LOUIS VAN GAAL was asked why he still selected Victor Valdes for Manchester United’s final league game of the Premier League season despite the Spaniard having refused to play for the club’s reserve side.
“I played him at Hull because I wanted to help. I am always a very social human being”, was his response.
He was certainly conflicted by Valdes’ behaviour and he also seemed confused with what to do with the 33-year-old, signed to an eighteen-month deal in January. At the time, one thing seemed certain: the former Barcelona man was impressive collateral should David de Gea seal a long-awaited switch to Real Madrid.
And what an insurance policy – a six-time La Liga winner, a three-time Champions League winner, a solid history with Van Gaal and a goalkeeper perfectly suited to the Dutchman’s philosophy of playing out from the back.
But something changed as the season wrapped up. Duncan Castles, writing for One World Sports, claims Van Gaal decided Valdes wouldn’t be United’s starting goalkeeper next season even if De Gea was sold. And so the ‘extremely disappointed’ Spaniard began to make alternate plans.
Why did Van Gaal not rate him highly enough? Was it his fitness? Was his recovery from a cruciate ligament injury last season more of an issue than first thought? Or was Van Gaal’s pride dented by Valdes questioning why he’d still remain a reserve next season?
Van Gaal's decision to get rid of Victor Valdes seems more than a little short-sighted. Ted S. Warren / AP/Press Association Images
Ted S. Warren / AP/Press Association Images / AP/Press Association Images
Maybe it harks back to talent management. The tired cliche is that ‘no one player is bigger than a club’ and it’s a nice, moralistic standpoint to take. However, sport and particularly football has been without a moral compass for some time. So traditional values, though romantic and refreshing, are at odds with the cut and thrust of where the game is at and so often undermined and overthrown by the more current approach.
Much has been made of Van Gaal’s ruthlessness in his twelve months in Manchester. And in the context of what went before, it’s been intriguing to see a cold and brutal way of addressing the problems within the United squad. Under Sir Alex Ferguson and his stubbornness to even entertain the notion that one of his signings was struggling, players were allowed float through their careers at the club. Instead of cutting them loose, well-documented examples like Anderson and Nani were repeatedly retained.
Of course, the finest example of such an attitude came a long time ago, in 2002, when Ferguson cried conspiracy in light of criticisms doled out to Juan Sebastian Veron – the player signed for £28 million and who admitted himself that his first season at the club could have been better.
Advertisement
“He is a fucking great player”, he spat.
“And you (the media) are all fucking idiots.”
But Veron was sold after two seasons at the club – for half what United paid. A very rare thing for Ferguson to own up to an error.
Ferguson had his faults - notably keeping hold of players for much too long - but he always made allowances for players he needed regardless of their behaviour. Martin Rickett / PA Archive/Press Association Images
Martin Rickett / PA Archive/Press Association Images / PA Archive/Press Association Images
There’s little chance he would’ve allowed Robin van Persie to move just three years after signing him. On deeper reflection, any player departing under Ferguson’s watch was a rare thing. There was something distinctly odd about the likes of Nicky Butt and Phil Neville moving on. And in Neville’s case, it was an emotional thing, calling to Ferguson’s house to tell him he was going to go to Everton. Recounting the moment years later, Neville called it ‘one of the most magical moments of my career’.
We were in his front room, having a cup of tea and he was plotting my next career move, where I was going, how I would play, everything. I went outside and my wife was in tears. But it wasn’t done in a cold office. It was done with warmth, like going round to your Mum and Dad’s for some advice. But don’t get me wrong, I went home and cried my eyes out for 24 hours.”
Ferguson’s great strength was his man-management. It’s the only logical explanation for how United remained so competitive in his latter years in charge when his squads were so limited. He knew how to rotate a squad. He knew how to make squad players feel they were valuable members of the group. And he knew how to deal with talent. He knew that he needed certain talent more than others. The key examples are Bryan Robson, Eric Cantona, Roy Keane and Wayne Rooney.
Robson enjoyed a drink as much as Paul McGrath and Norman Whiteside but he was ‘Captain Marvel’ and Ferguson needed him as part of his transitioning. The other two were sacrificial lambs as Ferguson made a statement early on in his tenure at Old Trafford, admonishing the ‘drinking culture’ that needed eradicating.
Cantona was treated differently by Ferguson and such an approach paid dividends. Steve Morton / EMPICS Sport
Steve Morton / EMPICS Sport / EMPICS Sport
Cantona responded rashly to authority, those telling him what to do. Usually, he fell in line but sometimes there were flare-ups. The old-school approach – like how Howard Wilkinson dealt with him at Leeds – would lead only to argument and recrimination. So Ferguson, seduced by Cantona’s catalyst qualities, gave him a wide berth.
In Keane’s latest autobiography, he revealed he turned to Ferguson during a pre-season training camp and said:
We need fucking more from you. We need a bit more, gaffer. We’re slipping behind other teams.”
This followed on from Keane turning to the-assistant coach Carlos Queiroz and asking:
‘Do you always make love to your wife in the same position?’ (It’s difficult to imagine Keane having ever used the term ‘make love’)
Still, despite repeatedly challenging authority, Keane survived for a while longer until the infamous MUTV interview proved a final straw.
Valdes' importance to United isn't on the same scale as Keane's or Cantona's but in the wider context of causing disruption and unwanted recruitment, it seems a strange decision to let him go. Lynne Cameron / PA Archive/Press Association Images
Lynne Cameron / PA Archive/Press Association Images / PA Archive/Press Association Images
In Rooney’s case, he threatened to leave United in 2010 and handed in a transfer request. More than that, he wanted to join Manchester City. Ferguson, having seen Cristiano Ronaldo and Carlos Tevez leave in quick succession and Chelsea lift the Premier League title, had no choice. Rooney was handed a bigger contract.
For Ferguson, there were always exceptions to every case. There was a time for the hard-hitting, unforgiving act: Ruud van Nistelrooy and David Beckham were both on the receiving end. But certain players, depending on how important they were to Ferguson, were allowed moments of ego-wielding.
Naturally, Valdes is not on the same scale as Keane et al but in the context of trying to minimise distraction and trouble and lessening workload and recruitment, keeping him at the club seems to be a much better solution, particularly when the stand-off was over something so relatively minor.
One key aspect of managing big talent is to acknowledge they have big egos. When they don’t play, they’ll be disappointed and they may challenge authority. It makes complete sense when a player so used to being first-choice is relegated to the background and doesn’t like it. They can tolerate such a decision if it comes with a reasonable explanation, like the concerns over Valdes’ fitness or De Gea’s remarkable and un-droppable form.
Argentina's Sergio Romero is seemingly one of the goalkeepers Van Gaal is looking out to replace Valdes. Andre Penner / AP/Press Association Images
Andre Penner / AP/Press Association Images / AP/Press Association Images
It seems strange that Van Gaal, having so much experience in dealing with players who want to be first-choice, would be so quick to dismiss Valdes and want him gone. Surely the smart move would’ve been to give a stern warning but retain his services? He’s already on payroll, he knows the players, he’s a ready-made replacement and a proven winner. Now, because of Van Gaal’s idiosyncrasies, United are scrambling to find another goalkeeper between now and the start of the campaign – certainly an unwanted assignment given the pressing need for a centre-half and a centre forward.
And the new goalkeeper, whether it be Argentinean Sergio Romero or Ajax’s Jasper Cillessen will need to adapt to the pressure, the new surroundings and the new team. And it all seems a little silly and unnecessary.
For all Ferguson’s weaknesses when it came to United players, his ability to man-manage them was second to none. And as exciting and different as Van Gaal is, his flippant decision to let Victor Valdes move elsewhere for something so minor (Paul Scholes famously was fined two weeks wages by Ferguson after refusing to play with the reserves in a League Cup game against Arsenal), seems short-sighted and strange.
Van Gaal's decision to sell Valdes leads to questions about his man-management
LOUIS VAN GAAL was asked why he still selected Victor Valdes for Manchester United’s final league game of the Premier League season despite the Spaniard having refused to play for the club’s reserve side.
“I played him at Hull because I wanted to help. I am always a very social human being”, was his response.
He was certainly conflicted by Valdes’ behaviour and he also seemed confused with what to do with the 33-year-old, signed to an eighteen-month deal in January. At the time, one thing seemed certain: the former Barcelona man was impressive collateral should David de Gea seal a long-awaited switch to Real Madrid.
And what an insurance policy – a six-time La Liga winner, a three-time Champions League winner, a solid history with Van Gaal and a goalkeeper perfectly suited to the Dutchman’s philosophy of playing out from the back.
But something changed as the season wrapped up. Duncan Castles, writing for One World Sports, claims Van Gaal decided Valdes wouldn’t be United’s starting goalkeeper next season even if De Gea was sold. And so the ‘extremely disappointed’ Spaniard began to make alternate plans.
Why did Van Gaal not rate him highly enough? Was it his fitness? Was his recovery from a cruciate ligament injury last season more of an issue than first thought? Or was Van Gaal’s pride dented by Valdes questioning why he’d still remain a reserve next season?
Maybe it harks back to talent management. The tired cliche is that ‘no one player is bigger than a club’ and it’s a nice, moralistic standpoint to take. However, sport and particularly football has been without a moral compass for some time. So traditional values, though romantic and refreshing, are at odds with the cut and thrust of where the game is at and so often undermined and overthrown by the more current approach.
Much has been made of Van Gaal’s ruthlessness in his twelve months in Manchester. And in the context of what went before, it’s been intriguing to see a cold and brutal way of addressing the problems within the United squad. Under Sir Alex Ferguson and his stubbornness to even entertain the notion that one of his signings was struggling, players were allowed float through their careers at the club. Instead of cutting them loose, well-documented examples like Anderson and Nani were repeatedly retained.
Of course, the finest example of such an attitude came a long time ago, in 2002, when Ferguson cried conspiracy in light of criticisms doled out to Juan Sebastian Veron – the player signed for £28 million and who admitted himself that his first season at the club could have been better.
“He is a fucking great player”, he spat.
“And you (the media) are all fucking idiots.”
But Veron was sold after two seasons at the club – for half what United paid. A very rare thing for Ferguson to own up to an error.
There’s little chance he would’ve allowed Robin van Persie to move just three years after signing him. On deeper reflection, any player departing under Ferguson’s watch was a rare thing. There was something distinctly odd about the likes of Nicky Butt and Phil Neville moving on. And in Neville’s case, it was an emotional thing, calling to Ferguson’s house to tell him he was going to go to Everton. Recounting the moment years later, Neville called it ‘one of the most magical moments of my career’.
Ferguson’s great strength was his man-management. It’s the only logical explanation for how United remained so competitive in his latter years in charge when his squads were so limited. He knew how to rotate a squad. He knew how to make squad players feel they were valuable members of the group. And he knew how to deal with talent. He knew that he needed certain talent more than others. The key examples are Bryan Robson, Eric Cantona, Roy Keane and Wayne Rooney.
Robson enjoyed a drink as much as Paul McGrath and Norman Whiteside but he was ‘Captain Marvel’ and Ferguson needed him as part of his transitioning. The other two were sacrificial lambs as Ferguson made a statement early on in his tenure at Old Trafford, admonishing the ‘drinking culture’ that needed eradicating.
Cantona responded rashly to authority, those telling him what to do. Usually, he fell in line but sometimes there were flare-ups. The old-school approach – like how Howard Wilkinson dealt with him at Leeds – would lead only to argument and recrimination. So Ferguson, seduced by Cantona’s catalyst qualities, gave him a wide berth.
In Keane’s latest autobiography, he revealed he turned to Ferguson during a pre-season training camp and said:
This followed on from Keane turning to the-assistant coach Carlos Queiroz and asking:
‘Do you always make love to your wife in the same position?’ (It’s difficult to imagine Keane having ever used the term ‘make love’)
Still, despite repeatedly challenging authority, Keane survived for a while longer until the infamous MUTV interview proved a final straw.
In Rooney’s case, he threatened to leave United in 2010 and handed in a transfer request. More than that, he wanted to join Manchester City. Ferguson, having seen Cristiano Ronaldo and Carlos Tevez leave in quick succession and Chelsea lift the Premier League title, had no choice. Rooney was handed a bigger contract.
For Ferguson, there were always exceptions to every case. There was a time for the hard-hitting, unforgiving act: Ruud van Nistelrooy and David Beckham were both on the receiving end. But certain players, depending on how important they were to Ferguson, were allowed moments of ego-wielding.
Naturally, Valdes is not on the same scale as Keane et al but in the context of trying to minimise distraction and trouble and lessening workload and recruitment, keeping him at the club seems to be a much better solution, particularly when the stand-off was over something so relatively minor.
One key aspect of managing big talent is to acknowledge they have big egos. When they don’t play, they’ll be disappointed and they may challenge authority. It makes complete sense when a player so used to being first-choice is relegated to the background and doesn’t like it. They can tolerate such a decision if it comes with a reasonable explanation, like the concerns over Valdes’ fitness or De Gea’s remarkable and un-droppable form.
It seems strange that Van Gaal, having so much experience in dealing with players who want to be first-choice, would be so quick to dismiss Valdes and want him gone. Surely the smart move would’ve been to give a stern warning but retain his services? He’s already on payroll, he knows the players, he’s a ready-made replacement and a proven winner. Now, because of Van Gaal’s idiosyncrasies, United are scrambling to find another goalkeeper between now and the start of the campaign – certainly an unwanted assignment given the pressing need for a centre-half and a centre forward.
And the new goalkeeper, whether it be Argentinean Sergio Romero or Ajax’s Jasper Cillessen will need to adapt to the pressure, the new surroundings and the new team. And it all seems a little silly and unnecessary.
For all Ferguson’s weaknesses when it came to United players, his ability to man-manage them was second to none. And as exciting and different as Van Gaal is, his flippant decision to let Victor Valdes move elsewhere for something so minor (Paul Scholes famously was fined two weeks wages by Ferguson after refusing to play with the reserves in a League Cup game against Arsenal), seems short-sighted and strange.
Pedro’s move to Man United edges closer and all of today’s transfer gossip
Arturo Vidal heading to Bayern Munich after Juventus accept bid
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Analysis Barclays Premier League Eric Cantona Jasper Cillessen Louis van Gaal Roy Keane Sergio Romero Sir Alex Ferguson Manchester United Victor Valdes