Man Utd Thread:

[beer baron]

Pathetic comments tonight from the cheque book manager.

Agree. More absolute bullshit. I'm not a huge fan of Guardiola but one striking difference is that clearly Guardiola believes in his players and facilitates getting the best out of them. The opposite is clearly the case with Mourinho at present. Bar the full backs they bought in the summer when Mourinho bought none I don't see any areas of their team that are vastly superior. What I do see is guys given licence and empowerment to perform, really well coached. What would Jose do with Silva? Sell him I'd say. Aguero? Out wide playing half the games maybe. DeBruyne? Well he got rid of him from Chelsea.

I have quit watching Man United for the first time in my life, I hate the way this clown has them playing and I cant wait until the inevitable divorce happens, this man Mourinho was a great manager at one time, like LVG he is way past his sell by date and he is just as inept, he wants to go to PSG, good riddance I say, people are paying 75 quid on up to watch United scrape draws at home to the likes of Burnley and the fans celebrate like they accomplished something.

If you've quit watching them now having watched through Van Gaals reign i don't know what to say, progress both in terms of entertainment and results under Mourinho.

[Minder]

Good point from German journalist Raphael Hoginstein

"Irrespective of Mourinho's agenda and spin, Man United remain the world's biggest ad for the importance of a clued-up sporting director. Outsourcing your transfer strategy to a select group of agents won't do."

[Captain Scarlet]

The problem is now he might get his 300m and buy two players and somehow there will still be two converted wingers in the full back slots. Now in fairness they are doing well but digging at City who have rebuilt their defence, including a young keeper is stupid.
As I said United will go all out for huge names and then it'll be a shoe-horn job.
Pep had a lot of those lads but he has improved so many of the players that would have been benched earning millions if they were with United. On paper up top and in midfield there is still plenty of class. De Gea is class as is Bailly who is sorely missed.
All the talk of spending and you have to look at the facts Rashford and Lingard were free, as was Ibra.  In the case of City they have spend shitloads but feckin hell what an end product. They are class.
United will splash out again in January and not get any closer. It's harsh on them in fairness as City are humming right now, but they could sustain it for a few years with so many young players.

[seafoid]

The ould guardian columns are very good

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2017/dec/27/jose-mourinho-has-a-point-when-he-says-manchester-united-are-not-a-big-team

Since Ferguson's first title-winning side at least, the assumption has always been that a fully-functioning Manchester United, properly funded and sensibly led, would naturally be the strongest team in England. Even Ferguson had to accept second place to Arsenal or Chelsea on occasion, though the interruption to normal service would usually be short and with a few tweaks and a little squad strengthening United would be back on their perch.

That was broadly the imagined scenario when Mourinho moved to Manchester. He might not have been ideal in some ways, he would probably not stay all that long and he would almost certainly attract the wrong sort of publicity, but if he could turn Louis van Gaal's painfully ponderous side into a version of Chelsea it would at least be a step in the right direction. United would start winning things again, and as soon as that happened they could return to hoovering up the best available talent and generally lording it over the rest of the country.

Whatever you think of José, it was said, he's a proven winner. If he comes across as more of a proven whinger these days that is entirely down to City blocking off the high ground and forcing everyone else to look upwards. Mourinho is now caught in the middle of a United rebuilding project with no immediate prospect of success. For all the investment, United appear to be little better off than they were under Van Gaal and his three-year plan. There is a residual fondness for the idea that United might trump City's league success by winning big in Europe, just as they did in 1968, though half a century ago there was only one English team in Europe. Now there are five, and several of them would be confident if drawn against United, partly because Mourinho's strategy in the big games this season has been so reactive.



José Mourinho says '£300m not enough' for Manchester United to compete

 

Read more

When Mourinho said United's spending so far had not been enough to compete, he meant with City and the top sides around Europe, not Burnley. It was just unfortunate that his comments came after being held at home by everyone's favourite small-town punchers above their weight.

Because it is now almost five years since Ferguson stood down, and just as long since United looked capable of winning the league. Worse than that, it is becoming evident that all that time City were working to a plan that has now come to fruition, and could continue to yield dividends for some years to come.

It is not yet clear whether Mourinho's warning that more money will have to be spent is part of a rebuilding programme or merely a diversionary tactic, but United do need a plan at this stage, and it is going to have to be a belter.

[magpie seanie]

Are people copping on eventually? I hope so.

[Milltown Row2]

Are people copping on eventually? I hope so.

Copping on to the fact that they are in a better position than last season? Have scored more goals and gained more points? Yep I think they have, Jose is no Ferguson but he'd not got a team which had the likes of Giggs, Scholes, Beckham, And the rest! There is no manager out there available to give you what you're looking...

Stop going over the same crap and explain who'd you want to bring Utd back to the swashbuckling style that won so many titles? I think Utd could win a league or two but won't dominate like they did before because of the many factors discussed before.

[Syferus]

The idea that Man City will continually dominate is outlandish in the extreme.

[north_antrim_hound]

The idea that Man Coty will continually dominate is outlandish in the extreme.

Kompany just got injured and it looks serious
Apart from de bruyne he is their most influential player
PL is in the bag but CL is looking shaky

[Milltown Row2]

The idea that Man Coty will continually dominate is outlandish in the extreme.

Kompany just got injured and it looks serious
Apart from de bruyne he is their most influential player
PL is in the bag but CL is looking shaky

How many games have City won with Kompany in the team?

[magpie seanie]

Are people copping on eventually? I hope so.

Copping on to the fact that they are in a better position than last season? Have scored more goals and gained more points? Yep I think they have, Jose is no Ferguson but he'd not got a team which had the likes of Giggs, Scholes, Beckham, And the rest! There is no manager out there available to give you what you're looking...

Stop going over the same crap and explain who'd you want to bring Utd back to the swashbuckling style that won so many titles? I think Utd could win a league or two but won't dominate like they did before because of the many factors discussed before.

Ferguson, to his credit, built the club structures up and they yielded the Beckhams, Nevilles, Giggs etc - much like City have put in place the infrastructure to provide for continuity of success. Times have changed so it's no longer about bringing young players on, more about identifying the right type of talent to suit your style.City have that now. Moyes ripped those structures apart and David Gill, asshole that he was, was good at his job and has been replaced by a lightweight. Bringing in Mourinho was like trying to put a band aid on a gash that needs 30 stitches. A salty band aid at that.

[Syferus]

What member of the starting Manchester City team even set foot in the City Academy, much less came up through their system?

[Boycey]

In Seafoid mode here, good read from Mark Ogden

http://www.espn.co.uk/football/club/manchester-united/360/blog/post/3327213/jose-mourinho-right-to-say-more-cash-needed-for-manchester-united-rebuild

Simple question would these problems still exist under A.N. other manager that some people crave or would we be going toe to toe with City at the top??

On the face of it, Wednesday was a bad day for Jose Mourinho. Manchester City stretched their lead at the top of the Premier League to 15 points and Liverpool made Virgil van Dijk the world's most expensive defender by striking a £75 million deal with Southampton for the Netherlands centre-back.

Just 24 hours after insisting that Manchester United could only close the gap on Pep Guardiola's league leaders by spending more money, Mourinho must have felt that he was being hit from both sides with City coasting to victory at Newcastle and Liverpool's American owners sanctioning the huge move for Van Dijk.

But the flip side for Mourinho is that the events of Wednesday evening offered him the ammunition, if needed, to strong-arm United executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward, and the Glazer family, United's owners, into coming up with the funds he believes are required to make his team contenders rather than merely the best of the rest.

There was little immediate support for Mourinho in the wake of his comments, following Tuesday's 2-2 Old Trafford draw against Burnley, which suggested that, despite spending more than £300m on new players since arriving at United 18 months ago, the team still needed much more investment in order to compete with City.

But the reality is that, regardless of the vast sums spent by Mourinho at United, they are still in need of at least four players to take them to the level at which both they and the manager expect to be.

United under Mourinho are a paradox, so his comments cannot be dismissed out of hand as little more than sour grapes after spending a fortune.

The money spent has triggered a big improvement at United under Mourinho -- they won two major trophies in his first season last year and they currently sit second in the Premier League with 10 more points than at the same stage of last season.

After drifting for three years under David Moyes and then Louis van Gaal following Sir Alex Ferguson's retirement in 2013, when fourth was the best finish United achieved, Mourinho has made United strong again and taken them back above the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea.

The only problem for Mourinho and United is that City have pulled away from them and everybody else, disappearing over the horizon at a rate of knots.

As a result, United's improvement under Mourinho has been distorted by the performances of the team three miles across Manchester at the Etihad Stadium.

So while United's big spending on the likes of Paul Pogba and Romelu Lukaku has worked to a certain extent, in taking them above the pack, it has not come close to landing a blow on City.

There are many reasons for United's failure to compete with City and the spending gap over the last 18 months is only one of them.
Guardiola has signed 16 players as City manager, with Mourinho recruiting seven for United.

In terms of basic figures, Guardiola has outspent Mourinho by £75m in his time at the Etihad, but that figure leaps to £110m if add-ons and incentives are included.
Either way, City have invested more in their squad, both financially and in terms of personnel, since Guardiola arrived than United have under Mourinho.
And Guardiola was working with stronger foundations when he walked into the Etihad than those Mourinho inherited at Old Trafford.

City's squad was a strong one that was under-performing. United's was a collection of good, bad and indifferent signings which had been drained of confidence and belief by Moyes and Van Gaal
.
Mourinho had more work to do with the United squad than Guardiola at City and the £300m was needed -- but he clearly needs to spend more, not to be better than the rest, but to compete with City.

Only time will tell whether that money will be forthcoming, but with United needing two new full-backs, at least one midfielder, a left winger and a No. 10 in the mould of Eden Hazard or Philippe Coutinho, Woodward and the Glazers will not get much change out of £200m.

But United's owners are now discovering the full cost of their spending policy during the final years of Ferguson when, following the £80m world-record sale of Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid in 2009, they sought 'value' signings rather than the stellar deals being done by City for the likes of Yaya Toure, David Silva and Sergio Aguero.


A combination of arrogance, complacency and stubbornness saw United stand aside while City invested in both the present and the future.

The failure to keep step with City in the transfer market in the early years of this decade is why United have spent the post-Ferguson years spending, and wasting, money in a misguided attempt to close the gap. It is why £300m has not been enough for Mourinho to make them title challengers.

The former Chelsea manager has made it clear what he and the team needs to do that. So what happens next will tell us whether United still have the ambition to be the best or if being the best of the rest is enough.

[Cunny Funt]

The idea that Man Coty will continually dominate is outlandish in the extreme.

Kompany just got injured and it looks serious
Apart from de bruyne he is their most influential player
PL is in the bag but CL is looking shaky

It's 4 or 5 years since kompany was one of Citys most influential players.  Their strength in depth is so good right now that they didn't need to use arguably the best striker in the league in the Manchester Derby. They will either win this season's champions league or the team that beats them will win it.

[seafoid]

The idea that Man City will continually dominate is outlandish in the extreme.

Why? They have the money. They have the manager.

[magpie seanie]

What member of the starting Manchester City team even set foot in the City Academy, much less came up through their system?

I might have known you'd be the first one to totally miss the point.

City have set up a talent evaluation and identification structure. They buy the players they want that fit what they wish to achieve. They'll still invest in their academy but it's not going to be a major source of first team players like it was for United 20 odd years ago. Those days are gone though if there are good kids in their hinterland they're well placed to pick them up.