A team with a need for a re-build.
They may well be looking at some of the same players we are, which is never good for us as usually they just throw more money at the club, player, agent.
But who's going to go to Utd? and why wold they chose them over a club like Spurs or Wolves or anyone else for that matter.
6th place finish - 33 points behind Man City and they couldnt even catch a Spurs team that lost 7 out of their last 12 games, picking up 12 points in 12 games (worse form than fulham in the last third of the season). They finished below Arsenal No chance in the title for at least 2 seasons.
No Champions League - and its nothing like certain that they can get top 4 next season, so deep are the issues at the club and the need for rebuild.
Player departures - linked to the above, some of their players belong at the highest level, not as also-rans, and are looking for the exit. DDG and Pogba are probably their best players. Both want gone.
Poor quality squad - The squad is carrying a lot of average players. Even the better ones like Martial, Rashford, Sanchez are so hit and miss.
Rookie manager - All was rosy after his undefeated start but since then all the old issues have re-emerged. Seemingly an unmotivated uncommitted group of players. "This is United, you must give 100% in the famous shirt" can only be shouted at the players so many times before it has no meaning. Teams have also had time to figure out Ole. His tactics and a happy squad = results, but since then the new manager bounce has worn off and better managers in the league have and will outsmart Ole
Whoever you blame for the debacle, they are on the back foot. Players have been mugging off the club. Selling clubs see them as a cash cow and so demand huge fees, players/agents similar. They lost $50m in 2018 and its unlikley their finances will be any better shape this season after no trophies and their worst league finish in years . Do they even have the resources and appetite to spend the probable £200m needed to rebuild?
Modern teams play a much different style than we have seen from Utd recently. Far more high energy, progressive football. Sit and counter attack is the reserve of the teams that are on the back foot, with limited ability.
If i were United I would be looking to do what Spurs have done, albeit with more money which can mean quicker progress (so may be a bit more like Liverpool) - this has relied on a more youthful energetic squad, time allowed to develop as players, as a team and the manager too, building that unity as a squad. Takes time. Will the powers at be see this or just go for a load more headline grabbing signings hoping for instant results. Will the fans tolerate steady progress?
Watershed moment for the club right now. Get it right, get the right sort of players and you set the club up for years to come. Wrong and it will become ever harder and more expensive to get back to the top and could be an extended period in the wilderness.
What kinda player will Man Utd go for?
posted on 17/5/19
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 17/5/19
By the way.....some caretaker managers who have initially done well, got the job before failing soon after:
Mike Phelan at Hull
Craig Shakespear at Leicester
Di Matteo at Chelsea
Darren Moore at WBA
Stuart Gray - Southampton
Gary Monk at Swansea.
I am really struggling to think of a manager who has been appointed on a caretaker or interim basis, been successful, got the job permanently and been a lasting success.
posted on 17/5/19
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 41 minutes ago
By the way.....some caretaker managers who have initially done well, got the job before failing soon after:
Mike Phelan at Hull
Craig Shakespear at Leicester
Di Matteo at Chelsea
Darren Moore at WBA
Stuart Gray - Southampton
Gary Monk at Swansea.
I am really struggling to think of a manager who has been appointed on a caretaker or interim basis, been successful, got the job permanently and been a lasting success.
-----------------------
What do you/can you define as a lasting success in a league where managers tend to last less than 1.5 years?
posted on 17/5/19
Sorry, that should say 1.05 years.
posted on 17/5/19
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 44 seconds ago
Sorry, that should say 1.05 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
something that exceeds the average. Of the managers listed above i think only Monk exceeded 1 year in the permanent role all the rest were pretty much sacked before Christmas, which isnt the case for a lot of new managers.
posted on 17/5/19
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 56 minutes ago
By the way.....some caretaker managers who have initially done well, got the job before failing soon after:
Mike Phelan at Hull
Craig Shakespear at Leicester
Di Matteo at Chelsea
Darren Moore at WBA
Stuart Gray - Southampton
Gary Monk at Swansea.
I am really struggling to think of a manager who has been appointed on a caretaker or interim basis, been successful, got the job permanently and been a lasting success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, the only thing that matters is whether the manager is good enough. A caretaker manager is just a manager and either good enough or not. If he's not good enough, it's not because he magically lost qualities when he was appointed caretaker boss. It's because he wasn't good enough in the first place.
A common thread with a lot of caretakers is that many were already working within the coaching staff at the club. They were familiar with the club and players (an advantage) but probably junior and inexperienced in a senior role (a risk). Solskjaer is a bit different from these, in that he came from a head coach role, and had been occasionally put forward as a candidate for the United job (albeit in a blue skies thinking kind of way). I think it was always on the table that this was a temporary appointment that could turn into a full-time one.
posted on 17/5/19
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 44 seconds ago
Sorry, that should say 1.05 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
something that exceeds the average. Of the managers listed above i think only Monk exceeded 1 year in the permanent role all the rest were pretty much sacked before Christmas, which isnt the case for a lot of new managers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Monk had his star striker sold and replaced with a nobody.
posted on 17/5/19
Slightly different of course, but Martin Jol was Jacques Santinis assistant with Arnesan as DOF. When santini was sacked, we promoted Jol and as we know he was a success. But as others have said interims rarely make that leap and be successful long term.
They are usually always associated with the club at hand and hence why there is logic in being appointed on an interim basis to plug any holes in an emergency.
At spurs have been on the receiving end of a uplifted poor team with a poor new manager in their first game
posted on 17/5/19
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 hours, 34 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 56 minutes ago
By the way.....some caretaker managers who have initially done well, got the job before failing soon after:
Mike Phelan at Hull
Craig Shakespear at Leicester
Di Matteo at Chelsea
Darren Moore at WBA
Stuart Gray - Southampton
Gary Monk at Swansea.
I am really struggling to think of a manager who has been appointed on a caretaker or interim basis, been successful, got the job permanently and been a lasting success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, the only thing that matters is whether the manager is good enough. A caretaker manager is just a manager and either good enough or not. If he's not good enough, it's not because he magically lost qualities when he was appointed caretaker boss. It's because he wasn't good enough in the first place.
A common thread with a lot of caretakers is that many were already working within the coaching staff at the club. They were familiar with the club and players (an advantage) but probably junior and inexperienced in a senior role (a risk). Solskjaer is a bit different from these, in that he came from a head coach role, and had been occasionally put forward as a candidate for the United job (albeit in a blue skies thinking kind of way). I think it was always on the table that this was a temporary appointment that could turn into a full-time one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets face it, if they sacked Jose in the summer would OGS be on the short list?
No, his experience would not deem him "good enough"
He's come in, lifted the place, but by the end United were playing at the same poor levels they were under Jose this season.
Time will tell if he's good enough but there is very little to support a case that he is, nothing in his experience and his time at Utd has been 50% good 50% bad.
I feel that the club is looking backwards too much. SAF did not leave that long ago but football has changed a lot even in that time and the likes of Pep, Klopp, Poch & others have moved it forward, with others at Wolves and Everton also playing a modern brand of football.
United seem to be focussing on what it was like under Fergie, tryng to recreate it with players involved in those days. IMO it matters little, if the players or coach aint good enough then it doesnt matter if they were a Utd hero of yester-year....Hughes, Bruce, Scholes, Neville, Giggs...successful coaches?
Look at City, built a dynasty without the whole glorious backstory to inspire them. No substitute for quality! Is Ole quality, he only got the gig because of his history at the club, fact!
posted on 17/5/19
First and foremost stop signing the high profile names that are commercial successes but footballing flops and bring the players that want to play football.
I'm sure there are many EL footballers that could earn 1/4 of what Pogba/Sanchez/De Gea are earning and could put a hell of a lot more effort in and would want to play for the club.