The Mailbox questions Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s credentials to judge Erik ten Hag. Also: Manchester City’s ropey record on signings; commentary preferences; Arsenal’s Champions League prospects; and more…
Get your views in to theeditor@football365.com…
Ten Hag isn’t the problem
Is there any chance you can stop stirring the pot regards United’s manager? I understand the dysfunction at the club has generated significant clicks for you in the past ten years but how often have you berated the club for not putting the correct structures in place above the manager?
The last time I looked, the only people who had actually started work at Manchester United were INEOS themselves. Could you remind me exactly how qualified they are to make a footballing decision? Because I’m pretty sure their success at Lausanne and Nice thus far comes under the “questionable” bracket. So it would be nice if there were some actual (rather than “proper”) football people in the roles we’ve been crying out for since Fergie retired and seemingly vacated every single one of them.
We know it’s not going well for Erik and to be honest it’s quite likely that the football people will bin him off as soon as they’re in. But a decision to sack him, made by people with a poor record of recruiting managers so far would not represent progress at United. And who on earth would take over on an interim basis? Steve McLaren? Ole?!
You cite loads of other big clubs looking for managers (I reckon you might be able to add Real Madrid to the list by the way) but we’ve gone down the route of hiring so called elite managers like Jose, and let’s not forget Ten Hag was supposedly being looked at by Real Madrid and Bayern before rocking up at Old Trafford. Unfortunately it doesn’t matter because everything behind the scenes is complete sh*t.
Let’s get the structure above him in place, hopefully by summer and let them make a collective decision on Ten Hag’s capabilities. Otherwise it’ll just be the same mistake that’s been made again and again.
But, as John Nicholson knows, that’s what everyone wants isn’t it?
Ash Metcalfe
Read more: Man Utd cannot sleep on biggest manager appointment since 2013 in hardest summer
City flops
Weldoninhio suggested that Manchester City have avoided signing flops under Pep Guardiola’s stewardship in the mailbox, so i thought i would take a look into the club’s transfer history under Pep. Despite City’s reputation for astute acquisitions, a closer look reveals that they have indeed made some missteps. Here’s a rundown of notable signings that failed to live up to expectations:
Claudio Bravo: Brought in to replace Joe Hart in 2016, Bravo’s tenure as City’s No. 1 goalkeeper was marred by concentration lapses, leading to a swift exit.
Danilo: Despite versatility, Danilo struggled to adapt to the Premier League, often deployed out of position at left-back.
Benjamin Mendy: Plagued by persistent injuries, Mendy’s potential was overshadowed by his lengthy spells on the sidelines.
Joao Cancelo: While initially integral to City’s success, Cancelo’s discontent and disrespectful behavior towards Guardiola led to his departure on loan to Bayern Munich.
Kalvin Phillips: Phillips failed to make a meaningful impact despite accruing medals, a signing as pointless as Jack Rodwell.
Nolito: Signed as one of Guardiola’s early recruits, Nolito’s stint in England proved underwhelming, prompting a swift return to La Liga.
Eric Garcia: Touted as a future defensive stalwart, Garcia departed City on a free transfer after failing to agree a new deal.
Ferran Torres: Another player who failed to make an impact in the Premier League mostly down to injuries, did score a hat trick against Newcastle and was sold for a profit.
While Manchester City boasts a commendable track record in the transfer market, the presence of these flops or players that didn’t hit light up the game shows that even the most successful clubs are not immune to occasional misjudgments.
The Admin @ At The Bridge Pod
Read more: Man City have had more transfer flops than Man Utd and Chelsea in 2023/24
This is how it feels to be City
I just want to write in to let you know that nobody cares about City. With that said:
*16 paragraph novella on the ins and outs of City, the project, the owner, the Chairman, the business structure, the players, the manager,
the Youth Academy, accounts, sponsors, conspiracy theories and QAnon like connections, etc*
But I don’t care about City. Oh and actually I read in the 7th Mailbox entry the other day about City that…
*More paragraphs of a forensic examination on Manchester City*
The real takeaway from this should obviously be that that nobody cares about Man City.
Thanks,
Patrick, Dublin
The real reason Arsenal won’t win the Premier League…
…is rather simple.
There’s zero evidence to date that they have the cojones to keep going after the clocks forward.
It happened last season when they faded under pressure from City.
It happened the season before when they were in the top 4 all season but imploded right at the end.
Arsenal fans can claim this season is different all they want; the fact is, all available evidence suggests it won’t be.
The only way to prove otherwise is to actually go and have a good April and May and get the job done, for once. Good luck with that, up against two of Europe’s behemoths of the past 5 years.
I know where my money is, and it ain’t the team from North London.
Andy H, Swansea
READ: Five reasons Arsenal won’t win the Premier League title
Chill, Jude
A two game ban for Bellingham when Madrid have a commanding lead in La Liga title race.
England supporters should be pleased. He’ll be just a bit fresher for Euro 2024.
Stephen – Toronto
Arsenal, Mbappe and Ronaldo
Watching the Champions League games on Tuesday night got me thinking these 3 related strange thoughts:
Firstly, I am an Arsenal fan however, how in the world are Arsenal still 3rd favourites to win the Champions League with many bookmakers when 1) we have not played Champions League for 7 years, 2) we have not been passed the round of 16 since for 14 years, 3) we are 1-0 down against an average Portuguese side, 4) we have never ever won the Champions League or Europa League/UEFA cup, 5) we have won nothing other than a couple of FA cups in 20 years.
Our European success is basically the same as West Ham, 2 non-Champions League/Europa League trophies. To add more to this I can’t believe Bayern with a Champions League winning manager and team that won it a few years ago, Inter who are the best team in Italy by a mile and last years finalists and PSG who have the best player in the world and finalist a few years ago are not shorter odds with the bookmakers, especially as 2 of those clubs are already through to the next round.
Secondly talking of PSG, I know it’s been said before, but Mbappe is similar to Brazilian Ronaldo in terms of pace and power. It got me thinking that its strange that PSG are essentially just using Mbappe in the Champions League now and taking him off halfway through Ligue 1 games as if they are saying he’s so good and the league is so bad that they can do without him, obviously this is with the backdrop of a disgruntled club who are losing their most prized asset for nothing.
However, this concept seemed to ring a bell with me then I remembered, the year is 1997 and Glasgow Rangers tried to buy the then best player in the world Ronaldo with a view that he did not need to play in the domestic games he could just play in the Champions League if he liked. This might sound crazy to the younger generation, but Rangers were seemingly one of the only other serious considerations Ronaldo was making before moving from Barcelona to Inter.
Thirdly this then got me thinking when was the point that we had to start referring to Ronaldo as Brazilian Ronaldo and instead call Cristiano Ronaldo just Ronaldo. It seems strange now but their careers overlapped by 9 years and there is only 8 years difference between the pair. Brazilian Ronaldo seems to be from a bygone age whereas Cristano is still relevant-ish today. For context the age difference between the Ronaldo’s is about the same as the age difference between Phil Foden and Kevin de Bruyne.
That’s all,
Paul K, London
Commentary preference
Good to see a Peter G letter, seems like ages since I read anything from you (though I could easily have missed some), proper mailbox royalty.
To answer your question, what I appreciate in a main commentator is mostly in the sound of their voice. I want the tone and emotion in their words to reflect and elevate what I’m seeing on the screen. If a game is end to end their description of the action should be almost frantic, if a team is holding on at the end of a game I want to feel the tension through them, when a goal is scored (especially a crucial one) I want that explosion of noise and strain in their voice because that’s how it feels as a fan when your team scores.
My personal favourite is Clive Tyldesley because it really feels like he gets excited at key moments no matter what team is playing, almost like a fan of all teams and can express that fan feeling for us. Also the “SHERINGHAM!!!” moment in the 99 UCL final will always be with me as United fan. Love the guy
Co-commentators should be there to provide context to the action, tell me things I might not have thought of, and mostly to fill in the boring parts of games. For this reason I do love Ally McCoist. Whilst incredibly knowledgeable and effortlessly funny he recognises when a game is dull and easily pulls and amusing anecdote about one of coaches sat on the bench or something about one of the players dad’s that he played with. Brings brilliant depth to the experience which is so far beyond the ‘I’ll tell you what to think’ sort of attitude Neville and co seem to radiate.
Dave, Manchester
…Regarding Peter G’s mail from yesterday, I must say I do enjoy Champers as a commentator. He’s very straight, very BBC, and tells you exactly what is going on, although I am an old man and very traditional in my tastes. Peter Drury on the other hand comes across as a bit of an ass, desperately trying to crowbar his pre-scripted lines into the games, no matter if it has any bearing on what he is watching. It probably sounded very profound and witty in his head in the car on the way to work. Very Partridgesque.
The Apex has to be Fletcher and McCoist if you want to be entertained whilst you watch the match, which is after all what football should be – entertainment. Rather fond of Jamie Mackie too. The nadir has to be Savage/Owen/Ferdinand/ plus anybody. They do tend to drag anyone down to their level.
Sadly, I cannot get my head (ears) round the female commentators whilst watching men’s football. Not for anything they say or how they say it, but purely from the pitch, tone and timbre of their voices. Unfortunately, to me, they all sound like my wife wittering on about her sister’s cat whilst I am trying to concentrate on something else. I can’t tell her to shut up, but I wish she would. But as I said, I’m an old man and a traditionalist. But I’m not Joey Barton.
The best/worst line of commentary I can remember delivered came courtesy of Tony Gubba during a Leeds match years ago. A Leeds forward had just been cleaned out in the penalty area for an obviously penalty. “Oh” says Gubba, “that looked like a bad challenge and a possible penalty” – Classic Line – “but I have no opinion on that whatsoever”. Genius! It even became part of our Friday night lexicon:-
Me – “Which curry house are we going to after the pubs, the Jaflong or the Mangla?”
Toots – “I’m Tony Gubba”
TG, what a leg-end.
Bladey Mick (Last of the dinosaurs)
PS: Toots is an idiot, it was always the Mangla.
PPS: They’ve only gone and shut it down. Bugger!
