Indeed ****ing Kanchelkis Honestly if City weren't on the unbelievable run that they are currently you wouldn't see any of this.
I don't know about that. In the same interview Kanchelskis seems upbeat about our chances of overhauling City: - "If Manchester United wins this derby game against Manchester City, they've a good chance to win the title," King Eric was similarly confident that we'd win silverware under Mourinho. It's the current playstyle that neither are impressed with.
Last season it was dreadful, but a lot of this Season it's been much better. Was disappointed how we set up against Chelsea and Liverpool tho. Will probably do the same with City.
Absolutely. Guarantee that if we were top of the league with our current results, the same ex pros would be queuing up to laud Mourinho for having brought the United Way(TM) back after years of being defensive and toothless under LVG and Moyes. We are currently on track to score our second highest ever number of goals in a PL season. Keep up our current scoring rate and we'll end the season with 89, second only to 99/00.
Goals alone don't tell the story of how defensive or attacking a team is. The Arsenal game is a good example. We scored three, yet ceded 75% of possession, were out-passed, out-shot 3 to 1 and never committed more than four men forward after the first 10 minutes. Look at the heat map for the game (Whoscored) - we spent most time in and around our own area. This was the case even before Pogba went off. We chose to cover up with our back against the ropes while making the occasional counter attack. It was a defensive display but people don't see it so readily because we won. It's been the same in every big game this season and last - we sit back, defend, cede possession and wait for a mistake. It will be the same against City tomorrow and it's a shame to play that way against our rivals at home. Even away to Southampton and Watford it was the same - it's no coincidence they both had more possession than United when we set up for much of the game to defend and counter. The players are shackled and it's a far cry from the proactive, high energy, expressive, attacking style of Ferguson. Yes we can win that way, but it's not the United I knew and loved. I think that's what King Eric and Kanchelskis are getting at.
I remember SAF's Utd teams doing that to clubs on many an occasion. Notably Arsenal in the CL semi in 09 - we only had around 35% possession IIRC and still thrashed them 3-1 with rapid counter attacks. Same in the FA Cup in 2011, with Fabio and Rafael in midfield. I appreciate we are not as attacking and effective going forwards under Mourinho as we were under SAF, but then very few clubs and managers have ever been close to that effective in the PL, and certainly not over the length of time he was. 90% of managers who play that way in the PL get found out and cut to ribbons eventually, so I don't think it's in any way realistic to expect Mourinho, who is first and foremost a pragmatist, to embrace that sort of total commitment to attack. Heck, even Guardiola abandoned that style of football last season when he lost a few on the bounce, let's wait and see what happens if their good run comes crashing to a halt this season.
I remember the 2009 CL semi final vs Arsenal and it's often referenced as one of the most defensive games of Ferguson's reign (except for a couple against Barcelona). Yet in that game we still had 42% possession and more shots than Arsenal. In the past two seasons we have frequently been beaten on possession and shot stats by a greater margin: 31% vs Ajax, 39% vs Southampton, 37% vs Liverpool, now 25% vs Arsenal. Have United ever had less time on the ball in a game than that? I don't want Van Gaal possession stats where we produce little. At the same time we can't attack without the ball and it's a bit disappointing to tune in and watch United in possession for little over 20 minutes throughout a whole game while Arsenal come at us for the other 70 minutes. I can't wait to see United back with flying wingers/wide forwards, overlapping full backs, playing with freedom, flooding the opposition box and taking the game to almost every team without fear like we used to. United didn't achieve their status as England's top club and become a beacon of entertainment for fans across the world through restraint and pragmatism. It's bad enough to see how we've regressed, nevermind that in the current status quo it's City and Liverpool taking our spot for the best displays of attacking football. The sooner the board bring in a manager who values success and entertainment the better.
Aye that would be great, but who? Guardiola, Klopp and Poch have all shown they value entertainment more than success, and are willing to throw big games and trophies away for the sake of purity. Ultimately for all that the Utd reputation is built on attacking football, it rests more on our status as England's most successful club. That said I do agree Guardiola would be better than Mourinho - similar chances of success but with more attacking football under Pep. But I can't see him coming to us any time soon, if at all, so who?
I would have taken Guardiola before he went to City. He made some interesting comments yesterday that he could have been United manager had Fergie made it clearer we were interested in him in 2013... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...ld-have-ended-man-utd-manager-had-understood/ Perhaps we'd now be at the top playing great attacking football, everyone would be happy and we wouldn't be feeling inferior in today's game. But given Guardiola's now City links there's no going back - I wouldn't want him here anymore. Poch's record isn't that impressive in my opinion and he's as close in style to Mourinho or Conte as he is to Guardiola or Klopp. There are some top attacking managers around, Jorge Sampaoli and Ralph Hassenhuttl have that philosophy of providing entertainment with winning and have done well. Someone like that would suit United and compete with Guardiola and Klopp for entertainment (whilst coming out on top due to United's better players). But if ever there is another manager with the winning mentality, motivational ability, standards and footballing philosophy for attacking football and youth in the likeness of Ferguson, who would strive to return United to what we were, it is this man... please log in to view this image https://www.not606.com/threads/bring-back-roy-keane.354948/
All that story confirms is that when he had dinner with SAF "had already made his mind up at that time to move to Bayern". No chance he would have come to us imo - he had just described four years under the microscope at Barca as feeling like eternity. Same as Mourinho at the time, after his Real experience, I don't think he would want to come under an even stronger microscope as the chosen successor of SAF. Even if Guardiola had come to us, I doubt he would have lasted more than a couple of years under the strain of managing the biggest club in the PL, with all the expectations. Think he's happier at a smaller club like City - as he said last year he'd have been sacked if he'd had a winless season like that at a big club, so he's happier with less pressure and expectations. Sorry mate, Keane has the mentality, standards and philosophy. But he lacks any of the technical, tactical and strategic acumen to be Utd manager, and has shown no signs he has what it takes to compete as a manager at the sharp end imo. He'd be like Shearer at Newcastle, a big boost for the fans but ultimately an embarrassing failure. Not sure about Sampaoli, not much of a club record to go on there for a manager taking over a top club. Hasenhuttl maybe, but still a bit of a gamble imo, not the same record of consistent achievement we got when we hired SAF. Still probably worth a look when Mourinho goes.
Shearer was very young and had no prior coahing experience. Keane has had ten years learning his trade. It would be more like Conte when he returned to Juventus, Simeone when he returned to Atletico or Zidane when he returned to Madrid. Did you know that half of the European Cup/Champions League finals over the past 30 years have been won by managers who were former captains/players of the clubs? On tactics, I'm not sure Fergie himself was a tactical genius. His strengths were more about the inspiration, fear factor, standards and infectious will to win that flooded the team and motivated players to another level. By most accounts he kept instructions relatively simple and often sent players out with a final message to express themselves and enjoy the game. Ferguson says in his book that Queiroz was appointed to assist with tactics and it wasn't until that point United adopted a more continental approach in the big European away games. But maybe the top players need that bit of tactical freedom Ferguson provided to show their very best? As for Keane, I think his strengths and weaknesses are very similar to Fergie. I'd never suggest he's a tactician on the level of Guardiola, Mourinho or Conte. That's shown where he's played down the importance of tactics compared to character of the players: - "People are talking about the tactics, the systems, but it is about the players as well. They are almost robotic ... We talk about tactics and systems but sometimes it is about passion, desire. Man United players need to show a bit of character." ~Keano during Van Gaal's reign At the same time, it would be an injustice to say he's tactically inept. At least, Fergie wouldn't agree: - "Roy Keane was a player of energy, of guts and blood, with a fine instinct for the game and its strategies." ~Fergie on Keano, 2013 "Roy has the wherewithal to be a top-class manager. Some people can’t make decisions. Roy can. He is a good decision maker ... I always felt there was a bit of myself in Roy.” ~Fergie on Keano, 2007 Keane learnt how to attack and throw the kitchen sink at the opposition during his time under Ferguson. That is seen by Keane's use of wingers, a front two and the number of 'Fergie time' goals he oversaw at Sunderland. It was also confirmed by his players: - “It is like the football I have been playing coming through the youths and reserves at United. The boss (Keano) wants us to play good football and he believes we can kill teams off by doing that. You can see where some of his influences are. It is an enjoyable brand of football.” ~Danny Simpson (United youth product, former Sunderland player and Leicester City Premier League winner) Keane has also learnt under Martin O'Neill how to setup to defend as has been necessary with Ireland's underdogs against some of the world's top players and teams. Alongside his international duties, Keane's punditry role means he analyses a lot of top level football and he has also been a guest at Barcelona training sessions under Luis Enrique to keep in the loop with the latest coaching techniques. Overall I think with Keane we'd get a well organised defence, two or three up front, possibly with a return to wingers or wide forwards. It would be a direct style of attacking play, getting bodies up the pitch, plenty of movement and passing the ball forward at every opportunity as Keane preferred, whilst saving true 'pragmatism' for the biggest teams on the European stage. Fergie enjoyed unprecedented success with similar tactics. With our quality of players we'd blow away lesser teams in high scoring thrillers and at least do everyone proud in going for the throat of our main rivals. I wouldn't be afraid of a return to the United way.
UOTE="gav81, post: 11221120, member: 1046295"]Did you know that half of the European Cup/Champions League finals over the past 30 years have been won by managers who were former captains/players of the clubs?[/QUOTE] And yet unless I am very much mistaken, none of the Premier League seasons have ever been won by managers who were former players of the club. Although I do admit that stat is largely skewed by the dominance of SAF in the stats. SAF may not have been a tactical genius, but he had a strong grasp of tactics and strategy. Certainly better than Keane's imo. And for all the chat about his positive influences, it was widely reported he lost the dressing room by the end at Sunderland and wasn't that effective at motivating the players at Ipswich. If he can't show consistent motivational skills at those clubs, I doubt he'd be up to managing the demands and fragile egos of top class players at a top club. After all, SAF knew when to inspire and scare, but also when to put an arm round the player and help them. I think Keane would be more likely to put an arm round them to throttle them tbh. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a past captain or icon of the club as a successful manager. Unfortunately I'm just not convinced Keane has the track record or the skill set to be any better than what we currently have.
I'm not sure former players are revered or given the same chances to manage big clubs in England as their counterparts abroad. In Spain and Italy there have been many recent managers who won the league with the clubs they played for... Zidane with Madrid Enrique with Barcelona Simeone with Atletico Conte with Juventus Vilanova with Barcelona Guardiola with Barcelona Schuster with Madrid Ancellotti with Milan Del Bosque with Madrid Capello with Roma and Juventus The last time it happened in England would have been Dalglish with Liverpool. They had great success for a long time with their boot room strategy of recruiting managers from within the club. Roy Evans was the last, taking Liverpool to two 3rd place finishes which they've only bettered three times in the 20 years since. It couldn't be argued the club have regained their glory days by outsourcing coaches unconnected to the club. On Ferguson's man-management, I agree he could put an arm around and protect his players. It surprises some to know that Keane also has a supportive side to him and there are a number of examples on the thread I started. Has Keane upset players in the past? Certainly. Then so did Ferguson in his handling of Stam, Nistelrooy, Hargreaves, Tevez, Rooney and others. Beckham outright labelled Fergie a "bully". You don't even want me to go into Mourinho's long history of player fallouts. Anyway, Ferguson won the personal battles because of his standing at the club and I think Keane would demand a similar respect given his achievements at United. I don't believe Keane lost the dressing room at Sunderland. Sure there were a couple of fallouts which the media jumped on to make their headlines, but overall the players, chairman and fans spoke highly of him (a few players even followed him to Ipswich - it can't have been that bad). The same at Ipswich where the positive comments from players far outweigh the negative. His failure there was more to do with the board signing and selling players without his knowledge. Most of all the reason I wouldn't be worried about Keano back in the United dressing room is because he led and captained that dressing room for 12 years and enjoyed great success, with everyone from the Class of '92 to Ronaldo having great praise for his off-field influence. If some of today's egos are too fragile to hear the truth or accept the demand to give 110%, do we really want them at the club anyway? Fair enough, it's your opinion, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a decent appointment if the aim is a return to the standards of Fergie's days. Keane was Ferguson's personal embodiment, the manager on the pitch - it makes sense.
There is no cats in hell chance of Keane being manager of United. A club of that size would and should not take a chance on an unproven manager. Sure he was revered as a player but as a manager he's not done anything significant. Mourinho may have one way of playing. His pragmatism was already known. He was recruited to bring success, to win trophies and to play CL football. He was not brought to play attractive football. Which means that he is and was never going to be long term. He knows that too and his flirting with PSG indicates that sooner or later there will parting of the ways. So far he's fulfilled his part of the bargain: he's won 2 trophies, got the club into CL and he's this season in the ko stages of the CL. He is 2nd so in a top 4 position for next season. What he is not doing is realistically challenging for the title because he is being eclipsed by Pep and City. I think we need to be realistic. United should be aiming to be top dogs no question, the status, history, and money spent. But to be entertaining like Ferguson or pep? Come on. It is like your buying a corgi and expect it to be your guard dog. Tells more about your stupidity than the inadequacy of the corgi
Do you mean like when Barcelona chose their unproven former captain Guardiola over Mourinho in 2008 on the basis he fit the club culture better? Or when Juventus hired their unproven former captain Conte for the same reason and won three titles on the bounce? The unproven Zidane at Madrid? After the last five seasons, is it really better to go for proven managers like Moyes, Van Gaal and Mourinho who have achieved things at different teams, at different times, in different circumstances, but don't fit the club? What does that mean to United here and now? 7th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 2nd? The logic of hiring so called proven managers doesn't seem to add up when we look at all these examples, so much as appointing a manager with the right philosophy for a club. Did you just draw a parallel between Jose and a corgi?
This is true, although of those only Zidane and Guardiola went straight into managing their club after retiring, and even then that was after a prolonged period as assistant manager, or with the B sides, which are a level above the reserve teams in England. Most of those above also proved themselves superior managers to Keane before getting the big job, with Keane imo not having been a genuine success at either Sunderland or Ispwich imo. I wouldn't say they had unqualified success with the boot room. Bob Paisley was a great manager, Kenny Dalglish was a good choice for a team who were dominant at the time, but Graeme Souness was a grade A disaster, and Roy Evans won one minor trophy in four years. In fact, imo the reliance on the boot room, and the resulting choice of average managers simply because they'd played for the club, was one of the main reasons Liverpool haven't won the league for 20 odd years. They've been playing catch up ever since, would be wary of that happening to Utd if Keane proved as ineffective as Souness at the tactical side of the game.
Before getting their big chances at Barcelona, Madrid, Atletico and Juventus: Guardiola spent one season as manager of the Barcelona B team, winning promotion from the Spanish fourth division. Enrique left Roma due to poor results and guided Celta to a mid-table finish. Zidane managed Madrid Castilla in the Spanish third division for two seasons and won nothing. Simeone won the Argentinian league but walked out on San Lorenzo and left River Plate bottom of the league before fighting a relegation battle with Catania in Italy. Conte won Serie B with Bari and Siena whilst also getting sacked at Arezzo and walking out on Atalanta bottom of the league. What I don't understand, how is any of this better than Keane's record of guiding Sunderland from the bottom of the Championship to Premier League safety, taking a frankly rubbish club like Ipswich to the League Cup semi final and helping Ireland reach the knockout stages of Euro 16, beating Germany and Italy in the process? It's the boot room's fault that Liverpool have been playing catch up for 20 years? Nothing to do with so called top coaches like Houllier, Benitez, Hodgson and Rodgers?
Can't say I've followed the careers of the others that closely, but I think it's fair to say they must have shown something in their style, tactics and performance to make the boards think they were ready for a top club. I just haven't seen that with Keane. If the yardstick for Utd is getting Sunderland promoted then leaving them in the relegation zone, why not go for Mick McCarthy? And one semi final at Ipswich doesn't change the fact he spent more of his time there plodding along in the lower reaches of the Championship, before leaving them near the relegation zone. As I said above, I may be wrong, Keane could turn out to be our Guardiola. I just don't think he would. Why do you think Liverpool had to settle for second tier managers like those? Mourinho admitted in 2004 he would rather have joined Liverpool than Chelsea, as he thought they had better istoree and fans. But he went for Chelsea as ultimately he didn't believe he could win things with Liverpool given the state it was in. They could have had Pellegrini instead of Hodgson, but he chose Malaga instead. Same reason Utd have gone for Mourinho. For all his flaws he wins trophies and keeps us in the CL. Utd can't afford to be like Liverpool in the 90s, winning two trophies in a decade and never making any real mark on Europe. That's the legacy of the boot room under Souness and Evans. It's not the sole reason obviously, but it's a root cause of their fall from the top club in England to a second tier club who can only realistically target CL qualification as a goal for each season.
Hmmm, given their none too impressive managerial records before getting the top jobs, I'm sure their previous playing association with the clubs was a big factor. And there's nothing wrong with that - it worked. Guardiola, Simeone and Conte are all former captains who won the domestic double and/or Champions League with their clubs and in management went back to restore the philosophies of their successful playing days. If only we had someone in that mould... a great captain and leader... double winner... treble winner... someone to restore the philosophy of their successful playing days at United. Mick McCarthy is not United's most successful captain and does not possess the Fergie-esque character traits that Roy Keane does. I'm still waiting for the explanation of how Keane's managerial record is worse than any others I mentioned before they got their chances at big clubs. Conte was relegated and left Atalanta rock bottom. Simeone left River Plate rock bottom and fought relegation with Catania. Pochettino left Espanyol rock bottom. Klopp was relegated with Mainz. Yet Keane and the mighty Sunderland found themselves 18th (incidentally, level on points with Spurs/Newcastle in 17th/16th and only two points behind City in 15th) and he's no good? It seems a bit like double-standards to me. I don't think those managers were second tier. Houllier and Benitez were regarded as top coaches at the time, Rodgers was all the rage after his exploits with Swansea and even Hodgson was seen as the top English manager. I really don't think they would have done any worse bringing in Jan Molby in '98 or looking at former players like Carragher or Gerrard to manage them in future.
