So, how do you decide what's the quality of players? Some players have talent in abundance but may not apply themselves. Other players play great football in certain systems and teams and much worse in other. How do you make a reasonable judgement on the whole squad that is made of 25+ players, each of whom have their own specific context?So again we're back to the argument that because we don't see the coaching then we cannot comment on whether the team look like a well drilled cohesive unit, and whether they're underperforming/overperforming relative the quality of the players we have.
Of course everyone believes the talent of the players matters, if you're of the opinion that the quality of players we have is higher than that of the performances that are being produced then you may ask whether the manager is doing a good job. That's kind of the point of the manager, to get the best out of his team no?
At the end of the day the team is likely in one of 3 scenarios.
1. We're performing at a level better than the quality of the players we have (suggests we're very well coached)
2. We're performing at the level our quality of players would warrant (suggests we're adequately coached?)
3. We're performing at a level worse than the quality of players we have (suggests we're poorly coached)
It also raises the question of whether adequate would be good enough. If other teams can overperform relative to the talent in their squad, then should Manchester United not expect the same?
Again, post not intended to say we're poorly coached.