The Van Gaal Era: Preformance Checks/Kpis

[NiallQuinnDiscoPants]

Indeed. I'm not sure what the situation is in any domestic cup meetings at Old Trafford recently (have there been any?) but Arsenal haven't won there in the league since 2006. Wenger must have cried into his wine when he heard the draw.

EDIT -- Yup, quite a few non-league meetings. Since the turn of the century Arsenal have won 3 of 22 meetings at OT.

i think they played them in the QF of the FA Cup at OT in 2011. The year we won the FA Cup and beat them in the semis. I remember a comfortable United win, think it was 2-0 or something.

 

[smat]

Yeah they played a midfield of like Fabio, O'Shea and a couple of other complete no marks and still won. It was absolutely terrible.

 

[Christian Slater]

It's not nonsensical at all. His lack of credentials coupled with changing too much when he arrived opened up the door for players to act unprofessionally. Of course they shouldn't behave like that, but Moyes shouldn't have created a position where nobody respected his authority. If players were acting like that he should have done something to recitify the problem.

Was he given a fasir amount of time? Probably not, but he was beyond fortunate to have been given the chance in the first place. I'm not going to feel sorry for him when he was given an opportunity not many guys in a similar position would. Taking a club that hadn't finished outside the top three in over two decades into seventh in his first year was unacceptable. It's not about being fair it's about producing the goods, it's competitive football not children's sports day.

what did he change? not eating chips? he didn't exactly change the playing staff that much.

didn't Van Gaal completely move the training ground around? LVG has caused a massive change around in his playing staff since his time in charge.[/QUOTE]
He completely overhauled the backroom staff and imple

It's not nonsensical at all. His lack of credentials coupled with changing too much when he arrived opened up the door for players to act unprofessionally. Of course they shouldn't behave like that, but Moyes shouldn't have created a position where nobody respected his authority. If players were acting like that he should have done something to recitify the problem.

Was he given a fasir amount of time? Probably not, but he was beyond fortunate to have been given the chance in the first place. I'm not going to feel sorry for him when he was given an opportunity not many guys in a similar position would. Taking a club that hadn't finished outside the top three in over two decades into seventh in his first year was unacceptable. It's not about being fair it's about producing the goods, it's competitive football not children's sports day.

what did he change? not eating chips? he didn't exactly change the playing staff that much.

didn't Van Gaal completely move the training ground around? LVG has caused a massive change around in his playing staff since his time in charge.[/QUOTE]

'His lack of credentials opened up the door for players to act unprofessionally'.

Just read that sentence again.

'His lack of credentials opened up the door for players to act unprofessionally'.

Seriously.

Are you trying to excuse the players for acting like children because their manager had changed? Jesus.

In terms of 'trying to change too much'; even the slightest change would've seemed huge at United back then. Your most successful manager ever had just left after well over two decades in charge. If Moyes just tried to carry on in the same vein as Ferguson he'd have been criticising for trying to be a carbon copy. Are you latching on to the point where he was fighting a losing battle from the start yet?

And what could Moyes have done to 'rectify the problem'? Ferdinand had been around for over a decade at United and was more or less a guaranteed first-teamer when fit when Moyes walked through the door. Moyes makes the slightest change, and Ferdinand's pathetic reaction tells me and any other sane person that he - and as a result a select few others - wouldn't accept Moyes no matter what.

A manager should have the respect of the players, I think you're naive if you think it all came down to chips. He completely overhauled a successful backroom staff, implemented a stringent fitness regime that created injuries and changed tactics to not lose rather than win, and still lost.

He blew it all by himself.

 

[Nilsson]

Yeah they played a midfield of like Fabio, O'Shea and a couple of other complete no marks and still won. It was absolutely terrible.

 

[smat]

Jesus Christ.

Mind you, I'm pretty sure we had Chamakh up front.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

!!! @ that midfield

 

[thespus]

I forgot Denilson existed until looking up this match report.

 

[IanH]

Am I unaware of another meaning of the word 'chips', or are we really talking about the McDonalds / McCain variety? Which professional athlete eats fucking chips?

Or maybe he stopped them playing poker on the team bus?

 

[Mr. Scruff]

Steady

I spent ages pretty much finishing up a reply to your post (which it wont let me quote）and thought I'd saved it but appears not and there is no way I'm writing all that again. Your post makes some good points and having spent way too much time, including finding many articles which were very positive towards Moyes and Negative towards Van Gaal on it previously I'm just going have to summarise. Apologies

You seem to be judging the whole situation not in contrast to the normal reality but some principles you have, judging against practically any other manager Moyes was certainly not hard done by.

You seem to be criticizing the press for not being 100% behind Moyes which is bizarre Mentioning his lack of qualifications was natural. It wasn't belittling him it was simply telling as it was. You seem to be under the impression the press should have painted a rosier picture than the truth. I'm not sure which world simply telling the facts is being treated harshly. In fact there was plenty of biggin Moyes up including Phil Mcnulty head of BBC sport calling Moyes 'Fergies natural successor.'


I feel like people are comparing the end of the Moyes reign with Van Gaal so far. Yes things got nasty towards him by the end but at this point we had no chance of top 4, had been beaten comprehensively by all our rivals, had been subject to some ridiculously pathetic interviews , and been told there was no chance the man who at the end of the day was responsible for all this (his fault or not) had no chance of being sacked and would be rewarded with a 150 million transfer kitty. I have no doubt if this season turns out as bad Van Gal will get the same treatment

The Falcao signing was pathetic and I hated it at the time, it was the club trying to show we can be like Real Madrid but I have to say signing possibly the best number 9 in the world on loan before deciding in year if he was worthy of replacing Van Persie makes far more sense than spending a club record on a player whose position you are already very well stocked in which just adds to the problems you already have . The main problem I have with that and the Fellaini transfer is that Moyes seemed to have absolutely no clue how to use them. At least with Van Gaal Falcao there seems to be some semblance of a plan, we may not like it but Rooney has played consistently in midfield whilst Falcao and RVP have played up top whenever fit. Tbh I'd be much more critical of the Herrera transfer which is a travesty than the Falcao deal.

You admit yourself that the fans treatment of him was better than most managers receive , harshly for me means worse than others which was simply not the case. He never had his tactics openly questioned by the stands so at least in this regards Van Gaal has had it worse

You keep mentioning his spending as if he was hard done but Moyes didnt have to deal with the departures Van Gaal had too. In terms of price per player he spent more and his pursuit of Fabregas and the Herrera shenanigans show there would have been money to spend had he not been such an epic ditherer. As I said earlier the fact Van Gaal got business done in much more difficult circumstances is a positive for him. Moyes can't feel hard done by a the backing he received for sure.


You seem to be insinuating that the club the fans the media etc all had a duty to stick by Moyes and deal with him as some special case who needed to be treat with kid gloves. Whatever the circumstances his performance was simply diabolical.
His time at Everton showed he is a good manager and I'm not suggesting that in no way suggesting that he absolutely 100% couldnt have turned it around but on the evidence of last year and without the history of showing he could I have to say the odds were against him. United had to make the right decision for United not for David Moyes and they should be judged on that alone. No manager whatever the circumstances can take a club from being champions by 7 points to 7th and complain about being harshly sacked.

You may feel theodds were stacked against him , that he would have turned it around fair enough but it was not an unjust or harsh sacking. Under performing so badly in any job will lead to the same outcome. He was not harshly sacked and whist his sympathizers may not be the majority they aren't that far off. It's certainly more than minimal support as the posts in here show. There certainly too many defenders who still believe he deserved more time to say has been unduly criticized by the press and public. He has received more of a defence than managers who have performed much better have.

As for Ian H comments about the players yes its clear that some probably behaved appallingly towards him. Having been in a situation where I have my colleagues believed I had been promoted undeservedly I can empathise with him a little bit. I too dealt with the sniping, unfair villainising and petty jealousy but I have to say had I conducted myself better instead of in my inexperience reacting poorly I could have won them over. I feel the Moyes situation is no different the players were cnuts but had he distinguished himself they could have been won over. I feel it must been extremely difficult for them under him. The mis-communication, the authoritarian cold approach , the overplaying then dropped for weeks approach that off the top of my head at least Rio and Cleverley received . Their reaction to him says everything about his unsuitability for the job. As a manager your primary task is to motivate, assign tasks and train people correctly no matter what hand you are dealt with. He was clearly not up to that task and its become noticeably better under Van Gaal

Seems I wrote a shit tonne anyway no way im looking for those article again . I'm useless at search engines

 

[Mr. Scruff]

Rooney was absolutely sensational as a number 10 that game. O'she and Gibson basically sat deep whilst Rooney dicked all over Arsenal

 

[NiallQuinnDiscoPants]

Reading all that has made me have the same bloated feeling that I had after demolishing 3 pancakes last night

 

[Mr. Scruff]

Predictable, lethargic, boring and THIRD

HANDS up anyone who hasn’t had a go at Louis van Gaal.

We’ve all been at it — the old fella really doesn’t know what he’s doing, does he?

Taken from a Stephen Howard (who previously called Van Gaal 'away with the fairies') piece in the Sun which the rest unavailable.

I thought Van Gaal has had a free ride whilst Moyes was vilified from pillar to post?

The idea that Moyes got it tougher than other managers would be laughable if it wasn't so ludicrous.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I forgot Denilson existed until looking up this match report.

He was so shit he never even got an England call up.

 

[SALTIRE]

The football is slow and pedantic and miserable according to Scholes no less, and you are hanging on to that third place by your fingertips.

Not so much fingertips, more like fingernails now...

 

[G-Dragon]

He said he needed "3 months"

 

[Steady]

Can I ask, what 'progression' did van Gaal show in 'meriting a summer warchest'? As soon as he walked through the door he was given more than double the amount of money in a matter of months that Moyes was afforded in two transfer windows.

Look at United's recent win/loss ratio. Yeah the football isn't pretty to watch at times but he is enroute to achieving our targets for this year. LVG is also a proven manager and it's atleast easy to identify areas that we need to tweak to get the team playing attractive attacking football.

But how did LVG show enough 'progression' to merit double the spending power Moyes was afforded when he'd only just stepped through the door? You hadn't played any games by the time he'd spent over £150m+, so while he's a 'proven manager', how did he warrant such huge spending power instantly when Moyes did not?

Also, I don't think you've realised, but you yourself have admitted there that some of the players were 'past it', which is absolutely spot on. Your Ryan Giggs', your Rio Ferdinands, your Nemanja Vidics and your Patrice Evras were already out of the door as soon as Ferguson left, whether they or you would like to admit that or not. Moyes was tasked with replacing those first-team names who had an even bigger impact in the dressing room than they did on the pitch, which shouldn't be understated. People talk of this 'rebuilding job' that van Gaal has undertaken, but they so often ignore the fact that Moyes, while he was given a multi-title-winning side on the face of things, had a handful of players that didn't even give him a chance because, again, he wasn't Sir Alex Ferguson.

Ultimately it is down to the manager to keep his shit on point. Moyes couldn't even get the players to buy into his philosophy/brand of football. The logical thing to do would be to replace him before further rot settles into the club. Our players had practically zero confidence at the beginning of the season, but atleast things are slowly but surely getting better.

I agree, but - and this is obviously just from my personal perspective - it really didn't seem as though the players wanted to but into Moyes' philosophy, whatever it was. They were so settled and happy with SAF's way of playing that anyone coming in and changing anything was bound to upset them, so Moyes was going to struggle from the start.

Also, as someone said before, what actually is LVG's philosophy? Fair enough, he's showing initiative with changing the formation, but what is United's overall playing style? For me, it's a lot of sterile possession domination or lumping it up to Fellaini. Hardly the 'United way' he likes to preach about so much, and surely we'd have seen at least a glimpse of it by now?[/QUOTE]

To be fair to the players, they might have felt Moyes had disrespected them. He said that a team that had just won the title a year before was 'fat and unfit' so banned chips. Just Moyes trying to throw his weight about a bit.

But then he would've been slaughtered for not changing enough and trying to be Ferguson's clone. If you're a footballer and your manager bans chips, then you deal with it. You might not be happy about it, but don't throw your toys out of the pram. From Ferdinand's quotes in the press about Moyes you can just see that he didn't give him a chance. If Moyes changes one thing he's changing too much (how much can you change at a club just managed by the most successful boss of all time for well over two decades?), and if he doesn't change anything he's 'weak', 'pointless' and a copy of Ferguson.

 

[Storzy]

I think one of the main differences between Moyes tenure at this point of the season was that Man Utd were about 6 points off Top 4 and playing crap. Compare that to Van Gaal, who hasn't improved the performances, but finds Man Utd very much within the battle for a Champions League place.

This might have more to do with how rubbish everyone else has been compared to last season, but you can only be judged on who you are competing against and Van Gaal is closer to that competition than Moyes was at this stage.

 

[Destruction]

Let us not forget that Brian Clough lasted 44 days at Leeds, replacing a legend and trying to do things his way at odds with a squad who had absolutely no interest in changing ways.

That didn't make Clough a bad manager, just as the United farce shouldn't be seen as a failure on the part of Moyes.

Ps. If you haven't read Duncan Hamilton's biography of Clough you need your head checking.

 

[Steady]

Scruff

Just to clarify, I'm not saying any of the following statements, or at least not saying them in isolation:

The press and fans should've treated Moyes 'better'
Moyes did a better job than van Gaal is doing
Van Gaal has had an easy time with the press and fans
Moyes would've turned things around if given the chance

What I am saying is that there are too many obvious discrepancies between how Moyes was treated and van Gaal is treated that far outreach their respective performances as Manchester United managers.

On that Steven Howard piece by the Sun, that's classic clickbait tripe. Use a leading headline like that and you'll rake in the page views, which is all he'll be after. Read the rest of the article however...

Spoiler

HANDS up anyone who hasn’t had a go at Louis van Gaal.

We’ve all been at it — the old fella really doesn’t know what he’s doing, does he?

His defence is as much a soft touch as a midfield devoid of any sort of penetration, while his attack, well, it’s all banjos, cow’s arses and bum notes.

All round, his Manchester United players are lethargic, lacking in motivation, short on ideas and totally predictable.

Dull, dull, dull.

Van Gaal has spent £157million and he’s not much better than David Moyes.

And then you look at the table.

Yes, that’s them there in third place — tucked in five points behind Manchester City and on a run of just two defeats in 24 games.

Week after week they get hammered by the critics — and, yes, that includes me — and week after week they somehow come up with the goods.

United travel to Swansea tomorrow and few will bet against them cranking out yet another result. Should in-form Liverpool win at Southampton and Manchester City struggle at home against Newcastle — who won 2-0 at the Etihad in October’s Capital One Cup fourth round — it could be another very good weekend for United.

What we are seeing at the moment is a manager trying to turn a supertanker around.

The sound of the crashing of gears is all part and parcel of the process, however grating it may be on the ears of those who follow United home and away.

Yes, there are obvious problems to solve — chief among them the long-term establishment of a potent attacking force.

Radamel Falcao is not the answer — foisted on Van Gaal as he has been by superagent Jorge Mendes.

Robin van Persie, 32 in August, is also looking very much like a player in the third year of a four-year contract, unsure of the exact direction in which he’s heading.

RVP is not an easy player to manage with his obsession of having to be 110 per cent fit to play.

His United career seems a mirror image of his performance for Holland in the World Cup under Van Gaal.

Van Persie’s summer in Brazil started with two goals in the 5-1 thrashing of then-champions Spain.

But it ended with his substitution at the start of extra-time in the drab, soulless, goalless draw with Argentina that saw the Dutch eliminated 4-2 on penalties in the semi-final.

Central to United’s future is Wayne Rooney.

There has been huge debate about Van Gaal using him in midfield.

Yet the reason Rooney can be employed this way is solely down to the fact he is the only striker in this country who has the ability.

Cavani is the sort of striker United need His long-term position is up front.But who to play him with?

The performance of Paris Saint-Germain’s Edinson Cavani in Tuesday’s 1-1 draw with Chelsea in the French capital will not have been lost on LVG.

It was a display as good as we have seen from the Uruguayan as he took his Champions League tally to six in seven games.

With Diego Costa having gone to Chelsea, Cavani is the closest to the sort of hard, heavy-duty striker United need. Other names mentioned are Lyon’s Alexandre Lacazette and West Brom’s Saido Berahino.

Though, at 23 and 21, they may not be the ready-made striker Van Gaal requires in what will be a pivotal second season at Old Trafford.

Real Madrid’s Gareth Bale, of course, will be thrown into the mix should United fancy an attacking trio of Rooney supported by Angel Di Maria and the former Tottenham player.

With United’s already-massive earning power bolstered further by the Premier League’s new £5.1billion TV deal, the fee for Bale is well within their range.

It all depends on whether Bale’s enjoyment of family life in Madrid will become fatally undermined by current criticism of the Welshman from his own supporters at the Bernabeu.

One thing, though, is certain — United will spend big again this summer. For the moment, Van Gaal ploughs on.

The biggest challenge looms on the horizon when, following next month’s home FA Cup quarter-final with Arsenal, their league run reads Spurs (h), Liverpool (a), Villa (h), Man City (h) and Chelsea (a).

If they are still in the mix after that then the imperious Van Gaal will have earned the right to stare down his nose at us.

...and you'll see it's actually far, far more positive than the headline would suggest. Putting all of van Gaal's struggles down to being "all part and parcel of the process", saying Falcao was "foisted on Van Gaal by superagent Jorge Mendes", saying RVP "is not an easy player to manage" rather than blame LVG's insistence of always playing him, the article is full of apologetic tripe defending van Gaal rather than criticising him. He lays it on thick with the "lethargic" and "predictable" comments, but it's key to his bullshit narrative. Barely any, if any of the article at all is critical of van Gaal beyond the leading headline.

While we're on Steven Howard, take a look at this, if you will...

Spoiler

FEAR, anxiety — and a staggering lack of belief.

Inside nine months, David Moyes has turned Manchester United into a dysfunctional rabble, a team unrecognisable from last season’s champions.

Against Olympiakos on Tuesday, a ball that used to be passed around with confidence and style was now going sideways and backwards.

In their hour of need, when they required a player with experience to put his foot on the ball, club legend Ryan Giggs stayed on the bench.

Before this debacle, the true scale of United’s demise was only fully recognised at home.

Now all of Europe knows.

You can blame the players as much as you like but, in the final analysis, there is only one man who has to take responsibility for the plight in which United find themselves — the manager.

Moyes and his coaching staff are out of their depth on every count: tactics, player selection, motivation and the ability to bring anything new to the team.

The United players have not only lost belief in Moyes — but in themselves as well.

How can so many have gone so far backwards under his stewardship?

The bottom line is, unless he is replaced the damage could spiral out of all control.

Even the waverers are jumping ship after that craven display against an Olympiakos team who only scraped into the last 16 on goal difference — and were thrashed 4-1 at home by Paris Saint-Germain in September.

Many were prepared for a season of transition after Alex Ferguson’s departure. A third- or fourth-placed finish and, hopefully, a spirited run or two in a cup competition.

They were certainly not expecting this.

In a last, desperate throw of the dice, Moyes has called on his players to revive memories of United’s great Champions League nights at Old Trafford to overhaul the two-goal deficit they require to progress to the quarter-finals.

If they could not come back from a goal down against Sunderland at home in the Capital One Cup semi-final, what chance two against a team that made them look so embarrassingly poor?

Moyes is fooling no one. Not, I suspect, even himself.

In Athens, he spoke of shock at the result — as he believed his side had gone into the game, “in good form and with a good mindset”.

Really? How good is six defeats in the last 12 games?

And just four wins — against Swansea, Sunderland, Cardiff and Crystal Palace.

United have one hell of a problem with Moyes.

Yes, the squad he was bequeathed by Ferguson had some huge holes in it — nowhere more so than in central midfield.

This was compounded last summer when, slow out of the blocks under new chief executive Ed Woodward, they paid £27.5million for Marouane Fellaini — way over the odds.

Panicking, they did it again in January by coughing up £37.1m for Juan Mata.

They would then mortgage the club to tie down Wayne Rooney for 5½ years at a terrifying cost of £85.8m.

Though doubts are finally being raised in the corridors of power, it seems United could well limp along for the rest of the season with Moyes in ‘control’.

And, if they continue with him, then pray for a dramatic reversal in form in the opening months next season.

Yet the ex-Everton manager has done nothing so far to suggest he is the man for the job — totally the opposite, in fact. One disaster is followed by another.

United fans are saying he has merely turned them into the new Everton.

Granting him a six-year contract now looks like one of the most misplaced acts of faith in management history.

Sure, they stuck by Ferguson early on — but in the former Aberdeen boss they had an established winner of silverware.

And so was born the belief that it was not the ‘United way’ to offload their managers.

But this was only in one instance — and of course Ferguson went on to bring trophy after trophy to the club.

Now, though, we are entering the realms of Wilf McGuinness and Frank O’Farrell, two men elevated way above their capability in the post-Matt Busby era.

Both lasted just 18 months.

United didn’t stand by their man then — so why should they now?

They must recognise their mistake and make a move for someone like Jurgen Klopp of Borussia Dortmund or Antonio Conte at Juventus.

Even Bayern Munich’s Treble-winning coach Jupp Heynckes is still three years younger than Ferguson was when the Scot won the title last season.

 

[Steady]

cont...

Spoiler

And Bayern have had six changes of manager and two caretakers in the last decade.

Under Moyes, United look certain to fail to qualify for the Champions League.

This will result in them having to pay through the nose once again for the replacements necessary to kick-start a revival.

On top of everything, they have already lost Nemanja Vidic to Inter, forked out a king’s ransom for the dubious honour of keeping Rooney and may have caused Robin van Persie to eye the exit door.

This, then, is the collateral damage of just nine months under Moyes.

Enough may well be enough.

"A dysfunctional rabble", "there is only one man who has to take responsibility...the manager" (funny that!), "Moyes is out of depth on every count", "unless he is replaced the damage could spiral out of all control", "granting him a six-year contract now looks like one of the most misplaced acts of faith in management history."

The whole article is full of hyperbolic rubbish fuelled to increase the pressure on Moyes. He briefly defends him by saying the squad "had some huge holes in it", but quickly reverts to type by criticising him. The main difference between that article and Howard's on van Gaal is that he lays pretty much every negative point at Moyes' door, whereas the negatives under van Gaal tend to be attributed to someone else, such as the players or Jorge fucking Mendes.

The above is more or less symptomatic of the press treatment that Moyes and van Gaal endured and enjoyed. A lot of the time it wasn't explicable criticism of Moyes so was less noticeable than a piece saying "he must be sacked", but if you analyse the language used in pieces on Moyes or van Gaal, there's a huge difference.

For example, United lost their 'unbeaten' run yesterday against Swansea that stretched to just two defeats in 20 games in all competitions (that it's described as an unbeaten run in the first place is stretching it, and already gives a prime example of how press terminology differs between the two).

Here are four match reports from the Mail, the BBC, the Telegraph and the official United website on that Swansea defeat.

Note the language used - "second defeat in 20 games" as oppose to "first in seven"; "the Premier League's form team" when plenty of clubs have gained more points in the last five, 10 or even 20 matches; "first defeat on the road since November", a sequence which has seen more draws (four) than wins (three). In the interests of fairness, I've included the Daily Telegraph report which refers to them as "disappointing Manchester United", which they say they are now better known as.

Compare that to match reports from after United lost 1-0 to Everton in December 2013 under Moyes; a first defeat for them in 13 games in all competitions. Admittedly, the 'unbeaten run' spans less games, but it's long enough to be considered and reported as an 'unbeaten run', so there you go.

You'll notice in the Daily Mail, the BBC, the Daily Telegraph and even the official Manchester United website's match reports that no reference is made of any 'unbeaten run' being lost. Again, it's not direct or obvious, but it has the hallmarks of an undercurrent of undermining Moyes. That even the official United website - a forum through which the most positive spin is put on any result possible - makes no reference to it being their first defeat in 13 is bizarre.

You'll also see in the Daily Telegraph report that, rather than even talking about the game itself, within the first three words an unnecessary reference is made to Sir Alex Ferguson. He went to watch pretty much every home match last season and this, so why refer to him being there? To undermine Moyes. Pointless, but subtle, symptomatic of the reporting of Moyes' reign.

I could find more articles (and I'm sure you could to back your point up, just as you did before they were magically lost... ) but we'd be going round in circles.

Leave it at this: Moyes and van Gaal are judged using different yardsticks. Moyes came in and, on the surface of things, took over the champions, and people are kidding themselves if they don't think he was expected to mount a title challenge that season. He was given a fair amount of money, and obviously broke the transfer record with it, spending it pretty unwisely. In actuality, he took over a side with so many gaps and issues, players that wanted to leave after Ferguson's departure. He didn't do a very good job at all, but as I said, he's judged eight months into a six-year contract. He was managing long-term and judged short-term, so there's bound to be deficiencies there. He came in under the impression he'd be granted time, but things quickly turned sour and he was off.

With van Gaal, he's managing in the short-term, and is judged as such, whereas Moyes was managing with the long-term in mind but was judged in the short-term. Van Gaal's target is undeniably to mount a push to reach the Champions League spots, but I sincerely doubt he'll meet anywhere near the backlash Moyes received. Van Gaal was given double the amount Moyes had to spend cumulatively over two windows when he first came in, and van Gaal continues to complain about gaps in his midfield, uses his best striker there and restricts your attacking play - despite preaching about the 'United way' - in order to protect a defence he should've sought to improve with his transfer kitty.

I don't think Moyes was great at United, and I'm making no excuses for him. But the point is that van Gaal is doing marginally better with 100 times more backing from the club, the fans and, to far less of an extent, the press.

 

[sl1k]

Steady

But how did LVG show enough 'progression' to merit double the spending power Moyes was afforded when he'd only just stepped through the door? You hadn't played any games by the time he'd spent over £150m+, so while he's a 'proven manager', how did he warrant such huge spending power instantly when Moyes did not?

LVG stepped in with a CV that boasts domestic honours across three European leagues. He has won Europe's top competitions. Most recently he took the Netherlands to third place in the World Cup. He's known for promoting youth, some of whom went on to become some of the finest players in world football. He has an assertiveness to him particularly when dealing with the media, and it obviously helps in keeping the dressing room grounded. Most importantly however, he had the balls to recognise and engineer the massive overhaul that was required at United. Moyes demonstrated that he is not capable of attracting the kind of players we needed, bar the unnecessary Mata.

I agree, but - and this is obviously just from my personal perspective - it really didn't seem as though the players wanted to but into Moyes' philosophy, whatever it was. They were so settled and happy with SAF's way of playing that anyone coming in and changing anything was bound to upset them, so Moyes was going to struggle from the start.

Also, as someone said before, what actually is LVG's philosophy? Fair enough, he's showing initiative with changing the formation, but what is United's overall playing style? For me, it's a lot of sterile possession domination or lumping it up to Fellaini. Hardly the 'United way' he likes to preach about so much, and surely we'd have seen at least a glimpse of it by now?

All that 'United way' shizz is a load of b0llox imo. A team plays the way the manager sets thm up, so 'SAF's way' would be a more accurate statement. SAF though, has retired so we were always going to go through a transitional phase (on the pitch) of trial and error until the manager has the players that he needs to implement his system. We aren't there yet, which shows just how much/many deadwood/passengers LVG had to cut off. Moyes should have started this exact same process when he came in, but was moving far too slowly. Making changes to an established team of backroom staff is a bold move, you better have the tenacity, charisma and knowledge to get people on board. He failed at all of them.

 

[Steady]

Steady

But how did LVG show enough 'progression' to merit double the spending power Moyes was afforded when he'd only just stepped through the door? You hadn't played any games by the time he'd spent over £150m+, so while he's a 'proven manager', how did he warrant such huge spending power instantly when Moyes did not?

LVG stepped in with a CV that boasts domestic honours across three European leagues. He has won Europe's top competitions. Most recently he took the Netherlands to third place in the World Cup. He's known for promoting youth, some of whom went on to become some of the finest players in world football. He has an assertiveness to him particularly when dealing with the media, and it obviously helps in keeping the dressing room grounded. Most importantly however, he had the balls to recognise and engineer the massive overhaul that was required at United. Moyes demonstrated that he is not capable of attracting the kind of players we needed, bar the unnecessary Mata.

So the club were right to actively handicap Moyes in the transfer market despite, as you say yourself, the squad needing a 'massive overhaul', simply because he'd never been given the chance to manage a 'top club' and had never won a trophy but consistently overachieved at Everton? Van Gaal's history means he should've been given twice the budget of Moyes despite both facing huge tasks changing the squad personnel?

As aforementioned, you say the squad needed a 'massive overhaul'. But in the same paragraph you infer that Moyes didn't deserve the amount of money van Gaal was afforded, which was around £150m. What kind of 'massive overhaul' precipitates spending beneath an amount near that? Surely if the squad needed a 'massive overhaul' Moyes should've been given enough funds to initiate it, rather than restricted because he'd never won anything. Do you not see how that's a little counter-productive and restrictive of Moyes?

I agree, but - and this is obviously just from my personal perspective - it really didn't seem as though the players wanted to but into Moyes' philosophy, whatever it was. They were so settled and happy with SAF's way of playing that anyone coming in and changing anything was bound to upset them, so Moyes was going to struggle from the start.

Also, as someone said before, what actually is LVG's philosophy? Fair enough, he's showing initiative with changing the formation, but what is United's overall playing style? For me, it's a lot of sterile possession domination or lumping it up to Fellaini. Hardly the 'United way' he likes to preach about so much, and surely we'd have seen at least a glimpse of it by now?

All that 'United way' shizz is a load of b0llox imo. A team plays the way the manager sets thm up, so 'SAF's way' would be a more accurate statement. SAF though, has retired so we were always going to go through a transitional phase (on the pitch) of trial and error until the manager has the players that he needs to implement his system. We aren't there yet, which shows just how much/many deadwood/passengers LVG had to cut off. Moyes should have started this exact same process when he came in, but was moving far too slowly. Making changes to an established team of backroom staff is a bold move, you better have the tenacity, charisma and knowledge to get people on board. He failed at all of them.

I agree, all the 'United way' guff is a load of bollocks. My personal favourite is the 'West Ham way' stuff, FYI. But the problem is that it's van Gaal who preaches about it, no-one else.

We revert back to one of my main points. You say Moyes should have started the process of cutting off deadwood, but people say he inherited a squad of champions. Which one is right? Surely you can't have both? Assuming that there was a hell of a lot of deadwood (which there was), Moyes was given a six-year contract, not a three-year one like van Gaal. You say he was going about the process of cutting deadwood too slowly, but he didn't even get a sixth of the way into his tenure. Again, Moyes was managing long-term, van Gaal is managing short-term. It's unfair and counter-productive to judge Moyes on the short-term because he wasn't managing on that basis.

 

[sl1k]

Steady

So the club were right to actively handicap Moyes in the transfer market despite, as you say yourself, the squad needing a 'massive overhaul', simply because he'd never been given the chance to manage a 'top club' and had never won a trophy but consistently overachieved at Everton? Van Gaal's history means he should've been given twice the budget of Moyes despite both facing huge tasks changing the squad personnel?

How did the club handicap Moyes? He was the manager supposedly hand picked by SAF, 'The chosen one' n all that. Where are these conspiracy theories coming from? I have previously mentioned that United handled SAF's retirement terribly, so I'll concede that we did pretty much shoot ourselves in the foot, knees and b0llox. The guy (Moyes) went from mid table floating to managing the defending champions in need of serious surgery. In what world does that make sense??

As aforementioned, you say the squad needed a 'massive overhaul'. But in the same paragraph you infer that Moyes didn't deserve the amount of money van Gaal was afforded, which was around £150m. What kind of 'massive overhaul' precipitates spending beneath an amount near that? Surely if the squad needed a 'massive overhaul' Moyes should've been given enough funds to initiate it, rather than restricted because he'd never won anything. Do you not see how that's a little counter-productive and restrictive of Moyes?

When I say Moyes didn't deserve it, I mean didn't deserve a second summer 'warchest' after he had already demonstarted he is incapable of handling our transfer business to even a half decent standard. It's an assertion based on his performance and signs of - or the lack of - progress throughout the season. We went from champs to 7th mate and shit was looking like it's going to get worse - risking a second year out of the CL for a club like United is a NONO.

I agree, all the 'United way' guff is a load of bollocks. My personal favourite is the 'West Ham way' stuff, FYI. But the problem is that it's van Gaal who preaches about it, no-one else.

It is cheesy, I'd agree with that I reckon it's more him trying to let the fans know that what we see is not where we will settle, that it is a process of evolution to get back to the attacking football we expect

We revert back to one of my main points. You say Moyes should have started the process of cutting off deadwood, but people say he inherited a squad of champions. Which one is right? Surely you can't have both? Assuming that there was a hell of a lot of deadwood (which there was), Moyes was given a six-year contract, not a three-year one like van Gaal. You say he was going about the process of cutting deadwood too slowly, but he didn't even get a sixth of the way into his tenure. Again, Moyes was managing long-term, van Gaal is managing short-term. It's unfair and counter-productive to judge Moyes on the short-term because he wasn't managing on that basis.

I can't speak for other people, but in my view, he inherited a squad of very fortunate champions in the sense that I don't think anybody other than SAF could have achieved it with that team. However, the spirit and confidence would have remained high at the beginning of the season. Players should be trying to impress their new manager but it just weren't clicking. It was then Moyes' job to identify the problems and begin working on them. What did he do to rectify these problems?

I get that he was under the impression that he was a long term replacement, but that's not a get out of jail free card for dogshit management.

 

[Bilo]

Originally posted in the wrong thread:

I haven't had the interest to watch United that much this season, and I haven't had the time to follow the general opinion of LVG but I must say I'm slightly surprised that a majority of the United fans (according to their largest forum*) want him gone if he doesn't manage to get top 4. That's essentially saying that if you don't get top 4 on the first attempt, you get the sack. Which might seem perfectly reasonable at first, but when was the last time any manager took a team from outside the top 4 into the top 4 in his first season? Football doesn't really work like that, and sacking managers on a regular basis is basically never a winning formula (Real Madrid and Chelsea excepted).

My take on it is that United fans heavily underestimate how extremely complicated it is to bring success to a club, perhaps because SAF made it look so easy. Last season they basically boiled down Rodgers' success to not being in Europe; therefore they'd challenge for the title since they're not in Europe. They put down Real Madrid's success to money spent; therefore they will be successful since they spend money. But it doesn't work like that at all, and unfortunately for the team not being in Europe but still spending a shitload of money, it never will.

* Granted that the vast majority of the United fans do not post on said forum, I still consider it the best way to quickly get a view of the general opinion.

 

[Christian Slater]

Originally postefinancial wrong thread:

He has a target to achieve and has been backed heavily financially to meet it. If there were signs of the team progressing, playing good football, and then we missed out on the top four there would be support. If things don't improve drastically and we miss out on the top 4 then he has done nothing to justify having another year.

 

[Pagnell]

"We do not sack managers, it is not the United way. We're not Scouse." - Spear, January 2014.

 

[thespus]

I think the momentum behind the sack LVG brigade (a mere year after the Sack Moyes brigade and a month or two after some called for Rodgers' head) helps reinforce what ardent Wenger supporters have been saying for the past few seasons—he's not setting the world alight, but our consistency—particularly during the frugal years—isn't something you throw in the rubbish because everything isn't ideal.

 

[Bilo]

He has a target to achieve and has been backed heavily financially to meet it. If there were signs of the team progressing, playing good football, and then we missed out on the top four there would be support. If things don't improve drastically and we miss out on the top 4 then he has done nothing to justify having another year.

Well, that's the thing. A lot of sensible supporters would argue that you deserve more than 10 months to prove yourself, provided you don't completely lose the plot which LVG certainly hasn't. There are countless of managers that have underperformed (Rodgers, SAF, hell, even Bill Shankly) before they turned it around, but there is, as far as I know, not a single example of any manager doing what LVG has been expected to do as an absolute minimum.

I think the momentum behind the sack LVG brigade (a mere year after the Sack Moyes brigade and a month or two after some called for Rodgers' head) helps reinforce what ardent Wenger supporters have been saying for the past few seasons—he's not setting the world alight, but our consistency—particularly during the frugal years—isn't something you throw in the rubbish because everything isn't ideal.

Rodgers job has never been in danger and there has never been anything close to a majority wanting his head. The discussion existed in december when things were quite shit, but the consensus among fans was that he shouldn't have been sacked and I don't know a single reasonable Liverpool supporter that has even entertained the thought.

 

[mase]

"We do not sack managers, it is not the United way. We're not Scouse." - Spear, January 2014.

Has LVG been sacked?

 

[Bilo]

Has LVG been sacked?

http://www.redcafe.net/threads/poll...-forth-will-you-want-van-gaal-to-stay.401651/
http://www.redcafe.net/threads/next-manager-post-lvg.401668/
http://www.redcafe.net/threads/bye-bye-top-4.401158/

Everything but. He's rapidly losing a fanbase that is starting to come across as very impatient. Whilst I only read Liverpool forums, RedCafe and this one, I can't recall seeing anything like it. The guy dropped from 3rd to 4th this weekend and you'd think they're bottom half.