Ten Hag sack talk is ‘laughable’; but maybe he should quit Man Utd instead

We are on day 2 of the post-Palace debacle for Man Utd with Erik ten Hag under major pressure. Should he be sacked? Should he walk?

Send your views to theeditor@football365.com

Ten Hag should walk
It won’t happen, because this ain’t an ideal world, and stuff just doesn’t work this way any more. BUT, if ETH had any decency at all, he would resign after Monday night’s debacle. He is simply not fit to be leading a Manchester United team out at Wembley.

And as for the players…time to call on the spirit of the Busby Babes, keep Mainoo, Garnacho and perhaps Dalot as captain on the pitch, and field the academy players for the last games, especially for the FA Cup Final. Then we can at least feel some pride in our team when getting the inevitable shoeing that is coming our way.

Clear the decks, doesn’t matter what it costs, rebuild from the ground up. I’d rather be watching United down below the Premier League (as I did in the Seventies) with a bunch of players that actually give a Fk than this shower of s***e.
ET King (MUFC)

Ten Hag sack? Get some perspective
I know fans are a pretty reactionary bunch, myself included (which is why I generally don’t write in right after a poor match), but the shower in the mailbox on Tuesday morning was almost as bad as that on the field on Monday.

Yes, we look and are terrible at the moment. However, Monday’s defence again included two guys out of position (AWB at left back, Casemiro in centre defence) and 36 years young Evans who was hurried back from injury as cover.

Ahead of them we had Eriksen who this season has been at best 5/10, alongside Mainoo who basically has no midfield partner.

Then we had Mount who is barely back from an injury himself in his first season, and Antony who blows hot and cold like May in the North.

We have 12 injuries (last time I checked, probably more now), and have missed our main CB and any LB all season. Our bench included 5 academy players, most of whom haven’t played 10 minutes of first team football, and 2 keepers. Other than the loanee who hasn’t been up to standard, that left Diallo as the only serious available option unselected.

If you can’t see that as mitigation then I really can’t help you. I can explain it, but I can’t understand it for you.

This against a Palace side who are on good form having recently beaten both Newcastle and Liverpool.

Palace clearly deserved the points, there is no question, argument or debate on that, and well done for putting us rightly to the sword.

But the notion that the manager – who has to try and coax something from the few unbroken or partially broken players available to him – should be sacked for it is laughable. Get some f***ing perspective, you cretins.

Next season won’t be our season, but if we have more than one fit centre and left back – and maybe someone to partner Mainoo who isn’t less movement than my grandad – then it will be a hell of a lot better. And with Ten Hag in charge too.
Badwolf

(I’d love to see a Venn diagram of people who want Tuchel and people who wanted the dirty nation state money – I reckon it would be a minimum 90% cross over)

MORE ON THE MAN UTD SH*T-SHOW
👉 Ten Hag sack may now be inevitable, but where Man Utd go next remains an insoluble puzzle
👉 Man Utd: Report rejects Southgate ‘chosen’ one claim with Tuchel among ‘three candidates’
👉 ‘Deluded’ Ten Hag must learn ‘real lesson’ from Arteta as ‘big red flag’ at Manchester United named

We’re sh*t and we know we are
Many Manchester United fans are probably despairing at the moment.

I’m having a laugh. Part of the football fan experience that United fans haven’t really got to “enjoy” for 30 years is taking delight at how properly, properly shite their team is.

United have looked truly awful against the bottom two teams in the league, are getting hammered by a team in 14th and needed penalties to get past a Championship outfit in the cup. I was genuinely disappointed when Coventry had a late goal disallowed.

Being part of a Manchester family pretty equally divided between reds and blues, I finally get to experience the side of football I watched uncles and cousins go through for many many years.

Obviously part of me if shocked and angry at how bad we are, but I have to admit to also finding it hilarious.
Mike C, was Manchester, now Kerry, Ireland

…I’ve supported this club since 1968, European Cup winners, but this manager and team are the worst team out of all those years. Selfish, greedy, only care about themselves and their wage packets. A group of individuals who don’t understand what a team is or team spirit .

My solution is to get rid of all of them except, if the new manager wants any of the old ones, then Luke Shaw would be the only one – the rest sells or dump, they don’t care.
Laurence Wright

📣TO THE COMMENTS! Should Man Utd get rid of Erik ten Hag? Join the debate here

…If the manager looks like a rabbit in the headlights…. What chance have the fans got when watching… sorry I mean suffering when you see overpaid pampered selfish boys who couldn’t kick there way out of a paper bag. When was the last time we saw Rashford win (nay) even challenge for a header. Get rid or the lot barring Mainoo. Haven’t seen crap like this in over 50 years as a supporter.
Ricky Wood

History to repeat itself?
Did Sir Fergie not save his United career winning the FA Cup?

Last chance ETH. Don’t f#%k it up.
Wayne

Biscuithands: A deeper dive
Genuine thanks to Rob from Suffolk on the biscuit vs cookie distinction, though I’m well aware the colloquial and either pond-side differences between the two. But pausing just a moment longer here, wouldn’t American biscuits be more analogous when discussing Onana’s flimsy biscuithands ? They’re delightfully fluffy, porous and soft, satisfyingly plied apart with minimal effort… and the gobs of petroleum jelly Onana inexplicably slathers on his gloves between walkabouts are of course akin to the gravy.

When I think British biscuits or a “hard cookie” as Rob points to, I picture firmness and rather sturdier constitution, precisely what Biscuithands Onana does not offer in his present remit (except for his trademarked moments where he comes for crosses, absolutely clatters someone to give away a stonewall pen, then gets defended to the hilt by his very equitable and objective gaffer– in such fleeting moments we see that Onana’s wrists and digits can occasionally offer resounding firmness).
Eric, Los Angeles CA (… a keen advocate of any well-made shortbread, Jammie dodgers as mood dictates, and Digestives (the chocolate-dipped ones))

For Ange, read Pep and Mikel
I’ve seen the criticism of Ange and wanted to talk about a pet peeve of mine. When Pep first took over at my beloved City, they made mistakes playing out from the back, which resulted in goals being conceded and some heavy defeats. I remember the usual pundits talking about how City should have got it launched and have a plan B. Then they went quiet when City won the league the next season with 100 points and an excellent defensive record.

When Arteta took over at Arsenal and he got his team to play out from the back, they got the same criticism. This was most obvious when they played the Firmino, Mane and Salah trident and Liverpool’s amazing press exploited and forced mistakes and goals. “Why are Arsenal playing out from the back and playing into Liverpool’s hands? Why don’t they change their approach?” said the usual pundits, who have now gone quiet now that Arsenal have the best defence in the league.

And now we can see it again with Ange and how “he only has one way to play” criticism. This seems obvious to me, but clearly not to the usual pundits, that you can’t bed in a new way of playing, the manager’s chosen way of playing and then abandon it as soon as you play a good team. The manager will lose the players’ belief in his system and his way of playing, if the team selectively throws away the principles that are being instilled in the team.

Going back to Arsenal, and they took their short-term defensive losses and pain, to progress to a medium-term (current) best defence in the league. And I imagine Ange has this in mind, and when he gets his players coached better and/or better defensive additions, they will reap their defensive and overall team benefits.

Hard choices, easy life or easy choices, hard life? I think I know what the best managers choose.
Andy D. Manchester. MCFC

Who should be in charge of transfers?
I was listening to a football podcast on which they were debating football transfers. More specifically who should control them.

In the past the UK has always had a manager rules all structure in which the manager selects the players they want to buy and in most cases even negotiated the transfer and contract details.

Over time managers stopped negotiating contracts but still retained the decision on who they sign. Makes sense right? I mean manager will know best what he needs and who fits that bill.

Throughout most of that time Europe has held the opposite approach , manager says what he needs – a deep sitting midfielder with an eye for a pass and a good engine, for example – and the sporting director and scouting team identify who fits the bill and buys him. At clubs like Barca, Madrid and early 90s Milan the club president basically did all of it. Which seems wrong right?

Then I heard something interesting. The days of managers sticking around for 20 years  are gone. It’s very rare they last more than 6 years now. So why would you want a manager signing a bunch of players that will be no good to the new guy within three of four years?

This is held up by an interview I read with Joan laporta who said the reason managers don’t sign players at Barca is because the club plans long term but the manager is thinking short term. So they allow managers to sign one or two players but the big money is spent by the club (Laporta in this case)

Now it seems counter intuitive but makes sense really. You don’t want a manager blowing the transfer budget on players that don’t fit the club or play style but are ones the manager trusts – United are a classic example of this. And I’d say that is recently a failing of Liverpool too. The club signed players (pretty good ones actually) and the manager (Klopp) was told to build a team with them. I don’t think anyone was FORCED on Klopp like say Ronaldinho at Milan, Kaka at Madrid or Ibra at Barca but he didn’t get his first choice (Brandt) and was given the clubs first choice instead (Salah).

More recently Klopp was given full control and I’d argue our transfers got much worse.

I genuinely think the European model is the correct one. A good manager should be able to make it work with whatever players he gets, especially if the happen to be talented but just not what he specifically wants; Carlo is pretty good at that. The club really should decide how the would like to play (attacking high scoring or solid and defensive for example) then sign players which can achieve that and find a manger which can or will adapt to play that way.

I think Newcastle are a good example of doing this way correctly. They clearly wanted to play an attacking style of football (as is the Geordie way) and then signed some players capable of doing it and a manager who had shown he was up to it.

Anyway, I’m curious what other people think about it. Is the manager rules all system best or the manager is hired to manage the team not club system best?
Lee

READ NEXT: Ten Hag sack may now be inevitable, but where Man Utd go next remains an insoluble puzzle