As I said, quite clearly, he had the press protecting him with all manner of narratives that 80% of the Premier League's coaches at that time would not have had.
Case in point, when Middlesbrough dumped them out of the COC in October, Paul Scholes was critical of the team's showing no creativity or attacking intent that was making it far less likely for their players to score goals, all of which is perfectly valid criticism - as any Spurs fan who remembers Santini or AVB would be quick to agree with.
So how did Van Galling respond to this? Well, here's the exact quote...
You have an expression in England and it is, 'Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me'. It is a fantastic expression.
Nobody was speculating, let alone suggesting, that his days were numbered at that time - yet his response was pure petulance when any number of responses could have been made.
Same can be said for his Wengeresque meltdown after losing to Swansea back in February: he claimed that his team "dominated" the game (yet only had one shot on target in 90 minutes), that they "created chances every two minutes" (they had three chances in the entire game, to Swansea's five) and Gomis was offside for the winner (even though he wasn't) - again, there was no speculation or suggestion that he would be sacked in February, yet his response to a loss they deserved was to act like a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum.
And then there was him responding to claims his team used long ball tactics in the 1-1 draw with Wet Spam back in February by almost turning a press conference into a PowerPoint presentation, the full transcript of the insanity being available here: http://www.espnfc.co.uk/manchester-...-long-ball-united-west-ham-boss-sam-allardyce
The key part of the ludicrous episode is this exchange:
Reporter: "But people will look at your team and say Marouane Fellaini is playing up front..."
Van Gaal (interrupts): "No, no, no, no. You start wrong because Marouane Fellaini was not playing before 70 minutes (against West Ham)."
Reporter: "But against Cambridge he was and that built up the belief that you were hitting it long..."
Van Gaal (interrupts): "We did not do that. I am sorry, you are saying what is not happening. We can play also along the floor against Cambridge and we did it, so it is not true what you are saying. But because of Big Sam you are talking him in behind, but it is not like that. Therefore, I ask this gentleman 'OK, what is your opinion?'"
So not only did he get caught in a blatant lie, but when he was called on it he refused to admit it and continued lying before trying to change the subject. He could've easily ignored Allardyce's comments about long ball tactics, and if the subject was brought up in the press conference he could've swatted it away, dismissed it, or done anything else that a fully-functioning adult would do - instead he showed up with a handful of printouts and channeled his inner PISKIE when there was no need to do so.
Case in point, when Middlesbrough dumped them out of the COC in October, Paul Scholes was critical of the team's showing no creativity or attacking intent that was making it far less likely for their players to score goals, all of which is perfectly valid criticism - as any Spurs fan who remembers Santini or AVB would be quick to agree with.
So how did Van Galling respond to this? Well, here's the exact quote...
You have an expression in England and it is, 'Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me'. It is a fantastic expression.
Nobody was speculating, let alone suggesting, that his days were numbered at that time - yet his response was pure petulance when any number of responses could have been made.
Same can be said for his Wengeresque meltdown after losing to Swansea back in February: he claimed that his team "dominated" the game (yet only had one shot on target in 90 minutes), that they "created chances every two minutes" (they had three chances in the entire game, to Swansea's five) and Gomis was offside for the winner (even though he wasn't) - again, there was no speculation or suggestion that he would be sacked in February, yet his response to a loss they deserved was to act like a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum.
And then there was him responding to claims his team used long ball tactics in the 1-1 draw with Wet Spam back in February by almost turning a press conference into a PowerPoint presentation, the full transcript of the insanity being available here: http://www.espnfc.co.uk/manchester-...-long-ball-united-west-ham-boss-sam-allardyce
The key part of the ludicrous episode is this exchange:
Reporter: "But people will look at your team and say Marouane Fellaini is playing up front..."
Van Gaal (interrupts): "No, no, no, no. You start wrong because Marouane Fellaini was not playing before 70 minutes (against West Ham)."
Reporter: "But against Cambridge he was and that built up the belief that you were hitting it long..."
Van Gaal (interrupts): "We did not do that. I am sorry, you are saying what is not happening. We can play also along the floor against Cambridge and we did it, so it is not true what you are saying. But because of Big Sam you are talking him in behind, but it is not like that. Therefore, I ask this gentleman 'OK, what is your opinion?'"
So not only did he get caught in a blatant lie, but when he was called on it he refused to admit it and continued lying before trying to change the subject. He could've easily ignored Allardyce's comments about long ball tactics, and if the subject was brought up in the press conference he could've swatted it away, dismissed it, or done anything else that a fully-functioning adult would do - instead he showed up with a handful of printouts and channeled his inner PISKIE when there was no need to do so.
True.
