@CO88LER5 wrote:
@Danimal5981I recall 1989, discussing with my brother-in-law the need to fire Alex Ferguson (he was the one saying it; I said he needed time).
I remember the 'Ta-Ra Fergie' banners in the Stretford End...
You're right; managers are not given time; HOWEVER:
the one thing about EtH is that, over 2.5 years, he'd pretty much got an entire side of players that he mostly wanted and yet there was no discernible playing style and the club seemed to be going backwards. Many of those players are ones he's previously worked with, presumably recruited with a way of playing in mind that we could expect them to know and be comfortable with. It simply wasn't working.
Whoever comes in next simply has to be good, AND given time. They have to be good at improving what they have inherited, because there won't be a whole load of new ones coming in.
I must confess that I'm getting sick of the constant change and some of that must be down to a core of players that can't be bothered. Someone needs to put the fear of god into them.
The thing about Arteta and Klopp was that, even in the early months and years, you could see improvement in playing style and results. Under EtH, the club seems to be oing backwards in terms of league results and no development of a playing style.
I agree: with Onana, Mazraoui, De Ligt, Martinez, Eriksen, Antony and previously Van den Beek you've had an Ajax reincarnated playing in the Premier League. And for the sake of argument, lets add Zirkzee and Malacia and a considerable part of the staff. It indeed has been obvious that EtH wanted to introduce his Dutch School Ajax-induced tactics.
But the Dutch School works in those places where they play Dutch football week in, week out; meaning Holland - maybe in the odd European fixture. It will never work on a structural basis elsewhere and definitely not at clubs that traditionally aren't used to playing that way: the only places where the Dutch school might work outside of the Netherlands, are Barcelona or Bayern Munich, that's about it.
In England, I would say Arsenal comes closest to what we would call Dutch School - please, don't mix it with Gegenpressing or Tiki-Taka that in turn are evolutions of Dutch Total Football, but the Dutch School is much more based on overload while in possession, making the field wide via wing-play. Tiki-Taka is short passing, through the middle if need be, while Gegenpressing is a direct play with overload when out of posession - so, they're different.
The dynamics are different: in the Dutch league, you play teams that apply similar tactics, plus the intensity and speed of the game is considerably lower than in England. That's why Ajax, PSV or Feyenoord usually go through most of the league easily, making it possible to really charge themselves for those 10-16 European fixtures they play in a season. In England you can hardly take it easy in order to save up for a European fixture: so, that's why EtH-tactics work in Amsterdam but not in Manchester.
I've used the argument many times: if you go abroad, you'll need to adapt. I think Klopp and now Slot at Liverpool are perfect examples. Sure, they'll try and fit in their view of the game onto the team, but they're doing it in a way that fits thát club from thát country in thát league. Vice versa, Liverpool made a great gesture by splitting the role of manager and head coach (as is common in most of continental Europe).
Other than that, the Dutch (managers and coaches) have never really fit well in England: Gullit, Van Gaal, Advocaat, Koeman, De Boer, now Ten Hag - all top orange dogs, most have been national managers, all failed. (Hiddink and Meulensteen were stop-gap solutions). In my opinion, only Jol did okay-ish during his spell at Spurs, given where Tottenham was at the time: but he really is of the not very Dutch hard-working labour, kick and rush, physical football - exactly what they're used to in England...