Winning the FA Cup would change nothing.

We need to win the league, without Ferguson. That's the bottom line.

Everything else is fluff.

This sums it all up for me.

As bad as the Van Gaal era has been, it's the fear of giving his so called successor the next job. No managerial experience whatsoever apart from being an ex player. 'Knowing United' or learning from the best means bugger all quite frankly. All these ex players who keep banging the drum don't give any other reasons other than romantic claptrap as to why he is qualified for the job.

Even those who aren't friends of Jose must realise that whatever shithouse antics he's got upto he is qualified for the job and is what we need whether you like him or not.

Much rather the devil we know than the one we don't.

It goes against the grain but I will have a bit of admiration for the board if they stick with Van Gaal and then give the job to Giggs.

Giggs is the massive Unknown, the coin flip if you like. Much like Ninny I'd like to hear why he is so highly thought of as a potential manager other than "he knows the club" which is a good thing in itself but does win matches. Ex players keep saying he'd be great but don't really say why. These guys aren't stupid though so there must be reasons. Andy Cole said it the other week and he's not shy of saying what he thinks so it's no a "my mate Giggsy" mentality.

Bottom line is van Gaal doesn't deserve another season and Giggs doesn't deserve to walk into the job though, and that's always going to be my overriding feeling.

Real Madrid are desperate to get Mourinho back at the Bernabeu and will try and hijack any moves by United to sign him themselves according to today's Mirror. Seems unlikely he'd go back there to me unless United rejected him and no more tempting offers come in.

It seems that one of the most oft-cited pro-Giggs argument is: "Look at Guardiola". Forgetting that Guardiola is well documented as taking a tactical interest in the game from a very young age being keen to be involved in the coaching side of the game whilst playing under Cruyff even in his early 20s.

Giggs is on record as saying in 2010, aged 37, when the subject of his post-playing career came up:

""I'll have to find something to do because I get bored when I have a couple of days off. What I'll do, I just don't know."

The difference there is being committed to the role in your early 20s vs being not sure whether you want to do it or not many years past the age most players have already retired and made that decision.


Had Giggs taken an interest and studied under Sir Alex and took an interest in coaching in his mid 20s or even early 30s then things might be different but he was nearly 40 and still talking like someone who didn't know what he'd be doing once he stopped playing who didn't even seem to have committed to coaching/management even at that point in his career/life. This isn't someone who is in anyway comparable to Guardiola, I'm sorry Giggs fans.

In many ways it's tremendously disrespectful to Guardiola for this impression to be given that he tired managing and somehow lucked into being good at it, so the same could apply to Giggs. Guardiola was a successful manager because he worked at what it world take years and years before he even finished playing. A million miles from the "might work, who knows?" pro-Giggs argument. Just like Mourinho who probably recognising his own limitations as a player turned his attention to coaching and management long before he got his first opportunity in that field.

The whole "Look at Guardiola" argument angers me tremendously. Guardiola is as far away from Ryan Giggs as it's possible to get.

It may just be perception, but Giggs doesn't appear to have the necessary nous or authority to be a manager, in my opinion.

In other news, The Mirror reckon that Everton would accept £65m for Lukaku.

I think it's important to find a healthy balance with youth players. Obviously you don't just want to call them up for the sake of it, but when they're good enough they do deserve to be given a chance.

Players like Borthwick-Jackson, Lingard and Rashford probably won't ever be central to first team plans but they are capable of providing depth for the squad and playing at a good level when called upon. That said, I don't think playing youth players is a strong point of van Gaal's either and is largely a result of injuries and a poorly assembled squad. For each of them, there is also another youth player who hasn't been handled well.

I think Fosu-Mensah could be a bit of a diamond in the rough though and I'd worry for players like him if Mourinho were to take charge. Even in his most recent stint at Chelsea, several promising young players weren't given opportunities in the first team.

What manager could we appoint who will feel he has time to let these guys develop though? That is my question. Any manager we appoint has to do well almost straight away so who can afford to risk inexperienced youngsters when there is a large chequebook sitting around which allows the purchase of the finished article?

In an ideal world with a couple of titles in the bag the team can evolve but you'd have to have a death wish to do it from the outset.

I really don't think it is that difficult to integrate young players and have success. Pochettino has done it extremely well at Spurs - Dier, Alli and Kane are all very important cogs in that team now. I know two of those players weren't academy products there but it's the same premise.

Mourinho let comparably established players like de Bruyne and Lukaku go at Chelsea and now they are among the best players in the league. Likewise, he had a conveyer belt of talent to choose from who were out on loan and very few (if any) got chances in the first team - even when the first teamers were under performing.

That was a close one lol http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....fusal-11156631

I uspect the mirror are right, but the man himself wants Champions League football, so that might rule you out. PSG want him too.

I suppose it depends if he's bothered about playing in England. If he isn't, then yeah, he might well go to someone like PSG.

Perhaps he'll go to Leicester? Or Spurs, when we get Kane?

With all due respect to Spurs, Pochettino doesn't have the same expectations or the same transfer budget that Man Utd do so its easier for him to do that.

As for Mourinho he is being judged on what these players went on to become rather than what they were when he had them. Lukaku has developed and learned at WBA and Everton and its only now you he is looking to play CL football. Mourinho was managing a club that sacked him a few months after winning the title, he didn't have the time to do the spadework with the likes of Lukaku that WBA and Everton had - he'd have been sacked before they got to the stage they are at now.

From all my years of watching football if you are a top club under performing, I dont think choking a bunch of kids in is particularly good for either their development or your job prospects. Would you have wanted to be brought into that Chelsea side that was in free fall and be expected to rescue the situation? You could absolutely hamper a young player by doing that to him.

Perhaps, though giving players minutes here and there in the league or in cup games can give you a good indication of their ability at senior level without having to take too many risks.

I don't think so, most people were aware of Lukaku and de Bruyne's capabilities at the time. Lukaku had already proven himself in the Premier League with successful loan spells at West Brom and Everton before he was allowed to leave, same with de Bruyne at Werder Bremen.

I never said anything about chucking a bunch of kids in but promoting one or two wouldn't have been the worst idea.
There's definitely an argument to be made that some of the players at Chelsea weren't playing for him - a driven youngster would almost certainly be more effective in that situation.

Januzaj was introduced in the Moyes season and turned out to be one of our best players that year. Raheem Sterling's breakout season for Liverpool also came when they finished 7th in the league. Those are just two examples from the top of my head in recent years.

Januzaj is a fine example, world beater for 5 minutes fallen off a cliff the next. See also Macheda. Managers can be relying on guys like that.

I was watching highlights of an old match on MUTV earlier, and our old goalkeeper Bailey stood out, as he was before my time, could anyone who was around then tell me was he held in high in regard, and where in the pantheon of great goalkeepers that we have been lucky enough to have would he possibly stand?

Eh? He was dropped at the back end of last season and has barely featured since returning from loan. How is he supposed to make an impression?

I hope the comparison to Macheda isn't a serious one.

Through training, his attitude and application. Being dropped is hardly a sign that someone is impressing, they need to fight for their place back and if they aren't doing so then something is wrong, either attitude or talent.

Obviously that should say "can't"!!

It wouldn't surprise me if van Gaal just doesn't know how to get the best out of some of these players. An accomplished player like di Maria was also dropped at the end of last season and was seen as a fairly disappointing signing but is now back to playing some of his best football at PSG.

Likewise, Memphis was suddenly dropped from the team and hasn't been given a way back in and he was one of the most sought after youngsters in Europe last summer. It feels as though he isn't patient enough with these players and pushes them to the point of no return.

I'm not so sure it's a case of not knowing how to get the best out of the players, as opposed to being too stubborn and autocratic to try something different.

I'd say it's the latter.

We've all heard that apparently he tore into Di Maria in the Leicester game that we lost 5-3. Di Maria was brilliant going forward, but LVG tore into him because he didn't defend enough. He was never the same player for us after that, too hamstrung to take chances. On a lesser level, Paddy McNair, who looked promising, has been totally frozen out of the squad, apparently for the same reasons.

The situations are. I wasn't comparing the players. The point is you bring them in they do well and then they dont progress. Man Utd's next manager can't afford to take the likes of Januzaj and put him in the team to see what happens only to have him not progress as expected. Similarly Macheda got a chance and didn't take it. Thats fine if you have other players to bring in but you wouldn't want to be relying on it.

If Mourinho came in and said "Im not buying a striker Im putting my faith in Rashford" and we're sitting mid table in October with Rashford firing blanks people won't be saying "Im glad he's giving the young players a chance" , he will be getting rained for not buying a striker and his job is on the line.

Thats why you can't take the chance.

With west ham drawing today it sure does give us a chance to open a gap with our game tomorrow I would say


Thought I'd get in here first

West Ham kept at bay and with a win tomorrow, Spurs, Arsenal and City are all within reach . Easier said than done.