaer did get a youth coaching role at the club from 2008, but I wouldn't say he had a impact on Ronaldo who caught fire in 2006 onwards.

 

[Amir]

He won ten out of his first eleven matches here. This lad has been here a year and hasn't won two in a row. Not saying we should go for him but I secretly think he'd do all right here if it's just till the end of the season. He's not the answer long term

I think he could do quite well. I just wonder about what happens afterwards:

He does well enough for us to give him the job permanently, again (it's easy to say we won't do it, but if the football and the results are good, and the supporters want him, would we really refuse?).

Or,

Despite doing well, we appoint someone else. However, Solskjaer always remains in the background as a quick-fix if things don't go well.

So, we really need to move on from him. He had his shot, and since then he hasn't given us a reason to think he's changed or improved and can do better.

 

[stevoc]

I would agree. But in that sense nothing else than the constant reminders of "how entertaining the games at least were"

It was clear we were never going to make the next step towards title contention under Ole. But considering the shite we've had to endure over the last 3 seasons, we didn't know how good we had it between 2019-2021. And by that I mean at least a lot of the games were good to watch and we scored a decent amount of goals.

That's how low we've sank, I'm reminiscing about 2 seasons where we weren't that good and didn't win anything.

 

[bludsucker]

Because pressing doesn't mean success. Or what table are you talking about? If you attempt a high press and you aren't good at it, you'll suffer. There is no tactic or approach in football that will always work or will never not work.

The table for tackles in the attacking third. Not the points table. I thought we were talking about that.

I just laid out the numbers. It moved up around 1000 tacklings in 5 years. That'd be 50 more tackles for each team. It isn't that much.

I just told you that neither ppda nor tackles in final 3rd will tell you "how well you pressed" or "how organized your press was". And in the end, you were the one claiming that we did press when we had to and did well when we did. But other than eyetest, there isn't much to show for it. And eyetest I would confirm, even it were very rare occasions.

Come up with another stat then. I just showed you that neither ppda is an indicator that we did something very well or good or right. I also showed that the number of tackles in final third are definitely an indicator of a successfull press given that the teams at the top of those lists were known to be just that. If you don't want to see it as that, thats fine.

That’s just it then. PPDA takes into account every action that goes into leading to a change in possession. Be that by way of interception or losing possession due to an incorrect pass or leading to a corner or a throw in. That is why it is the best stat available for gauging the effectiveness of a press or its intensity. Ole’s teams were good at it according to the stats. I myself don’t go by stats alone and use the eye test for making my judgement. I remember things differently and the stats just confirm it for me as they are aligned with what i saw.

Just don't try to sell us Ole's teams as capable of good pressing. It hasn't been in any structured way. So the claim is just wrong. That in itself isn't a dig at Ole, pressing doesn't necessarily mean success, other ways to play the game are possible. Even though it was a bit of a bummer that neither he nor the club noticed that it became a quasi meta is now something that most teams exercise.

My point originally was that we weren’t the best pressing team but a decent one, and that we were a pragmatic team with different tactical approach to different games based on the opponent. We pressed when we needed to and we countered when we needed to. The pressing stat was brought into the discussion by another poster in here as another imaginary stick to beat ole with.

 

[AFIABM]

I completely agree Yagami.

People completely underestimate how strong we were in the final third with the players inherited by Solskjaer. For me, all he had to do after that was construct the CB pairing and the midfield composition to give us that ability to control the game with and without the ball. The players he signed from Maguire, Wan Bissaka and neglecting the midfield is what eventually got him the sack. We just couldn't overcome a high press without going direct anywhere near the same level as the standard that had been set by the likes of Liverpool and City who had players in the first two lines who not only resisted the press and progressed play, but could also close off the space high, maintain compactness and also manage space. It was really bad and our attacking third players carried that team in transition for long periods.

Personally I'd have Darren Fletcher as the interim, until we get a more permanent replacement.

I agree that Maguire was not a good signing for all the reasons you've listed. Were you surprised that City were also interested in buying him at the time, but not at the enormous price we paid?

If I remember correctly, they were also linked with Fred and Sanchez around the time that we bought both.

 

[anant]

Bolded part: which stat?

I looked at the numbers in the post from a few days ago

season 2019/20: shared 4th-highest number of tackles in the attacking third
season 2020/21: 5th-LOWEST number of tackles in the attacking third
season 2021/22: lower middle of the pack
season 2022/23: lower middle of the pack
season 2023/24: middle of the pack

So your statement wouldn't be correct for tacklings in the attacking third.

The numbers of total tacklings went up indeed, but not by much. If you sum up the tackles of all teams based on fbref, those are the numbers from 2019/20 until 2023-24:
12394
11798
12410
12909
13420

But also lets look at the averages out of interest sake:

	Average Total Tackles	Average Total Tackles final 3rd	Uniteds Total Tackles	Uniteds total Tackles in final 3r
2019-20	620	72	579	81
2020-21	590	71	551	60
2021-22	621	78	585	68
2022-23	645	88	657	83
2023-24	671	95	676	102

This has of course only limited power since so many factors go in there when we create averages across so many different teams. But we can see that our numbers compared to the league average tend to get lower. So even compared to the league average, there is no indication that we do press higher at any point in time for more than a few phases in a few games.

If we look at ppda based on understat, we see the following

2019-20 - 6th highest value with 9.64, while the majority of the league is between 10 and 14, Liverpool and Leicester with around 8
2020-21 - 9th highest value with 10.95, while the majority of the league is between 10 and 14, Leeds with around 7, Leverpool with around 9
2021-22 - 12th highest value with 12.84, while the majority of the league is between 10 and below 14, Liverpool with 8, City with 8.5
2022-23 - 9th highest value with 11.52, while the majority of the league is between 9.5 and 13, Liverpool and Brighton slightly below 9
2023-24 - 10th highest value with 11.96, while the majority of the league is between 9.7 and 13.5, Tottenham & Liverpool with 7.5

So even if we look at this stat, we weren't in the top 4-6 in any of those seasons. Those numbers indicate though that we didn't get much better after Ole. But they also show that the numbers get lower as a whole, indicating that more and more teams engage in such a press with teams like Liverpool and City but also a few others seeing numbers United hasn't seen at any point.


Not entirely sure what the point here is - but I guess you say that neither ppda nor tackles in final third tell us something about the "level of organisation in terms pressing" or "quality of pressing organisation" and I would agree to that. Though eye test and to a degree the number of tackles in final third indicate, that we did attempt a higher engagement - even though it turned into a high risk, no return situation since we didn't even capitalize on the turnovers we did generate.

Thats fair criticism btw. And as far as I can tell, there are many on here, who didn't see anything changing under ETH. But Casemiro being isolated in midfield because of the front players pushing up is a sign that we did try something Oles team never did in a structured way - only in spurs or phases of games.

Tackles in final 3rd is a subset of how high a team is defending.
PPDA being among the highest, combined with a very high defensive line (mark r stats used to have it earlier, and now the subsets of that data can be found in tweets) is a significantly more conclusive way of saying how high a defense was playing.

And irrespective, how does it matter about the style as long as it's entertaining + bringing results. If it's about players being great, I hope you're willing to accept that the players Ole bought were fantastic, because his predecessor wasn't able to produce that sort of football, and his successor was clamouring for an open heart surgery.

And if the players he bought were shit, then tactically he was a really good manager as he managed to be the only manager with back to back top 4 finishes

 

[NZT-One]

The thing is, if we had had Ole only as an interim and had not appointed him as permanent manager, there would be way less baggage about hiring him as interim right now. It’d be like Chelsea with Guus Hiddink. And the thing is, after we appointed Ole as permanent manager, our form went straight to shit. To be fair, it was understandable at the time, as our form since appointing him as interim was fantastic and we had just come from behind to beat PSG away.

I agree. And for all the posts I made in here I want to make sure one thing isn't misunderstood: I don't think that Ole himself is at fault for our misery. It is the club for not acknowledging things and not interfer with some things that unfolded.

It was clear we were never going to make the next step towards title contention under Ole. But considering the shite we've had to endure over the last 3 seasons, we didn't know how good we had it between 2019-2021. And by that I mean at least a lot of the games were good to watch and we scored a decent amount of goals.

That's how low we've sank, I'm reminiscing about 2 seasons where we weren't that good and didn't win anything.

I can definitely see your point. I was one who thought, that with this set of players (back then), a good manager could do so much more than what Ole got out of them - just by providing a little more structure and organisation. But I was absolutely wrong in that. So yes - he probably wasn't as bad of a manager I thought back then, but that doesn't necessarily make him a good one either. A lot of the criticism towards him for over the top. But I don't know whether it was really him or his decisions that ramped up the heat in the discussion or whether it was two sections of fans who went for each others throats, questioned motives, got personal and so on.

The table for tackles in the attacking third. Not the points table. I thought we were talking about that.

Ok, got it. Then I don't know why you say we were 4-6th in that, I layed out the numbers in previous posts.

That’s just it then. PPDA takes into account every action that goes into leading to a change in possession. Be that by way of interception or losing possession due to an incorrect pass or leading to a corner or a throw in. That is why it is the best stat available for gauging the effectiveness of a press or its intensity. Ole’s teams were good at it according to the stats. I myself don’t go by stats alone and use the eye test for making my judgement. I remember things differently and the stats just confirm it for me as they are aligned with what i saw.

Ok, I'll accept it. But one last attempt - even if you consider ppda as the more important stat (even though you shouldn't, not based on my evaluation but the tactics blog I linked) then it didn't show that we pressed well. It just shows that we pressed mostly in line with all the other teams in the league.

My point originally was that we weren’t the best pressing team but a decent one, and that we were a pragmatic team with different tactical approach to different games based on the opponent. We pressed when we needed to and we countered when we needed to. The pressing stat was brought into the discussion by another poster in here as another imaginary stick to beat ole with.

And I would agree that the pressing stat shouldn't have been used as such stick. But not because it showed the opposite of what was claimed - but because it simply doesn't give an an answer to "how good was a press".

Tackles in final 3rd is a subset of how high a team is defending.
PPDA being among the highest, combined with a very high defensive line (mark r stats used to have it earlier, and now the subsets of that data can be found in tweets) is a significantly more conclusive way of saying how high a defense was playing.

Ok. Is that a general remark? Because our ppda wasn't one of the highest in the league at any point in the last 5 years (probably more).

And irrespective, how does it matter about the style as long as it's entertaining + bringing results.

If it doesn't matter to you, thats fine and a legit stance. But ultimately, thats your subjective stance that doesn't mean anything for anybody else.

If it's about players being great, I hope you're willing to accept that the players Ole bought were fantastic,

I'm sorry - what? Fantastic? What?

because his predecessor wasn't able to produce that sort of football, and his successor was clamouring for an open heart surgery.

How well other managers did before and after him doesn't really tell us much about Oles quality though. Ultimately, all of them failed at one point in time. For different reasons and to different extents.

And if the players he bought were shit, then tactically he was a really good manager as he managed to be the only manager with back to back top 4 finishes

Don't think thats a logical conclusion. The players weren't fantastic, the football wasn't anything to show for (am absolutely not able to comprehend how that notion can survive until today), the players weren't (and aren't shit) and his results might as well have been despite his tactics and playstyle since results are influencedy so many different factors. Feels like you just throw things together and then re-order them to create a picture you like. Ole played a simple gameplan that helped the nominal best players in our team be influential (Bruno and Rashford). But when opponents adapted (which took longer than expected), Ole wasn't able to cope. He also either didn't understand the reasons for our inability to play differently - or he understood them and decided against doing something about it. Both of those explanations would be bad.

 

[stevoc]

I can definitely see your point. I was one who thought, that with this set of players (back then), a good manager could do so much more than what Ole got out of them - just by providing a little more structure and organisation. But I was absolutely wrong in that. So yes - he probably wasn't as bad of a manager I thought back then, but that doesn't necessarily make him a good one either. A lot of the criticism towards him for over the top. But I don't know whether it was really him or his decisions that ramped up the heat in the discussion or whether it was two sections of fans who went for each others throats, questioned motives, got personal and so on.

He was definitely beter than some will give him credit for. But ultimately he wasn't good enough to take us to the next level in challenging for the title. Though 2 managers, 4 years and about a billion spent on player later. The next level is now finishing in the top 10, so I think it's safe to say we've went backwards.

 

[Adnan]

I agree that Maguire was not a good signing for all the reasons you've listed. Were you surprised that City were also interested in buying him at the time, but not at the enormous price we paid?

If I remember correctly, they were also linked with Fred and Sanchez around the time that we bought both.

I remember some years ago (about 8/9 years ago) I was watching a football documentary on SKY and there was a small segment on there with journalist Daniel Taylor who mainly covered Man City and United. And what he said was that one of City's strategies in the transfer market was to overly inflate transfers for Man United by getting involved with agents/clubs to drive up the price and get their name in the press as wanting certain players so United overpay.

I don’t believe City were really in for Sanchez, Fred, Ronaldo, Maguire etc because I feel their plan was to get involved and drive up the price.

 

[AFIABM]

I remember some years ago (about 8/9 years ago) I was watching a football documentary on SKY and there was a small segment on there with journalist Daniel Taylor who mainly covered Man City and United. And what he said was that one of City's strategies in the transfer market was to overly inflate transfers for Man United by getting involved with agents/clubs to drive up the price and get their name in the press as wanting certain players so United overpay.

I don’t believe City were really in for Sanchez, Fred, Ronaldo, Maguire etc because I feel their plan was to get involved and drive up the price.

Certainly felt that way

 

[anant]

Ok. Is that a general remark? Because our ppda wasn't one of the highest in the league at any point in the last 5 years (probably more).

If you're ranking consistently in top 4-6 across 2-3 seasons, I'd say it's among the highest

I'm sorry - what? Fantastic? What?

If you think you come across smart by breaking the sentences into phrases, you don't. In fact, you come across as slightly slow up in the mind

Don't think thats a logical conclusion. The players weren't fantastic, the football wasn't anything to show for (am absolutely not able to comprehend how that notion can survive until today), the players weren't (and aren't shit) and his results might as well have been despite his tactics and playstyle since results are influencedy so many different factors. Feels like you just throw things together and then re-order them to create a picture you like. Ole played a simple gameplan that helped the nominal best players in our team be influential (Bruno and Rashford). But when opponents adapted (which took longer than expected), Ole wasn't able to cope. He also either didn't understand the reasons for our inability to play differently - or he understood them and decided against doing something about it. Both of those explanations would be bad.

Do you want to take a wild guess at what rank do Ole's Goals/game and GD/game rank among all Utd managers in history?

If results are despite his tactics, you can't be seriously saying that the players weren't some absolute WC beasts, or we're saying that all the PL sides happened to be shit for exactly 2 seasons, not more nor less, and exactly for the 2 seasons when Ole was our manager? And among all the managers past or present across clubs, Ole's tactics took a huge amount of time to be figured out despite them being simple. And that is why he had 2nd fewest losses in the league across 2 seasons.

The explanation was always simple - He was unable to incorporate Ronaldo in the setup as there was minimal defensive contribution from him. The fluid front 3 changed to Ron being the focal point of all attacks. It wasn't that his tactics were found out, it was more a case of the new tactics just not suiting the side

 

[NZT-One]

If you're ranking consistently in top 4-6 across 2-3 seasons, I'd say it's among the highest

Do you mean league tables now?

If you think you come across smart by breaking the sentences into phrases, you don't. In fact, you come across as slightly slow up in the mind

Noted. Might as well be an instance of you not making your point very well but why not throw a punch if the chance is there.

Do you want to take a wild guess at what rank do Ole's Goals/game and GD/game rank among all Utd managers in history?

No thank you. Nobody denies that Oles team was able to get a tune out of the team. Nobody denies him his results. The point was - those came at a certain price. And some of his fans don't seem to acknowledge that. Plus - it seems that he went up in ratings just because his successors didn't do well either. Which isn't really helpful.

If results are despite his tactics, you can't be seriously saying that the players weren't some absolute WC beasts, or we're saying that all the PL sides happened to be shit for exactly 2 seasons, not more nor less, and exactly for the 2 seasons when Ole was our manager? And among all the managers past or present across clubs, Ole's tactics took a huge amount of time to be figured out despite them being simple. And that is why he had 2nd fewest losses in the league across 2 seasons.

I didn't say that. I just pointed out that results (as a placeholder for league positions) are influenced by many factors - not just by player quality or manager quality. If you want to simplify it like that, you are of course welcome to. But don't expect others to not oppose it.

The explanation was always simple - He was unable to incorporate Ronaldo in the setup as there was minimal defensive contribution from him. The fluid front 3 changed to Ron being the focal point of all attacks. It wasn't that his tactics were found out, it was more a case of the new tactics just not suiting the side

I am sure it was simple to you. Not like we haven't seen that train of thoughts 100s of times. The issue is - you are looking at results in his first two seasons, conclude from the results that we must have played well because "win = played well" and then go on to sell us "integrating Ronaldo was too much for him". The "fluid front three" had long lost most of their mojo at that time. I don't know about your memory - but for every "exciting and entertaining match" we had at least one or two dull and borin 0:0 draw in the chamber or cagey clinch victories after bad games - often having slept through 1st half only to somehow wake up after going behind.

But as I just said - when you run on the premise of "win = play well" then nobody here will be overly suprised by your stance.

 

[Yagami]

But the reason wasn't just that we had "a quality attack". Don't get me wrong, the talent we had there was pretty good which only enabled Ole to go for his individual brilliance approach (in a sense of "don't restrict them with too much structure, give freedom, let them figure stuff out") but that wasn't the sole reason. One of the main reason we clicked so well under Ole in the beginning was based on two things - a) lifting the miserable effect Mourinho seeming had by that time and b) go down the quick counters approach against opponents who took quite some time how formidable we've gotten in that regard. More than enough teams had a go at us knowing how fragile we've been to pressure but Oles welcomed that tactic since it allowed him to play deeper and more importantly, it opened up the space in behind that he wanted to play into for our quick attackers to explore. I'd say Ole moving towards a midfield selection of McFred also had quite some effect because our midfield before was "famous" for being slow and be the antidote of intensity - something that changed at least to a degree with the introduction of the other guys.

I agree with your overall sentiment here but I struggle with the notion that "we were on track until..." Ole in interview explained his approach - he wanted us to be as vertical as possible, as direct as possible. This isn't a situation that Ole wanted "the right thing" but somehow got it wrong or fecked up priorities. No he simply didn't value midfield and he wanted balls to be hit into space as soon as possible. And thats what we did. It isn't the worst approach in the world, it is simple yet effective. But it didn't take too long until more and more opponents started to acknowledge our abilities when we had space and simply took it away. And that was the beginning of the end.

Oh, no arguments from me. I definitely think we needed to change the manager regardless because, even if we got the recruitment right, Ole showed that he didn't value composure and control at all, and you're not winning the big trophies without either. I was just talking about how bad our transfers were in general, and how that wasted the one time post Fergie we had an actual threatening attack, which comes down to Ole again.

Those attacking players maybe had more goals in them than the current ones but Solskjaer was the one who brought it out of them on a consistent basis. Mourinho wanted to chuck Martial out the door, used Rashford as a fringe player and fell out with Pogba.

That's not justification to bring him back but he should get some credit for that - he certainly got a better tune out of those players than Mourinho did and found a way to integrate them all into a team that scored a lot of goals.

I don't think our current crop of attackers should be far behind the ones you mentioned under a competent coach though. The balance is a mess because we've contorted the squad for Amorim. Mbeumo, Cunha, Sesko, Fernandes and Amad could form the bones of a fruitful attack with one or two additions.

The midfield is significantly weaker than the Matic, Herrera, Pogba trio Ole inherited though. Which also had McTominay and Fred as squad options.

A caretaker like Carrick could get more out of this team than Amorim just by playing a conventional formation and stripping back to basics. That's what we've seen each time we've gone down the temporary route, except for Rangnick. Introducing a little bit of structure makes us look more competent pretty quickly.

I just don't rate our current attack at all bar Amad. The standard of their general play is atrocious. With the former attack, it had everything when on form, but was let down by everything else around it.

Agree with you about Carrick!

I’d have him back in a heartbeat. Players did him. Most of those are gone.

I think his tactics are what did him. Same at Cardiff. Same at Besiktas.

 

[anant]

Do you mean league tables now?

Noted. Might as well be an instance of you not making your point very well but why not throw a punch if the chance is there.

No thank you. Nobody denies that Oles team was able to get a tune out of the team. Nobody denies him his results. The point was - those came at a certain price. And some of his fans don't seem to acknowledge that. Plus - it seems that he went up in ratings just because his successors didn't do well either. Which isn't really helpful.

I didn't say that. I just pointed out that results (as a placeholder for league positions) are influenced by many factors - not just by player quality or manager quality. If you want to simplify it like that, you are of course welcome to. But don't expect others to not oppose it.

I am sure it was simple to you. Not like we haven't seen that train of thoughts 100s of times. The issue is - you are looking at results in his first two seasons, conclude from the results that we must have played well because "win = played well" and then go on to sell us "integrating Ronaldo was too much for him". The "fluid front three" had long lost most of their mojo at that time. I don't know about your memory - but for every "exciting and entertaining match" we had at least one or two dull and borin 0:0 draw in the chamber or cagey clinch victories after bad games - often having slept through 1st half only to somehow wake up after going behind.

But as I just said - when you run on the premise of "win = play well" then nobody here will be overly suprised by your stance.

Ofcourse the league tables. Do you have the numbers for other competitions?

FYI- 3rd most goals/game - highest than anyone since Sir Matt Busby, and highest GD/game

And it's not results=played well. He happens to be the only manager post SAF to have two top 4 finishes in terms of xG as well. It's literally been done 3 times post SAF - two under him and that 1st Mou seasons (where we finished 6th), so please back your arguments with stats rather than random gibberish that you're saying without reasonably strong statistical backing.

 

[NZT-One]

Ofcourse the league tables. Do you have the numbers for other competitions?

Because you jumped into a discussion that was about ppda.

FYI- 3rd most goals/game - highest than anyone since Sir Matt Busby, and highest GD/game

0 trophies and in that sense worse manager than LVG and ETH. There is no point in looking for these kind of things because there is more than enough to tell every story under the sun.

And it's not results=played well. He happens to be the only manager post SAF to have two top 4 finishes in terms of xG as well. It's literally been done 3 times post SAF - two under him and that 1st Mou seasons (where we finished 6th), so please back your arguments with stats rather than random gibberish that you're saying without reasonably strong statistical backing.

2019/2020, United finished with a total xG of around 66 (4th highest), while City (102), Chelsea (76), Liverpool (75) had significantly higher values. In the same season, Leicester finished with 61, Southhampton with 57 and Wolves with 54.
2020/2021, United finished with a lower total xG of around 63, while City finished with 78, Liverpool with 72, Chelsea with 68. In the same season Westham finished on 60, Leeds and Leicester on 59.

You can certainly be happy about "consecutive Top4 xG finishes" but the same numbers could be used as an indicator of our way into mediocraty. Your choice.

And for what its worth, lets leave it at that. If you think we played mostly well under Ole, then there is no common ground to continue the discussion anyways. I am sure, we'll figure out a way to live with that.

 

[anant]

Because you jumped into a discussion that was about ppda.

0 trophies and in that sense worse manager than LVG and ETH. There is no point in looking for these kind of things because there is more than enough to tell every story under the sun.

2019/2020, United finished with a total xG of around 66 (4th highest), while City (102), Chelsea (76), Liverpool (75) had significantly higher values. In the same season, Leicester finished with 61, Southhampton with 57 and Wolves with 54.
2020/2021, United finished with a lower total xG of around 63, while City finished with 78, Liverpool with 72, Chelsea with 68. In the same season Westham finished on 60, Leeds and Leicester on 59.

You can certainly be happy about "consecutive Top4 xG finishes" but the same numbers could be used as an indicator of our way into mediocraty. Your choice.

And for what its worth, lets leave it at that. If you think we played mostly well under Ole, then there is no common ground to continue the discussion anyways. I am sure, we'll figure out a way to live with that.

I'm referring to xGD, and find me a season apart from the Mou 1st season where we had a xGD finish of top 4 -> I think that was my question, which still is yet to be answered

 

[NZT-One]

I'm referring to xGD, and find me a season apart from the Mou 1st season where we had a xGD finish of top 4 -> I think that was my question, which still is yet to be answered

If that was your point, why did you bring up xG then? ^^ I just pointed out, that it is kind of pointless to go hunting for such tidbits nobody would ever care about if it wasn't to try to make some sort of point. You can have the xGD if you want - it doesn't mean much because if you want to compare tidbits, this thread is witness to there being so many out there to tell every story you want.