Would you sack or keep Ole? (Poll added)

Sack or Keep OLE?


  • Total voters
    1,297
  • Poll closed .

RedDevilUnited369

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
722
Can people please stop with this "we're 5th" excuse. We've picked up 34 points from 23 games, the same as Wolves and 1 point more than Premier League newcomers Sheffield United.
And where are Spurs and Arsenal? Chelsea only 5 points ahead of us.

If we have no clue nor do half the “OG” top 6.

Which leads me to believe we’re not as bad as we could be in a rebuild season where we’re suffering with major injuries.

Arsenal have no major injuries. Spurs only just lost Kane. Chelsea lost Kante for a month at the beginning of the season. No major injuries at Liverpool or Leicester and City season has been affected by injuries.

Why we trying to dismiss the fact we have suffered more injuries and are still battling in 5th with an inexperienced side?
 

Bilbo

Full Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
9,547
Can people please stop with this "we're 5th" excuse. We've picked up 34 points from 23 games, the same as Wolves and 1 point more than Premier League newcomers Sheffield United.
Its a tough league to get consistent results in. Everybody is struggling with that apart from one team. You know this as well as anyone else does.
 

Alabaster Codify7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
5,952
Location
Wales
Can people please stop with this "we're 5th" excuse. We've picked up 34 points from 23 games, the same as Wolves and 1 point more than Premier League newcomers Sheffield United.

Yep, our points return so far has been absolutely shocking. I can see a torrid few weeks coming up,here - we'll be close to 10th by March.
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
24,079
Players got injured. Fire the manager. That what big clubs do or something
The player in question has been ran into the ground lately. A home FA cup tie and by all accounts he was carrying a knock with also big game on Sunday coming up. You bring him on, he gets another knock and you STILL keep him on the pitch to aggravate the injury.

Brilliant management.
 

b82REZ

Full Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
5,123
Location
Manchester
Players got injured. Fire the manager. That what big clubs do or something
You know full well what the implication was so stop with the woe is me everyone is picking on Solksjaer. By Ole's own admission he knew Rashford was carrying a knock and still put him on against Wolves, similarly to how he played Pogba too early. The manager can claim the lads wanted to play but it's his job to, you know, manage these lads and tell them no, due to concerns over fitness.

Surely even Solksjaer's staunchest defenders have to accept his complete mismanagement of the squad and the lack of rotation because of it
 

e.cantona

Full Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,906
You know full well what the implication was so stop with the woe is me everyone is picking on Solksjaer. By Ole's own admission he knew Rashford was carrying a knock and still put him on against Wolves, similarly to how he played Pogba too early. The manager can claim the lads wanted to play but it's his job to, you know, manage these lads and tell them no, due to concerns over fitness.

Surely even Solksjaer's staunchest defenders have to accept his complete mismanagement of the squad and the lack of rotation because of it
I assume Ole got someone advising him on medical issues conserning the players. Do we know for sure this or these experts didn't say no problem, play him. Why would Ole go against the opposite advise?
 

fergiesarmy1

New Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
3,597
The player in question has been ran into the ground lately. A home FA cup tie and by all accounts he was carrying a knock with also big game on Sunday coming up. You bring him on, he gets another knock and you STILL keep him on the pitch to aggravate the injury.

Brilliant management.
Yet quite a few fans moaned when he took him off after he scored 2 against Norwich.
 

b82REZ

Full Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
5,123
Location
Manchester
I assume Ole got someone advising him on medical issues conserning the players. Do we know for sure this or these experts didn't say no problem, play him. Why would Ole go against the opposite advise?
We don't know anything for sure except that over the past 10 years our injuries are getting worse, which would suggest a poor medical department. Secondly we can only have what the manager says, and when he comes out with lines like "he wanted to play" it starts to sound a little like the lunatics running the asylum.

Both aforementioned players really had no reason to be involved in the matches that lead to their eventual injury and that comes down to management.
 

JG3001

Full Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2016
Messages
628
Being in charge of a Cardiff side which were looking at back to back relegations should be more than enough justification.

He isn’t the main problem, but he’s far from the solution.
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
24,079
I assume Ole got someone advising him on medical issues conserning the players. Do we know for sure this or these experts didn't say no problem, play him. Why would Ole go against the opposite advise?
Because when you are facing the sack you tend to do selfish things?


Yet quite a few fans moaned when he took him off after he scored 2 against Norwich.
How is that relevant that an average Joe on the internet complained about something ?
 

e.cantona

Full Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,906
We don't know anything for sure except that over the past 10 years our injuries are getting worse, which would suggest a poor medical department. Secondly we can only have what the manager says, and when he comes out with lines like "he wanted to play" it starts to sound a little like the lunatics running the asylum.

Both aforementioned players really had no reason to be involved in the matches that lead to their eventual injury and that comes down to management.
But we don't know, right? Why conclude either way. Maybe doctor say no problem, player say no problem, Ole say we need to manage squad and rest players before important games.
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
24,079
He's facing the sack? If he is, do we know for sure he did the selfish thing and played Rashford to avoid sacking?
Well he's second favorite in the sack race currently.

Solskjaer on Rashford: "I didn't want to play him. He got a knock to his knee and his back. He has been struggling for a little while. That's why we kept him away. But we needed the win. It backfired. We will do anything we can to get him fit for Sunday."
I'm saying he could do many things to save his job, playing his best player recently despite knowing full well he's carrying an injury is one of them.
 

SteveW

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
6,672
You know full well what the implication was so stop with the woe is me everyone is picking on Solksjaer. By Ole's own admission he knew Rashford was carrying a knock and still put him on against Wolves, similarly to how he played Pogba too early. The manager can claim the lads wanted to play but it's his job to, you know, manage these lads and tell them no, due to concerns over fitness.

Surely even Solksjaer's staunchest defenders have to accept his complete mismanagement of the squad and the lack of rotation because of it
This is stupid. The medical staff deemed him fit enough to play. He'd been playing with the injury. If he wasn't fit enough to play he wouldn't have been in the squad. It's down to the medical staff to make those calls.

We were playing Wolves 4 days before playing a rested Liverpool at Anfield. If the game had gone to extra time and we played 120 minutes 4 days before Liverpool with Rashford sat on the bench the caf would have gone into a fecking meltdown. Unfortunately he took a heavy blow and got a worse injury. It happens.
 

e.cantona

Full Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,906
Well he's second favorite in the sack race currently.



I'm saying he could do many things to save his job, playing his best player recently despite knowing full well he's carrying an injury is one of them.
I don't know how that would affect his decisions. You're speculating. Again, maybe doctor say ok, player say ok, Ole say...
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
24,079
This is stupid. The medical staff deemed him fit enough to play. He'd been playing with the injury. If he wasn't fit enough to play he wouldn't have been in the squad. It's down to the medical staff to make those calls.

We were playing Wolves 4 days before playing a rested Liverpool at Anfield. If the game had gone to extra time and we played 120 minutes 4 days before Liverpool with Rashford sat on the bench the caf would have gone into a fecking meltdown. Unfortunately he took a heavy blow and got a worse injury. It happens.
He was fit to play for about 5 mins.

You will go to whatever length to defend Ole, and seems like many on this board are more his fan rather than United fan.

What's the excuse of not taking him off straight away since he knew he was carrying a knock?
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
24,079
I don't know how that would affect his decisions. You're speculating. Again, maybe doctor say ok, player say ok, Ole say...
It's not an isolated case. He rushed Pogba, Lingard(by his own admission), McTom and overplayed Rashford and again subbed him on, whilst knowing full well he was carrying a knock.

There is a clear pattern of mismanagement of all those players and if the pressure is not affecting his decision then why he is rushing players into games?
 

e.cantona

Full Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,906
It's not an isolated case. He rushed Pogba, Lingard(by his own admission), McTom and overplayed Rashford and again subbed him on, whilst knowing full well he was carrying a knock.

There is a clear pattern of mismanagement of all those players and if the pressure is not affecting his decision then why he is rushing players into games?
I can't say if Ole's at fault, or not, in any of the cases where a player gets injuried. I assume he has medical expertice in his team. What's the Lingard story?
 

b82REZ

Full Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
5,123
Location
Manchester
This is stupid. The medical staff deemed him fit enough to play. He'd been playing with the injury. If he wasn't fit enough to play he wouldn't have been in the squad. It's down to the medical staff to make those calls.

We were playing Wolves 4 days before playing a rested Liverpool at Anfield. If the game had gone to extra time and we played 120 minutes 4 days before Liverpool with Rashford sat on the bench the caf would have gone into a fecking meltdown. Unfortunately he took a heavy blow and got a worse injury. It happens.
The medical staff cant have cleared him as he started on the bench and Ole admitted himself it was a risk that backfired as Rashford had been carrying a knock. Or are we just ignoring this as it highlights the managers fault?

You love a strawman argument. No one expressed dissaffication with Rashford not starting against Wolves and the consensus was it was an excellent time to rest him, so no the Caf would not have gone made if we'd been knocked out.

The lengths at which you go to absolve blame on Solksjaer would make a make a contortionist look stiff.
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
24,079
I can't say if Ole's at fault, or not, in any of the cases where a player gets injuried. I assume he has medical expertice in his team. What's the Lingard story?
So why should we always shift the blame outside Ole, when he's the one deciding who gets in the team and also is fully aware of players carrying knocks? Or the medical guy tells him play player A tomorrow?

As for Lingard - same - he said in an interview that he rushed him after an injury.
 

SteveW

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
6,672
The medical staff cant have cleared him as he started on the bench and Ole admitted himself it was a risk that backfired as Rashford had been carrying a knock. Or are we just ignoring this as it highlights the managers fault?

You love a strawman argument. No one expressed dissaffication with Rashford not starting against Wolves and the consensus was it was an excellent time to rest him, so no the Caf would not have gone made if we'd been knocked out.

The lengths at which you go to absolve blame on Solksjaer would make a make a contortionist look stiff.
Try reading my post again. The caf would have gone mad if we played 120 minutes against Wolves 4 days before Liverpool without at least trying to bring on an attacker to win the game. The last thing anyone wanted was extra time. So we brought on the one striker we had on the bench to try and win it. As I said if he was declared fit to be on the bench that meant he was considered fit enough to play some part.

It just didn't work out. He took a challenge and got hurt. If it didn't happen against wolves it would have likely happened in one of the next few games.
 

sunama

Baghdad Bob
Joined
Apr 26, 2014
Messages
14,837
I've read many excuses for Ole failing and this is the latest one.

And where are Spurs and Arsenal? Chelsea only 5 points ahead of us.

If we have no clue nor do half the “OG” top 6.

Which leads me to believe we’re not as bad as we could be in a rebuild season where we’re suffering with major injuries.
By your reasoning, if CFC and AFC go mid table, while we fall into the relegation zone, we should accept this, because our old rivals are also not doing so well.
On a related note, we just lost to LFC btw (2-0) and many fans in that thread are quite accepting of this. We apparently did well in that match.

It baffles me how fans are accepting such low standards. 2 years ago we finished 2nd and now 5th place is acceptable? Wolves and Sheff Utd are within 1 point of us.
I get that Woodward and Ole want to lower our standards. Woodward wants to spend less money and make us a 4th place team (which I think we are, bar the Jose season), while Ole wants to save his job and make it "ok" to finish 5th-8th.
 

fergiesarmy1

New Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
3,597
Considering the free ride he's on in terms of results since March, he has one of the easiest jobs in the world right now.
He’s made some tough choices with squad, mostly correct even though there was a good chance it would bite him in the arse which it obviously has.
 

sunama

Baghdad Bob
Joined
Apr 26, 2014
Messages
14,837
Considering the free ride he's on in terms of results since March, he has one of the easiest jobs in the world right now.
Indeed.
This is season is our worst start to an EPL season, ever! It's a negative record that is continuing and nobody is calling Ole out on it.
Even during interviews, nobody is asking how he validates the worst run of results MUFC have ever had in a EPL season. And this includes the ill-fated Moyes season.
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
24,079
He’s made some tough choices with squad, mostly correct even though there was a good chance it would bite him in the arse which it obviously has.
those two don't go along together. If there was a good chance that would bite him in the arse and it did then obviously they weren't the correct choices.

Indeed.
This is season is our worst start to an EPL season, ever! It's a negative record that is continuing and nobody is calling Ole out on it.
Even during interviews, nobody is asking how he validates the worst run of results MUFC have ever had in a EPL season. And this includes the ill-fated Moyes season.
Having a free ride from half of the fanbase too. His job is easier than Woodwards, which says it all. Absolutely no pressure to use United as his training ground.
 

Zhagzi

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 20, 2019
Messages
15
Well he's second favorite in the sack race currently.



I'm saying he could do many things to save his job, playing his best player recently despite knowing full well he's carrying an injury is one of them.
Actually, putting Rashford in gave us the victory. He pushed toward receiving the ball from Maguire and had Dendoncker with him - his presence made Wolves need to push Dendoncker up on Rashy as he's dangerous once he's turned around. The ball kept going and Martial took it with him. So it did NOT backfire. Rashford was essential in the build-up to that goal. Anyone thinking "it could have been anyone but Rashy" don't understand how some defenders will change their approach depending on their direct opponent.
 

e.cantona

Full Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,906
So why should we always shift the blame outside Ole, when he's the one deciding who gets in the team and also is fully aware of players carrying knocks? Or the medical guy tells him play player A tomorrow?

As for Lingard - same - he said in an interview that he rushed him after an injury.
What do you mean, always shift the blame outside Ole? If he's to blame then he's to blame, but without information, why conclude Ole must be the problem? Seems to me it's rather the opposite, Ole gets the the blame, by some, for everything going wrong. From what little we see, to me he hasn't done much wrong at all since appointment. Squad management, information from the club and money spent or not over the past 5-10 years, it'd be much easier to put blame above Ole.

I don't know the Lingard story. He said Ole rushed him back after an injury?
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
24,079
What do you mean, always shift the blame outside Ole? If he's to blame then he's to blame, but without information, why conclude Ole must be the problem? Seems to me it's rather the opposite, Ole gets the the blame, by some, for everything going wrong. From what little we see, to me he hasn't done much wrong at all since appointment. Squad management, information from the club and money spent or not over the past 5-10 years, it'd be much easier to put blame above Ole.

I don't know the Lingard story. He said Ole rushed him back after an injury?
Ole is the one who picks the starting line up and the one who should rest players and rotate the team. He's also the one that should build a team during the Summer window that is big enough to cope with injuries and have backups in every line, not just CB.

He's also the one that said there was risk in playing Rashford and it backfired - so he knew full well he could've ended injured(warned by the medical staff). It's not the medical staff that picks the team and clearly they have warned him that the injury might aggravate, coming from his comments.

As for Lingard:
Jesse Lingard claims to be “back to full fitness” and ready to step in for Manchester United after seeing an injury risk backfire prior to the international break.

The 26-year-old was among those to pick up a knock during an eventful Premier League meeting with Liverpool on February 24.

A hamstring problem kept him on the sidelines for three weeks heading into an FA Cup quarter-final clash with Wolves.

Lingard was called into action during that contest, in what was considered to be a calculated gamble, but subsequently sat out the start of Euro 2020 qualification with England.

He was then eased back into the United fold by Ole Gunnar Solskjaer off the bench in a 2-1 win over Watford on Saturday, but says he is now looking to claim a starting berth once more.

“I'm back to full fitness,” Lingard told MUTV ahead of a return to Molineux on Tuesday.

“I think obviously the break helped as I could get the hamstring stronger again to come back and play the rest of the games in the remainder of the season.

The Wolves tie was a risk. I’ve said that before but it was an FA Cup quarter-final and the manager put me in. It was still a risk and I needed that time out just to rest the hamstring and get it going again.”
 

humdinger

Full Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,703
Location
Scotland
He’s taken risks and some of them are paying off (Greenwood, Williams) while others have backfired (not buying midfielders or attackers, sanctioning huge spend on Maguire, playing important players when carrying injuries).

Ultimately he seems to keep making bad decisions which are hurting us. It seems he may not be sacked anytime soon, which is a shame as we might make top 4 with the right appointment, but I’m sure someone else will be in charge next season.
 

fergiesarmy1

New Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
3,597
those two don't go along together. If there was a good chance that would bite him in the arse and it did then obviously they weren't the correct choices.


Having a free ride from half of the fanbase too. His job is easier than Woodwards, which says it all. Absolutely no pressure to use United as his training ground.
You can make the correct choices that mean short term pain for long term gain pal.
 

b82REZ

Full Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
5,123
Location
Manchester
You can make the correct choices that mean short term pain for long term gain pal.
What has he sacrificed in the short term that will leave us in good stead in the future?

All this long term planning basically boils down to offloading Lukaku and Sanchez as far as I can tell, and it remains to be seen if that is to our long term benefit. We continue to struggle to score goals and have seemingly no real interest in a striker to plug the gap.
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
24,079
Actually, putting Rashford in gave us the victory. He pushed toward receiving the ball from Maguire and had Dendoncker with him - his presence made Wolves need to push Dendoncker up on Rashy as he's dangerous once he's turned around. The ball kept going and Martial took it with him. So it did NOT backfire. Rashford was essential in the build-up to that goal. Anyone thinking "it could have been anyone but Rashy" don't understand how some defenders will change their approach depending on their direct opponent.
It was Ole's words - not mine.

Come to think of it - losing your best player for months or a home win in the FA cup when you were on level matters before introducing him? I know what I'd take..
 

fergiesarmy1

New Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
3,597
What has he sacrificed in the short term that will leave us in good stead in the future?

All this long term planning basically boils down to offloading Lukaku and Sanchez as far as I can tell, and it remains to be seen if that is to our long term benefit. We continue to struggle to score goals and have seemingly no real interest in a striker to plug the gap.
Fellaini, now young (although I liked young as person he was finished as a player here) with more follow to hopefully over the next 6 months.

We did bid for and thought we were getting Haaland but wouldn’t agree to Riola’s demands in the end which again was in the clubs long term interest.
 

jamesjimmybyrondean

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
556
You can make the correct choices that mean short term pain for long term gain pal.
You actually think this rebuild is being done properly. What makes you thinks so? Because we've cleared deadwood? Or are promoting academy products? Or are signing the right fit Instilling the United culture?

Tell me, does it make sense to clear deadwood without replacements, to promote players coming straight from the academy and start relying on them as first and second choice, to wait for the right fit with the right fit being only one target without any alternatives - we were rinsed by Leceister because of this, we haven't even attempted to sign a striker when we lost out on Haaland. As soon as we lost Haaland who was deemed as the right fit there was no more news of signing a striker.

Is this how a rebuild is done??? If you don't think Ole is at least half responsible for all this then I can tell you he has confirmed his naivety several times in press conferences
 
Last edited: