'Mourinho too wary of Giggs to have him as no2'

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

That's practically a Scholes quote from last autumn

Not something people were saying last summer though

Great minds think alike.

Obviously took Giggs a year to get the players to adopt his tactics.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

That's practically a Scholes quote from last autumn

Not something people were saying last summer though

There are only two possibilities. Either Scholes was just giving voice to what everyone, except you it seems, could see with their own eyes, or he just made it all up to help his mate out and we just mindlessly adopted it as our own beliefs because we are thick and he was a good player here.

Must contemplate this....

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Writing was on the wall for van Gaal just weeks after he was top of the league and it was largely down to how unpopular he had quickly become. He even won nine of his last twelve games with improvements in the attacking play and the kids sparkling and still got booed at Old Trafford on his last appearance.

So contributing factors to that unpopularity were very important. We could see the culture clash from a stylistic point of view, but for me he was clearly hung out to dry in terms of public perception also. With more support I think he'd have been okay.

For me the problem with the analysis was lack of balance. Nobody is obliged to like the possession based style, but to watch a team play Daley Blind at CB with a high line and Martial and Mata out wide and say it's risk free management was insane.

I suspect Mourinho acknowledges this. If he gets us back in the CL knockouts, he'll show us real risk free

not having a dig, but how many times did you go and watch united at old trafford under van gaal?

if you think he lost the support because scholes was nasty to him in the media you're living in cloud cuckoo land. honestly.

Originally Posted by utd99

There are only two possibilities. Either Scholes was just giving voice to what everyone, except you it seems, could see with their own eyes, or he just made it all up to help his mate out and we just mindlessly adopted it as our own beliefs because we are thick and he was a good player here.

Must contemplate this....

Sounds like Mourinho doesn't need to contemplate it. The conflict of interest is very clear.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

not having a dig, but how many times did you go and watch united at old trafford under van gaal?

if you think he lost the support because scholes was nasty to him in the media you're living in cloud cuckoo land. honestly.

Never said that. There was plenty to be dissatisfied with on the field. The manager copping absolutely all the blame, however....

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Sounds like Mourinho doesn't need to contemplate it. The conflict of interest is very clear.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Never said that. There was plenty to be dissatisfied with on the field. The manager copping absolutely all the blame, however....

Not all, just most.

Originally Posted by Dave

Giggs

He'd probably work as Fred the Red so long as he didn't have to leave. Too afraid to fly the nest.

Afraid this might be true, and his chaotic private life makes it all the more plausible.

Go on Giggsy, come out of your comfort zone - its for your own good.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Never said that. There was plenty to be dissatisfied with on the field. The manager copping absolutely all the blame, however....

you wouldn't think that either if you'd been to old trafford to watch van gaal's team, believe me

you seem to be coming at this 100% from what you heard scholes banging on about in the media.

what was scholes saying in season 1? i don't really remember tbh, but what i do know is that united's style was being panned in the media, and there was widespread discontent inside old trafford on match-days - while people were awake anyway.

don't need to tell you i didn't agree with most of it. but nor do i agree with all this shite about how a novice assistant manager supposedly undermined lvg.

Originally Posted by utd99

Indeed.



Not all, just most.

Pretty much all. It reached nonsense proportions when we went to Newcastle and played defensively, got a 3-3 draw and the likes of Rio and Scholes said we had played more in the United way

Anyway, perhaps lessons learned. A united front would have been better for everyone, including their mate Giggs. Mourinho is a paranoid nutcase; he was always going to spot such undermining factors.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Pretty much all. It reached nonsense proportions when we went to Newcastle and played defensively, got a 3-3 draw and the likes of Rio and Scholes said we had played more in the United way

Anyway, perhaps lessons learned. A united front would have been better for everyone, including their mate Giggs. Mourinho is a paranoid nutcase; he was always going to spot such undermining factors.

you do know the mythical united way absolutely includes brilliant counter-attack play don't you?

it's very difficult to counter attack when you'd rather keep possession than play a risky ball in the final 3rd. that's where we finally improved in the last months of last season. and controversial though it is, part of that was van gaal coming more to the united style of play, no doubt with much help from giggs, the bloke who undermined him all the way to lifting the fa cup for the first time in a decade

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

you wouldn't think that either if you'd been to old trafford to watch van gaal's team, believe me

you seem to be coming at this 100% from what you heard scholes banging on about in the media.

what was scholes saying in season 1? i don't really remember tbh, but what i do know is that united's style was being panned in the media, and there was widespread discontent inside old trafford on match-days - while people were awake anyway.

don't need to tell you i didn't agree with most of it. but nor do i agree with all this shite about how a novice assistant manager supposedly undermined lvg.

Scholes was tending to have a go at Rooney a bit more in season one if I recall correctly. And often said it was the strikers letting us down. He was t covering us as often then of course as we were out of Europe and he wasn't on CL coverage anyway.

As for undermining influences, for me it remains undeniable. I cannot see how the assistants mate slaughtering the manager weekly isn't an undermining aspect. Not just with the fans, but with the players of whom some feel more attached to the assistant.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

you do know the mythical united way absolutely includes brilliant counter-attack play don't you?

it's very difficult to counter attack when you'd rather keep possession than play a risky ball in the final 3rd. that's where we finally improved in the last months of last season. and controversial though it is, part of that was van gaal coming more to the united style of play, no doubt with much help from giggs, the bloke who undermined him all the way to lifting the fa cup for the first time in a decade

Nah they said it was attacking football. They also suggested players had possibly ignored instructions in carrying it out. This came a week after Chelsea arrived at Old Trafford playing deep and playing for a 0-0 and Rio said this defensive set-up was similar to that which United had been playing all season. Seriously it was shocking analysis which I think had actually become bordering on bias.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Pretty much all. It reached nonsense proportions when we went to Newcastle and played defensively, got a 3-3 draw and the likes of Rio and Scholes said we had played more in the United way

Anyway, perhaps lessons learned. A united front would have been better for everyone, including their mate Giggs. Mourinho is a paranoid nutcase; he was always going to spot such undermining factors.

How would that work? Surely the whole point of being a pundit is to have, and voice, independant opinions. This is Sky and BT, not Mutv mate.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Scholes was tending to have a go at Rooney a bit more in season one if I recall correctly. And often said it was the strikers letting us down. He was t covering us as often then of course as we were out of Europe and he wasn't on CL coverage anyway.

As for undermining influences, for me it remains undeniable. I cannot see how the assistants mate slaughtering the manager weekly isn't an undermining aspect. Not just with the fans, but with the players of whom some feel more attached to the assistant.



Nah they said it was attacking football. They also suggested players had possibly ignored instructions in carrying it out. This came a week after Chelsea arrived at Old Trafford playing deep and playing for a 0-0 and Rio said this defensive set-up was similar to that which United had been playing all season. Seriously it was shocking analysis which I think had actually become bordering on bias.

seems the main influence the pundits had was on you.

the evidence on the pitch was that van gaal managed a rashford-inspired team in the last few months of the season and things improved dramatically at the point of our attack thanks to that.

the whole 2 years was a story of that centre forward role. van persie should have been an ideal ally for the manager but it was complicated by the inclusion of rooney and falcao, and the cluelessness over di maria. this carried over into season 2 because van gaal deliberately opted to build around rooney as his 9 (despite saying in season 1 that rooney was not a 9) and because he was wrong to swap di maria for memphis.

you never know which players will flop, but he reduced his own options, his cover all got crocked, and it took until spring to find a solution. for me it's a big shame because with rashford and martial there was finally the quick feet, power, pace and movement van gaal could work with. it led him to the cup, but it was too little too late. it looks as though united would have made the switch even with a 4th place finish, which i didn't think they would at the time. but van gaal was entirely the architect of his own demise if key decisions of a manager decide his fate.

Originally Posted by utd99

How would that work? Surely the whole point of being a pundit is to have, and voice, independant opinions. This is Sky and BT, not Mutv mate.

I have no idea why you keep reducing it to a simple punditry job. When it's people who are very close to the assistant manager it becomes something far more undermining. How on earth this can continue to escape people is beyond me, especially when suggestions are Mourinho feels the same way.

But it's not so much about the fans. Van Gaal had to bite his tongue a few times last season but talked about how the media coverage undermined his authority over players. I doubt he was talking about Neil Custis when he said that.

Clearly we won't agree, but if the perception within the club was what it appeared and what seemingly well sourced articles since he left have indicated, then the clear disconnect between van Gaal and an old guard represented by Giggs would be massively damaging.

I'm not surprised if Mourinho sees it the same way.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

I have no idea why you keep reducing it to a simple punditry job. When it's people who are very close to the assistant manager it becomes something far more undermining. How on earth this can continue to escape people is beyond me, especially when suggestions are Mourinho feels the same way.

But it's not so much about the fans. Van Gaal had to bite his tongue a few times last season but talked about how the media coverage undermined his authority over players. I doubt he was talking about Neil Custis when he said that.

Clearly we won't agree, but if the perception within the club was what it appeared and what seemingly well sourced articles since he left have indicated, then the clear disconnect between van Gaal and an old guard represented by Giggs would be massively damaging.

I'm not surprised if Mourinho sees it the same way.

mourinho hasn't had a chance to see anything at all yet. he hasn't even met up with the squad ffs.

seemingly well sourced articles (whatever that means) suggested long before xmas 15 that what was mostly 'undermining' van gaal's authority was that the players were bored to tears by the preparation regime. the players are £#%&!ers.

one of the things i will miss the most about van gaal being manager is the pre-match drills. just a shame it rarely worked as well when there was actually an opposition team in front of them.

A free reign by the club to do as he pleased, 250 million to spend, 2 seasons, he was shite and sacked, move on,

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

mourinho hasn't had a chance to see anything at all yet. he hasn't even met up with the squad ffs.

seemingly well sourced articles (whatever that means) suggested long before xmas 15 that what was mostly 'undermining' van gaal's authority was that the players were bored to tears by the preparation regime. the players are £#%&!ers.

one of the things i will miss the most about van gaal being manager is the pre-match drills. just a shame it rarely worked as well when there was actually an opposition team in front of them.

From the sounds of it Mourinho has seen what was fairly obvious last season. It won't have missed him that United continued to look a well coached side, but to get that bit extra you really need a United club. As he knows al too well. LvG not getting key personnel on board in the medium term was a huge part of his failure.

It's going to be interesting to see Mou balance his obvious need to exert authority with a caution that must come with how things have unraveled in his last two jobs in terms of player relations. He's coming into a group who complained at double training sessions during pre season. He had Chelsea players doing double sessions in December

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

From the sounds of it Mourinho has seen what was fairly obvious last season.

The sounds of no quotes?

Haven't read the whole thread, but isn't it entirely plausible that Jose has actually discussed the role with his old mentor LVG? At the end of the day, it's often all too easy to buy into the press version of events and think that Van Gaal walked away an injured and badly treated ex-employee of the club, but, BUT he walked away millions of pounds richer (winning a trophy, etc,etc).

Maybe Louis has given Mourinho the heads up as to what it was like running the club, making the whatever one somewhat uninclined to retain Giggsy's services?

Originally Posted by Tiberian

The sounds of no quotes?

Come on, mate. The Times aren't going with that piece unless it's pretty solid. He's not going to say it on record.

Might just be me and Mou sitting in one tree of paranoid suspicion, but I doubt the story is made up.

Originally Posted by BarryX

Haven't read the whole thread, but isn't entirely plausible that Jose has actually discussed the role with his old mentor LVG? At the end of the day, it's often all too easy to buy into the press version of events and think that the Van Gaal walked away an injured and badly treated ex-employee of the club, but, BUT he walked away millions of pounds richer (winning a trophy, etc,etc). Maybe, Louis has given Mourinho the heads up as to what it was like running the club, making the whatever one somewhat uninclined to retain Giggsy's services?

I don't think people realise how close they were/are. There was talk of LvG being furious with him, but there was also talk of them being in contact during the speculation. Either way, Mourinho I'm sure would have reached out to him.

If that's the case, you could be right. I always felt uneasy with the way LvG constantly blew smoke up Giggs' arse in public. People going to think I'm overreacting again, but to me seemed like the keep your enemies close approach