Manchester United’s Crisis is Not of Solskjær’s Making but Can he Fix it?

Manchester United manager Ole Gunnar Solskjær gestures during the game against Newcastle. (Reuters)
Manchester United manager Ole Gunnar Solskjær gestures during the game against Newcastle. (Reuters)
TT

Manchester United’s Crisis is Not of Solskjær’s Making but Can he Fix it?

Manchester United manager Ole Gunnar Solskjær gestures during the game against Newcastle. (Reuters)
Manchester United manager Ole Gunnar Solskjær gestures during the game against Newcastle. (Reuters)

Should Ole Gunnar Solskjær need cheering up at any point in the next few days he can at least reflect that Manchester United are still the club everyone is talking about. In terms of the title race Manchester City’s defeat by Wolves was the shock of the weekend, the result absolutely no one was expecting, yet it was United’s altogether more predictable failure at Newcastle that has dominated the news agendas.

United are in the bottom half of the table, having made their worst start to a season for 30 years. Solskjær has still not won away from home since being appointed permanent manager and in their past three away games United have failed to score, not even registering a shot on target in their Europa League match against AZ Alkmaar last week. It seems a long time now since the euphoria that followed March’s stirring win at Paris Saint-Germain in the Champions League, when Solskjær was pictured celebrating with Sir Alex Ferguson and Eric Cantona and quoted as saying: “We are Man United: this is what we do.”

That result more than anything persuaded Ed Woodward and the United board to call off their search for an experienced manager and promote the caretaker, yet no sooner was the decision implemented than results began to fall off a cliff. Since the beginning of April United have picked up 14 points from 15 games. Jürgen Klopp’s Liverpool, for purposes of comparison, have taken 42 points from 14 in the same period.

Liverpool happen to be United’s next Premier League opponents, and Solskjær’s side are not in good shape going into the big north-west derby. Alan Shearer believes it is the worst United side he has seen in years, David de Gea admits everything is going wrong and Gary Neville has suggested the fault lies at boardroom level. Everyone, it seems, has an opinion on Manchester United, because after years of lording it at the top of the table the club now serves up crises as regularly as it used to claim trophies.

How serious is this one and how long will it continue? It depends how quickly the club can come up with answers to the following questions.

Could United be relegated?

Unlikely, though nothing is impossible and anyone with memories of 1974 will doubtless see certain similarities with the present situation.

United bought three good players in the summer and will spend again in January if they have to, though if results have not improved by that stage the bigger question mark will be hanging over the manager.

Solskjær has suggested a goalscorer will be the priority, and United could certainly use a reliable one along with a regular center-back partner for Harry Maguire, yet as a succession of managers have noticed since Ferguson stepped down the days when the club could merely click their fingers and expect the latest hot young prospect to join are long gone.

Most capable players would want to sign for a club in the Champions League bracket, for a start, not one operating in the wrong half of the domestic table and struggling to convince in the Europa League. No one is ever too good to go down, and United at the moment are not striking many observers as good in any way, yet it would still be a surprise to find players of the quality of Paul Pogba, De Gea and Maguire embroiled in a relegation battle.

Why are they in this mess?

The Neville theory is that United have hired and fired too many managers post-Ferguson, all with contrasting styles and philosophies, and because they have backed each with fairly generous amounts of money they have ended up with the footballing equivalent of Frankenstein’s monster, something that from a distance resembles a team but on closer inspection turns out to be a collection of ill-fitting parts rather clumsily bolted together.

This is a valid criticism, as is the failing to recruit a director of football or its equivalent despite identifying the need more than a year ago, though in terms of what is happening right now many supporters would simply point at the decision to over-promote Solskjær. He remains an inexperienced manager, and there was simply no need to appoint him before the end of last season.

Had United stuck to their original plan Solskjær might be back in Norway by now with a fat cheque in his pocket and his reputation as a United hero forever enhanced. Instead he is having his limitations exposed on a weekly basis and even the goodwill carried over from his days as a popular, likable player will soon be in short supply.

What can they do to fix it?

They could try sacking the manager and bringing someone else in, maybe even acting quickly enough to make the adjustment in the present international break, though if they do pursue that course of action, the executive vice-chairman Woodward would be duty bound to tender his resignation too as an admission of joint culpability. The chances of that happening are vanishingly small, so Solskjær will probably get to stay a little longer in the hope he can dig himself out of a hole.

The manager has pleaded for patience from the board and patience was what Ferguson was granted in his early years when the board could see he was doing something right, even if results were not immediately forthcoming. There is little evidence yet that Solskjær is on the right track, and what he really must hope is that United can hold their nerve and not be panicked by the latest ignominy or disappointment.

Having publicly declared confidence in Solskjær just a couple of weeks ago Woodward can hardly do a U-turn just yet, especially as Mauricio Pochettino is no longer looking quite as clever as he was last season, though the pattern for under-performing managers at Old Trafford is well established by now. The club give them their full backing right up to the point when they don’t.

The Guardian Sport



Algeria and Austria Clash Revives Memories of the ‘Disgrace of Gijon’

Algeria face Austria on Saturday, 44 years on from the "Disgrace of Gijon". (Getty Images/AFP)
Algeria face Austria on Saturday, 44 years on from the "Disgrace of Gijon". (Getty Images/AFP)
TT

Algeria and Austria Clash Revives Memories of the ‘Disgrace of Gijon’

Algeria face Austria on Saturday, 44 years on from the "Disgrace of Gijon". (Getty Images/AFP)
Algeria face Austria on Saturday, 44 years on from the "Disgrace of Gijon". (Getty Images/AFP)

When Algeria and Austria meet in their last group game in Kansas City on Saturday, it will not only be key to both countries’ hopes of progressing at the World Cup but will also revive memories of one of the tournament’s darkest moments.

The only previous time the sides shared a group, Austria were accused of conniving with West Germany to ensure both teams advanced in the tournament and Algeria were eliminated.

The game was later dubbed the "Disgrace of Gijon" after the Spanish city where the 1982 World Cup proved an eventful debut for the North Africans, who upset West Germany in their first match with a shock 2-1 victory.

There were 24 teams in the tournament for the first time in ‌1982, divided into ‌six groups of four with the top two advancing to a second ‌round ⁠of group matches.

Algeria ⁠lost their second group game to Austria and beat Chile 3-2, leaving them with four points from their three games at a time when two points were awarded for a win.

NEIGHBORS CONTRIVED RESULT TO BOTH GO THROUGH

The group concluded 24 hours later in Gijon with Austria playing neighbors West Germany and a 1-0 win for the Germans would send both sides through.

West Germany went ahead after 10 minutes through Horst Hrubesch, after which both teams passed the ball around with no intention of adding to the score and contrived a ⁠result that squeezed Algeria out on goal difference.

“Even though we had somewhat ‌expected it, we were all angry, outraged and stunned,” said ‌Rabah Madjer, Algeria’s former African Footballer of the Year.

“That two major football nations could agree to eliminate a small ‌country like Algeria, playing in its first World Cup and just emerging on the international stage, ‌was shocking.”

German sports magazine Kicker described the proceedings as “after about 20 minutes, the attacking intensity faded”.

“The Austrians, for their part, made no effort to exploit the additional space going forward. Suddenly, nobody seemed interested in playing serious football anymore. What followed was an endless exchange of passes, with few challenges and almost no urgency. Possession was ‌lost mainly through misplaced passes.”

French daily L’Equipe said there should have been 22 red cards shown to the players of both sides.

SPECTATORS WAVED WHITE ⁠SCARVES TO PROTEST

Spanish spectators ⁠waved white scarves in a traditional sign of disapproval while on Austrian television, commentator Robert Seeger told his viewers: "Turn it off!"

German defender Paul Breitner, a World Cup winner in 1974, saw little wrong.

"The public is stupid if it doesn't understand that qualification was all that mattered here,” he said, and FIFA ruled the teams were within their rights to play as passively as they did, in response to an Algerian protest.

The Germans won their three-team second-round group, ahead of England and hosts Spain, and advanced to the semi-finals, where they beat France on penalties before losing to Italy in the final. Austria finished behind France in their second group.

A direct result of the "Disgrace of Gijon" was FIFA changing the rule to ensure the final matches in World Cup group stages are played simultaneously to prevent teams having advance knowledge of what they require to advance and the possibility of manufacturing the outcome of games.

“Many people apologized afterwards. It's good to acknowledge the harm you've caused, but it didn’t change anything for us,” Madjer said.


Ghana Draw Cools England Hype and Revives Familiar Questions

 England head coach Thomas Tuchel listens to the national anthem ahead the World Cup Group L soccer match between England and Ghana in Foxborough, Mass., near Boston, Tuesday, June 23, 2026. (AP)
England head coach Thomas Tuchel listens to the national anthem ahead the World Cup Group L soccer match between England and Ghana in Foxborough, Mass., near Boston, Tuesday, June 23, 2026. (AP)
TT

Ghana Draw Cools England Hype and Revives Familiar Questions

 England head coach Thomas Tuchel listens to the national anthem ahead the World Cup Group L soccer match between England and Ghana in Foxborough, Mass., near Boston, Tuesday, June 23, 2026. (AP)
England head coach Thomas Tuchel listens to the national anthem ahead the World Cup Group L soccer match between England and Ghana in Foxborough, Mass., near Boston, Tuesday, June 23, 2026. (AP)

Thomas Tuchel's England were riding a wave of optimism at the World Cup after their opening 4-2 demolition of Croatia, but Tuesday's 0-0 draw against Ghana served as a reminder that progress at major tournaments is not always straightforward.

The victory over Croatia had showcased England at their best, with fluid attacking football, goals and a sense that Tuchel's methods were taking hold.

Against Ghana, however, they encountered an entirely different challenge. Carlos Queiroz's side defended deep, remained organized and physical, and frustrated England for much of the ‌night as they ‌emerged with a valuable point.

England remain top of Group L ‌and ⁠are still firmly ⁠on course for the knockout stages, but the stalemate raised fresh questions about whether Tuchel's side possess the creativity and variety required to break down stubborn opponents.

Ghana appeared content to sit back and absorb pressure, surrendering possession but denying England space in dangerous areas.

"It is difficult to find a way through when someone plays a 4-5-1 and completely deep and is committed to it," Tuchel said afterwards. "They celebrated a 0-0 like a win. You cannot ⁠lose your head about it."

For all of England's dominance on the ‌ball, the Three Lions struggled to create clear ‌chances. Harry Kane, who scored twice in the opening victory over Croatia, was largely isolated and ‌tightly marked.

His frustration was summed up in stoppage time when he blazed his shot ‌over the bar from six yards after Nico O'Reilly's header had struck the crossbar.

The performance also reignited debate about England's attacking options. Anthony Gordon again struggled before being replaced by Bukayo Saka, whose introduction injected some urgency and unpredictability into England's play, forcing a save from Ghana goalkeeper ‌Benjamin Asare late on.

Marcus Rashford may also be pushing for greater involvement after England's lack of penetration against a compact defense.

Declan ⁠Rice and Elliot Anderson ⁠provided control but little creativity in midfield, allowing Ghana to remain comfortable for long stretches.

Rice insisted there was no cause for concern.

"We have one more group game to top the group, so we have to be positive," he said.

England's emphatic win over Croatia had sparked talk of momentum, belief and the possibility that Tuchel's new-look side might be finding its stride early.

Ninety minutes against Ghana quickly cooled that enthusiasm.

For the fourth major tournament in succession, England failed to win their second group game, exchanging the exhilaration of a four-goal display for a frustrating stalemate.

The surge of optimism generated by the Croatia victory has been checked, at least temporarily.

And while England remain well-placed to reach the knockout stages, the sense of optimism that followed their opening performance has been replaced by familiar questions about flare, consistency and whether they can break down organized opposition when space is at a premium.


Infantino: World Cup Hydration Breaks Purely Sporting, Not Commercial

Soccer Football - FIFA World Cup 2026 - Group K - Colombia v DR Congo - Estadio Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico - June 23, 2026 Colombia coach Nestor Lorenzo gives instructions to his players during a hydration break REUTERS/Raquel Cunha
Soccer Football - FIFA World Cup 2026 - Group K - Colombia v DR Congo - Estadio Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico - June 23, 2026 Colombia coach Nestor Lorenzo gives instructions to his players during a hydration break REUTERS/Raquel Cunha
TT

Infantino: World Cup Hydration Breaks Purely Sporting, Not Commercial

Soccer Football - FIFA World Cup 2026 - Group K - Colombia v DR Congo - Estadio Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico - June 23, 2026 Colombia coach Nestor Lorenzo gives instructions to his players during a hydration break REUTERS/Raquel Cunha
Soccer Football - FIFA World Cup 2026 - Group K - Colombia v DR Congo - Estadio Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico - June 23, 2026 Colombia coach Nestor Lorenzo gives instructions to his players during a hydration break REUTERS/Raquel Cunha

FIFA president Gianni Infantino has defended the introduction of hydration breaks at the World Cup, insisting that for football's governing body they are driven purely by sporting considerations and not commercial interests.

Mandatory three-minute breaks, introduced in the 22nd and 67th minutes of every match at the tournament, have drawn criticism from players, coaches and fans since the opening round of fixtures.

The breaks, introduced to help players cope with high temperatures across North America, have opened up additional advertising windows for broadcasters, Reuters reported.

This has fueled debate over their impact on the game, with some viewers complaining about being exposed to commercials during the three-minute stoppages.

"There is no ⁠additional revenue for ⁠FIFA, as all commercial agreements were signed well in advance. So, this is not a financial issue for us. For us, it is purely a sporting matter," Infantino said in a statement on Wednesday.

The breaks allow coaching staff to give in-game tactical instructions, a shift critics say disrupts match momentum and fundamentally alters the nature ⁠of the game.

England manager Thomas Tuchel said the additional break "interrupts and changes the identity of the football match,” while Uruguay coach Marcelo Bielsa said dividing matches into shorter segments takes away the fundamental characteristic of the game.

Spain coach Luis de la Fuente and Netherlands captain Virgil van Dijk have supported the intent behind the rule in extreme heat, but questioned the need for it in cooler conditions and at covered venues.

"The main reason is the heat, but we also have to understand that in a competition like the (FIFA) ⁠World Cup, played ⁠over 39 days, with teams potentially playing eight matches in those 39 days, having a moment to rest is extremely important,” Infantino said.

"What matters even more to us is ensuring that all teams, in every match, are playing under the same conditions.

"It's very difficult to accept that a coach might have the opportunity to influence a match by making adjustments simply because it's hotter, while in another match, where the temperature is slightly lower, the same coach doesn’t have the same opportunity."

Infantino added that the breaks had not reduced the intensity of matches, suggesting players were able to maintain a high level of performance throughout games.