EPTWould love to see United go for Conte but that's not going to happen this season, Ole definitely earned himself another season in charge.
Would be interesting to see what Conte can do but on the other hand he's not really a long term manager.
2020 - 2021 Football Thread - Page 145
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
Dante08
Singapore4131 Posts
Would love to see United go for Conte but that's not going to happen this season, Ole definitely earned himself another season in charge. Would be interesting to see what Conte can do but on the other hand he's not really a long term manager. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8741 Posts
On June 02 2021 12:16 Dante08 wrote: Ancelotti back to RM lol, imagine Poch going back to Spurs. Would love to see United go for Conte but that's not going to happen this season, Ole definitely earned himself another season in charge. Would be interesting to see what Conte can do but on the other hand he's not really a long term manager. why would you want to see united with conte? the playstyles dont really mesh together and if conte doesnt bring the results hed get booed out of our stadium like van gaal | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
DropBear
Australia4371 Posts
On June 02 2021 13:00 plasmidghost wrote: And we still have Arteta. The hope I didn't have before keeps dwindling You never know, Everton might buy him from you | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
On June 02 2021 12:18 evilfatsh1t wrote: why would you want to see united with conte? the playstyles dont really mesh together and if conte doesnt bring the results hed get booed out of our stadium like van gaal And what's wrong with changing playstyle? Wenger brought 'sexy football' to Arsenal. Mourinho added spine and stability to Chelsea's 'sexy football'. Klopp made subtle but significant tactical changes to Liverpool (e.g. high pressing). And for the most successful re-invention of the wheel in international football, look no further than Spain (tiki taka) and Germany (more possession play). And it's no coincidence that the countries struggling now are those insisting to play like their traditional roots Brazil (joga bonito) and Italy (catenaccio - but they're undergoing a gradual evolution now as well). Also, what is MU's playstyle anyway? As a football fan watching since the 90s, their playstyle is direct route one football - one of the most middle-ground and well-balanced playstyle. The needle doesn't need to move much even if there's a change of managerial direction. To compete in football, teams and players must evolve. Nostalgia breeds stagnancy, and unrealistic expectations. Fans wanting to win trophies, and to win using 'our way' is deluding themselves. That seems to be the Spurs way. Don't be like Spurs  | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28701 Posts
Redefining a team without a strong history or where the proud moments happened a long time ago is a lot easier than redefining a team with a proud, recent history. Rosenborg, my own team, had a legendary coach - Nils Arne Eggen, who made our team the best any Norwegian team has ever been. Gave us 13 league victories in a row and Champions League competition 8 seasons in a row - and he did it playing a Rinus Mitchel inspired total football. After he retired, 15 years ago, we've failed to recreate his success, but we've had some very good managers. The best one was probably Erik Hamren (ended up managing the Swedish National team following the success he had at Rosenborg), who focused on strict defensive organization, and under his lead, we won two out of two league victories, losing 1 game total during those two seasons. But people weren't excited about it, because he didn't play football the way Rosenborg supporters want us to play. Now, trophies are important, but they're only one part of the equation. If you're a team with a proud past but a mediocre present, then someone making you able to win trophies will be celebrated at first. But if they play defensively minded football in a club with expectations of brilliant attacking play, they won't get as many chances to succeed, and they'll be ousted at the first real sign of trouble. This is a big deal for a manager, because team building is a process that takes several seasons, dips in forms that create periods of bad performance can be expected from literally any team and any manager, and they need good-will to get through those predictably bad periods if they want to have a chance at building the team they want to build. This is why world class teams that need a new manager virtually always go with one or two options: a) an established world class manager or b) a former player who already has wide-ranging support from the supporters. When David Moyes followed Ferguson, United got neither, and it was a disaster. Mourinho had decent results, but conflicted in various other ways. Manchester United wants to play fast attacking football and they want the inclusion of young local players. If these two goals aren't achieved, a manager won't get the chances required to achieve success. Ferguson himself was famously incredibly close to being sacked one of his first seasons; if that had happened, nothing else of what followed would have. Now, I think Solskjær is a whole lot more football smart - especially in terms of attacking play - than what people have given him credit for, although it seems pundits have changed their mind about him. I don't think he's a Guardiola level genius, but his smartness was always his primary strength as a player. But him being the embodiment of the United philosophy - focusing on fast attacking play while being really good at developing young talent and giving them frequent chances - as well as a club legend, is what gave him the necessary time required to achieve the success he has achieved. While Mourinho had a season with slightly better results (got second place with some more points than Solskjær did, and didn't lose a penalty shootout in the EL final), United supporters haven't been as positive at any point of the post-Ferguson era as they are right now. The development has been really positive. Some type of stark detraction from what has made Solskjær succeed, right now, is pointless. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8741 Posts
| ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
Over the last decade, Barcelona has evolved a few different styles, without compromising their offensive approach. Pep was more into possession and tika-taka, whilst Enrique favoured a more direct style. Both still managed to win trophies and please the fans (most of them, at least). I present Exhibit A - Tuchel taking over Lampard. Despite some people doubting the move in this thread, I was quite vocal that Lampard just isn't good enough. Anyway, it's not my place to tell MU fans how to run or support their club. But there are lots of cautionary tales around. Small positive steps will slowly build into a decade-long drought. Ask Liverpool and Arsenal fans... | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28701 Posts
Also Arsenal's drought was an economically sensible slow decline into sacking their manager into a much more sudden decline. Liverpool during the PL era has not been a story of small positive steps forward. Prior to Klopp and with a partial exception for Benitez (whom at least had an identity, and who gave them one of their most amazing successes ever), it's been back and forth from season to season. Klopp also wasn't an immediate success in Liverpool - he was appointed manager in October 2015, but they ended 8th (down from 6th the season before). Both following seasons gave 4th place finishes. The fourth season was the one where he achieved success, with a 97 point second place coupled with CL victory. But if Liverpool had not been happy with a slow upward trajectory for the first three seasons, he wouldn't have gotten a fourth. As long as the development is positive, the trajectory points upwards and players and supporters are positive, sacking a manager is imo really dumb. Sacking a manager because they lost a penalty shootout likewise (even if you can definitely make the case that he should've used Henderson for the shootout). | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4131 Posts
On June 02 2021 12:18 evilfatsh1t wrote: why would you want to see united with conte? the playstyles dont really mesh together and if conte doesnt bring the results hed get booed out of our stadium like van gaal Cause he's an elite manager who can get results. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
On June 03 2021 02:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think Chelsea fans are one of the more pragmatic groups out there. And I'm not trying to paint stuff as black or white - but different managers - while they can also be pragmatically minded - prefer different approaches. Some are perfect fits for a club, others aren't. Also Arsenal's drought was an economically sensible slow decline into sacking their manager into a much more sudden decline. Liverpool during the PL era has not been a story of small positive steps forward. Prior to Klopp and with a partial exception for Benitez (whom at least had an identity, and who gave them one of their most amazing successes ever), it's been back and forth from season to season. Klopp also wasn't an immediate success in Liverpool - he was appointed manager in October 2015, but they ended 8th (down from 6th the season before). Both following seasons gave 4th place finishes. The fourth season was the one where he achieved success, with a 97 point second place coupled with CL victory. But if Liverpool had not been happy with a slow upward trajectory for the first three seasons, he wouldn't have gotten a fourth. As long as the development is positive, the trajectory points upwards and players and supporters are positive, sacking a manager is imo really dumb. Sacking a manager because they lost a penalty shootout likewise (even if you can definitely make the case that he should've used Henderson for the shootout). What you're saying is generally true - that some clubs stick to their core values representing their traditional home fans (Barca, Roma, maybe Rosenborg). But such clubs are the minority (or a dying breed in the age of modern football). And the idea of MU being such a club is quite laughable. Now, I speak as a football fan outside of UK. So whilst I may not know of the sentiments on the ground, I'm more attuned to the mindset of international fans (plastic fans, as some may denigrate). Majority of MU international fans are pragmatists. The only reason why they were drawn to MU was because MU was winning. When Liverpool and Arsenal was fumbling despite playing prettier football, they would laugh off "Only results matter dude." They don't give a shit about playstyle or tradition, so long as they're winning. During their winning ways in the 2000, was there any stream of English youngsters groomed from their academy? No, MU fans were happy with RVN and Ronaldo - MU at its capitalistic and cosmopolitan best. So the idea of MU fans differentiating themselves as traditionalists to Chelsea and M City being pragmatist is rather rich. I can understand Barca or Athelico Madrid fans feeling that way. But even their fans have gradually loosen up some of their traditional values (such as grooming first-team players from their academies). MU, in contrast, has always been about playing to win (at least since the 90s). MU is more akin to Real Madrid than Barca. Frankly, the only reason why they're suddenly crowing about tradition and playstyle is simply because they haven't been winning. Finding excuses of why this or that manager didn't work out. Deep inside, they would sooner have a Pep or Klopp coaching their club - and WINNING! - rather than having a Lampard or Ole on the wheel making 'incremental' positive steps. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
On June 03 2021 02:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: Klopp also wasn't an immediate success in Liverpool - he was appointed manager in October 2015, but they ended 8th (down from 6th the season before). Both following seasons gave 4th place finishes. The fourth season was the one where he achieved success, with a 97 point second place coupled with CL victory. But if Liverpool had not been happy with a slow upward trajectory for the first three seasons, he wouldn't have gotten a fourth. Surely it makes more sense to give more time to proven successful coaches (Klopp and Mourinho) than rookies (Lampard and Ole). Pep is one of rare first-timers who achieved success almost instantaneously at Barca. Had he not, he would've surely been shown the door quickly like Pirlo in Juve. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8741 Posts
On June 03 2021 11:32 RKC wrote: What you're saying is generally true - that some clubs stick to their core values representing their traditional home fans (Barca, Roma, maybe Rosenborg). But such clubs are the minority (or a dying breed in the age of modern football). And the idea of MU being such a club is quite laughable. Now, I speak as a football fan outside of UK. So whilst I may not know of the sentiments on the ground, I'm more attuned to the mindset of international fans (plastic fans, as some may denigrate). Majority of MU international fans are pragmatists. The only reason why they were drawn to MU was because MU was winning. When Liverpool and Arsenal was fumbling despite playing prettier football, they would laugh off "Only results matter dude." They don't give a shit about playstyle or tradition, so long as they're winning. During their winning ways in the 2000, was there any stream of English youngsters groomed from their academy? No, MU fans were happy with RVN and Ronaldo - MU at its capitalistic and cosmopolitan best. So the idea of MU fans differentiating themselves as traditionalists to Chelsea and M City being pragmatist is rather rich. I can understand Barca or Athelico Madrid fans feeling that way. But even their fans have gradually loosen up some of their traditional values (such as grooming first-team players from their academies). MU, in contrast, has always been about playing to win (at least since the 90s). MU is more akin to Real Madrid than Barca. Frankly, the only reason why they're suddenly crowing about tradition and playstyle is simply because they haven't been winning. Finding excuses of why this or that manager didn't work out. Deep inside, they would sooner have a Pep or Klopp coaching their club - and WINNING! - rather than having a Lampard or Ole on the wheel making 'incremental' positive steps. wtf are u talking about? are we talking about the same man united? i have no idea where you get the idea that the "majority of MU international fans are pragmatists". just sounds like a random ass pull. united have always played fast aggressive football. aggressive as in direct and risk taking. now football has evolved to favour more rotation in possession but even then theres a difference between oles team and van gaals teams in how they recycle and utilise possession. one was boring as fuck to watch. as for the youngsters comment, ummm have you never heard of the class of 92? literally an entire group of british academy players that took up half the spots in the squad? were also like the only team to have fielded an academy player in every match for over 20 years. the identity of the club was formed by sir matt busby like 50 years ago and his philosophies were carried by saf and most recently ole, which is why supporters support ole over any manager weve had since saf. not comparable to city or chelsea that have developed new images after new ownership and huge cash injection. not even the most deluded liverpool fan would make the points you did. im pretty convinced you dont actually watch football to be this ignorant lol | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4131 Posts
On June 03 2021 02:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think Chelsea fans are one of the more pragmatic groups out there. And I'm not trying to paint stuff as black or white - but different managers - while they can also be pragmatically minded - prefer different approaches. Some are perfect fits for a club, others aren't. Also Arsenal's drought was an economically sensible slow decline into sacking their manager into a much more sudden decline. Liverpool during the PL era has not been a story of small positive steps forward. Prior to Klopp and with a partial exception for Benitez (whom at least had an identity, and who gave them one of their most amazing successes ever), it's been back and forth from season to season. Klopp also wasn't an immediate success in Liverpool - he was appointed manager in October 2015, but they ended 8th (down from 6th the season before). Both following seasons gave 4th place finishes. The fourth season was the one where he achieved success, with a 97 point second place coupled with CL victory. But if Liverpool had not been happy with a slow upward trajectory for the first three seasons, he wouldn't have gotten a fourth. As long as the development is positive, the trajectory points upwards and players and supporters are positive, sacking a manager is imo really dumb. Sacking a manager because they lost a penalty shootout likewise (even if you can definitely make the case that he should've used Henderson for the shootout). Yeah I'm not saying to sack Ole, just saying it would be interesting to see what Conte can do at United. Also I don't fully agree with your statement, ideally every club wants to have a Klopp or Pep but managers like them are few and far between. For clubs that haven't won a trophy in a long time, I'm sure no one will complain if you get in a more defensive minded coach and they win a major trophy. | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4131 Posts
On June 03 2021 12:35 evilfatsh1t wrote: wtf are u talking about? are we talking about the same man united? i have no idea where you get the idea that the "majority of MU international fans are pragmatists". just sounds like a random ass pull. united have always played fast aggressive football. aggressive as in direct and risk taking. now football has evolved to favour more rotation in possession but even then theres a difference between oles team and van gaals teams in how they recycle and utilise possession. one was boring as fuck to watch. as for the youngsters comment, ummm have you never heard of the class of 92? literally an entire group of british academy players that took up half the spots in the squad? were also like the only team to have fielded an academy player in every match for over 20 years. the identity of the club was formed by sir matt busby like 50 years ago and his philosophies were carried by saf and most recently ole, which is why supporters support ole over any manager weve had since saf. not comparable to city or chelsea that have developed new images after new ownership and huge cash injection. not even the most deluded liverpool fan would make the points you did. im pretty convinced you dont actually watch football to be this ignorant lol You don't have to get so offended, he's making a valid point. Ole has done well this season but honestly speaking do you see him winning the PL/CL? Repeating my earlier post, obviously I would love to have a Klopp or Pep at United but managers like them are few and far between. He's saying most United fans wouldn't mind if the manager wasn't a perfect fit but managed to bring success to the team. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
On June 03 2021 14:03 Dante08 wrote: You don't have to get so offended, he's making a valid point. Ole has done well this season but honestly speaking do you see him winning the PL/CL? Repeating my earlier post, obviously I would love to have a Klopp or Pep at United but managers like them are few and far between. He's saying most United fans wouldn't mind if the manager wasn't a perfect fit but managed to bring success to the team. Ole is definitely a tough call. But maybe the tougher call is Brendan Rodgers at Leicester? Has he stagnated? Winning FA Cup was a nice catch, but missing out on CL on the final day - TWICE - must be really worrying. I still think he's done a good job with a club like Leicester. But the owners may be wondering: "Hm... maybe the club needs a different spark and direction." Sometimes, a manager is sacked not because of poor results, but stagnancy. I have many good friends who are Liverpool fans. And for the modern era, the reigns of Hodgson and Rodgers seem to be the gloomiest for them. Not so much about the lack of results and playstyle, but just the fatalistic feeling of defeat. Some managers (and also players) are just out of depth. You just can sense and know it. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8741 Posts
On June 03 2021 14:03 Dante08 wrote: You don't have to get so offended, he's making a valid point. Ole has done well this season but honestly speaking do you see him winning the PL/CL? Repeating my earlier post, obviously I would love to have a Klopp or Pep at United but managers like them are few and far between. He's saying most United fans wouldn't mind if the manager wasn't a perfect fit but managed to bring success to the team. speak for yourself. we weren't particularly good under van gaal but we grinded out a few wins anyway; even won a fa cup. if van gaal's sides had a bit more luck and we rode that luck to a pl victory i still would want van gaal out. it was pathetic to watch and that brand of football doesnt bring any of the excitement or entertainment many people would associate a united team with. the same went for mou. i think its pretty ignorant to suggest that united fans dont care about the brand of football they play when 2 top tier managers were literally fired for playing unattractive football. and yes, i do see ole potentially winning a pl. im not saying its definitely going to happen but if things fall the right way for him i could see him mounting a proper title challenge. more importantly i believe he deserves all the time in the world until it becomes evident that hes just not cut out for it. i could care less about bringing in conte who would bring an opposing brand of football into the club and have to start from scratch. in relation to rkc's posts, no i dont agree they were valid at all. as drone pointed out, some identities in clubs are deeply rooted and valued very highly. it would take an unbelievable amount of success to get fans to completely adopt a new club identity. furthermore his subsequent post about man utd lacking identity or recognisable brand of football and comparing the club to chelsea or city is straight up bullshit. "Majority of MU international fans are pragmatists. The only reason why they were drawn to MU was because MU was winning. When Liverpool and Arsenal was fumbling despite playing prettier football, they would laugh off "Only results matter dude." They don't give a shit about playstyle or tradition, so long as they're winning. During their winning ways in the 2000, was there any stream of English youngsters groomed from their academy? No, MU fans were happy with RVN and Ronaldo - MU at its capitalistic and cosmopolitan best." this entire paragraph is a crock of shit. | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18487 Posts
On June 03 2021 14:58 RKC wrote: Ole is definitely a tough call. But maybe the tougher call is Brendan Rodgers at Leicester? Has he stagnated? Winning FA Cup was a nice catch, but missing out on CL on the final day - TWICE - must be really worrying. I still think he's done a good job with a club like Leicester. But the owners may be wondering: "Hm... maybe the club needs a different spark and direction." Sometimes, a manager is sacked not because of poor results, but stagnancy. I have many good friends who are Liverpool fans. And for the modern era, the reigns of Hodgson and Rodgers seem to be the gloomiest for them. Not so much about the lack of results and playstyle, but just the fatalistic feeling of defeat. Some managers (and also players) are just out of depth. You just can sense and know it. Rodgers is definitely stagnating but do you see anyone else reach top4 with leiceister? I dont so imo he deserves to keep the job and maybe he will get lucky one season | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
On June 03 2021 15:42 sharkie wrote: Rodgers is definitely stagnating but do you see anyone else reach top4 with leiceister? I dont so imo he deserves to keep the job and maybe he will get lucky one season Maybe Bielsa? Or Benitez? Or some up-and-comer wild card? Rodgers is a known quantity. I think he's already reached his peak. If Top 5-7 stability is the management's goal, then he's a keeper. | ||
| ||
