The main criterion: Coaching a team to the level of Klopp and Pep

KingCavani

Full Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2021
Messages
315
Tight and agressive defense, high scoring attack, statistically always one of the best 3 sides in major significant categories.
They were, relatively speaking, brilliant.

There s a certain rewriting of history happening here, and I'm not sure why. Poch s Tottenham were great, and they didn't play reactive football, something he was critisised for especially against bigger teams, hence his record.
Outscored anyone in the league over a 2 year period.
 

PeteManic

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
1,970
Why did United not get Tuchel? I don't remember? Was Ole on an upwards curve when Tuchel was available?
 

VinzentFTW

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 28, 2021
Messages
439
This thread is pointless and only hurts as we have the Glazers in charge. Its bloody obvious that the best road to take is Ragnick now, move him up stairs and go for Ten Hag in the summer. Van der Saar would be a nice addition as well. It will never happend though for obvious reasons.
 

KeanoMagicHat

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2019
Messages
771
This. 100% this.

The dynamic shifted in 2018. Until that time Poch was comfortably outperforming Klopp and no one in the world would argue otherwise.
  • In January 2018 Spurs signed Lucas Moura and spent £25m. They signed literally no one the following summer.
  • In January 2018 Liverpool signed Virgil Van Dijk for £75m. In the summer they signed Fabinho, Naby Keita, Allison and Xherdan Shaqiri for a total of £161m.
So in the calendar year of 2018 with an already thin squad Spurs spent £25m to sign one player while Liverpool spent almost ten times that and pretty much competed their team. Gee I wonder why the tables turned...
Yep and in 16/17, Spurs finished 10 points ahead of Liverpool, then in 17/18, Spurs still finished 2 points ahead of Liverpool.

And it wasn't just transfers. Spurs were way underpaying players with wages. Danny Rose wanted out of Spurs around 2016. He left this year. Same with Toby Alderweireld. Eriksen was very underpaid relative to how good he was. For example, Mesut Ozil was earning 5 or 6 times what Eriksen was getting at one point to play significantly worse, but Levy wouldn't budge on bringing the wages up to their rivals. That had to have been demotivating for the Spurs squad. Because Levy wouldn't let anyone go either. They were a player or two off winning something major, but they never got it at that crucial juncture.
 

mav_9me

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
7,594
Why did United not get Tuchel? I don't remember? Was Ole on an upwards curve when Tuchel was available?
Tuchel wasn't this highly rated at that time. He was considered a good manager, exciting new manager but nobody was expecting him to do this good. He would absolutely be considered a risk by the fans if that tuchel was available now, maybe even 3rd behind Ten Haag and Poch.
 

Greck

Full Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
4,563
Why did United not get Tuchel? I don't remember? Was Ole on an upwards curve when Tuchel was available?
Don't know about the board but for a lot of his tenure it was incredibly hard to convince a lot of our fans Tuchel was a step up from Ole, especially after ole beat him while he supposedly had Neymar and Mbappe. You had to see the delusion to believe it. That game where he beat Nagelsmann was its peak with people calling them hipster managers who couldn't improve us better than Ole could.
 
Last edited:

Lentwood

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
4,487
Location
West Didsbury, Manchester
The trouble is, and I think people fail to quite grasp this point, City have advantages right now that extend beyond just 'how much' they can spend, and therefore, I see no scenario in which they are not always a top, top side for the foreseeable.

Historically, football is cyclical, great teams are assembled and they grow old together. In times gone by, one of the biggest challenges a football club faced was knowing when to start to break up a great side, but also how you went about doing that without totally upsetting the apple cart. This was something SAF was an absolute, unrivalled genius at.

City don't have this challenge. They assembled a 'super squad' in mega quick time, and arguably, as I said, it's not how much they spend in total, but how quickly they were able to spend it. By accumulating an exceptionally good squad in mega quick time, they were able to stockpile great players at the right age. That meant they could fairly easily ease out the likes of Kompany, Silva, Aguero and Toure, without the usual 'settling-in' period you get with a new signing.

See this Summer as an example. They don't need Jack Grealish, but they signed him for £100m anyway. He's absolutely no pressure on his shoulders, the team are that good that there's none of the usual scrutiny and expectation that comes with that kind of transfer fee. 2 goals and 2 assists so far in 13 matches, playing for the best club in the land....is that a return worthy of £100m? Not really. Have you read anything about it? Doubtful. It doesn't matter, because the team are relentless. In time, he'll slowly be phased in, others will slowly be phased out...you won't even notice, it'll just happen.

United's issue is that we did nothing for 5/6 years and have been chasing our tail ever since. See my point about how quickly, not how much a club can spend. We can spend as much as most clubs, over a given period, but we can't spend £500m in 2/3 windows. This is why our "What do we still need?" thread has the tagline "The Neverending Story". Just as we think we have sorted one position, a problem occurs in another, but we are on a budget. Again, City didn't/don't have that issue.

Even after all the money they spent pre-Pep, when he walked into the club they still needed a GK, a CB, two fullbacks, a CM and an AM all at once and they just went out and did it, pretty much within two seasons. Sometimes buying two players for one position, just incase one failed (see Danillo and Ake)

So the point in all of this is that City will continue to get 90+ points pretty much forever now. I don't see how that changes. That means that whichever manager comes into United has to find someway of topping that, whilst building, refining and refreshing a squad at the same time.

It's hard for some of you to take but we're never going to be dominant again. The Liverpool side of the last 4/5 years has been one of the best-run, best-managed, most talented clubs sides in the history of football...and what have they won? One Champions League and one Premier League title.

That is the challenge in-front of us people, and that doesn't change regardless of whether the manager is Ten Hag, Pochettino or Ole Gunnar Solskjaer. We might have to start re-thinking what we actually define as 'success' unfortunately...because if people think Pochettino or Ten Hag are going to walk in here and all of a sudden, we win three titles on the bounce...well I am afraid you're doomed to never be satisfied.
 

passing-wind

Full Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
2,958
Poch is yesterday’s news. He’s not as great as people suspected he could be whereas Ten Hag likely can and will be.

And Poch doesn’t seem like a long term solution so that’s a turn off in of itself. Why would anyone prefer a lesser manager who in all likelihood wouldn't last as long? I want United going for the best batch — Poch unfortunately is in the 2nd batch.
But on the merit of accomplishment Poch has still got the better experiences. He's got to a UCL final which no one anticipated, finished consistently in the top four (additionally 2nd) which is a much tougher league compared to Ajax in the Netherlands. By all accounts Poch is the more sure option.

There's one thing that's keeping Ten Hag in the brackets of fans mouths and it's hype. Both play a much more expansive brand of football compared to Solskjaer and a large majority of this forum have conceded that Ole was somehow an attacking manager.

Either manager would likely improve with Poch having more trust due to his credentials but the whole idea of ETH or bust is ridiculous.
 

passing-wind

Full Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
2,958
Don't know about the board but for a lot of his tenure it was incredibly hard to convince a lot of our fans Tuchel wasn't a step up from Ole, especially after ole beat him while he supposedly had Neymar and Mbappe. You had to see the delusion to believe it. That game where he beat Nagelsmann was its peak with people calling them hipster managers who couldn't improve us better than Ole could.
I agree there is a overwhelming number of posters on these forums who have a very low scope for objective comprehension.
 

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
10,079
Location
London
For me it's quite obvious why Ten Hag is preferred by many over Poch. He's an unknown quantity quantity in the EPL whereas Poch was here for 4.. almost 5 years. New is exciting to some.

Secondly, Poch's last couple of years in management have not been particularly good. Sacked by Tottenham while languishing 14th on the table, in November 2019. Then last year, he managed to not win the French title in a one-team league. His last good season was in 17-18. Kinda hard to get excited about that.
 

Counterfactual

Full Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,401
Location
Mobil Avenue station
The trouble is, and I think people fail to quite grasp this point, City have advantages right now that extend beyond just 'how much' they can spend, and therefore, I see no scenario in which they are not always a top, top side for the foreseeable.

Historically, football is cyclical, great teams are assembled and they grow old together. In times gone by, one of the biggest challenges a football club faced was knowing when to start to break up a great side, but also how you went about doing that without totally upsetting the apple cart. This was something SAF was an absolute, unrivalled genius at.

City don't have this challenge. They assembled a 'super squad' in mega quick time, and arguably, as I said, it's not how much they spend in total, but how quickly they were able to spend it. By accumulating an exceptionally good squad in mega quick time, they were able to stockpile great players at the right age. That meant they could fairly easily ease out the likes of Kompany, Silva, Aguero and Toure, without the usual 'settling-in' period you get with a new signing.

See this Summer as an example. They don't need Jack Grealish, but they signed him for £100m anyway. He's absolutely no pressure on his shoulders, the team are that good that there's none of the usual scrutiny and expectation that comes with that kind of transfer fee. 2 goals and 2 assists so far in 13 matches, playing for the best club in the land....is that a return worthy of £100m? Not really. Have you read anything about it? Doubtful. It doesn't matter, because the team are relentless. In time, he'll slowly be phased in, others will slowly be phased out...you won't even notice, it'll just happen.

United's issue is that we did nothing for 5/6 years and have been chasing our tail ever since. See my point about how quickly, not how much a club can spend. We can spend as much as most clubs, over a given period, but we can't spend £500m in 2/3 windows. This is why our "What do we still need?" thread has the tagline "The Neverending Story". Just as we think we have sorted one position, a problem occurs in another, but we are on a budget. Again, City didn't/don't have that issue.

Even after all the money they spent pre-Pep, when he walked into the club they still needed a GK, a CB, two fullbacks, a CM and an AM all at once and they just went out and did it, pretty much within two seasons. Sometimes buying two players for one position, just incase one failed (see Danillo and Ake)

So the point in all of this is that City will continue to get 90+ points pretty much forever now. I don't see how that changes. That means that whichever manager comes into United has to find someway of topping that, whilst building, refining and refreshing a squad at the same time.

It's hard for some of you to take but we're never going to be dominant again. The Liverpool side of the last 4/5 years has been one of the best-run, best-managed, most talented clubs sides in the history of football...and what have they won? One Champions League and one Premier League title.

That is the challenge in-front of us people, and that doesn't change regardless of whether the manager is Ten Hag, Pochettino or Ole Gunnar Solskjaer. We might have to start re-thinking what we actually define as 'success' unfortunately...because if people think Pochettino or Ten Hag are going to walk in here and all of a sudden, we win three titles on the bounce...well I am afraid you're doomed to never be satisfied.
Are we allowing sensible, well-reasoned, intelligent posts in here now?
 

Greck

Full Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
4,563
For me it's quite obvious why Ten Hag is preferred by many over Poch. He's an unknown quantity quantity in the EPL whereas Poch was here for 4.. almost 5 years. New is exciting to some.

Secondly, Poch's last couple of years in management have not been particularly good. Sacked by Tottenham while languishing 14th on the table, in November 2019. Then last year, he managed to not win the French title in a one-team league. His last good season was in 17-18. Kinda hard to get excited about that.
Blaming him for not winning ligue 1 last season is blaming him for the previous manager's failing. With a full season is literally now on pace to win the french title. You can't judge managers on half seasons. If I recall Klopp didn't qualify for the CL in his first season with Liverpool but we don't hold it against him because we understand the context behind it. Poch and PSG are currently 11 points ahead in only november, so if he were to repeat the same form from the 2nd half of last season when he took charge they will still be on pace to win it. His poor stint at PSG is somewhat overstated.

Mind you the previous manager who had them 3rd and got sacked was a guy named Tuchel, who has since gone to chelsea and won the CL so it's not that straightforward.
 

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
10,079
Location
London
Blaming him for not winning ligue 1 last season is blaming him for the previous manager's failing. With a full season is literally now on pace to win the french title. You can't judge managers on half seasons. If I recall Klopp didn't qualify for the CL in his first season with Liverpool but we don't hold it against him because we understand the context behind it. Poch and PSG are currently 11 points ahead in only november, so if he were to repeat the same form from the 2nd half of last season when he took charge they will still be on pace to win it. His poor stint at PSG is somewhat overstated.

Mind you the previous manager who had them 3rd and got sacked was a guy named Tuchel, who has since gone to chelsea and won the CL so it's not that straightforward.
Okay I can understand the bolded, but like I said his last really good season was in 17-18. That immediately lowers his appeal to many. He appears to be yesterday's news. I still think he's a good manager mind and we could certainly do a lot worse than him. I also think the job at PSG is a poisoned chalice.

Khelaifi and Leonardo run that team, signing galacticos with little regard for team balance. There's also immense player power way above the manager. Having Mbappe, Neymar and Messi sounds great, but when you can't sub any of them because they'll throw a strop it will surely grate and become unbearable over time. Like yesterday when his team was winning (at 0-1) but badly losing the midfield battle and he probably knew conceding was imminent but couldn't drop any of the front 3 for an extra body in midfield because all hell would break loose.
 

BridgeBanter

Full Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
368
Supports
Chelsea
What about Chelsea though?:smirk:
The OP referenced Pool and City specifically so I kept it amongst them. Naturally, I believe so long as Tuchel is at the helm we will be challenging for all honours right alongside them. To think this time a year ago Chelsea was languishing in a position not too dissimilar to United right now.

This is the best state i've ever seen Chelsea in terms of the whole club top to bottom. The coach, the results this calendar year, the players and the youth being brought through the first team. Unfortunately, 6-7 weeks of bad results are enough to put any Chelsea manager under pressure but right now it looks as good as it's ever been.
 

tjb

Full Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
2,293
:lol: Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's "woefully incorrect" or a "barefaced lie" even. High energy press yeah, that's the difference between him and Mourinho. If only there was more to his game than that. In possession his teams don't know what to do. It'd be more of the same. Relying on individual brilliance.
I'm sorry, but he's right. It's a lie.

Bigger point for me is, the obsession with getting a set system guy after Ole makes sense, Ten Häag Daz would be a good choice, but he's not the level of candidate that should be as clamored for as he is. There are people who can't even spell his name and have never even watched his Ajax team clamoring for him because its popular. I don't trust the Dutch league. Players are literally brought up in one style, with not much ego, which makes it easier to implement a total football style.

It's not the only way to play football and it's not the only exciting brand of football. Plus it doesn't mean winning football either. He hasn't proven he can't implement that style or winning anywhere outside of that Ajax set up. Yet he's getting praised for never really having to deal with the tough situations his peers have had to do venturing outside. People want a Guardiola so bad, but there is no other Guardiola. It doesn't mean we wouldn't compete with or win the league, as different type of managers can win in different ways. Conte has beaten Guardiola to a league title, Tuchel's is currently doing it. We literally had Sir Alex win trophies for years without having that set approach.
 

ArjenIsM3

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
4,391
Location
Netherlands
I'm sorry, but he's right. It's a lie.

Bigger point for me is, the obsession with getting a set system guy after Ole makes sense, Ten Häag Daz would be a good choice, but he's not the level of candidate that should be as clamored for as he is. There are people who can't even spell his name and have never even watched his Ajax team clamoring for him because its popular. I don't trust the Dutch league. Players are literally brought up in one style, with not much ego, which makes it easier to implement a total football style.

It's not the only way to play football and it's not the only exciting brand of football. Plus it doesn't mean winning football either. He hasn't proven he can't implement that style or winning anywhere outside of that Ajax set up. Yet he's getting praised for never really having to deal with the tough situations his peers have had to do venturing outside. People want a Guardiola so bad, but there is no other Guardiola. It doesn't mean we wouldn't compete with or win the league, as different type of managers can win in different ways. Conte has beaten Guardiola to a league title, Tuchel's is currently doing it. We literally had Sir Alex win trophies for years without having that set approach.
Ten Hag would be a good option IMHO, but there's others too. You're right appointing someone with only Eredivisie experience is risky. We've seen it with Bosz, who played even more entertaining football than Ten Hag when he was at Ajax and did well but hasn't really kicked on since.
 

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
14,562
I agree with the basic stance of the OP.

I would add, though, that in order to get to a position where you can - more or less - comfortably try out various promising managers who may or may not have that cutting edge you need in order to genuinely challenge, you need a foundation in place: you can't keep hiring managers with the job description United have operated with thus far (i.e. managers with a major influence on player recruitment and overall "philosophy").

This in itself is a reason why I'm not thrilled with the prospect of hiring Poch. He seems to want influence, part of what makes United attractive to him (compared to his current job) is - seemingly - that he'd have more control with us. Which is understandable from his point of view - but for me, we should move away from the very "model" which makes us attractive to prospective managers who fancies the idea of building a team on the grand scale.
Yeah, very relevant point. Agreed. It would be more of the same, which surely makes it less likely that Murtough and co. will be keen, let alone Rangnick.

1. I don't think Guardiola was anyway a risky appointment, he had the reputation as the top club manager when he came to City. Klopp was maybe a bit riskier as he had gone downhill in his last season at Dortmund, but his record at Mainz and Dortmund stood out. So why having a top mnager automatically includes making a risky appointment makes little sense.

2. I don't understand this bit, why would you want to wait until the summer to get your manager if a good one was available now, unless you are speaking specifically about Ten Hag. Also I haven' seen anyone yet explain the massive difference between Poch and ETH's approaches. Both like to play an attack orientated style with a high press and with high intensity.

3. Why would you become a 3rd or 4th placed side under Poch, this is written and accepted all over the forum as though it is a fact, which is bizarre. Also Poch doesn't rely on individual brilliance at all, his Southampton and Spurs teams were clear well organised units. I haven't watched enough of PSG to see exactly how they pklay, but reading about it the problem seems to be Mbappe, Neymar and Messi play as a separate unit to the rest of team despite his management, rather than as a planned part of it.

4. I'm not saying Poch would be better than ETH, but I find it odd that Ten Hag is seen as an all conquering hero, who would revolutionise United and turn you into serial winners once again while Poch will get you into the top 4, when all the evidence points to a different outcome!
1. I wasn't arguing that Guardiola was a risky appointment, or Klopp, I was arguing that there are no obvious progressive managers at their level, let alone available. Hence, if we go the route of a progressive manager, it will be more risky than going for a more known quantity.

2. I'd rather get in a manager who demonstrates an ability to consistently play progressive football than to get a manager in now who goes from one thing to another (or values pragmatism at all costs). It's not specifically about ten Hag or Poch, as such, but what they represent. Seems a lot of people disagree on what kind of manager Poch is, but that's how I see it.

3. It's not set in stone. All of these things aren't steeped in empirical evidence, as it's future oriented and that's what I'd expect, without the frills too I might add.

4. I think ten Hag would be a risky appointment for a number of reasons. I just think it's high time we evolve into a much better footballing side.

Honestly - the guy coaches at Ajax where all the players are coached in a very similar system from their youth, he has no massive egos to contend with and a very sound collaborative board/structure. They also have just one realistic rival in PSV.

I'm not a massive Poch fan, but if we went for him, I'd be very happy with that. He's walking the French league while managing the big egos up front and has qualified in a group with City and Leipzig with a game to spare. One of the games they won was a 2-0 against City by the way.

Let's be honest, aside the PSG front 3 and Veratti, the rest of the team isn't exactly bursting with quality. If you really did watch Southampton and Spurs, I can't understand how anyone could say Poch is a reactive coach. He's always been a progressive, proactive coach - he's known for that. Things only turned soar at Spurs after he made noises about wanting to leave. PSG as we know is a different beast, and is no real indicator of a coach's style. If Ten Hag went to PSG, he wouldn't turn them into a cohesive unit just like Tuchel couldn't.

I just hope whoever does come feels empowered enough to make tough calls against our biggest players if need be.
As above, I definitely concede appointing ten Hag is risky. I just think it has the potential to evolve our football much further. As for PSG, they have one of the best centre backs in Europe, a very promising left back, two top goal keepers, two work horse midfielders levels above Fred and McTominay, +Veratti, motivated di Maria, that frontline, etc. To say he doesn't have loads of quality is laughable. A good argument, and one I agree with, is that his side is lopsided because of the prime donnas up front.

I would go a little further too. In terms of what Klopp has actually delivered at Liverpool, I think United fans would be somewhat justified in being disappointed at only one league title and one Champions League, with no other major honours, in six seasons.

That may seem churlish right now in our current position, but surely the aim for any United manager has to be to make them the dominant number one side again. City are still the dominant side, despite a failure to win a CL title. I'm not sure any manager will be supported indefinitely if they continued to live in City's shadow, pinching a league and a CL here and there, whilst City were hoovering up the lion's share. There's quite a difference between what Guardiola and Klopp has delivered.
It's a long shot, but we should of course be aiming for that. In order to do so we obviously need a brilliant head coach and coaching staff, and a structure that supports them, but it's an uphill task that's for sure.

This thread is pointless and only hurts as we have the Glazers in charge. Its bloody obvious that the best road to take is Ragnick now, move him up stairs and go for Ten Hag in the summer. Van der Saar would be a nice addition as well. It will never happend though for obvious reasons.
Part one complete.

The trouble is, and I think people fail to quite grasp this point, City have advantages right now that extend beyond just 'how much' they can spend, and therefore, I see no scenario in which they are not always a top, top side for the foreseeable.

Historically, football is cyclical, great teams are assembled and they grow old together. In times gone by, one of the biggest challenges a football club faced was knowing when to start to break up a great side, but also how you went about doing that without totally upsetting the apple cart. This was something SAF was an absolute, unrivalled genius at.

City don't have this challenge. They assembled a 'super squad' in mega quick time, and arguably, as I said, it's not how much they spend in total, but how quickly they were able to spend it. By accumulating an exceptionally good squad in mega quick time, they were able to stockpile great players at the right age. That meant they could fairly easily ease out the likes of Kompany, Silva, Aguero and Toure, without the usual 'settling-in' period you get with a new signing.

See this Summer as an example. They don't need Jack Grealish, but they signed him for £100m anyway. He's absolutely no pressure on his shoulders, the team are that good that there's none of the usual scrutiny and expectation that comes with that kind of transfer fee. 2 goals and 2 assists so far in 13 matches, playing for the best club in the land....is that a return worthy of £100m? Not really. Have you read anything about it? Doubtful. It doesn't matter, because the team are relentless. In time, he'll slowly be phased in, others will slowly be phased out...you won't even notice, it'll just happen.

United's issue is that we did nothing for 5/6 years and have been chasing our tail ever since. See my point about how quickly, not how much a club can spend. We can spend as much as most clubs, over a given period, but we can't spend £500m in 2/3 windows. This is why our "What do we still need?" thread has the tagline "The Neverending Story". Just as we think we have sorted one position, a problem occurs in another, but we are on a budget. Again, City didn't/don't have that issue.

Even after all the money they spent pre-Pep, when he walked into the club they still needed a GK, a CB, two fullbacks, a CM and an AM all at once and they just went out and did it, pretty much within two seasons. Sometimes buying two players for one position, just incase one failed (see Danillo and Ake)

So the point in all of this is that City will continue to get 90+ points pretty much forever now. I don't see how that changes. That means that whichever manager comes into United has to find someway of topping that, whilst building, refining and refreshing a squad at the same time.

It's hard for some of you to take but we're never going to be dominant again. The Liverpool side of the last 4/5 years has been one of the best-run, best-managed, most talented clubs sides in the history of football...and what have they won? One Champions League and one Premier League title.

That is the challenge in-front of us people, and that doesn't change regardless of whether the manager is Ten Hag, Pochettino or Ole Gunnar Solskjaer. We might have to start re-thinking what we actually define as 'success' unfortunately...because if people think Pochettino or Ten Hag are going to walk in here and all of a sudden, we win three titles on the bounce...well I am afraid you're doomed to never be satisfied.
I'm not under any illusions that City aren't way ahead of us. But just like you say, in your - let's be honest - overly defeatist post, Liverpool managed to break it up temporarily. And who knows how this season will pan out. As it is, it's the new kid on the block leading the table, while Liverpool have their first XI back. I think City are the best coached side, by a distance, but football isn't always easy to predict and knowing that Pep is off in two years or so, who knows? I don't think they'll manage this level without, I'd bet on that.

The OP (I'm sure there are other posters demanding more) isn't about returning to our rightful throne as the dominant force in...you know. It's about acknowledging that our main rivals currently play a far superior brand of football to ourselves and it's infinitely more interesting to watch than what we've seen for years and years and years. It's more intelligent, it's more committed, it's more fluid, it's more exciting. And, I believe, long-term, it leads to more success.

With Rangnick, who likes young players who can be moulded and have the energy for a progressive style, it's also more interesting as we all want to see youth given a chance, and not a chance to show what they're made of and see if they can bail a manager out of trouble, but to actually nurture them and teach them so they develop and fulfill their potential.

I think appointing Rangnick is testament to there being some brain cells behind some levers of power at OT. Easily the most promising thing to happen at the club for 8 years.
 

Adebisi's Hat

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
47
The trouble is, and I think people fail to quite grasp this point, City have advantages right now that extend beyond just 'how much' they can spend, and therefore, I see no scenario in which they are not always a top, top side for the foreseeable.

Historically, football is cyclical, great teams are assembled and they grow old together. In times gone by, one of the biggest challenges a football club faced was knowing when to start to break up a great side, but also how you went about doing that without totally upsetting the apple cart. This was something SAF was an absolute, unrivalled genius at.

City don't have this challenge. They assembled a 'super squad' in mega quick time, and arguably, as I said, it's not how much they spend in total, but how quickly they were able to spend it. By accumulating an exceptionally good squad in mega quick time, they were able to stockpile great players at the right age. That meant they could fairly easily ease out the likes of Kompany, Silva, Aguero and Toure, without the usual 'settling-in' period you get with a new signing.

See this Summer as an example. They don't need Jack Grealish, but they signed him for £100m anyway. He's absolutely no pressure on his shoulders, the team are that good that there's none of the usual scrutiny and expectation that comes with that kind of transfer fee. 2 goals and 2 assists so far in 13 matches, playing for the best club in the land....is that a return worthy of £100m? Not really. Have you read anything about it? Doubtful. It doesn't matter, because the team are relentless. In time, he'll slowly be phased in, others will slowly be phased out...you won't even notice, it'll just happen.

United's issue is that we did nothing for 5/6 years and have been chasing our tail ever since. See my point about how quickly, not how much a club can spend. We can spend as much as most clubs, over a given period, but we can't spend £500m in 2/3 windows. This is why our "What do we still need?" thread has the tagline "The Neverending Story". Just as we think we have sorted one position, a problem occurs in another, but we are on a budget. Again, City didn't/don't have that issue.

Even after all the money they spent pre-Pep, when he walked into the club they still needed a GK, a CB, two fullbacks, a CM and an AM all at once and they just went out and did it, pretty much within two seasons. Sometimes buying two players for one position, just incase one failed (see Danillo and Ake)

So the point in all of this is that City will continue to get 90+ points pretty much forever now. I don't see how that changes. That means that whichever manager comes into United has to find someway of topping that, whilst building, refining and refreshing a squad at the same time.

It's hard for some of you to take but we're never going to be dominant again. The Liverpool side of the last 4/5 years has been one of the best-run, best-managed, most talented clubs sides in the history of football...and what have they won? One Champions League and one Premier League title.

That is the challenge in-front of us people, and that doesn't change regardless of whether the manager is Ten Hag, Pochettino or Ole Gunnar Solskjaer. We might have to start re-thinking what we actually define as 'success' unfortunately...because if people think Pochettino or Ten Hag are going to walk in here and all of a sudden, we win three titles on the bounce...well I am afraid you're doomed to never be satisfied.
Great post, this is why it's so important to have a Ragnick character coming in at this stage, not even so much as an interim manager but for the longer term recruitment, player development and long term stylistic blueprint. You talk about City, but we have only 2-3 years before Newcastle are going to be at the very top table, to stay. If the club don't get this right now we could slip into a Spurs type wilderness for years. Liverpool in so many ways are so similar to Utd and they will have seen the direction things are going, you can be sure they will be planning for Klopps successor already. Even with the good work they have done over the last few years things could go very badly wrong(here's hoping) after Klopp goes. Yes I cannot see any team dominating like Fergie in the foreseeable and certainly not one outside the oil and gas clubs.