Do you see Ten Hag retaining his job once takover is complete?

[Frank]

Sir Jim is on his way to owning close to 25 percent stake at Manchester United. Do you think that he is going to sack Ten Hag and bring in a new manager once the takeover is completed or you feel he is going to let him continue?

 

[Heatman]

Sacking of the manager is not what is going to solve the problem that Manchester United is facing. This is my favourite football club and it's very painful to see what my dear team have been going through for the past 10 years. I believe that a lot of things need to be changed but it is definitely not the manager at the moment.

 

[Riberet19]

I don't know if when he gets so many participations he will fire the coach, I think that as another member says that is not the solution, what is needed in Manchester United is a change of attitude, from the players to the directive, it cannot be that with the amount of money that the team has invested, it still does not work, It can't just be the coach's fault.

 

[Heatman]

I don't know if when he gets so many participations he will fire the coach, I think that as another member says that is not the solution, what is needed in Manchester United is a change of attitude, from the players to the directive, it cannot be that with the amount of money that the team has invested, it still does not work, It can't just be the coach's fault.

The problem with club football is that it is always very easy for the coach to be targeted whenever the team is not playing well. Even when it is very obvious that some certain players are the ones that are causing the team to underperform but unfortunately those players cannot be replaced. It's still the coach that is still going to be the one that is going to suffer the consequences in the end because clubs never fire players but coaches.

 

[Riberet19]

The problem with club football is that it is always very easy for the coach to be targeted whenever the team is not playing well. Even when it is very obvious that some certain players are the ones that are causing the team to underperform but unfortunately those players cannot be replaced. It's still the coach that is still going to be the one that is going to suffer the consequences in the end because clubs never fire players but coaches.

This is easy to explain, it is easier to kick out one person than the whole football team, on one side 11 play, and on the other, there is only the coach who also gives the orders of the game, so he is going to be attacked since he is alone against adversity, it is understandable, but at the same time unfair, as the players are also to blame for the team's performance.

 

[Heatman]

This is easy to explain, it is easier to kick out one person than the whole football team, on one side 11 play, and on the other, there is only the coach who also gives the orders of the game, so he is going to be attacked since he is alone against adversity, it is understandable, but at the same time unfair, as the players are also to blame for the team's performance.

Seriously, it is definitely unfair to the coach although the only place where I would blame the coach whenever his team is not doing well is after he has seen the players who are always consistently underperforming but he keeps on selecting those player to be in his starting 11.

When a player is not playing to the standard that is expect of him, the person should be dropped and another player selected to replace him.

 

[Riberet19]

Seriously, it is definitely unfair to the coach although the only place where I would blame the coach whenever his team is not doing well is after he has seen the players who are always consistently underperforming but he keeps on selecting those player to be in his starting 11.

When a player is not playing to the standard that is expect of him, the person should be dropped and another player selected to replace him.

Yes, what happens is that to kick out a player and find a new one you usually have to wait for the transfer markets to open, and maybe some teams don't have notable replacements for certain playing positions, but I agree with you, if a player is not performing well for too long, the healthiest thing for the team is to get rid of him, after all, it's a business.

 

[Heatman]

Yes, what happens is that to kick out a player and find a new one you usually have to wait for the transfer markets to open, and maybe some teams don't have notable replacements for certain playing positions, but I agree with you, if a player is not performing well for too long, the healthiest thing for the team is to get rid of him, after all, it's a business.

The mistake some of these coaches makes is after they have asked for a particular player to be bought for them during the transfer window and a huge amount of money was splashed to buy that particular player, even when that player is underperforming, they always find it very difficult to drop the player.

I don't understand the logic behind it because when the player is not giving you the results you wanted, it doesn't matter if they spent a huge amount of money on the player, the result is not coming and the players should be removed from the equation for someone who can be able to deliver for the team to play.

 

[Riberet19]

The mistake some of these coaches makes is after they have asked for a particular player to be bought for them during the transfer window and a huge amount of money was splashed to buy that particular player, even when that player is underperforming, they always find it very difficult to drop the player.

I don't understand the logic behind it because when the player is not giving you the results you wanted, it doesn't matter if they spent a huge amount of money on the player, the result is not coming and the players should be removed from the equation for someone who can be able to deliver for the team to play.

Yes, this usually happens in many teams, the directors deceive themselves that it was a terrible investment and they do not want to get rid of the player simply because they spent a lot of money on him, this reminds me of the case of Hazard at Real Madrid, he was signed in 2018, and they did not want to sell him because it had cost the team a lot of money and the player did not perform well on the field, anyway...

 

[Frank]

I don't know if when he gets so many participations he will fire the coach, I think that as another member says that is not the solution, what is needed in Manchester United is a change of attitude, from the players to the directive, it cannot be that with the amount of money that the team has invested, it still does not work, It can't just be the coach's fault.

I don't know how the club ended up with some players that don't fit into the culture of the club. Players such as Jadon Sancho, who is not ready to track back to tackle for a lost ball, have contributed to a lot of the mess that we have at the club recently.

 

[McIrx]

I don't know how the club ended up with some players that don't fit into the culture of the club. Players such as Jadon Sancho, who is not ready to track back to tackle for a lost ball, have contributed to a lot of the mess that we have at the club recently.

As much as the issue of tracking back has been over-hyped in recent years, Jadon Sancho wasn't bought for his defensive contributions. He didn't have to track back at Dortmund and he was very impressive there. Sancho isn't the fastest man out there. He is expected to track back and defend while also present in the opposition box for a fast attack. Common! He is not Flash.

Great managers find a way to use their players where they are most effective. How many times have you seen Salah tracking back? Klopp needs Salah close to the opposition box where he can wreck havoc, not tracking an opposition fullback he's meant to exploit. In Klopp's Liverpool's prime, he fielded hardworking midfielders in Wiljnaldum, Fabinho, Milner and Henderson so as to free his attackers of the defensive duties.

Eden Hazard played one of his best footballs under Conte. The Italian moved Hazard from a winger to an inverted forward, playing him close to Diego Costa and freeing the Belgian of defensive duties. He also fielded Marcos Alonso as a left wing-back and not a fullback because he knew how dangerous Alonso is in attacking transitions. To balance it out, that team had Kante and Matic starting in midfield and doing the dirty works. They also had the ultra-defensive Azpilicueta playing as right back to balance the wildly attacking tendencies of Alonso on the left. That team strolled to the title despite having Guardiola and Arsene Wenger to contend with.

What stops Ten Hag from starting two very defensive, hardworking midfielders so as to free his attackers of the defensive burnouts and leave them fresh and ready to pounce during fast breaks and attacking transitions? That will also help to protect the defenders and goalkeepers from leaking goals every single game. When was the last time you could remember Man United leaking goals this much like a Championship team? Even the naive Solksjær's United team wasn't this bad defensively.



As regards maybe Ten Hag stays or leaves,

We all thought Eddie Howe will be dismissed when the Middle Easterners took over at Newcastle. Well, he's still there doing his thing.

Though rumours have it that Allegri is being looked at, I'll rather have Ten Hag than the very pragmatic Allegri.

Man United have regressed this season; expectations have not been met. The only reason why Ten Hag is still confident is because of the trophy he won last season. If one is to look at Man United this season, it'll be foolhardy to think they can compete and win against the top 6 teams in England. They've lost to Arsenal, City and Spurs already. Only a hugely optimistic person will expect Man United to secure a draw at Newcastle this weekend, not to talk of a win. So, what's the Dutchman building if his team cannot compete and win against top 6 oppositions? Look at how terrible the Champions League campaign has been too?

As for me, the only reason Ten Hag stays in because there is no worthy replacement out there.