- Mar 12, 2021
- Real Madrid
I don't think City and especially Liverpool hired those managers because the clubs had an "idea" of how they wanted to play. They hired those managers because they were some of the top managers in world football. They continued to back those managers because they hit their basic targets pretty quickly; they earned the backing.I think you only have to look at our choice of manager since SAF to see how evidently true that is. Moyes was very different from SAF, LvG was a world away from Moyes, Mourinho was the antithesis tactically of LvG, Solskjaer the polar opposite of Mourinho in terms of personality and methods. Now you have EtH who is completely different again.
City and Liverpool are not great examples because those clubs have been succeeding at almost every point. The actual test of this principle is how it works when things are going poorly. When do you decide that your "idea of how to play" needs to be binned? None of these managers brought any sustained success to United; there was not much evidence to support their "ideas." It is perfectly reasonable to change course after years of failure.
I think everyone understands that an improvised, scatterbrained approach to playing like Klopp's Liverpool is probably better than a professional, data-driven attempt to play like Pulis' Stoke. The actual thing you are trying to do matters just as much, if not more, than the process to achieve it. That is why there was so much criticism of Ole, because a lot of money was spent for United to pursue an 'idea' that wasn't all that great.