Sir Alex Ferguson is in the stands on most match days at Old Trafford. The benefits of stability, the virtues of continuity that he represents, however, seem as ancient as the club’s domination of its domestic competition.
The virus that long afflicted the rest of the Premier League has painted Manchester red too. A Manchester United manager, that pantheon of permanence, is the subject of just as much speculation as any other nowadays, each disappointing result an electric shock wired directly to the managerial hot seat.
As Louis van Gaal’s side dug itself ever deeper into a slump in December they showed few signs of reversing.
More positive performances came against Chelsea and Swansea, but a dire FA Cup performance against Sheffield United saw Manchester United’s fans, much like the media, once again turn their ire towards the Dutchman.
His style of play has been mocked, his tactical acumen questioned, and many, including respected former players, have pontificated that while Van Gaal’s philosophy may work on the continent, it is doomed to failure in the Premier League. The manager needs firing they say, his tactics an insult to the “relentless attack” strategy Sir Alex used to preach – one that had served the Red Devils rather well.
Amid the initial hullabaloo last month, Jose Mourinho was sacked after, by Chelsea’s standards, a rather lengthy two-and-a-half year spell at the club. He had overseen the Blues’ demise from league champions to rather dangerous flirtation with the relegation places. He had turned against the media and bore the look of a man at a loss for ideas. He did not look anywhere near capable of guiding his side out of a wretched run of form. He used to be Van Gaal’s protégé at Barcelona. His style of play was, if anything, even more diametrically opposed to Ferguson’s.
He was then, astonishingly, the favourite to take over at Manchester United. A club who faced the very issues he had failed to rectify at Chelsea, and one whose supporters held a prudish regard for attacking football he was so famously dismissive of. Fans held banners calling for the Portuguese to be given the job, his name was sung during games, and scarves beseeching him to join were reported to be doing excellent business.
Mourinho’s qualities and talents are well documented, but so is the idea that the Portuguese is the antithesis of what Manchester United expect from their managers, and not just in terms of his defensive, prosaic approach. For all his achievements at a number of clubs in Europe, he has struggled to turn teams into dynasties, something United have been brought up with. His ability to sustain success with one side has been suspect, and at a club where fifty of the past seventy years have seen only two men at the helm, that is an obvious priority.
A reluctance to push young players through the ranks would also not sit well with the powers that be at Old Trafford, where the number of academy products pushed into the first team has been an important yardstick of success. A penchant for leaving on poor terms with a club’s star players cannot have helped too much either, with Iker Casillas, Cristiano Ronaldo, or Eden Hazard unlikely to be seen making out Christmas cards to their former boss anytime soon.
Besides, the standards that Manchester United’s puritanical, and slightly self-righteous, fans set for their club mean Mourinho’s way, even if it does bring success, is unlikely to placate them for too long. These are people who have watched Giggs and Beckham, Cole and Cantona, Ronaldo and Rooney. They are used to free-flowing football; sitting on the break and counter-attacking might seem like a betrayal of the intrepid, daring image that has turned the club into a global brand.
One person who did more than his fair share in building that worldwide appeal of the club, meanwhile, takes his seat every game next to Van Gaal. The aforementioned Ryan Giggs, teenage prodigy-turned all-time legend, was appointed United’s assistant manager with a view to being handed the reins once van Gaal had left.
Why should criticism of the Dutchman leave him any less suited to take control should the position become vacant?
Van Gaal is regularly accused of failing to understand the traditions and history of United, of being unable to connect with what the fans expect from their team. Who could dare level that accusation at a man who signed for the club on his fourteenth birthday?
It was a short spell in turbulent times that Giggs previously managed United and, in terms of results, a rather unremarkable one. Four dead rubbers at the end of the 2013-14 season (two wins, one draw and one defeat) after David Moyes’ doomed 10-month tenure are not conducive to extrapolation. But what was notable in each of those games was the players’ commitment to attacking football, with full-backs tearing down the wings, crosses flying into the box, and players showing the sort of desire to which Ferguson would have tipped his hat.
Giggs understands – indeed lives – the ethos of attacking, entertaining football Ferguson rubberstamped at the club. He also commands the respect and authority of the squad, and receives near-demagogic adulation from the stands at Old Trafford. He is one of their own, their favourite son. The man who bleeds red. He helped cultivate the success the club’s fans now consider to be their right to expect every season, and should he stumble, they will pick him up over and over again until he gets it right.
Sacking Van Gaal right now may not be the correct call but the logic behind replacing him with his current assistant is straightforward enough. Appointing Mourinho might be great window dressing, but does not cure any of the specific ailments Van Gaal’s United seem to be nursing. They might even be exacerbated.
In what threaten to be treacherous waters ahead for Manchester United, there will be no better anchor than a Welshman who has never disembarked this particular ship.
