Will our next managerial appointment be any different to the last four?

[sullydnl]

If I wanted to be positive about the club right now, I'd argue that circumstances are different than they were when we appointed any of the last four managers.

First because the structure above the manager is different, because we have a DOF and Technical Director in place. But also because of the much talked about "cultural reboot" that has taken place at the club over recent years, which should in theory mean we're now making decisions on the basis of a firmer footballing vision.

For example, just a few weeks ago Murtough said:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

If that's true, then our new appointment as manager would need to fit into that vision and be hired on the basis of how well he fits into the club's overarching idea of football. Which would mean less disruption upon arrival, less turnover and less need for a rebuild, as we would have hired a manager who best suits the "fast, fluid, attacking" squad we've built.

In which case (again being positive) you could see the delay in firing Solskjaer as an attempt to buy time while they assess their options and secure the best choice. That instead of quickly hiring whatever random available manager happens to be the "obvious" choice, we're now in a position to think through the decision and make an informed choice based on what type of manager actually suits the club right now. And if that means taking an extra few games to make the correct choice, then that's what they're going to do, because better that than committing to a bad choice.



The problem is, I'm not sure I believe any of that. I'm not convinced on how much influence our DOF or technical director would have on our next appointment, I'm not convinced the supposed cultural reboot extends beyond our current manager or was more than a buzzphrase to support him, I'm not convinced our board aren't going to make another panicked choice akin to throwing a dart at a board and hoping it lands somewhere good.

So, do you actually believe things might be different this time for the above reasons? Might we actually have a plan or structure in place on the football side of the club that means we'll ultimately make a better decision this time? Or will this be exactly as it was with the last four appointments, an erratic decision made by people who don't know what they're doing?

 

[EtH]

It’s anyone’s guess at this point. I am trying to stay positive, and it is nice to see that we haven’t just knee-jerked Conte in immediately which would’ve been par for the course.

But the short answer is this transition will tell all about the new structure of the club and who are the actual decision makers.

 

[Caesar2290]

There is one getable coach that ticks all the boxes from what Mortough said. I think that is the main reason we are backing Ole for now, because he's commited to Ajax.

 

[altodevil]

I think this has a chance to be a watershed moment for the club

 

[sullydnl]

What I would say is that if things were going to be different this time, if it was going to be a competent decision based on a plan that goes beyond the manager and led by the football people in newly installed positions (Murtough and Fletcher) then I would have hoped it was something they started considering before we lost 5-0 to Liverpool.

Because if they were ignoring all the warning signs up to now and find themselves surprised at having to suddenly make this decision, it hardly bodes well for the idea that there will be a more considered, principled process this time.

 

[Bilbo]

In which case (again being positive) you could see the delay in firing Solskjaer as an attempt to buy time while they assess their options and secure the best choice. That instead of quickly hiring whatever random available manager happens to be the "obvious" choice, we're now in a position to think through the decision and make an informed choice based on what type of manager actually suits the club right now. And if that means taking an extra few games to make the correct choice, then that's what they're going to do, because better that than committing to a bad choice.

A lot of people are claiming us not firing Ole yet is down to ineptitude, but actually making a snap decision with no plan is significantly worse. The reality is that Ole's staff take over the club if he is fired today, and while it's certainly possible that Carrick and/or McKenna were at odds with Ole over how the team is set up and have some wildly exciting ideas that were being ignored this is a reach. If there is outright mutiny in the dressing room then its best to let a manager go regardless of a plan, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

United will always have eyes and ears on the management scene, but we've just closed a new contract with our manager so we clearly weren't at the stage where we were actively looking at potential replacements. Caretaker managers are always a last resort. There isn't a list of exciting, unemployed managers out there. This needs to be handled correctly.

 

[Gordon Godot]

Since Moyes, all the appointments have been reactive, without a coherent plan. Is this time any different? Ole should never have got the full time job, I suspect one of the initial reasons for the Ole bounce fading was the players shocked that he was permanent. Great caretaker but never, ever a MUFC manager. Until we have a proper football structure in place, we will continue to look like fools. Dont expect long term managers, but a football structure that brings continuity around recruitment, youth development etc.

 

[Ixion]

I think if we took a gamble that wasn't based on sentiment then there is a chance it could be different, Moyes and Ole were not picked because of their CVs. If we actually try and identify the strongest candidates out there that aren't quite yet at the top level and we back them there is a chance it could be different. If we bring in a Conte then I imagine it will go a similar route to Jose, mildly successful and then gone in a few years.

 

[kthanksbye]

Any basic business after having 4 failed appointments in a crucial role would start looking at either the people who are hiring or the process of hiring, we're not doing that so it's not going to be any different.

 

[VanDeBank]

Moyes and Ole weren't qualified. Mourinho and LVG weren't good fits, the former because of his cowardly style (that he happened to be washed up was hard to predict), the latter because he's never managed in the PL and didn't have a good academy crop and transfer department behind him. It's no coincidence that the 2 qualified managers did win trophies however.

Free flowing attacking football just screams ETH in the summer...

 

[EtH]

What I would say is that if things were going to be different this time, if it was going to be a competent decision based on a plan that goes beyond the manager and led by the football people in newly installed positions (Murtough and Fletcher) then I would have hoped it was something they started considering before we lost 5-0 to Liverpool.

Because if they were ignoring all the warning signs up to now and find themselves surprised at having to suddenly make this decision, it hardly bodes well for the idea that there will be a more considered, principled process this time.

Trying to stay positive here, sully.

 

[arthurka]

Who knows but that shouldn´t stop us trying.

 

[ConteIsLife]

Yes, Conte will demand his own coaching staff and come into the club like a wrecking ball determined to win the PL title.

 

[Steve 007]

I really can’t see the negativity around Conte. He’s a walking success. He left inter as they wanted to sell all the best players.

reasons for Conte:
1. He recently won the PL and broke win records along the way, this was against Klopp and Pep
Who are considered the best there is at present.
2. He broke Juventus stronghold on the Serie A.
3. He doesn’t put up with nonsense from the board.

 

[hobbers]

This stalling for time the board are doing, I hope it doesn't result in us lurching from Conte to Brenton. That'd really take the cake.

Yes, Conte will demand his own coaching staff and come into the club like a wrecking ball determined to win the PL title.

Good. Ours are naff.

 

[Bebestation]

All we need to do is simple.

Stop giving long contracts.

We do this to players and managers.

Give managers a 2 year contract.

If they win something or feel like they deserve their third year then give it.

Our football players can play shit and get 4-6 year contracts getting payed world class wages.

We have problems with contracts.

If a player or a manager is successful- then that is when you tie them down to a longer contract, not before the success has been shown.

 

[sullydnl]

I really can’t see the negativity around Conte. He’s a walking success. He left inter as they wanted to sell all the best players.

reasons for Conte:
1. He recently won the PL and broke win records along the way, this was against Klopp and Pep
Who are considered the best there is at present.
2. He broke Juventus stronghold on the Serie A.
3. He doesn’t put up with nonsense from the board.

This isn't really a thread about specific managers per se but using Conte as an example, let's say all the above are true.

Does he fit in with what Murtough said in the OP about all levels of the club having a thread of "fast, fluid attacking football" running through them? And if not should he (or any other manager who doesn't fit) be an option? Because if the idea is to have an overaching identity or idea of how you want all levels of the club to play in place that goes beyond the manager, the manager has to fit into that identity. Unless you think that identity doesn't or shouldn't exist, of course.

As a side note, I also wonder why "not putting up with any shit from the board" is framed as a positive. Because the only winner in conflict between the manager and the board will be the board. So in effect that means "more likely to fall out with the board and lose his job".

 

[led_scholes]

I really can’t see the negativity around Conte. He’s a walking success. He left inter as they wanted to sell all the best players.

reasons for Conte:
1. He recently won the PL and broke win records along the way, this was against Klopp and Pep
Who are considered the best there is at present.
2. He broke Juventus stronghold on the Serie A.
3. He doesn’t put up with nonsense from the board.

It was pep first year and kloop took over an awful Liverpool with the likes of Mignolet, Skrtl and Co. Different time then. The main con for me though it's his failure in Europe.

 

[Offside]

Maybe, maybe not. These things are trial and error until you get it right. Even once you do it could then go wrong.

 

[Daengophile]

Well......

We had Moyes who was too lost

LVG who was too theoretical

Mourinho who was too narcissistic

And Ole who was too inexperienced

So it necessarily follows that these 4 traits are absent from the successor!

 

[ToToMarshall]

Conte screams Mourinho pt. II to me. He might bring some success but he’ll also eventually fall out with the board, probably a handful of senior first-teamers, eventually get himself sacked/resign and then set fire to the place on the way out.

He also has a dreadful record in Europe, but I’m not sure that’s that important, I can’t see is being a big player in Europe for the next year or three anyway. One flaw that does concern me is his dreadful track record for getting youth players involved in the first team.

Another United-specific issue I see is that he’d need to sign a lot of players to get us playing a way he’d want, but I’d be concerned that they wouldn’t be players that the guy who follows Conte would want. Unless of course we plan on replacing Conte with another guy who plays a back-five and likes playing old men.

I don’t actually mind his style of play, it’s pretty direct and gets goals even if it’s not as pretty as Pep. I do however think he generally goes against what Murtough is saying here.

For example, just a few weeks ago Murtough said:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

If that's true, then our new appointment as manager would need to fit into that vision and be hired on the basis of how well he fits into the club's overarching idea of football. Which would mean less disruption upon arrival, less turnover and less need for a rebuild, as we would have hired a manager who best suits the "fast, fluid, attacking" squad we've built.

If we hire Conte now he’s gone by 2024 and we’re then looking for yet another manager and probably doing another 180 spin in style and approach and having to gut the squad or asking a man to do a job with tools unsuitable for the job, but that would be par for the course for the last 8 years.

Moyes: defensive, pragmatic, non-expansive and unimaginative, recommended by Fergie
Van Gaal: rigid and tied to his philosophy to the point of football suicide, authoritarian, wanted to implement a style and culture that would have required time and resources the club were unwilling to give him
Mourinho: serial winner, serially sacked for falling out with everybody, dreadful style of play, favours older players, stubborn
Solskjær: inexperienced, only PL experience was getting relegated at Cardiff, United through and through, not tied to a style or system, gets on well with players and the board

How much sense does replacing that with Conté and then having to replace him with someone nothing like Conté make?

 

[R.N7]

Conte would be the first top class manager in his prime to take the job.

 

[Conor]

Absolutely not.

 

[manichester]

it won't matter in 2 to 3 years we will be in the same position. There has to be changes right at the top.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I'll go with No. 3 mediocre appointments and 1 disastrous one doesn't full me with any confidence for the next one. More likely that out of the managers we are linked with, the ones that we don't don't for go to better things and the one who we do hire struggles. Our track record is pretty shit at this stage. Can see us continuing to be a top 4 club for a few more years.

 

[Dante]

Only if the next move is knee jerk.

If keeping Ole for another 4 weeks allows us to sound out the best man for the job, then that's what we need to do. But if we sack immediately with no plan in place, we'll be fecked again.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Well......

We had Moyes who was too lost

LVG who was too theoretical

Mourinho who was too narcissistic

And Ole who was too inexperienced

So it necessarily follows that these 4 traits are absent from the successor!

That's far too simplistic imo. The problem with LVG and Mourinho was that they were well past their best. Conte may have similarities to Mourinho but also has his differences and more importantly is one of the best coaches right now. There's a difference between hiring young Jose and old Jose for example.

 

[macheda14]

If we hire Conte now he’s gone by 2024 and we’re then looking for yet another manager and probably doing another 180 spin in style and approach and having to gut the squad or asking a man to do a job with tools unsuitable for the job, but that would be par for the course for the last 8 years.

Chelsea have shown that this is not the case. They have gone from different manager to different manager. Tuchel ostensibly took over Sarri and Lampard's squads. And voila it's working pretty much straight away. The difference is they have had a squad packed full of quality. We now have a very good squad. A very good manager can take over and get players coached and singing to his tune regardless of the philosophy of the manager before, if the players themselves are very good.

 

[Kostov]

It won't be any different to the last four.

 

[R'hllor]

Looking at few threads, biggest CAF nightmare would be hiring a hipster, dunno how some would be able to take it.

 

[Rash Decision]

Well......

We had Moyes who was too lost

LVG who was too theoretical

Mourinho who was too narcissistic

And Ole who was too inexperienced

So it necessarily follows that these 4 traits are absent from the successor!

Both Moyes and Ole were/are too lost. So I’d say we’re already in the second cycle and the next manager will be too theoretical!

 

[ToToMarshall]

Chelsea have shown that this is not the case. They have gone from different manager to different manager. Tuchel ostensibly took over Sarri and Lampard's squads. And voila it's working pretty much straight away. The difference is they have had a squad packed full of quality. We now have a very good squad. A very good manager can take over and get players coached and singing to his tune regardless of the philosophy of the manager before, if the players themselves are very good.

Chelsea also consistently spend enough on players good enough that it makes the transition from manager to manager more seamless. And (thanks to Lampard and the one summer they spent nothing due to the ban) they’ve finally started to utilise their fantastic academy and the crop of wonderful talents it has churned out recently.

Chelsea aren’t an example that disproves what I said because I don’t trust us to spend as much or as well as Chelsea do.

 

[Will Singh]

If a top managers available who will win trophies but only stays 3 seasons so what? What’s the love with getting a long term manager?
If we’ve got a DOF who has things in place then it shouldn’t matter as it’s becomes a journey and not a rebuild each time a manager leaves!

 

[OleBoiii]

Like I said in another thread, there are only 2 things we haven't tried:

1. World Class manager still in their prime
Only Klopp and Pep fit this description. I don't buy into the Tuchel hype yet. Had he not won the CL last season, then no one would even consider to compare him to Pep and Klopp. Di Matteo also won the CL, with a significantly worse Chelsea team too.

2. Young and up-and-coming manager
Often referred to as "hipster managers". These managers are typically in the early stages of their career but have nonetheless had incredibly quick progress. They haven't necessarily won anything, but they have gone above expectations with a smaller team in one of the top leagues, typically while playing beautiful football. The problem with these managers is pretty obvious: over-performing with underdogs is not the same as managing a team of superstars and being expected to win big things. For every Klopp and Tuchel there are countless managers who just disappear after a short period of hype. A part of the reason is that there's not really a lot of data on these managers, since they are still fairly young. More often than not it doesn't work out.

Option 1 is out of the question, so that leaves Option 2.

Conte strikes me as another Mourinho. I don't see him besting all of Klopp, Pep and Tuchel. As for Zidane, we don't have a lot of data on him. We know that he had an absolutely insane team and did wonders with that. But it's not really comparable to our situation. I guess Ten Haag sort of falls into Option 2, although he's not exactly young

 

[OmarUnited4ever]

So, do you actually believe things might be different this time for the above reasons? Might we actually have a plan or structure in place on the football side of the club that means we'll ultimately make a better decision this time? Or will this be exactly as it was with the last four appointments, an erratic decision made by people who don't know what they're doing?

To answer your question, and assuming the Glazers do not interfere with the football structure that is in place now, then yes, there is a hope that the next appointment decision will be made according to what best fits the squad and the club's vision,

 

[Devil may care]

This isn't really a thread about specific managers per se but using Conte as an example, let's say all the above are true.

Does he fit in with what Murtough said in the OP about all levels of the club having a thread of "fast, fluid attacking football" running through them? And if not should he (or any other manager who doesn't fit) be an option? Because if the idea is to have an overaching identity or idea of how you want all levels of the club to play in place that goes beyond the manager, the manager has to fit into that identity. Unless you think that identity doesn't or shouldn't exist, of course.

As a side note, I also wonder why "not putting up with any shit from the board" is framed as a positive. Because the only winner in conflict between the manager and the board will be the board. So in effect that means "more likely to fall out with the board and lose his job".

Spot on mate, for too long we've jumped from manager to manager with no structure in place, Carragher mentioned on Sunday how Liverpool can switch out a few players and the level is maintained because from top to bottom the club has a playing identity everyone is drilled in, and this is the same in many other clubs, it's why they czn change managers easier as the machine is well oiled, fully tuned and ready to go, they just need a driver that suits the vehicle.

The fact we haven't jumped straight on Conte dsspute him, and a fair number of our fanbase, gagging for him to have the job, gives me hope that we are taking a more measured approach, looking for a manager that can compete but won't create a war with the board and who will actually have us playing exciting, stylish football like City and Liverpool.

 

[JebelSherif]

The problem is, I'm not sure I believe any of that. I'm not convinced on how much influence our DOF or technical director would have on our next appointment, I'm not convinced the supposed cultural reboot extends beyond our current manager or was more than a buzzphrase to support him, I'm not convinced our board aren't going to make another panicked choice akin to throwing a dart at a board and hoping it lands somewhere good.

DOF, technical director or whomever, when an old Scottish guy turns up at the training ground, or at matches, who is considered the most powerful?

That is the problem Man Utd. needs to address. They must break with the past.

Some ask if the club has the balls to sack a club legend (as in Ole) but has any club ever sacked an Ambassador before!? Obviously, that isn't going to happen - but you get my point - much of the problems at Manchester United go back to his decisions starting two decades ago (leading to the the Glazers takeover) and immediately following his resignation (David Moyes) and even to quite recently (phoning Ronaldo to get him to re-join) yet because of a golden 20 years, he seems untouchable. But what if decisions made during those 20 years (and afterwards) you end up like Liverpool - 30 years of the odd cup success whilst struggling to win the league once more, should you be held in quite such high regard? I read something bizarre recently (twitter) & I would love for it to be confirmed or debunked: it was that Ole Gunnar Solskjær doesn't park his car in the managers slot, he leaves it free for Sir Alex. This type of thinking can't go on.

Finally, if Utd. do one thing soon i.e. before the City game, it should be this: get some Glaziers in (that's Glaziers not Glazers) to put privacy glass into the Directors box. Sky TV (or whoever is filming) just loves to find SAF shaking his head as it all goes wrong (pretty hypocritical actually, when you think about it*) and it just makes the club look bad.

The daft thing is older fans know that Man Utd. have been down this road once before, in the early 1970s.

*If people disagree and don't think anything that happened on Sunday has anything to do with Sir Alex Ferguson, then why did he go to the training ground yesterday to show support for his ex-striker?

 

[macheda14]

Chelsea also consistently spend enough on players good enough that it makes the transition from manager to manager more seamless. And (thanks to Lampard and the one summer they spent nothing due to the ban) they’ve finally started to utilise their fantastic academy and the crop of wonderful talents it has churned out recently.

Chelsea aren’t an example that disproves what I said because I don’t trust us to spend as much or as well as Chelsea do.

We spend around 70-100 million pretty much every summer. We also have a crop of wonderful talent. We have just spent poorly over the last however many years.

 

[Orestetes]

The problem is, I'm not sure I believe any of that. I'm not convinced on how much influence our DOF or technical director would have on our next appointment, I'm not convinced the supposed cultural reboot extends beyond our current manager or was more than a buzzphrase to support him, I'm not convinced our board aren't going to make another panicked choice akin to throwing a dart at a board and hoping it lands somewhere good.

I'm not sure our DOF and technical director are any good in the first place. What have they exactly done or proven to be of any merit? If they weren't prepared to replace Ole (it was obvious Ole wasn't good enough for a long time), then I don't think they're the right people to guide United back to the top.

 

[snk123]

Moyes and Ole weren't qualified. Mourinho and LVG weren't good fits, the former because of his cowardly style (that he happened to be washed up was hard to predict), the latter because he's never managed in the PL and didn't have a good academy crop and transfer department behind him. It's no coincidence that the 2 qualified managers did win trophies however.

Free flowing attacking football just screams ETH in the summer...

This part is interesting. At the end of the day, they were still good enough to win us trophies. We saw Ole fail to do last season simply because he wasn't good enough whereas Mourinho had a tactical masterclass against Ajax in the final and it seemed like men against boys.

Out of all our managers, LVG had the right philosophy but he didn't have the right personnel to implement that. He had Jones and Smalling ffs as defenders and while Blind did a good enough job there, there was always something missing in midfield. We moved the ball extremely slowly and could not open teams to create chances.

We can not appoint average coaches from now on and expect one of them to take the step up and be the next SAF - that bit is clear.