Poll: Would you take a results-based manager or an attacking manager?

[Bastian]

I voted for attacking manager. However, the main criterion is that a manager is top class. Anything less and it's a bit pointless. It's no good playing attacking football if you don't have a very good defense. Liverpool is a very good example. They've got super attacking full backs, but one of the best - if not the best - central defender in world football, who is screened by 2-3 workhorse midfielders. The attack as a cohesive unit and really do defend from the front. And it's also no good having only one way of playing - you have to have some modicum of flexibility to counter different opponents.

With Jose, he would have been a better fit when SAF retired, someone who could ensure that we'd not free fall into mediocrity. But he arrived long after that decline begun and we are now a rather mediocre team.

There are big name managers out there, like Allegri, who could no doubt make us a better team and get much much better results than what we've become accustomed to now. But I'd rather someone who is going to revolutionise how we attack in the final third, something that's been a problem for over 6 years now.

People are prone to quip that there are so many managers who'd be better than Ole, but that doesn't mean they'd be good enough. I think the same problem applies to managers as players, being at United brings more pressure than almost any other place. The next manager will simply have to be someone who has already proven himself and is extremely confident.

 

[bonothom]

Results are what matters. 95% of fans would not give a toss if United were top of the league playing safe football. I wouldn't. You get the results right first and that's all that matters. Although this United team under Ole play terrible football and the results are even worse.

 

[The Boy]

I know Brighton and Manchester United are not that comparable, but we have gone from a pragmatic manager, who implemented a heavily organised system and defensive set up we were difficult to watch at times but he ultimately kept us in the premiership.

Now we have changed completely to a manager who is all about style, fluidity and offensive shape and we are a joy to watch. We don't always get the points I think we deserve, but I am enjoying watching Brighton more than ever.

So no brainer for me, attacking manager every time.

 

[Snow]

Result over football if given the choice between the two but I don't agree with either choice in the poll, at least not how it's worded.

 

[RedRonaldo]

I would prefer us in the following order

• Win trophies with attacking football (Barca, City, Real, Bayern, PSG, Dortmund under Klopp, Liverpool under Klopp, France currently, Spain in 10s, Brazil in 90s-00s)
• Win trophies with pragmatic or dull football (although one cannot be continuously dull if you are winning trophies) (Juventus, Athletico, Chelsea under Mourinho, Inter under Mourinho, Portugal in Euro16)
• Play attacking or beautiful football and win nothing (again cannot see it happening too. If you are continuously losing then you are not playing beautiful football for sure) (Spur, Arsenal, Napoli)
• Play clueless football. (We are in this right now) (Man Utd, other mid-table or relegation teams)

Agreed. Some examples are highlighted aabove.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Result over football if given the choice between the two but I don't agree with either choice in the poll, at least not how it's worded.

I've gone for the latter but completely agree that the phrasing of the choices is not ideal. In fact the it's been put across as a simplistic results Vs entertainment preference whereas the bigger question present before our football club is whether we should go for a pragmatic maleable results oriented manager or an attacking somewhat idealistic tactician/attacking coach, while keeping in mind that, and this is key part, that a pragmatic coach never guarantees the ideal results being achieved and an attacking coach never never guarantees ideal satisfaction wrt entertainment. You can hire a pragmatic coach and win a few trophies without reaching your objective. And you can hire an entertaining coach who gets the team playing some fluent football but not really enough to make us the team we want to be. In lesser words, both can ultimately fail.

Having said that, I feel we need a proper coach who brings in attacking modern football and tactics, and first and foremost moves us ahead with the times as a fluid and cohesive football team that doesn't look a lost part of a bygone era.

 

[devilish]

You can't start running unless you learn how to walk first. I hope we get a realistic manager who acknowledge our limitations and is ready to build his tactics around them rather then an ideological manager who causes chaos because of 'philosophy'

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Agreed. Some examples are highlighted aabove.

90% people would to for that order. However mereby by being pragmatic we won't become Juve and merely be being attack minded we won't become Barcelona. That's the tricky part. Even Juve wouldn't choose being Juve over peak Barcelona.

 

[Raees]

You’d have thought after seeing shit on a stick football for close to 7 years and not seeing any tangible results United fans would show a bit more nous but no you have close to 40% still hanging on to pragmatic manager getting results - bloody dinosaurs.

 

[devilish]

You’d have thought after seeing shit on a stick football for close to 7 years and not seeing any tangible results United fans would show a bit more nous but no you have close to 40% still hanging on to pragmatic managed getting results - bloody dinosaurs.

Maybe we can hire a defensive manager whose got no clue of what he is doing but can say the right things on the media instead

 

[davidmichael]

I’d like a time machine so I can bring a 45 year old Sir Alex through to 2019 with me and have him manage us again.

 

[TsuWave]

Attacking football and good results are not mutually exclusive. Look at City, look at Liverpool, hell, even Chelsea.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Results are bloody irrelevant without a sound recruitment structure.

 

[Drz]

Fiction: world where managers have one and only one label. Because an attacking manager can't choose to be pragmatic if he believes his squad does not consist of the right elements to deploy the ideal attacking play he wishes to implement...

 

[Sky1981]

I know Brighton and Manchester United are not that comparable, but we have gone from a pragmatic manager, who implemented a heavily organised system and defensive set up we were difficult to watch at times but he ultimately kept us in the premiership.

Now we have changed completely to a manager who is all about style, fluidity and offensive shape and we are a joy to watch. We don't always get the points I think we deserve, but I am enjoying watching Brighton more than ever.

So no brainer for me, attacking manager every time.

We are a joy to watch???

Oh.. wait.. you're talking about Brighton...

 

[Fosu-Mens]

You’d have thought after seeing shit on a stick football for close to 7 years and not seeing any tangible results United fans would show a bit more nous but no you have close to 40% still hanging on to pragmatic manager getting results - bloody dinosaurs.

Among those 40% how many of them do you think believe underlying indicators like chances created, expected goals etc can indicate how well a team will do it in the long run?

 

[fallengt]

If we do get results you know the team is properly coached and that's a good thing.

Isn't Ole supposed to be attacking manager?remind me How many shot on target we have per game? If manager can't get the team to play exactly how he wants it to be, it's pointless to even talk about it.

 

[Alfie092]

Pragmatic manager if it led to trophies like it did in Jose Mourinho's first season at United. Yes, we finished 6th in the league but the fact that we won 2 trophies, including a European trophy which we have never won and the fact we still qualified for the Champions League, it was my most memorable season since Sir Alex Ferguson retired over 6 years ago. Winning trophies comes first for me and I would be content to see us play pragmatic football the whole season if it yielded trophies at the end of it because nothing beats the feeling of seeing us lift a trophy even if it's just the League Cup!

If it's a pragmatic manager which led to us constantly missing out on trophies but still finishing in a respectable position in the league like in Mourinho's second season where we finished 2nd, I would prefer a more attacking manager who plays more exciting football but comes at the cost of being more likely to finish lower down in the league.

 

[André Dominguez]

So... I wanted to vote midterm manager who is pragmatic when playing superior opposition and attacking to crush the minnows

 

[glazed]

Stupid question. Who would want a manager who sticks to his guns if he has the wrong strategy?

I want a manager with a sophisticated understanding of high press football, the coaching skills to deliver it, and the reputation to attract players who would be good at playing it. Just like City and Liverpool have.

So probably Poch.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Who would I chose between 2 made up managers who don't exist?

 

[passing-wind]

Results are what matters. 95% of fans would not give a toss if United were top of the league playing safe football. I wouldn't. You get the results right first and that's all that matters. Although this United team under Ole play terrible football and the results are even worse.

Given previous experiences I think that's untrue I remember fans complaining extensively about much of the football in Sir Alex latter years, especially when Queiroz left and Phelan had the reigns every week fans complained.

I think there needs to be a balance, Wenger springs to mind especially the tip tap fancy football but due to a weak structure and team mentality Arsenal had very little to show for it.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Stupid question. Who would want a manager who sticks to his guns if he has the wrong strategy?

I want a manager with a sophisticated understanding of high press football, the coaching skills to deliver it, and the reputation to attract players who would be good at playing it. Just like City and Liverpool have.

So probably Poch.

 

[Fosu-Mens]

So... I wanted to vote midterm manager who is pragmatic when playing superior opposition and attacking to crush the minnows

Pragmatic against superior opposition until the players and squad has improved enough to be evaluated as close to equal to the better teams.

 

[RedFish]

Has to be a combination of both. Attacking but pragmatic when needed. A balanced team. They need to be capable of playing any way needed.

 

[RedFish]

Fiction: world where managers have one and only one label. Because an attacking manager can't choose to be pragmatic if he believes his squad does not consist of the right elements to deploy the ideal attacking play he wishes to implement...

Exactly. Obvious really.

 

[fps]

Honestly, people on here still talking about “attacking” as if it has only one meaning or suggests only one way of playing.

 

[Walters_19_MuFc]

Results. With success comes happiness. We'd probably be moaning throughout the seasom but we'd be made up when winning things.

People will choose the bottom one because of our current situation, but if we were winning games and top of the table or there and thereabouts, then we'd happy or at least suffice.

 

[bonothom]

Given previous experiences I think that's untrue I remember fans complaining extensively about much of the football in Sir Alex latter years, especially when Queiroz left and Phelan had the reigns every week fans complained.
.

Wow, we were winning the title at a canter and fans were complaining that the football was crap? I find this hard to believe. So those same fans would be happier mid table if they were playing really entertaining football. I think that is absolute nonsense.

 

[Drz]

Wow, we were winning the title at a canter and fans were complaining that the football was crap? I find this hard to believe. So those same fans would be happier mid table if they were playing really entertaining football. I think that is absolute nonsense.

Or not. Was not on this forum back then, but SAF's football was more pragmatic than flamboyant in his later years.

Personally I felt he worked on some things in pre-season that he tried at the beginning of some seasons, but moved back to a form of pragmatism when he felt it didn't get the desired results.
I thought it was a form of pragmatism, and whilst I didn't have a problem with it, I thought there was room for improvement. After Fergie, I did think we needed to upgrade our approach and improve some of the basic elements of our game.

So given I thought all of that, it wouldn't surprise me if people more critical or generally harsh branded some of our football "crap".

 

[Andycoleno9]

Result》style.
But with pragmatic football titles are must. No trophies=sack. With attacking football i can "forgive" coach lack of titles( but not season after season).

 

[eire-red]

I want to be entertained by watching United again, not grimly tuning in expecting us to have yet another poor performance.

Look at all the top teams in Europe, what style do they play? Results based managers will only give short term success, like Mourinho, who needs a very specific squad and mentality of player to win.

The top teams who have been able to produce sustained periods of domination have been built on foundations of attacking, creative and assertive football. There's no way to guarantee success, but if you have the right model for success, a proper support structure and a plan you're half the way there.

Playing attractive football will attract top players as well. How many players out there think of City's reputation when they think of the prospect of signing for them? I would say not many. Their first thought is winning obviously, but more than that it's Guardiola, and how they win, how they play. It counts for a huge amount.

The two need not be mutually exclusive, nor will they always go hand in hand. But playing good football will lay the foundations for success, whereas being focused on the short term will never produce sustainable success.

 

[simplyared]

Easy to answer: Football is there to entertain and there is no reason for a club like ours not to have that as the main objective. Quick movement; top quality fit players with the onus on attacking football. Why should we accept anything else?

 

[Foxbatt]

If it is an attacking manager then we would be like Newcastle under Keegan. A results based manager is what I want as that gives us trophies and also the opportunity to get better players who would make it more attractive to watch.

 

[wolvored]

Definitely attacking. Winning 4-2, 5-3 and being entertained rather than scoring in the 12 minute and hanging on for the next 78 mins for a 1-0 with 10 men behind the wall. The league is usually won by the best attack ie goals scored than the best defence anyroad.

 

[wolvored]

To all the Simeone supporters. What has he actually won in the last 5 years with his principles tactics and style of play? I can only think of 1 Europa cup but could be wrong. He isnt as prolific as some think.

 

[2 man midfield]

It’s a tricky one. All things being the same, of course you’d go for attacking football. But I only voted for the first option because I’d rather us win the CL playing like Atletico than finish 6th every year trying to play attractive football. What good is pretty football ultimately, if you’re just going to lose every week?

The post-2013 drought has made me realise I took our success for granted, and I’d rather us win the big trophies (I’m assuming that’s what the OP means by “almost always gets results”) with a series of 1-0 wins than see us win sod all and lose every game 4-3.

 

[stevoc]

Ideally both but if i had to choose one then i'd take entertaining and attacking (not simply attacking) football over cowardly defensive shite any day. Football above everything else is entertainment after all.

I've seen enough tumescent cowardly football between Mourinho, Van Gaal and especially Moyes to last me a lifetime.

 

[Mark Pawelek]

I'll take both. I want an attacking manager who normally attacks but will not attack if it means (almost) certain defeat. I want the optimistic pragmatist, or pragmatic optimist.

 

[Utdstar01]

So the poll is basically would I rather be Arsenal or any Mourinho team that won the league?