I felt that Mourinho and Van Gaal, although proven, we’re past their best as managers by the time they came to us and hadn't necessarily moved with the way modern football was going.
The 3 Year Rebuilding Process
- Thread starter Oranges038
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Yes, that is possibly true, but both won silverware at Utd and Jose always reckoned coming 2nd in the PL with the team he had was one of his major accomplishments. LvG's style was dated and required players of much higher abilities and we had at the time. Perhaps a half decent DoF would have recognised what you are saying, but we didn't have one...still don't!
Good post, fully agree. The bolded part is where all went downhill. Maybe stuffing 200k down some their throats wasn't a good decision after all.
Hell no. Those names are really disappointing. We are looking as bad as we are because our transfer "strategy" was bringing in players who either were big names or currently hot names. It didn't work. We have to change something. Somebody who offers Kroos hasn't got that lesson I think. Even if some of your thoughts might be plausible to a degree. Going back to older players would be the worst we can do. We already are considered the graveyard of talent and the place for the last big paycheck. I want to get rid of that reputation, not make marketing brochure for it.
We did but only because we never really followed through. There were a few serious attempts, when Van Gaal came in was the most serious. But the first season under Mou was also pretty noteworthy. Ole was just sidesteps and ETH transfers are also an attempt. But never have we followed through. Which is why we are now in a position where we have no real backbone, no real leaders on the pitch, no winning mentality. There is no plan on how a team is supposed to look like thats why every rebuild has been resetted after the sack of those managers.
People talk about a rebuild but are fine to see Eriksen, Martial, Lindelof and McTominay on the pitch. Players that clearly have no part in any positive future for us.
I see your point, I also think, we should look like a better team by now but lets see what happens, when Shaw and Martinez are back. Those two are integral parts of ETHs plan, I am sure about it. A rebuild is not just the money spend or time it took, you need to be serious about it, new players have to emerge to be leading figures or be reliable. Players like Casemiro and Varane will most likely not be part of such processes, which is why it is so key, to establish younger players with world class potential. We had a bit of bad luck with Greenwood, Sancho and Antony - I think, its only fair to state that.
Kroos has literally been on the field every single La Liga match this season. I don't accept that offering him a 1+1 year contract here next year is that ridiculous. And Thiago is injured so I don't really see why you point out that he hasn't played yet this season.
I agree we mainly need younger players with potential, but about 10 players may be leaving next summer which means we need about 10 new signings. Hopefully you realize that we can't afford 10 proven players aged 22 to 25.
Casemiro is really only questioned because of the 70 million fee. If he came on a free transfer with a 1+1 year contract like I'm suggesting Kroos, nobody would say he was a bad signing.
Greenwood was rotten luck yes as that's a 100m asset that basically turned into a 0. But Sancho and Antony aren't bad luck, Antony in particular is simple incompetence in talent evaluation and transfer strategy
Well yes and no. I mean, for this perspective, I think, the price is irrelavant. Sancho came with big laudits, yes there were warning signs but I am pretty sure, some things can be found in most peoples life. Those are human beings after all, not roboters. And especially in this age group, you simply can't expect only straight lines. So with Sancho I think there was a good chance that it turns out great or at least good. Buying younger players always is a bit of a gamble but I think, it wasn't an obvious mistake to chase him. With Antony, actually same thing, the most crashing factor is the price. Without that, I think it is fine to gamble on a player who played well under the same coach and is/was close to be a regular in the Brazilian national team. The fact that both of them failed so much, is heart breaking. I think, those players made sense to bring in, the issue has been the prices that upped the expectation to a level, that might have a fair share of shattering the players.
Personally, I'd probably wouldn't have went for Antony as well (not just because of price) because I thought this was Sanchos position and could have been for Diallo and Bruno to step in. But I'd still say it wasn't an obvious mistake.
He is slow as feck. Since ages. We'd need several player with above average workrate to balance that or Kroos would looks just as shit as Eriksen looked last weekend. We get outfought every other week in midfield, the answer isn't Kroos or Thiago. The answer wasn't Casemiro was well to be perfectly honest. But after realizing that FDJ was unattainable, we had to do something. I wouldn't have went for him because he is so different to FDJ and paying such a sum for 30 year old was especially worrying because we saw how Real Madrid took that money to update their midfield with younger players. That is what we should have done.
I agree with you, we can't shell out the money for 10 new signings in the perfect age group and world class potential. Thats why we either have to go younger or we have to find players who might not have the greatest reputation but the perfect skillset to fullfill a role on the pitch.
A 3-year rebuild might work, but doesn't have to. And for what its worth, I'd take a a 5-year rebuild if it meant, we haven't just assembled a good team to challenge for one or two seasons. A bit like after Oles 2nd place where many thought, after that and adding Varane, Sancho and Ronaldo we would challenge now. It was never on in my opinion because the issues haven't adressed. The best we can do, in my personal opinion, is now do everything, to create a squad that hits its prime in 2 or 3 years time. And while I am not categorically against adding a worldclass player like Kroos on his last legs, they have to fit a profile perfectly and they should never be meant to play 1st team. Players like Hannibal, Mainoo, Amad, Gore - those guys need regular minutes now. To find out which ones are worth the time invested in them. We need those players all over the pitch. At least one per position. Thats why my heart bleeds for every minute that goes to Lindelof, McTominay and Eriksen. They all are good player and probably deserve it but when it is Club or them, I would always favor the club.
I’m sorry but just calling bad transfers “unlucky” is a poor way of ever looking at things. Sure there are isolated incidents of rotten luck, especially if a promising player is brought in and then deals with injuries. But bringing in a player that lacks any sort of ability, for a huge fee at that, and then calling it unlucky when said player fails to make any sort of impact is stupid.
The only reason why Kroos would join us is for one big final payday.
He would demand a huge wage, which we need to get away from.
We need to hire players who are on the way up, not on the way down.
Players on their way up will join for a smallish wage and will be hungry for success. They'll fight to prove themselves, so they can get those big contracts.
Not only do we pay high wages to players on their way down, but we also pay high wages to players on their way up (Antony is the most recent example)....which is crazy. The people who negotiate contracts should be fired immediately. No discussion. Just fired.
I said when ETH came in he’d need three summer windows to sort out the squad, after two I’d say could argue it’s still another two of three. Two of his biggest signings already need to be replacing and we’ve overspent massively. No one who he has signed is pulling up trees for one reason or another.
We’ve also essentially wasted two years in terms of stamping a new identity on the team and just reverted to type. Looking at Spurs you see the value in changing how the team plays. It’s very early days there and it may all fall apart but at least their manager is attempting to do what he wa brought in to do.
We’ve also essentially wasted two years in terms of stamping a new identity on the team and just reverted to type. Looking at Spurs you see the value in changing how the team plays. It’s very early days there and it may all fall apart but at least their manager is attempting to do what he wa brought in to do.
That was fairly obvious to me as well and should have been to most people.
Martinez of all his signings is the biggest miss, his passing through the lines from the back was crucial to the build up phase last year.
It's not a good look for Ten Hag, admittedly isn't bringing what we thought from Ajax so it's questionable what he's capable of delivering. It's a season where the manager has to find himself in this new identity that he's trialing with. Lots of posts throwing the players under the bus needless to say that wasn't the consensus last season when the team had success. Better players acquired into the starting 11 and the performances are worse off that's all the manager no excuses.
Let's see if Erik has the intelligence to turn it around because this teams issue this season has mostly been tactical. One things for certain however, the manager doesn't deserve the opportunity to sign one player until Ratcliffe comes in and implements the DOF.
No its a misunderstanding. Probably I didn't bring my point across very well. I said, I want to exclude price tags for this evaluation because I wanted to focus on the aspect of establishing new players as key personnel. It is unlucky, that 3 players, 2 with huge potential in Greenwood and Sancho and 1 with good potential in Antony, for one reason or another didn't make the step up. That is unfortunate and I'd say a rather unlikely outcome. When taking their pricetags into consideration, opportunity costs and time wasted, then I would totally agree with you, Sancho and Antony have been mistakes (and you will find me stating that at the respective time we brought them in). But A) a bad pricetag can be mitigated by good performances and output and b) you can make a bad transfer that still turns out well when it helps team dynamics (I'd say somebody like Jordan Henderson, think he came in as some sort of wide player, fell short of expectation but found a role, excelled in it and became a key player and decent captain for a successful Liverpool team).
We don't manage to do well on both accounts - we have a recent tradition of overpaying and making weird and delayed decisions AND the younger players don't really step up. I have named some above, but this applies to many more AWB, Dalot, McTominay, Lindelof, Henderson as obvious first teamers, Elanga, Pellistri, Williams on the fringe. None of them made a noteworthy step. Also the generation of academy players seem to have some rotten luck, McNeil, Hugill, Mengi, Fish, Shoretire, Galbraith, Levitt, Savage, Laird, Jurado. I am not saying we have a right to get a number of x players from the academy each year and obviously some of them are young may still turn out well but overall, something has to be looked at. We seemingly not provide a very good environment for players to make the step up which is one problem but another one is not properly reacting to it.
I don't think this is correct. Especially because there is a factor called time. And as you say, the team had success in terms of results, the performances were still nothing to write home about. It was decent to good, the occasional game where I'd say kudos, job very well done. But the signings were there. But the most important factors have been Rashfords and Casemiros form, once they were gone, the rest broke down (and that started last season already). Also, we started this season to play a different kind of game, of course that is on the manager and of course it is going to change the outcome but if the manager just sticks to same old true and trusted, we won't make a step forward. We could have just kept Ole if counter attacks and 2000s football is what we want.
Not entirely there was moments last season where the team performed well. I maintain that for me at least the best United looked was just before Christmas when Rashford was playing as a centre forward before Weghorst came in. The retention around the back four was good, Eriksen and Martinez were able to play the ball into midfield which ruled Christian being marked out choking the team and the attacking players though not clinical had decent productivity aside Sancho. What Erik failed to do was isolate the successive elements and capitalise on it. He signed a player in Mount who didn't and doesn't suit the needs of what the team was in need of and failed to replicate even the performance level last season that saw the team gain momentum.
It doesn't matter how you frame it, if a manager attempts to change something and it fails time is a not a metric that facilitates the exception of anything it's either the approach is working or it isn't. Erik said he wants the team to be good in the transition which is subsequently what the players have done in parts under former managers. So in hindsight Erik has decided to cater his approach to the players in a way that matches their attributes more concisely and the team is even worse ? You cannot segment that down to variables that are beyond the managers control he is responsible.
Rashford form is also reflective of the managers and hierarchy poor ability to plan. I maintained throughout summer when everyone was predicting top 3 finishes that this team would struggle because the wide areas were the biggest weakness. The manager with his superiors prioritizes the midfield and now due to Rashford not maintaining a very high scoring output, (patching over the inadequacy of those around his position) that consequence lands at the feet of the manager not the player. The summer window should have addressed the need to rely on one man in the attack.
Every angle we can look at, the manager has an imprint with criticism that's impossible to gloss over. People moan about the Glazers, I made countless posts in the newbie section transitioning over to Murtough thread and was met with the same rhetoric that you've mentioned previously being to base everything on time. Business perhaps has made me more of a skeptic but time only works when its cohesive with something that's working.
If the defence for Eriks and the clubs incompetence is time, then there needs to be an equally strong argument for what's working to compound it over the shortcoming. It's the best way to provide a sense of guarantee.
First of all - I don't want to defend anything. I say that time is a factor that will have effects - it will make players older, which will lead to some players getting better and some players getting worse. So when you said, that ETH had to improve on a rather good side last year otherwise it would be his mistake, I argued that the good side from last year is now a year older which will effect player quality.
Fair assessment. I wouldn't share it though. I think we improved on playing out from the back. And we finally had a working DM who does what a DM does. Anything else was more or less the same as under Ole, individual moments. One thing to note, yes, we created more high turnovers but a) don't think that was really something to be considered a strength and b) we usually didn't make much of those moments (just like these days).
Two reasons, he changed the system to something he considers as better and more useful than the one from last season (who many thought was a compromise for him after the 1st few games) and he has some bad luck in terms of injuries. The Mount thing is odd - I would agree, if the plan was to play like last season, there is no real place for him in the team. But if that was about to change, who can say this was a mistake? It is easy right now with the benefit of hindsight sure. I personally would have brought him as well but to picture it as a plain mistake seems too simplified. I mean we have seen what he tried to do in pre-season. A box midfield just like many of the teams use. It wasn't a quick and great success but that isn't solely on ETH probably, also on the players.
I agree mostly. One note though, him saying to the public he wants to be the best in transition doesn't mean a) that this was his actual plan all along and b) that any of us really has the same idea like the manager what that means. Same for his Ajax statements lately. Thats food for journalists. During a crisis. Personally I would take that with a grain of salt and not take it for granted. Again, it was fairly visible in pre season, that we changed the approach. And while I can see why you are disappointed that he choose to change something that turned out not good, I like him trying to go for what he came here. Right now, it certainly looks dire, no question about it.
Yeah, see your point. Again, all depends on what the actual plan was. This dictates how important a striker or a midfielder is. Let me tell you that I probably would have went a different route as well but I don't see the chosen route as a plain mistake. I mean we invested a lot in wing players so those position were not priority while he needed to upgrade Eriksen and bring in a real striker. We can argue about the specific players, sure, but the overall approach seems reasonable.
I can assure you, I am not saying that all we need is time. We need time and very good decisions. A lot of good decisions. I am not one to oppose the Glazers, I have my position on them but as long as they provide funds, I am not going to fight those particular windmills. So I agree, everybody in the club has to do better. The recruitment has to be better, ETH has to do better with transporting his ideas to the players. Murtough has to make sure, we are well prepared for the transfer phases.
I think at United, this is where we've failed. Our fans and the media seem to think that recruitment is our issue and blame the club. But when you really look into it, it's the concept of time regarding our managers.
We've been really relaxed about evaluating our managers. We constantly give them the benefits of time, normally not even commenting on team performance until 8 months after the managers arrival. That's way too much time and not enough urgency from the club to ensure success. The managers are given far too much unearned trust; which in the last 10 years has proven to be a mistake each and every time.
It's quite clear that the Glazers have taken a passive stance since becoming owners at United. This might be due to the nature of how they took over the club and the fact that under Fergie, the club didn't need to be active as Sir Alex could monitor himself and the team. However, that hasn't been the case for quite some time; the fear of being active hasn't actually helped the club, but just made us incredibly slow to act. As a result of this, I actually think the club may have been too generous with our managers. We've had issues with style of play and getting results with each manager we've had since Fergie left. All of whom had these problems from very early on in their tenures.
Moyes didn't show anything performance-wise for a whole season, we finished 7th and he was only sacked in April. Van Gaal experimented with a poor 352 till December, had one month of good football in March 2015, made a boatload of rubbish signings, and still lasted until May 2016. Mourinho had a poor league run in his first year. He won some trophies, but these were overly celebrated by the club in my opinion. We still finished 6th and were miles off where we wanted to be. Where the board of a team like Chelsea could let Benitez leave in 2013, after securing a Europe League victory, United were overcelebrating winning the same competition. Using this as a tool to justify why we brought in Mourinho, rather than actually evalutating the manager. For me, that stance is the problem. The manager and the club shouldn't be nearly as closely connected until the manager proves he is actually good enough, through performances and results, to manage the club. At United, the club and fans already start defending the manager before they've even had a chance to evaluate him. Essentially, they are loyal for no just reason. That can be great if you hire a really good manager, but under a poor or selfish manager that can lead to a long, drawn out period of suffering on the road to nowhere.
We give every manager we get the same grace we'd give to Sir Alex, yet none of them are him and should not be afforded that much respect. ETH managed in the Eredivisie. There is every chance that the Premier League may be too physical for his tactics. His man-management and communication in English may not be up to standard due to the language barrier. So many factors can exist, as would be the case with VDB and Antony, yet his sharpness as a manager is never questioned. I'm not saying he's not going to turn out great for us. My problem is the lack of evaluation, both from the fans and the club. Our managers never seem to be under any pressure until its too late. We used to laugh at Real Madrid, Chelsea and City without realizing that we were simply blessed. I'm not saying we should be Chelsea and sack a manager for finishing 2nd place. But we should have standards of where we expect to be and how we expect to perform, and we should hold managers to that account, no matter how sorry we feel for them.
I think that's my issue with this idea of a 3-year rebuild. It should not exist at United. We should always be evolving and trying to get better. However, we should ALWAYS be playing decent football. Every manager we hire should be able to show us almost immediately how their style can translate to us scoring goals and controlling games. There should be evidence in a lot of games that we can get to that level, and that's something none of our managers have shown.
I have been hearing about this 3 years plan long time ago, it seems every summer it’s going to be another 3 years. And now 10 years has past and over 1.3 billion net was spent, we are still talking about another 3 years…
Last edited:
That's why club need football structure overhaul, not another manager chance.
Sure, we can keep looking for this unicorn manager but I don't think United can keep up with modern football at this rate. Club can spend ~150-180m a season, without selling, that'd get you 3 players in current market. If we fecked up even one, 33.33% of our plan would be fecked as well. You can't rebuild shit with this strategy.
It's short term, stop gap signings! Thiago is injured and clearly not able to play at the highest level anymore. Why would Liverpool let him go if they thought he could still contribute?
Kroos will be 34 in January. You really think this is a good point in his career to come to the Premier League?
Who are the ten players that are leaving next summer? The only two that I think will definitely go are Martial and Evans.
So many good points in this post.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Start buy sending Varane to Saudi for £70m
Cracking post.
You are right about being too kind to managers, but the real problem is why they were hired in the first place. Fergie should never have been allowed to choose his successor, it seems his approach to Pep was lost in translation and how on earth did he choose Moyes. Gill assured fans that lessons had been learnt from history, not least Busby, and we had a succession plan. But then we did the exact same thing as Busby in allowing the manager to choose his successor. Then we had LVG who was approaching retirment, had a history of playing dull football and falling out with top players. Guess what happened. Then Mourinho who is toxic which is why Sir Bobby and others said no way before. He was being found out in Premier league and his negative management and playing was the exact opposite of United. Then Ole fluked a win in Paris and the idiot Woodward gave him the job. None of these people should ever have been United managers. ETH might have worked but only with a strong DOF/ football management. I dont sadly think he has it.
I think there is a single reason for both points: The club just doesn't seem to know how to judge managers. Neither before nor after signing them. So they sign bad fitting managers and then don't know when to sack them.
Yes they are short term free signings. How does an injury suggest he is not able to play at the highest level anymore?
Scholes played here at 37, Modric won Ballon d’or at 33 and has played in every La Liga game so far this season for Real Madrid at 38. Kroos at 34 isn’t that crazy.
Nobody knows how he would do in PL but I would take him for free and pay his wage for 1 year to find out.
Only Martial and Evans are leaving? So Lindelof, Van de Beek, Amrabat, Sancho and Antony are staying? No changes in defence?
Bag of shite. This isn't a concept unique to Utd.
This isn't about managers and time, this is about building a squad, that is capable of launching a sustained period of challenging for trophies. Nowadays, a manager is not going to get 3 years to build a team. So, the club has to out that structure in place, to build a squad and have a direction and find the right coaches to bring the team forward.
The 3 year rebuild process is very real, because it's a constant cycle, you are constantly looking at what you have now and where it's going to be in 3 years. Liverpool have just spent 3 years rebuilding their squad, why did nobody notice? Because, aside from last season, they did it whilst also having a team capable of playing at a very high level and they still managed to finish 5th. City have done the same.
The reason why no one notices these constant rebuild cycles in process is because, those teams were already at a high level, so they could tweak a couple of positions at a time, let players bed in whilst others are phased out. Real have just done it with their midfield too.
This squad is a mess, unbalanced, lacking qualtiy, lacking athleticism, lacking depth, lacking brains, lacking workrate...you name it, it is probably lacking it.
Utd are at least 3 years away from having a squad capable of launching a title challenge and maintaining a consistent level of performance over 3 to 4 years to the point where, it's not a rebuild that's required, but an ongoing process where you are constantly looking forward, looking at when a players usefulness might come to an end, when they need to be replaced. Thus it no longer becomes an issue of a rebuild, but it then becomes maintaining a level of balance and quality in the squad. Where it doesn't need major surgery, it just needs a bit of adjustments here and there.
It's not just one injury though. Thiago has been riddled with injuries throughout his career. He's played 67 league games for Liverpool in four years! It's a moot point anyway as there is a zero percent chance of him leaving Liverpool to join United!
Scholes retired ten years ago! the games move on. Which other top Premier League team has a 34 year old midfielder playing regularly for them?
Lindelof, Amrabat and Antony will be here next season. Van de Beek doesn't need replacing as he never plays, Amad can take the place of Sancho.
The idea that ten players will come in next season is a fantasy. Bringing in ageing short term free signings is where the club has gone wrong many times before. Liverpool have significantly upgraded their midfield this season signing three players aged 21 to 24 for around £150 million total. This is what we need to be doing not signing washed up has beens!
There's a severe lack of context with those names being put forward by that poster. It's like they took a list of players with contracts running down and decided, yeah, they'll do.
Fernandinho played 3000+ minutes for City in 19/20 and is currently 38 years old.
That was the season City lost all their centre backs to injury.
Fernandinho played the first 31 game weeks at centreback
Fernandinho - Detailed stats | Transfermarkt
He played 2000+ minutes the next two seasons. He only left the club a year ago. I would consider that 'regularly playing.'
Mind you, I don't think United should sign Kroos. Plus he's said he's retiring at Real Madrid, it's a non-starter.
Mind you, I don't think United should sign Kroos. Plus he's said he's retiring at Real Madrid, it's a non-starter.
The wider point is that this is supposed to be a three year rebuilding plan.
Signing old players at the end of their career is counter intuitive as you need to replace them twelve months or two years later. Why would you add Thiago and Kroos to Fernandes, Eriksen and Casemiro? It's madness!
Look at how Madrid, City, Arsenal and Liverpool operate. Buying talented young players on the way up is the key, not buying 30 year olds on the way down!
Signing old players at the end of their career is counter intuitive as you need to replace them twelve months or two years later. Why would you add Thiago and Kroos to Fernandes, Eriksen and Casemiro? It's madness!
Look at how Madrid, City, Arsenal and Liverpool operate. Buying talented young players on the way up is the key, not buying 30 year olds on the way down!
Exactly. Having an old player in the squad you can occasionally rely on while his successor makes the position his own is great, but you shouldn't sign a player for that role if you don't have one. Modric (and soon Kroos) at Real or Müller at Bayern seem to grow into this "Elder Statesman" role because they spend a decade or more at the club, are legends in their own right and can guard and lead the dressing room because that's what guarantees them to be respected.
You don't get that if you arrive as a 35yo in a new club.
I think when go back to when Ole was sacked it was clear we needed fundamental changes to our recruitment and a huge tactical overhaul. Neither have happened and that’s why we are where we are, we’ve failed in both areas.
I hope ETH can turn it round but now he is in this mindset it’s hard to see it happening. Assuming the SJR investment goes through there will be some form of reset you’d assume, and at the moment there isn’t much incentive to include ETH in that. I don’t think they will be looking to sack him but if we don’t qualify for Champions League that will probably be the end for him.
I think Silva just did it at Chelsea. He's 39 and moved there not long ago.
There is space and a role for these players but it's not the kind of thing you can plan. They are "market opportunities."
I think people are confusing the idea of a rebuild with wanting a manager to get more time.This squad as it is now, if you look at it player for player, what type of football could you play to get the best out of it?
A few examples.
Low block counter attack.
High pressing, looking to create transitions.
Any type of high intensity game.
Any type of possession based approach
Every way you look at it, there are players in key positions around the pitch that don't suit any of those approaches. If you lose a player or two to injury, the guys stepping in need to be able to play the game with a similar fashion. Obviously you need some that will allow you to adapt tactically at times to the opposition. But for the most part your squad should be built around players who suit the approach you want to take.
There needs to be a full reset, build a squad that is focused towards a clearly defined approach to the game. One that can adapt to slight changes in that approach. But what's happened over the last 10 years is moving to different managers with different styles and approaches, allowing each one to bring in players that suited it and sacking them after 18 months.
Every rule has an exception
I can see the need to seeming to be proactive but genuine question, what time scale should we have as a club of the stature of United? What criteria would you use to distinguish genuine contenders?
How do you suggest a manager always gets a team to play good football? Which manager can say he has achieved this task?
You say a lot of evidence is needed for improvement, would win ratio be a good metric? Also the winning standards that we need to attain, most of those managers have shown potential to improve that’s why they were given chances, for me it’s not sympathetic reasons. All of them were let go before their projects were completed.
I suppose what I’m saying is that giving managers time to succeed can’t be quantified exactly , it’s about feel. Are they building enough good to outweigh the bad? I know it sounds farcical maybe, but I don’t think we have an issue with managers time in charge, it’s more their culture and style. It’s been very contrasting recently thus players surpluses and bloated squads emerged.
In terms of timescale, a manager for United should be evaluated as soon as they get the job. The microscope from the club should immediately be on them. It's a high level job and requires someone to come in ready to perform. There should be signs of good football from the very start of the season. In terms of actual style and performance, we should at the very least be seeing that by November. At United, we should be able to control and win games, creating enough chances to make that the likely outcome for each game. That, imo is good football. It doesn't have to be wing play or gegenpress or tika taka. It just needs to put our players in the best position to consistently win games. Our fans act like that is impossible to do. It's not. You don't expect Bayern to keep a manager who puts out football where the team is struggling to create. Real Madrid and Barcelona wouldn't do that either, and neither should we.
The fact of the matter is that as much criticism as United players have received in the last 10 years, our squad has always been a top six squad in the league. We play at the very least 14 teams that we should be better than every season. We then also have cup games and Champions League/ Europa League games we play too. You can't tell me that we should not be expected to play well against those other 14 teams, half of which would be home games. Showing potential in a previous job does not mean you'll be a good manager at United. Just like players, it's the potential that got them the job in the first place. Performing well is what keeps you the job, not past performances in smaller institutions. Even then, on reputation, Mourinho is the only manager that should have been given the benefit of the doubt. Van Gaal, Moyes, Ole and ETH should all have had to earn it. They weren't given chances because they showed potential whilst managing the club, they were given the chance to continue because we weren't bottom the table. These managers only lose their jobs once its impossible for them to actually keep it.
You can quantify a manager's initial success. Feel is emotional, it can be obscured by so many things and when it comes to business with fans and others around the club who have expectations, feel should never be enough. A combination of what you can see ( performances on the pitch, behaviour off the pitch) and results should be what is assessed. I'm not saying you sack a manager without context of injuries or getting familiar with the league ( which are outside factors), but even at the very beginning performances and results should always be addressed. My take is that the managers we've had and the leeway they've gotten is what's responsible for the squad profile. I've seen Mancini manage bloated disruptive squads at City during their transition to a top team. It's part of the job. Being able to communicate and manage personalities effectively. It's not an excuse. Managers at United have been using that for too long. Madrid, Barca, Bayern all have massive squads with big egos. That's part of the test.
The best managers can say they got teams to consistently play good football. Guardiola's City even in his first season played good football. United, even at our very worst under Fergie were always able to create chances. Wenger at Arsenal, despite not always winning, can say he consistently played good football. We aren't Burnley either. This is United, we outspend and have consistently outspent teams over the years. We have the resources to ensure that we play good consistent football. No matter the job, there is always an evaluation and there are standards that need to be met. You argue that the managers prior didn't get the time to complete their projects. My argument is that they didn't deserve the time to do so. The managers actually failed their evaluations and should have been let go way before the time they actually left.
There is a way to evaluate these managers: performances and results.
I beleive it can be. You can't just give someone a project and close your eyes and expect them to succeed because they told you they were going to. We are fans. We can watch a game and assess if we played well or not. You can be able to observe our ability to create chances, our ability to control games, our ability to transition, our ability to defend. This can be seen by simply watching our team consistently, the same way scouts watch players to know if they're good enough to pursue. I don't need Antony to play for me for me to know that he's not going anywhere in three years. I don't see what's hard in that. In a season, we have 45+ games. It's a large sample.
The squad is a mishmash of all different and poorly put together teams. We seem to make do with players we retain and bring in and eventually every manager seems to settle on very basic tactics as it’s seen as the best way to get results short term.
Liverpool gutted their team and turned their fortunes round in three years which was a combination of very good recruitment and coaching all pulling together. That resulted in a title push and a champions league win in Klopp’s fourth season. I don’t think it’s ever been on the agenda at Utd to even attempt something similar and we just repeat the same cycle.