Opposition fans view - Louis van Gaal

[NoLogo]

While it's true that Moyes had no real idea what he wanted to do with the team, it looked to me as if he was caught inbetween carrying on what Ferguson did (as everyone expected) and something he wanted to do.

Van Gaal took over with no expectations like that. He could shape the team in any way he wanted to without any criticism and he faced extremely low expectations for a club that won the title only 12 months before and spent so much money. Yet there was no clear longterm vision. He brought in a big number of forwards and got rid of wingers to play a 3-5-2ish formation that wasn't suited to the squad or the league. He started changing it randomly until through injuries he accidently stumbled onto something that worked well for a few weeks. But instead of building on it, another totally random transfer window happened with no clear plan how to play. He doesn't know how to use most of his signings, doesn't understand their strengths or the roles they're best used in until he tried and tested them almost everywhere.

It's been 18months of trial and error, we've seen counterattacking set-ups, possession based set-ups, kick and rush. Everything worked a few times, but all of it also failed more often than it should. I really don't get why he gets praise for having a clear plan. If he didn't talk such a pretty game with his totally empty philosophy mumbo-jumbo, I doubt many would see a clear plan.

Really, forget everything he said and just look at the games and the decisions in the transfer-market without using a single comment of his and then try to fit it all in one plan, one great idea that he worked towards from the moment he took over. Do you really see it? Because I don't, not one bit.

Very well said. In all honesty I think the last time this man really earned the praise he is getting was when he was still managing Ajax.

 

[Timdbro]

My german friend on facebook and the two messages he sent back in August 2014:
"van Gaal will ruin Man Utd"
When asked why:
"He left every club in pieces. I think he's a genius with his football knowledge and eye for young players but all his teams are afraid of him after a while"

If he'd said 'he's crashed and burnt at every club and left in controversial circumstances' he'd have a point, but to say he left every club in pieces is nonsense. He's basically always left a good squad and always brought through young players, and he's doing both things this time too.

 

[Pyroblazer]

While it's true that Moyes had no real idea what he wanted to do with the team, it looked to me as if he was caught inbetween carrying on what Ferguson did (as everyone expected) and something he wanted to do.

Van Gaal took over with no expectations like that. He could shape the team in any way he wanted to without any criticism and he faced extremely low expectations for a club that won the title only 12 months before and spent so much money. Yet there was no clear longterm vision. He brought in a big number of forwards and got rid of wingers to play a 3-5-2ish formation that wasn't suited to the squad or the league. He started changing it randomly until through injuries he accidently stumbled onto something that worked well for a few weeks. But instead of building on it, another totally random transfer window happened with no clear plan how to play. He doesn't know how to use most of his signings, doesn't understand their strengths or the roles they're best used in until he tried and tested them almost everywhere.

It's been 18months of trial and error, we've seen counterattacking set-ups, possession based set-ups, kick and rush. Everything worked a few times, but all of it also failed more often than it should. I really don't get why he gets praise for having a clear plan. If he didn't talk such a pretty game with his totally empty philosophy mumbo-jumbo, I doubt many would see a clear plan.

Really, forget everything he said and just look at the games and the decisions in the transfer-market without using a single comment of his and then try to fit it all in one plan, one great idea that he worked towards from the moment he took over. Do you really see it? Because I don't, not one bit.

True, but I don't think the second window was that random to be honest. It was a good window with most of our signings made early. Martial was random, because we couldn't get the top class attacker he wanted. And De Gea and Di Maria acting like they did made things difficult and more random too. With all the signings and changes needed I think the second window was one of the better ones in recent years. He maybe took it a step too far with players out, i still don't know why we got rid of Adnan, who started half of our games during that time. The other players needed or wanted to go. Otherwise it looks like 4-2-3-1 was always his plan with the right team. He didn't want to play it in his first season and then changed to 4-3-3, which improved us, so he sticked with it, but it was never his general idea of us playing. But you are right that nothing really works for him and he is just trying tons of things and hope it sticks. That's without a doubt not the sign of manager, who has a clear plan or "philosophy".

 

[drab.]

In my view he's a bit of a nob. If utd were playing good football then I could understand the attitude he has but he has you playing some absolute gash.

 

[BobbyManc]

While it's true that Moyes had no real idea what he wanted to do with the team, it looked to me as if he was caught inbetween carrying on what Ferguson did (as everyone expected) and something he wanted to do.

Van Gaal took over with no expectations like that. He could shape the team in any way he wanted to without any criticism and he faced extremely low expectations for a club that won the title only 12 months before and spent so much money. Yet there was no clear longterm vision. He brought in a big number of forwards and got rid of wingers to play a 3-5-2ish formation that wasn't suited to the squad or the league. He started changing it randomly until through injuries he accidently stumbled onto something that worked well for a few weeks. But instead of building on it, another totally random transfer window happened with no clear plan how to play. He doesn't know how to use most of his signings, doesn't understand their strengths or the roles they're best used in until he tried and tested them almost everywhere.

It's been 18months of trial and error, we've seen counterattacking set-ups, possession based set-ups, kick and rush. Everything worked a few times, but all of it also failed more often than it should. I really don't get why he gets praise for having a clear plan. If he didn't talk such a pretty game with his totally empty philosophy mumbo-jumbo, I doubt many would see a clear plan.

Really, forget everything he said and just look at the games and the decisions in the transfer-market without using a single comment of his and then try to fit it all in one plan, one great idea that he worked towards from the moment he took over. Do you really see it? Because I don't, not one bit.

Amen. Summed up perfectly. Of course van Gaal has improved on Moyes, like I said, but when you consider the context the improvement has been negligible and simply unacceptable. Balu is spot on, the only reason people think van Gaal has more of a coherent strategy than Moyes is because he spouts his philosophy nonsense, and because of his history in management some fans are only too willing to lap it up.

 

[redman5]

I initially thought he was the right choice for a massive club like United, but he seems to be floundering a bit at the moment. In all fairness though - & I know people say injuries are part & parcel of the game - he's been incredibly unlucky on the injury front. Still over half a season to go yet though. Wonder if the board will keep faith until the summer ? Especially knowing there's a certain Italian manager currently out of work, who's actually won the EPL, & got his side playing some really good stuff in the process.

 

[Rafateria]

This is an incredibly blinkered view. Anyone can see that there has been a huge improvement since the Moyes era, both of the squad (with a lot of the dross cut loose) and especially in the play. Now I know everyone hates the style we're currently playing, and I'm not a fan of it either, but at least there is a vision which the manager has been competent enough to implement. People have short memories if they don't think that's an improvement on Moyes who had absolutely no idea what he wanted to do with the team.

Also, I'm not quite sure what type of success Van Gaal will have here (and it's incredibly kneejerk to create this thread following a result where we had mainly teenagers playing), but I'm absolutely positive his legacy here will be huge with the foundations he's laid down, the players he's brought in and those he's promoted from the Academy.

I think a big problem is that in football, a lot of people focus on the short term and have a problem looking at the big picture, but I very much agree with what Van Gaal says when he talks about a process, because I do believe that this is the case and that what he is building currently will be very useful for us in the future, even though he may not be the one to reap the benefits.

This raises a few pertinent questions though :-

a) Are those players he's brought in the right players ? Two of the world's high profile players, Di Maria and Falcao, have been and gone. United's current striker options consist of an ageing Rooney (who is obviously not cut-out to lead the line anymore), Martial who is very young, though talented, and who it is grossly unfair to put the weight of United's expectations on his young shoulders (who United panic bought on the last day of the transfer season - I believe they ended up buying him at least a season before they intended) and Lingaard (sp.) who is only just getting his toes wet in the first team, maybe you can add Fellaini but that would be a bit desperate. There is absolutely no doubt that LvG (Woodward ?) fecked up immensely with their striker transfer dealings last Summer. No team of United's standing should have that roster of strikers - no matter how good they may become a few years down the line.

b) Whatever LvG is 'building' is not going to last (unless he is wildly successful) because whichever manager succeeds him will have their own views and own requirements re. player acquisitions. As with every managerial change comes the inevitable player revolving door. Will the youngsters LvG is blooding make the grade ? Most will inevitably fall by the wayside and fail to make the (United) grade. It is isn't often nowadays that you see top teams bring through more than a couple of youngsters, U21 are generally good for generating funds relative to costs though. Top teams need to, and do, buy in the vast majority of their first team squads and youngsters are only stop-gaps bar the one every 2-3 seasons who makes the grade.

c) It's all very well saying there is a long term plan - problem is in football today that owners, CEOs, fans and bank managers are not going to give any manager that time (Wenger being the sole exception that proves the rule).
LvG has been lucky in that he has taken over at a time when the PL is also in flux with City and Chelsea needing to re-invest (as City have done) and re-establish themselves, Arsenal are still their inconsistent selves and Spurs and Liverpool are also in transition (though in Spurs' case theirs is a season ahead of the others and they are surely strong contenders for Top 4 this season). Those transitions enabled him to make a Top 4 last season (and compete early on this season) that surely he wouldn't otherwise have made ... and that would have put United's performances this season under the spotlight and maybe LvG out of the door.

 

[Dumbstar]

A lucky escape for us. We wanted him as DoF to work alongside Martinez or even Rodgers. He wanted to come to Pool as manager. We said no.

He would have made a great DoF though. His eye for talent is spot on. We got exciting football under Rodgers but atrocious acquisitions.

 

[Balu]

He would have made a great DoF though. His eye for talent is spot on. We got exciting football under Rodgers but atrocious acquisitions.

He'd be an awful DoF. Every coach would absolutely hate working under him.

 

[Rafateria]

Have you seen our injuries? We had 2 fullbacks on each flank all 4 of whom are injured, 3 of whom appear long term and the fourth Unknown. We are playing with a 4th choice CB. Do you think Arsenal will be the same if koscielny Gabriel Monreal Gibbs bellerin and debuchy are all injured?

Whilst it is true you are suffering from a very difficult time injury-wise, that can be no excuse because defence hasn't been your issue (and one of yesterday's goals was De Gea's error - one of the world's best keepers, the other came from a brilliantly worked corner. There were other opportunities but Bournemouth failed to take them so can be discounted in terms of the result).
Six of your front seven yesterday looked just about as good as you can muster on paper (De Pay, Martial, Mata, Lingaard, Fellaini and Carrick) and in no way can injuries be used as an excuse - in fact many would have said Rooney's injury was a blessing in terms of allowing LvG to pick a strong front 6 though maybe many would swap out Lingaard for Rooney and Fellaini has proven more influential than Schweinsteiger who is struggling somewhat).

 

[Rafateria]

While it's true that Moyes had no real idea what he wanted to do with the team, it looked to me as if he was caught inbetween carrying on what Ferguson did (as everyone expected) and something he wanted to do.

Van Gaal took over with no expectations like that. He could shape the team in any way he wanted to without any criticism and he faced extremely low expectations for a club that won the title only 12 months before and spent so much money. Yet there was no clear longterm vision. He brought in a big number of forwards and got rid of wingers to play a 3-5-2ish formation that wasn't suited to the squad or the league. He started changing it randomly until through injuries he accidently stumbled onto something that worked well for a few weeks. But instead of building on it, another totally random transfer window happened with no clear plan how to play. He doesn't know how to use most of his signings, doesn't understand their strengths or the roles they're best used in until he tried and tested them almost everywhere.

It's been 18months of trial and error, we've seen counterattacking set-ups, possession based set-ups, kick and rush. Everything worked a few times, but all of it also failed more often than it should. I really don't get why he gets praise for having a clear plan. If he didn't talk such a pretty game with his totally empty philosophy mumbo-jumbo, I doubt many would see a clear plan.

Really, forget everything he said and just look at the games and the decisions in the transfer-market without using a single comment of his and then try to fit it all in one plan, one great idea that he worked towards from the moment he took over. Do you really see it? Because I don't, not one bit.

*applause*

 

[Rafateria]

I initially thought he was the right choice for a massive club like United, but he seems to be floundering a bit at the moment. In all fairness though - & I know people say injuries are part & parcel of the game - he's been incredibly unlucky on the injury front.

And so have Arsenal and Liverpool for the past two seasons, just as much or more so than United. Whilst Chelsea, above all, but also Spurs and City, have got away relatively unscathed. In fact Chelsea's anaemic injury record over the past 3 seasons seems to indicate that witchcraft and mysticism is involved. Fact is no-one will remember those injuries (United fans constantly slag off Liverpool performances without consideration of our first team players missing - yet when the shoe is on the other foot it's a perfectly adequate excuse for failure).

 

[RoadTrip]

Moyes had lost the dressing room long before he left though whereas LVG hasn't (up to now at least). If Moyes had stayed he'd have had a bigger challenge from that point than LVG faced when he arrived so I can't imagine he'd have even got us to this point. Things had gone too far for him to turn it around like that, even with extra time and money.

The only difference is that LVG is much more experienced and reputable than Moyes. But the only thing that means is that it buys him a bit more time. With Moyes, everything he did wrong or the players disagreed with was an instant confirmation of his lack of experience. With LVG, he gets the benefit of the doubt.

But it only lasts so long. You say he hasn't lost the dressing room. I think he has. Do I have concrete evidence? No, it's just a hunch. I see the way we play. I see the expressions on people's faces. I hear the rumours now and again that come about (which is key because it turns out a lot of the rumours, even the most bizarre ones such as chips, ended up being true under Moyes). In my opinion he's lost the dressing room.

Losing the dressing room isn't just about people rebelling. You can also lose it from motivation. If he's sucking fun out of the club, that can also equate to losing the dressing room.

On a side note, all these Moyes comparisons that are cropping up are pointless and a waste of time. He wasn't the man for this club, and neither is LVG. That's the only thing they have in common and neither should be at the helm. I could understand the LVG appointment, but it's time to realise it isn't working and it's time to move on.

 

[RoadTrip]

While it's true that Moyes had no real idea what he wanted to do with the team, it looked to me as if he was caught inbetween carrying on what Ferguson did (as everyone expected) and something he wanted to do.

Van Gaal took over with no expectations like that. He could shape the team in any way he wanted to without any criticism and he faced extremely low expectations for a club that won the title only 12 months before and spent so much money. Yet there was no clear longterm vision. He brought in a big number of forwards and got rid of wingers to play a 3-5-2ish formation that wasn't suited to the squad or the league. He started changing it randomly until through injuries he accidently stumbled onto something that worked well for a few weeks. But instead of building on it, another totally random transfer window happened with no clear plan how to play. He doesn't know how to use most of his signings, doesn't understand their strengths or the roles they're best used in until he tried and tested them almost everywhere.

It's been 18months of trial and error, we've seen counterattacking set-ups, possession based set-ups, kick and rush. Everything worked a few times, but all of it also failed more often than it should. I really don't get why he gets praise for having a clear plan. If he didn't talk such a pretty game with his totally empty philosophy mumbo-jumbo, I doubt many would see a clear plan.

Really, forget everything he said and just look at the games and the decisions in the transfer-market without using a single comment of his and then try to fit it all in one plan, one great idea that he worked towards from the moment he took over. Do you really see it? Because I don't, not one bit.

I completely agree.

When you think about it, what's better? A man who doesn't know what he's doing or intends to do yet, or a man who knows what he's doing and wants to do but it isn't working? Irrelevant anyway as neither should be near this club.

In truth, LVG must be recognised for getting us into the top 4 last year. Last year there was at least signs of progression. We had that brief spell where we looked absolute quality, albeit for three games only. But he got us there. However this year, it's been such a regression. Especially in performance which is the worst I've seen in years. And yeah our results so far might not look too shabby, but they are slowly evening out to where they should be given our performances.

Ultimately at this second I don't see us in a much better position than we were 18 months ago. Unless something drastic is done we will be falling out of the top 4. Might seem knee jerk but it's not implausible. I would say it's 50:50. The only thing I can say is we have a much younger team and players wth potential.

 

[Revan]

If he'd said 'he's crashed and burnt at every club and left in controversial circumstances' he'd have a point, but to say he left every club in pieces is nonsense. He's basically always left a good squad and always brought through young players, and he's doing both things this time too.

Not in Barca. One of the first things Barca did after LVF was sacked, was a mass exodus of players that were signed under LVG.

Only a few players that played under LVG were still in Riijkard team.

On Bayern, he left a good though under performing team. Heyckness needed 2 years and a few additions to make that team very strong.

 

[RoadTrip]

Football doesn't work like that, that's why point comparisons and stats are nice, but football isn't maths. And people underestimate the mental side of the thing, which is very important. That's why Chelsea is in a relegation battle and people think we couldn't get worse than 7th under Moyes? I doubt it. City spent 200 million and while their individual class is better with guys like De Bruyne, Sterling and Otamendi, they are still the same Pellegrini-team, which will do feck all in Europe and will only win the title in an underwhelming "best of a bad punch"-way.

van Gaal did things good, the overhaul was needed, we needed tough decisions, lot of signings and removal of deadwood. We also needed a change in style and of course van Gaal is not able to make us perform in a good way, but I still think he improved the technical understanding of the team. Even under Fergie we were never able to control games in his last years. Van Gaal is just not able to do something with it. He did a good job with Step 1 and is now failing to do Step 2, to settle the team, get good games out of it and develope into a promising direction. If van Gaal can't do that, we need to replace him with a manager who can do it. But Moyes was never able to do that first step anyway and money wouldn't have changed that. He had money, but he failed to do anything noteworthy with it, at the end he wasn't able to identify targets, rejected good players because he didn't know them and wasn't even able to get his Everton pair or at least only one half for much more than his release clause. He was just too weak to be in a position for such a big change and couldn't make tough decisions.

At the end we need 1,2 quality signings in attack even under our new manager and I think it could be a huge difference for us and also improve us much under van Gaal, but he still doesn't look like the guy who will get the maximum out of it with his tactics and playstyle. But I don't think comparisons with Moyes are fair or that we should just mark his time here as a complete disaster. The "What has he still to offer."-topic is probably spot on, he did his thing, but can't make the next step with us and if we are just waiting and hoping for him to still do it, things will get worse.

I think I agree by and large here but like you said, football isn't maths. It isn't always logical. So whilst these are valid points, you can't categorically say Moyes wouldn't have done better than 7th either. At the end of the day, the Moyes appointment was bizarre because if we wanted someone to do instant success, Moyes was never ever going to be that guy. We all know it'd be a learning curve that was steep and it might take a while. So sure, in season 1 Moyes couldn't do step 1. But who is to say he couldn't do it in a year after that? Point is, it was a stupid appointment if we expected him to be the finished product.

On the other hand, LVG should be expected to be the finished product. In every "step". It might be a tougher benchmark but he's been there and done pretty much everything. so its much more of a concern when he isn't succeeding because he (at least in his mind) already has a clear vision and plan. One that isn't going to change due to his character. So if it isn't working it's time to move on.

Broadly speaking though any comparison between SAF and Moyes and LVG are ridiculous. All 3 had such different circumstances that it's next to impossible to accurately compare the what would have been and the what ifs.

 

[Coxy]

Have you seen our injuries? We had 2 fullbacks on each flank all 4 of whom are injured, 3 of whom appear long term and the fourth Unknown. We are playing with a 4th choice CB. Do you think Arsenal will be the same if koscielny Gabriel Monreal Gibbs bellerin and debuchy are all injured?

Ah ok I didn't realise you ALL of those injuries for the last 12 games or so....

 

[Timdbro]

Not in Barca. One of the first things Barca did after LVF was sacked, was a mass exodus of players that were signed under LVG.

Only a few players that played under LVG were still in Riijkard team.

On Bayern, he left a good though under performing team. Heyckness needed 2 years and a few additions to make that team very strong.

Just to be clear, this is his second stint you're talking about, when he stayed 6 months?

 

[prath92]

Whilst it is true you are suffering from a very difficult time injury-wise, that can be no excuse because defence hasn't been your issue (and one of yesterday's goals was De Gea's error - one of the world's best keepers, the other came from a brilliantly worked corner. There were other opportunities but Bournemouth failed to take them so can be discounted in terms of the result).
Six of your front seven yesterday looked just about as good as you can muster on paper (De Pay, Martial, Mata, Lingaard, Fellaini and Carrick) and in no way can injuries be used as an excuse - in fact many would have said Rooney's injury was a blessing in terms of allowing LvG to pick a strong front 6 though maybe many would swap out Lingaard for Rooney and Fellaini has proven more influential than Schweinsteiger who is struggling somewhat).

Yesterday any long clearance by the Bournemouth defence almost always ended up in the united box. Carrick, I'm afraid is not able to dictate anymore without a box to box player like herrera or schneiderlin or schweini alongside him. As you say, our front players were first choice (except lingard who went off injured again and was replaced by pereira at the half hour mark). I think we had the added pressure that once we lose the ball we dont have a decent defender like Jones/Smalling/Schneiderlin to put in tackles. Mcnair off late has been terrible (good enough for fourth choice CB though). The fact that Bournemouth didnt take the chances doesnt vindicate the defence. Schoolboy errors (i guess it makes sense as they were mostly of school boy age). The attack, wasnt that bad imo. We showed intent through Martial, Memphis, both fullbacks at times, fellaini and pereira. Finishing is a concern though but to be fair, I dont think we deserved to win last night.

Ah ok I didn't realise you ALL of those injuries for the last 12 games or so....

You had wrote "you should be playing a lot better even with all these injuries". I assumed you were talking about yesterdays game. My bad

 

[Revan]

Just to be clear, this is his second stint you're talking about, when he stayed 6 months?

Yep.

 

[Timdbro]

Yep.

Ok, well that's probably not a lot of time to judge whether he was able to build a solid foundation/leave the squad in a good position, but from what I understand LVG brought Xavi, Iniesta, Valdes, Puyol, Oleguer etc. into the first team. I wouldn't say that's leaving it in pieces, was the rest of the squad that much of a mess?

 

[Balu]

Just to be clear, this is his second stint you're talking about, when he stayed 6 months?

Well, they kinda sucked inbetween his two stints at Barca, even though they still did reasonably well in the CL, but it's more or less the same story whatever stint you pick. He left a mess behind when he walked out in 2000 and Barca went 5 years without winning a single trophy (his return in 2002 falls into that period and he himself couldn't do anything with the squad and was fired after a few months only 3 points away from a relegation spot). When Laporta was elected president in 2003 they made a clear cut and more or less everyone left bar the young players who came through their academy and Rijkaard started to build a new side.

 

[Timdbro]

Well, they kinda sucked inbetween his two stints at Barca, even though they still did reasonably well in the CL, but it's more or less the same story whatever stint you pick. He left a mess behind when he walked out in 2000 and Barca went 5 years without winning a single trophy (his return in 2002 falls into that period and he himself couldn't do anything with the squad and was fired after a few months only 3 points away from a relegation spot). When Laporta was elected president in 2003 they made a clear cut and more or less everyone left bar the young players who came through their academy and Rijkaard started to build a new side.

Isn't this a bit exaggerated though?
I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here, but thinking about it, Barça's major acquisitions for Rijkaard's first season were Davids, Ronaldinho, Van Bronckhorst and maybe Marquez. So a solid CM and LB and CB, and a proper attacking talisman to get their attack going. They did sell quite a few players, but if I'm not mistaken not too many of those were LVG purchases - the two "punts" that Louie took that failed them were probably Enke and Riquelme, granted.

To me, this sounds familiar to our situation: we need one solid player at CB, CM, maybe RB if Darmian keeps getting worse and a proper star forward to replace/transition from Rooney. If LVG left today (or, which is more likely, towards the end of the season) I don't see a massive exodus being needed, just 3-4 signings that we need to get right (which is the case in most summer transfer windows).

 

[Eboue]

I think he's a fraud. A good manager whose resume mainly includes lots of success with a team filled with future world class players and then a series of underwhelming performances. On one hand, I want him to stay forever. On the other, it's great to see the people who touted his achievements like beating Costa Rica on penalties or not being completely terrible with Bayern and Barcelona as a reason to put him above Wenger, realize the emperor has no clothes. (This thread has 10/17 putting him above Wenger, and that was only three weeks ago, it was much worse in the summer)

 

[NoLogo]

To me, this sounds familiar to our situation: we need one solid player at CB, CM, maybe RB if Darmian keeps getting worse and a proper star forward to replace/transition from Rooney. If LVG left today (or, which is more likely, towards the end of the season) I don't see a massive exodus being needed, just 3-4 signings that we need to get right (which is the case in most summer transfer windows).

You forgot the two world class wide attacking mids and the number 10 that we still need. Non of the players we have in that position has the quality we need, positions 2-4 in our attack all need a quality upgrade.

 

[Amethyst]

While it's true that Moyes had no real idea what he wanted to do with the team, it looked to me as if he was caught inbetween carrying on what Ferguson did (as everyone expected) and something he wanted to do.

Van Gaal took over with no expectations like that. He could shape the team in any way he wanted to without any criticism and he faced extremely low expectations for a club that won the title only 12 months before and spent so much money. Yet there was no clear longterm vision. He brought in a big number of forwards and got rid of wingers to play a 3-5-2ish formation that wasn't suited to the squad or the league. He started changing it randomly until through injuries he accidently stumbled onto something that worked well for a few weeks. But instead of building on it, another totally random transfer window happened with no clear plan how to play. He doesn't know how to use most of his signings, doesn't understand their strengths or the roles they're best used in until he tried and tested them almost everywhere.

It's been 18months of trial and error, we've seen counterattacking set-ups, possession based set-ups, kick and rush. Everything worked a few times, but all of it also failed more often than it should. I really don't get why he gets praise for having a clear plan. If he didn't talk such a pretty game with his totally empty philosophy mumbo-jumbo, I doubt many would see a clear plan.

Really, forget everything he said and just look at the games and the decisions in the transfer-market without using a single comment of his and then try to fit it all in one plan, one great idea that he worked towards from the moment he took over. Do you really see it? Because I don't, not one bit.

100% agree with you.

I understood completely when van Gaal came in that we needed to make big changes after the disaster under Moyes and there was deadwood to be rid of, but straight after the transfer window this summer I was worried that we had some players who clearly did not appear to suit the style of football van Gaal wanted. For all it's become clear that Di Maria was never really happy in the first place at United, his best work particularly in the opening couple of months came almost in spite of the tactics, where we were able to break on the opposition (thinking about goals such as his Leicester and Yeovil, Rooney's at Arsenal etc.). Players such as Martial (when on the wing) and Memphis are flair players who need to have license to take risks and lose the ball sometimes. But they're not afforded that by van Gaal, who seems desperate to retain possession at all costs even if we're not getting anywhere with it. Then there's this pattern that developed at the beginning of this year, where if we find ourselves behind in a game we quickly abandon the keep ball tactics and suddenly just launch the ball aimlessly into the box and hope that Fellaini can full something off to save us. It makes no sense.

 

[Balu]

Isn't this a bit exaggerated though?
I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here, but thinking about it, Barça's major acquisitions for Rijkaard's first season were Davids, Ronaldinho, Van Bronckhorst and maybe Marquez. So a solid CM and LB and CB, and a proper attacking talisman to get their attack going. They did sell quite a few players, but if I'm not mistaken not too many of those were LVG purchases - the two "punts" that Louie took that failed them were probably Enke and Riquelme, granted.

It was only the first step though, they got rid of many more in the next summer. All of De Boer, Kluivert, Cocu, Reiziger, Overmars retired/left before they won a trophy again and the side that won the league in 05 & 06 and the CL in 2006 was basically a completely new team from the one van Gaal left behind with Ronalinho, Eto'o, Deco, Guily, Larsson, van Bronckhorst, Marquez and a few more signed in the first 2 seasons under Rijkaard. It was a massive cut and within 2 transfer windows almost the whole team was replaced (only the La Masia players stayed).

 

[JPRouve]

I think he's a fraud. A good manager whose resume mainly includes lots of success with a team filled with future world class players and then a series of underwhelming performances. On one hand, I want him to stay forever. On the other, it's great to see the people who touted his achievements like beating Costa Rica on penalties or not being completely terrible with Bayern and Barcelona as a reason to put him above Wenger, realize the emperor has no clothes. (This thread has 10/17 putting him above Wenger, and that was only three weeks ago, it was much worse in the summer)

That Ajax team was legendary to me, I grew up idolizing it and overrated LVG because of that.

 

[Amethyst]

I think he's a fraud. A good manager whose resume mainly includes lots of success with a team filled with future world class players and then a series of underwhelming performances. On one hand, I want him to stay forever. On the other, it's great to see the people who touted his achievements like beating Costa Rica on penalties or not being completely terrible with Bayern and Barcelona as a reason to put him above Wenger, realize the emperor has no clothes. (This thread has 10/17 putting him above Wenger, and that was only three weeks ago, it was much worse in the summer)

I partly agree with you about the over hyping, but Van Gaal did do well at the World Cup- let's not re-write history. He lost a big player in Strootman and was forced to change his tactics to this 3-5-2 whilst also having a Dutch squad that was arguably weaker than we've seen for a while. Yes, they were fortunate at times to get through in the knockout stages, but you only need to look them now and see they've failed to even qualify for Euro 2016 despite it being easier than ever before, to realise that squad in Brazil punched above it's weight.

 

[Timdbro]

It was only the first step though, they got rid of many more in the next summer. All of De Boer, Kluivert, Cocu, Reiziger, Overmars retired/left before they won a trophy again and the side that won the league in 05 & 06 and the CL in 2006 was basically a completely new team from the one van Gaal left behind with Ronalinho, Eto'o, Deco, Guily, Larsson, van Bronckhorst, Marquez and a few more signed in the first 2 seasons under Rijkaard. It was a massive cut and within 2 transfer windows almost the whole team was replaced (only the La Masia players stayed).

Weren't these guys simply getting too old though rather than being poor purchases/decisions by LVG? They were at a good age in his first stint there, they no longer were by 2003. I mean, I don't think anyone would blame him if the likes of Carrick, Schweinsteiger, Rooney and Young have moved on by the time we're a top team again.
I guess the question is somewhere amongst all this, how good was the spine of the teams he left behind. I'd probably say that bringing through Valdes, Puyol, Oleguer, Xavi and Iniesta was pretty crucial for them, if not necessarily a spine yet, but it's true that I shouldn't underestimate the overhaul the attack had to go through before they were great again.

 

[Treble]

Well, they kinda sucked inbetween his two stints at Barca, even though they still did reasonably well in the CL, but it's more or less the same story whatever stint you pick. He left a mess behind when he walked out in 2000 and Barca went 5 years without winning a single trophy (his return in 2002 falls into that period and he himself couldn't do anything with the squad and was fired after a few months only 3 points away from a relegation spot). When Laporta was elected president in 2003 they made a clear cut and more or less everyone left bar the young players who came through their academy and Rijkaard started to build a new side.

This sort of busts the myth of him being a master of laying foundations.

 

[Timdbro]

You forgot the two world class wide attacking mids and the number 10 that we still need. Non of the players we have in that position has the quality we need, positions 2-4 in our attack all need a quality upgrade.

Probably not the thread for that discussion, but again an exaggeration in my opinion. I've seen enough from Martial, Memphis and Lingard (to a far lesser extent) to think that, with 12-18 months and a true established talent alongside them, they'd be very good. Ok, it would never be Neymar/Suarez/Messi but frankly, who would?

 

[Balu]

Weren't these guys simply getting too old though rather than being poor purchases/decisions by LVG? They were at a good age in his first stint there, they no longer were by 2003. I mean, I don't think anyone would blame him if the likes of Carrick, Schweinsteiger, Rooney and Young have moved on by the time we're a top team again.
I guess the question is somewhere amongst all this, how good was the spine of the teams he left behind. I'd probably say that bringing through Valdes, Puyol, Oleguer, Xavi and Iniesta was pretty crucial for them, if not necessarily a spine yet, but it's true that I shouldn't underestimate the overhaul the attack had to go through before they were great again.

Most of them performed poorly at Barca and the strong influx of underperforming Dutch players was a massive reason why the fans turned against him in his first stint there. But that's besides the point. Yes, many of them were getting old, but that was also part of the problem.

Obviously the spine of Valdes, Puyol, Xavi and Iniesta (and Oleguer to a much lesser extent) was important for the future, but van Gaal's influence on some of them gets massively exaggerated in my opinion. Valdes, Iniesta and Oleguer played under him for a few weeks. It's nice that he gave them their debut, but no one gives Klinsmann credit for giving Müller his debut in the league and the CL for example. This narrative of van Gaal's golden touch when it comes to developing players, where he gets almost all the credit no matter how few time they actually spent unter him is so odd, it's really irritating and no other manager is discussed that way.

 

[NoLogo]

Probably not the thread for that discussion, but again an exaggeration in my opinion. I've seen enough from Martial, Memphis and Lingard (to a far lesser extent) to think that, with 12-18 months and a true established talent alongside them, they'd be very good. Ok, it would never be Neymar/Suarez/Messi but frankly, who would?

Well that's where we might differ than. I don't think Lingard, Depay, Januzaj, Young and Mata are actually good enough to be starters for a European top team. They might do a job if our ambition is only top 4 finish but beyond that I highly doubt they have, or ever will have, the quality we need.

 

[Amar__]

While it's true that Moyes had no real idea what he wanted to do with the team, it looked to me as if he was caught inbetween carrying on what Ferguson did (as everyone expected) and something he wanted to do.

Van Gaal took over with no expectations like that. He could shape the team in any way he wanted to without any criticism and he faced extremely low expectations for a club that won the title only 12 months before and spent so much money. Yet there was no clear longterm vision. He brought in a big number of forwards and got rid of wingers to play a 3-5-2ish formation that wasn't suited to the squad or the league. He started changing it randomly until through injuries he accidently stumbled onto something that worked well for a few weeks. But instead of building on it, another totally random transfer window happened with no clear plan how to play. He doesn't know how to use most of his signings, doesn't understand their strengths or the roles they're best used in until he tried and tested them almost everywhere.

It's been 18months of trial and error, we've seen counterattacking set-ups, possession based set-ups, kick and rush. Everything worked a few times, but all of it also failed more often than it should. I really don't get why he gets praise for having a clear plan. If he didn't talk such a pretty game with his totally empty philosophy mumbo-jumbo, I doubt many would see a clear plan.

Really, forget everything he said and just look at the games and the decisions in the transfer-market without using a single comment of his and then try to fit it all in one plan, one great idea that he worked towards from the moment he took over. Do you really see it? Because I don't, not one bit.

I agree completely.

It's baffling that so many people think he has a clear plan when he proves every week he has no idea what exactly he wants from this team.

First, he got rid of few players last season because he planned us to play 352 and didn't see much sense of players like Nani(he actually said that he has no place in the team because we will play 352), Kagawa, Chicharito, etc., only to switch to diamond(which is at least similar to 352), and then again he completely changed everything so we could play formation with wingers and one deep lying midfielders with two ahead of him. Style of play varied from hoofing the ball to Fellaini to playing possession football with players like Herrera, and even Rooney in midfield.

Then, this season we again changed our formation from the very start with different midfield set up that actually doesn't suit any of our midfielders and that put our best midfielder of last season on the bench and made us play with number #10 even though we actually don't have number ten in our team. Then, again for some reason no one understands we switched to 352 in game or two this year.

For pretty much entire time, even this season our style of play was pretty much different in every game, again, from hoofing the ball to Fellaini, playing wide with wingers, playing boring possession football, and even playing quick direct football in few games in champions league.

Pretty much the only thing that stayed the same in every game since he came here is that we don't create enough from game to game, so I wonder if that's something that people think is his plan because that's the the only consistent thing his team has been doing since he started implementing his ideas.

 

[caid]

Most of them performed poorly at Barca and the strong influx of underperforming Dutch players was a massive reason why the fans turned against him in his first stint there. But that's besides the point. Yes, many of them were getting old, but that was also part of the problem.

Obviously the spine of Valdes, Puyol, Xavi and Iniesta (and Oleguer to a much lesser extent) was important for the future, but van Gaal's influence on some of them gets massively exaggerated in my opinion. Valdes, Iniesta and Oleguer played under him for a few weeks. It's nice that he gave them their debut, but no one gives Klinsmann credit for giving Müller his debut in the league and the CL for example. This narrative of van Gaal's golden touch when it comes to developing players, where he gets almost all the credit no matter how few time they actually spent unter him is so odd, it's really irritating and no other manager is discussed that way.

I'd be inclined to get rid of him in the summer, unless he makes his position untenable in the mean time (which is quite possible).
But i dont think hes as terrible as people are currently making out.
I dont think he did much of note with barcelona tbh.
Bayern its harder to say. I wouldn't think its that difficult to give players like muller etc game time.
But he set them up well and gave them a good platform to build from and i think he left the club in a much better state than he found it.

Holland at the WC was somewhat lucky but he did well with a limited team.
People say 'oh he only beat costa rica on penalties'.
Costa Rica were one of the best teams in that wc.
They qualified top of a group with england, uruguay and italy.

Its seems a bit backward to criticise him for winning a QF at the world cup because he didn't beat a more notable but ultimately weaker team

 

[Balu]

I'd be inclined to get rid of him in the summer, unless he makes his position untenable in the mean time (which is quite possible).
But i dont think hes as terrible as people are currently making out.
I dont think he did much of note with barcelona tbh.
Bayern its harder to say. I wouldn't think its that difficult to give players like muller etc game time.
But he set them up well and gave them a good platform to build from and i think he left the club in a much better state than he found it.

Probably true, but that's just a reaction to the massive hype last season when his achievements post Ajax were massively blown out of proportion. I often said that I'm very happy that we gave him the job, because clearly he helped us to make a cut and to find an identity for a struggling team. I'm also happy we kicked him out before he destroyed all that again. My opinion of him probably sounds way more negative than it is. I think he deserves so much credit for Müller's rise to the top for example. He's the type of top quality player who can easily fly under the radar for a long time and not every manager would have seen see how special he was so early in his career. But there has to be some balance to how much credit he deserves for the success of his successors.

 

[PedroMendez]

I agree completely.

It's baffling that so many people think he has a clear plan when he proves every week he has no idea what exactly he wants from this team.

First, he got rid of few players last season because he planned us to play 352 and didn't see much sense of players like Nani(he actually said that he has no place in the team because we will play 352), Kagawa, Chicharito, etc., only to switch to diamond(which is at least similar to 352), and then again he completely changed everything so we could play formation with wingers and one deep lying midfielders with two ahead of him. Style of play varied from hoofing the ball to Fellaini to playing possession football with players like Herrera, and even Rooney in midfield.

Then, this season we again changed our formation from the very start with different midfield set up that actually doesn't suit any of our midfielders and that put our best midfielder of last season on the bench and made us play with number #10 even though we actually don't have number ten in our team. Then, again for some reason no one understands we switched to 352 in game or two this year.

For pretty much entire time, even this season our style of play was pretty much different in every game, again, from hoofing the ball to Fellaini, playing wide with wingers, playing boring possession football, and even playing quick direct football in few games in champions league.

Pretty much the only thing that stayed the same in every game since he came here is that we don't create enough from game to game, so I wonder if that's something that people think is his plan because that's the the only consistent thing his team has been doing since he started implementing his ideas.

I think that he has a clear plan on how to play (4231 with a second striker + possession + absolute positions). Last season he didn´t have the players to do so and mixed it up. The problem isn´t that he has no plan, but that his plan is outdated and a bit shit.

In defense he makes almost exactly the same mistakes as Wenger. He is unable to organize a cohesive defense (lets not even start with something like pressing) and relies on players to do the job for him. Yes, our defense record is very good this year, but that is not really a surprise with Schweinsteiger + Schneiderlin as double pivot in front of the defense (similar to what Coquelin does for Arsenal). Without those individuals we look all over the place. There are so many different ways to defend as a team all good ones have one thing in common: All players help.

In attack his idea about absolute positions is ridiculous in the modern game. It is out-dated and hardly any team is doing anything like that. It is so easy to defend against an attack, that is so one-dimensional; an attack that always tries to hold the same shape with players being far too isolated.

 

[Amar__]

I think that he has a clear plan on how to play (4231 with a second striker + possession + absolute positions). Last season he didn´t have the players to do so and mixed it up. The problem isn´t that he has no plan, but that his plan is outdated and a bit shit.

In defense he makes almost exactly the same mistakes as Wenger. He is unable to organize a cohesive defense (lets not even start with something like pressing) and relies on players to do the job for him. Yes, our defense record is very good this year, but that is not really a surprise with Schweinsteiger + Schneiderlin as double pivot in front of the defense (similar to what Coquelin does for Arsenal). Without those individuals we look all over the place. There are so many different ways to defend as a team all good ones have one thing in common: All players help.

In attack his idea about absolute positions is ridiculous in the modern game. It is out-dated and hardly any team is doing anything like that. It is so easy to defend against an attack, that is so one-dimensional; an attack that always tries to hold the same shape with players being far too isolated.

I agree on both last two paragraphs on defence and attack but I disagree with the first part.

Why exactly did he start playing us 4231 when he didn't sign one player this season that would actually make us more comofrtable playing that formation? He had to sign second striker, right? Only argument for that would be if he played Martial up top with Rooney behind but he didn't do that, he paired them just few times. Most of times was one of them was wide. Even at start of the season he said he will play Rooney as a number one striker, so again it doesn't make any sense to change to 4231 when we haven't signed anyone to play behind him.

 

[Gio]

Well, they kinda sucked inbetween his two stints at Barca, even though they still did reasonably well in the CL, but it's more or less the same story whatever stint you pick. He left a mess behind when he walked out in 2000 and Barca went 5 years without winning a single trophy (his return in 2002 falls into that period and he himself couldn't do anything with the squad and was fired after a few months only 3 points away from a relegation spot). When Laporta was elected president in 2003 they made a clear cut and more or less everyone left bar the young players who came through their academy and Rijkaard started to build a new side.

His record from 2000 to 2003 was dreadful. Failing to qualify for the World Cup with an exceptionally talented Dutch side that could well have won France '98 and Euro 2000 was a major under-achievement. His second spell has often been overlooked but was an unmitigated disaster. He got rid of the club's best player because of that characteristic failure to properly man-manage and put aside petty grievances for the good of the team. He then failed to capitalise on two of the brightest talents in the game in Saviola and Riquelme, the latter often shunted out wide left and it's hard to think of a player less suited for the hard-running and pace-based requirements of that position. And the long and short of it was that within a couple of months he had turned Champions League semi-finalists into relegation candidates.