Jacob Rabinowitz argues that a long-term approach was no longer possible with Moyes and he simply had to go.
Back in January, I wrote an article advocating a ‘wait-and-see’ approach. Moyes was the long-term option; he needed to be judged on long-term criteria. Long-termism, however, should not be a dogmatic principle; sometimes, as with Moyes at United, it becomes clear that the only viable option is to cut one’s losses.
Moyes, as any have-a-go wit will tell you, was an expert in breaking records. United are guaranteed to finish this season with their lowest ever Premier League points tally, with momentous defeats to Newcastle, Swansea and West Brom. Most importantly, Moyes took a team of champions to seventh place. At any other club, the beleaguered Glaswegian would have been sacked long ago; United, however, had until this month proudly stood by their reputation as a ‘non-sacking club’. Having spent the last twenty-seven years with one of the best managers of all time, this seems a little like Gerard Pique considering himself something of a hero for sticking with Shakira.
I do not believe the results themselves are enough to justify Moyes’ sacking. Moyes truly deserved to go not purely for his results, but for his signal failure to produce any signs of an overriding plan – thus, he can, to some extent, be judged on long-term criteria. A long-term approach does not simply mean giving a certain amount of time for things to start going right. This only allows weaknesses to perpetuate themselves. Long-termism is about recognising that anyone trying to implement changes will need time. The initial shock of the change, and the inevitable period of adaptation, may produce a downturn in results; the long-termist accepts this difficult period in the hope that The Plan will come to fruition.
Brendan Rodgers is a perfect example of a long-term approach paying off. In Rodgers’ first season with Liverpool, results, as with Moyes, were hardly encouraging. But Rodgers, unlike Moyes, always had a plan: to turn Liverpool into a fluid, attacking force, a kind of supercharged Swansea. Liverpool’s faith in the Ulsterman is now paying dividends. A long-term approach, however, is only suitable when there is some suggestion that things may change in times to come; there was never any such suggestion with David Moyes. Moyes brought no recognisable style of play to United, other than ‘ponderous’, ‘plodding’, and ‘unattractive’. There was no particular type of player he sought to promote: he named a different starting eleven in each of the fifty-one games he managed, whilst his two major signings were a panic buy (Fellaini) and an opportunity buy (Mata), neither of whom Moyes seemed to know how best to deploy. Moyes had no long-term vision – indeed, results deteriorated as time went on – so why wait for a plan to come to fruition, when no such plan existed?
However bad Moyes’ tactics, the quality of United’s squad should have seen them through to the top four. Those protesting at Moyes’ dismissal can often be heard to claim that the players are more responsible than Moyes. I would wholeheartedly agree– but this has no relevance in a discussion of whether his sacking was justified. Undoubtedly, United’s players have been pathetic. They may have thought Saturday’s emphatic victory against Norwich was final proof that Moyes’ tactics had been stifling their quality; others, inexplicably, have responded to the victory by hailing the managerial skills of Ryan Giggs. What it actually shows is that, disgracefully, the players simply could not be bothered to turn out for Moyes.
Moyes’ lack of long-term vision, combined with his short-term failures, goes some way to justifying his dismissal. No less crucial, however, was the immaturity of United’s players. They must bear the majority of the blame for this awful season. But football is an unjust sport. It is easier to sack a manager, than to reconfigure a whole mentality, or reshuffle an entire squad. As grating as it is was to see United’s smiling players, along with Giggs himself, soaking up the Old Trafford applause last weekend, sacking Moyes was the right decision.
Robin Master says that the treatment of Moyes was shameful and he still deserved more time to turn the club around.
Having agreed to write a short piece on why Moyes should stay at Manchester United a month ago, I now feel I drew the short straw. I was lucky enough to get tickets for Ryan Giggs’ inaugural game as manager against Norwich, where I witnessed some of the best football United have played for a long time and many fans will have difficulty remembering the last time United won 4-0. That being said, I don’t believe he should have sacked at that time and in that manner, but his treatment seems to be symptomatic of how football has changed in recent years.
Firstly, he was given far too little time to make the necessary adjustments within the club. It’s ridiculous to expect any manager to come from a team like Everton – the only team that spent less than it earned in recent years – and then to step into Ferguson’s shoes and instantly produce similar results. He may have inherited the team that won the league last season but there are a lot of big egos within Manchester United and it would always take time for Moyes to settle in and assert himself.
In addition, the manner in which Moyes was let go was terribly unedifying. When the rumours first started appearing in Sports pages across the country, Moyes was forced to hold a press conference to say that he had not been sacked and couldn’t provide a comment on whether he’d be let go over the coming days. This was then followed the very next day with a call up to Ed Woodward’s office to make his exit official. All this with four games left to play seemed unnecessarily harsh.
Of course, there are counter arguments to all of the above that I believe are perfectly valid. Manchester United did need to change manager in order to secure new players over summer and to keep investors happy, in order to avoid a path that Leeds United fans know only too well. People are probably right that major players wouldn’t have come to United over the summer and it’s probably true that players would have left the club if Moyes had stayed. Again, it’s true that Moyes got given more time at United than he would have been given at any other top flight Premier League club.
However, although this may be true, it simply represents the increasing commercialisation of British football over the past 20 years and how the game has moved firmly in to the world of business. Allow me to don my tin foil hat and preach at the drum circle. In the words of Sir Alex, “when you shake hands with the devil, you have to pay the price”. This is a price that United fans know only too well. Ever since the Glazer takeover in 2005, Manchester United has been burdened with debt and we, like the rest of the country, have seen an increase in ticket prices that may well have priced many loyal fans from the terraces around Old Trafford out. Football is now a business and like any other business, the aim is to maximise profits. Managers are rarely given time to settle in to a club, before they’re hauled in front of the board of directors.
Moyes was doomed before he even started and although Van Gaal may be able to secure some major signings over the summer, if he doesn’t produce results, then the club will no doubt start considering a replacement. This cold-hearted profiteering is ill befitting of United. The fact that Manchester United Plc waited to release a statement of Moyes’ exit until the New York Stock Exchange opened (where we’re a listed company) sums up this new age of football and I, for one, don’t like it.
