Louis van Gaal decision on Man Utd future must not be based on emotional FA Cup win
The jeers that preceded Louis van Gaal’s post-match address to supporters on Tuesday night were more instructive than the polite applause that rippled around Old Trafford during the Manchester United’s manager brief speech.
Van Gaal may have thanked fans for their “unconditional support”, despite the drudgery they have so often had to sit through this season, but the polls run by United’s most influential fanzines tell the story of a manager whose backers have now dwindled to the smallest of minorities.
Having missed out on Champions League qualification on goal difference to Manchester City, a clear backwards step after last season’s fourth placed finish, attention now turns to the FA Cup final against Crystal Palace with many wondering if victory at Wembley can save Van Gaal in much the same way as folklore says it did Sir Alex Ferguson 26 years ago?
The analogy is a little more tenuous. Ferguson was a few years into the systematic rebuilding of an entire club, one that had last won the league title in 1967, and busy putting in place the foundations that would lead to two decades of remarkable success.
Yes, United have fallen on harder times in the three years since Ferguson retired and it is clear there is work to be done improving academy, scouting and recruitment structures at the club. But the projected £354 million spent overhauling the first team squad in that time should have been enough to keep them competitive at the top end of domestic and European football.
Van Gaal is simply not starting from the same base as Ferguson was as he prepared for that Cup final against Palace in 1990, which United won in a replay courtesy of Lee Martin’s strike after a thrilling 3-3 draw in the first game.
A much better comparison can be drawn with the situation in which Manchester City found themselves in May 2013, when they went into an FA Cup final against Wigan Athletic with a similar level of uncertainty over the future of manager Roberto Mancini.
United’s worries about the style of football under Van Gaal, the direction in which the Dutchman is taking the club and the autocratic, eccentric methods that have caused disquiet in the dressing room bear an almost uncanny resemblance to the concerns City’s hierarchy harboured about Mancini. Rightly or wrongly, they felt the Italian caused too many divisions in the dressing room and did not play as expansive, expressive a game as they wanted to, despite winning the title the previous season.
City’s powerbrokers in Abu Dhabi evaluated the situation, looked at what they wanted to be as a club on and off the field and adopted a strong, decisive position: regardless of the outcome of the Cup final, Mancini would be sacked.
As it turned out, City lost to Wigan but the result was irrelevant. The decision had already been made. City felt the best interests of the club would be served by a managerial change and stuck to their guns, even if that would have meant severing ties with a manager who had just delivered silverware. How Manuel Pellegrini, the City manager, fared subsequently was almost irrelevant – the club had an ethos they wanted to adhere to.
Will Ed Woodward, United’s executive vice-chairman, and the Glazer family take a similar view? Or will they fudge a decision in the event Van Gaal wins the Cup, unable as a result to bring themselves to sack a manager who, beyond stumbling on a group of promising youngsters more by accident than design, has demonstrated little to suggest he is the man to take this jaded behemoth forward.
Of course, United could – unlike City with Mancini – believe Van Gaal remains the right man, despite the supporter anguish, the player misgivings, the sterile, anaemic football and the poor results, to guide the club, in which case they must stand by him. A full risk assessment would be required first, though. How would the squad react and is there a danger of some players, like David De Gea, wanting, in turn, to leave?
How would the fans respond? Would potential recruits be deterred from signing for a man likely to be entering the final 12 months of his contract and with a reputation for being not much fun to work or play for, even if he ended up agreeing a ceremonial extension to his deal like Pellegrini did at City last summer? And what if United start another season badly having just allowed Van Gaal to splash another pile of cash in the transfer market? Do they suck it up and live with the consequences or do they change then?
There have been signs in more recent weeks of the club possessing a nucleus of talent that could form the basis of a successful side going forward: Anthony Martial, Marcus Rashford, Jesse Lingard, Chris Smalling, Timothy Fosu-Mensah, Luke Shaw when he returns from injury and, perhaps too, Andreas Pereira and Cameron Borthwick-Jackson. Fans might take some more persuading on Adnan Januzaj and Memphis Depay. Throw De Gea into that – provided he stays – and there is something tangible to work with.
But United’s hierarchy cannot simply be swayed by the prospect of an emotional Cup win. If they stick by Van Gaal, it has to be because they believe unequivocally he is the right man, not because they don’t want to make another change just two seasons after sacking David Moyes. The heart cannot rule the head. Sentiment cannot come into it.