Why is this false statements kept appearing forever on this forum, Ole’s team only plays counter attack?!
It’s like you guys didn’t watch our games at all.
I guess, people saying that mean, that playing counter attack is the only thing, Ole was able to implement properly. At least based on the sample we have to analyze, which might be not 100% suitable as obviously the players somewhat limit the opportunities for a manager to implement stuff. The fact that Ole's team had to play more possession oriented from a certain point onwards shouldn't be seen as proof that Ole changed things. Maybe it was more due to the fact that opponents reacted to our obvious strength and therefor were prepared. I am not saying that is the ultimate truth to end all discussions but I personally think it plausibly explains a lot of our woes. Maybe lets not necessarily just name it "counter attacking", call it defending deeper (mostly) and be as direct and vertical as possible once the ball is won. This is what suited our players and if there is something resembling a common theme in our recruiting back then, most players suited that play style.
"The quality of this league winning squad, and the balance of ages within it, bodes well for continued success at the highest level whilst the structure of the youth set-up will ensure that the long-term future of the club remains a bright one." - Sir Alex Ferguson, May 8th 2013
He didnt leave a aging wreck without ability. He left the Premier League champions with Wayne Rooney and RVP in their absolute prime years, De Gea at age 22, Rafael, Ashley Young, Nemanja Vidic, Valencia, Carrick, Nani - ALL at the height of their playing years. Even with Scholes and Giggs at the end of their careers, the squad had a healthy average age.
That the only signings we made in the 13/14 window was Juan Mata and Marouane Fellaini really has to fall on the feet of the club, not the former manager.
I think, your memories are tricking you there. Wasn't on the caf back then but I would be shocked if there wasn't sooo much talk about midfielders back then. Fergie went somewhat of an easy route, he didn't replace Giggs, Ferdinand and Scholes, maybe even Evra, in his often seen ruthless way, maybe because he knew, he wouldn't be able to form a new team and just went the comfortable route. And boy it paid off for him so credit where credit is due. This isn't a dig at Fergie, maybe not even he was aware what kind of an asset he was to the football department of Manchester United. With hindsight, I'd say he should have been the one forcing the club to implement some element in the hierarchy to guarantee continuity, stability - the things he provided for years and years and what really killed us after his departure.
Its honestly baffling and weird as you put it. Two wins in a row, two big signings in the last week and signs of significant change on and off the pitch yet the same people can't get away from their Ralf fixation.
What would be the significant changes on the pitch?
I agree with a lot if not all that Rangnick said in public whilst managing us, though I do wish he'd have kept it for the powers that be.
For example the "open heart surgery" comment, I agree with but:
a/ it puts a group of players who aren't good enough and low in confidence even lower in confidence, so they wouldn't even perform to their average ability
b/ sends a big signal that we are going to be desperate to buy in the upcoming transfer window to anyone we'd be negotiating purchases with
c/ makes the few players worth selling even less worth it from a price perspective to potential buyers
So that message, however true, was putting the club in a position of weakness, declared and acknowledged publicly.
The comment that sticks-out though for me was that what we need to do to remedy the situation is "obvious". Well if it's obvious what use would Rangnick have in a consultancy role? He can just submit his report and move on.
I don't know if it's because of my previous job, but I have a very poor impression of consultants, I think it was a TV show that described them as "people you pay to take your watch and sell you the time", in my personal experience I have found that extremely accurate, and that "obvious" comment just made it obvious to me that his presence was redundant.
I agree with the overall sentiment but I think your reasoning against the "open heart surgery" is a bit oversimplified. I am pretty sure, he knew that other clubs certainly won't base their interest in players or readiness to pay this or that would be connected to some of his comments. The value of a player is always difficult to assess, a Peter Crouch was worth a lot for Pulis Stoke but wouldn't be worth a dime for Tiki Taka Barcelona. Same here: we shouldn't assume that football personal in professional football are less informed about the limitations of our players than we as fans are. Plus trying to measure players only by good and bad doesn't really do you any favours these days. The question should be "how does this and that skill set fit the plan for my team".
