I am not talking about years upon years of rebuilding, and i am certainly not using it as an excuse for him. I could point out that one of the most decorated managers in the history of the game said that getting that particular squad to second place by amassing 81 points was his greatest achievement. And no, that man wasn't Solskjaer. But i guess someone can retort that it was Mourinho's way of saying that he wanted out of the club.
Everyone knows what Mourinho meant by that was that he needed a stronger squad to get titles, not literally his greatest achievement. If asking Mourinho about the greatest achievements of his career do you seriously think he'll mention getting second with us as one of them? People love using that quote, but it's illogical to think he meant it literally.
Instead, let's have a look at Solakjaer's preferred 4231 when he landed the job: I believe it looked somewhat like this: DDG - Shaw/Smalling/Jones/Young - Matic/Herrera/Pogba - Rashford-Lingard-Martial. Out of the ten outfield players, only two (Shaw and Rashford) have maintained their original roles under Solskjaer. So, whatever you or i think, the man who gets paid to make these calls obviously decided that the first team was in need of an overhaul. What i argued in my initial post was that it takes time for a new team to gel together. It has, indeed, been a bumpy ride and there were definitely periods when it seemed that Solskajer would share a fate similar to his predecessors, but he survived. And to be frank, since i have complained more than once about his tactical choices over the years, this is a skill in itself. That's why i argued that he should get his chance.
Totally agree with this, obviously by giving him a chance I mean this season and that's it. If he can't win a major title or at least be close to winning, and by close I mean losing the league by 2-3 points not 15 and get at least to UCL semifinals, if he can't get that he should leave. We can't lose more time.
I would also argue that there hasn't really any rebuilding at United from 2013 up until 2019. On the contrary, throughout this time, we were making signings on the basis that we would challenge right from the start. Moyes signed two ready-made solutions who were supposed to have an immediate impact. Then LvG completely ripped up the squad to implement his style. Finally, Mourinho came in and signed Zlatan, Lukaku, Pogba, Matic, Mikhitaryan, Sanchez, Bailly, Lindelof. Except for Pogba, has anyone really been a success at United? This is the quality we're talking about?
Well that's were we disagree, every single manager had brought and sold their players. What's the difference between Moyes, LVG, Mourinho and Ole?
Moyes brought the following players:
Mata 25
Fellaini 25
LVG:
Di Maria 26
Shaw 18
Herrera 24
Rojo 24
Blind 24
Falcao 28
Martial 19
Schnederlin 25
Depay 21
Darmian 25
Schweinsteiger 30
Romero 28
Mourinho:
Pogba 23
Mhkitaryan 27
Bailly 22
Zlatan 34
Lukaku 24
Matic 28
Lindelof 22
Alexis 29
Fred 25
Dalot 19
Ole:
Maguire 26
Bruno 25
Wan Bissakaa 21
James 21
Ighalo 30
VdB 23
Diallo 18
Telles 27
Pellestri 18
Cavani 33
Sancho 21
Varane 28
Cristiano 36
Looking at them I really see no difference, what is that immediate success that other managers followed in their signings? By saying Moyes signed two "immediate" players you mean two 25 year old players? That can very well be said about Maguire and Bruno who were 26 and 25 at the time? What's the difference?
Besides Schweinsteiger and, arguably, Falcao LVG signined mostly young players so why is he not labeled as signing for the future? When he signed players like Shaw, Martial, Depay.
Mourinho as well signed fairly young players, only Zlatan and Matic can be mentioned as veterans. While Ole signed Varane, and specially Cristiano and Cavani who can't be seen as anything else but "immediate signings" So what's the difference?
The whole "signed for the future" narrative comes from signing Pellestri and Amad. But every manager signs youngsters, LVG signed Shaw and Martial, Mourinho signed Dalot. But you don't here them being mentioned as "signings for the future".
The difference is just the narrative surrounding Ole. The whole "rebuild" narrative is based only on the illusion that Ole "knows the clubs philosophy" he's on a "rebuilding job that needs patience" in my eyes those are only excuses to lower the preassure on him. He won nothing but no problem because that's not what asked for him, no preassure he's "rebuilding".
Despite what many people think or want to believe, "rebuilding" isn't just a narrative in team-sports. It's a reality and at the end/start of team-cycles, it's a necessity. It's the never-ending race to maintain momentum and instil the belief that there's always room for improvement. All you need to do is take a look at what has transpired just a couple of miles away from OT.
Well yes cycles exist in dynasties, such as Milan, Madrid, Barca or our very own after SAF retired. That happens when you got a team structure that is so good that you don't get rid or replace until the players as a whole are too old so you're forced to change it. But on normal bases no team takes 2-3 years to "rebuild". Teams are in constant rebuilding buying and selling players every single year. As I mentioned in my previous answer what exactly is the difference between Ole and the previous managers that his ternure is seen as a rebuild and the others weren't?
Just because a manager isn't Pep, Klopp or Tuchel doesn't mean that they are rubbish and they have nothing to offer.
But why settle for less? Why isn't our standard for coaches the same as our standard for players? You don't see anyone saying, well we shouldn't improve on McFred because even though they're not Xavi or Iniesta they still have something to offer.
We should aim for the best coaches, Ole and his coaching team are not top of the notch. So why is everyone ok with us persisting with them?
And it doesn't mean that there's no work to be done at a club except adding the final pieces to the puzzle. A few miles away from OT then, a certain Roberto Mancini got appointed as the City manager in December 2009 while the club was wallowing in mediocrity with a record of 6-8-2 in the PL. After the new manager bounce, City eventually missed out on top-four, lost a semi in the League Cup in the 93rd minute against United and crushed out of the FA Cup after a defeat at Stoke. Does it sound familiar? Next season, they secured CL football near the end by finishing third on 70 points, while they failed in the EL. They won the FA Cup that year, but with signings like Yaya Toure, David Silva, Kolarov and Dzeko, on top of talents like Tevez, Zabaleta and Kompany, that's not something to write home about, huh? City insisted on him, they spent the big bucks on Aguero and also bought wisely in the case of Nasri and Clichy. Toure dropped in the CM role, both partnerships up-front, Dzeko/Aguero & Nasri/Silva were terrorizing defences, both FBs could overlap and City won the league with +18 points and +33 goals compared to their previous season. They also adopted a possession-style football that follows them to this day.
The difference between Mancini then/Solskjaer now and Moyes/LvG/Mourinho is that when the latter got the sack, it felt that they were done, their respective teams' cycles had ended with very little to show for. This is not the case with this United side, and it wasn't with City back in 2011. You can tell that we're on an upward trajectory, at least squad-wise. That we still have a lot of potential. I will admit that the FA Cup helped Mancini's case and, as Neville said, the EL defeat may hang over Solskjaer for a long time.
He did that with his work and not by the grace of a shining CV (that faded away in the case of Jose and Louis), and that's why i'm willing to give him the season. But yeah, he has to deliver. Very few people will argue with that.
I think you deviate a little with the whole City and Mancini's story, but I agree with your last point. He has to deliver, no more excuses, no more "rebuild" "building for the future" nonsense. He needs results and trophies now or it's a failure no two ways about it.