Jose Mourinho's sacking betrays a much bigger underlying problem at Manchester United

When Mourinho's characteristic defensive wall finally crumbled on Sunday night, and Liverpool super-sub Xherdan Shaquiri's brace of deflected goals consigned Manchester United to a familiarly miserable defeat, the symbolism was inescapable. Liverpool had confirmed United's worst ever start to a Premier League season, and what's more they'd done it in style, with a dominant 3-1 victory in front of a jubilant Anfield capacity crowd. Klopp's exciting, lightning-paced football won the day, and in the process, illustrated the change of era was complete. Here was the old emperor, still clinging to the slow football of the pre-Tiki-Taka age, kneeling at the feet of one of the new bright stars in management, the virtuoso that brought us Heavy Metal Football and the Gengenpress. And he had been well and truly beaten. Even with Manchester United flagging, 19 points off the pace of their cross-city rivals who are light years ahead, it still felt mildly shocking when the news came through yesterday morning. Though Mourinho's sacking had in some ways been coming for a while, in another sense it felt premature, jarring in it's obtuse timing. What kind of club sacks their manager a week before the busy festive fixture calendar sees them play five times in two weeks? What kind of club sacks their manager barely before the January transfer window opens, leaving any replacement bewildered and floundering to get up to speed? What kind of club does this through a 60-word statement, with all the lack of gravitas you'd expect from a League 2 side axing an unpopular coach after 13 games? Well apparently, Manchester United are now that kind of club.

Sunday's loss at Anfield was the final nail in the coffin for Mourinho

There are already dozens of potential successors being named in the press, with former Stretford favourite Ole Gunnar Solskjaer being one of the strongest candidates, alongside United veteran Michael Carrick. That these unproven, early-career men are even being rumoured in the wake of Mourinho's departure shows not only how far the club has slipped, but also how out of touch the powers that be at Old Trafford truly are. Manchester United needs an institutional European heavyweight, one who will stay for years, stabilise results, win titles, and create a legacy to wash away the longing for the Ferguson glory years. Managers named in this category so far are the likes of Queiroz, Zidane, Blanc and Pochettino. But why would they go to Manchester United? Take Pochettino, for example. He is working with a much smaller budget, a far less glamorous squad, and at a club whose international brand presence is dwarfed by the likes of Chelsea and Manchester City. However, his team sit three places and 13 points clear of Manchester United, and are playing attractive, expansive football. Obviously Pochettino is one of the tactical prodigies of the modern game, but it's important not to play down the harmonious atmosphere and team spirit he has nurtured. The Old Trafford manager's dug out is a step down for man in his position, and it is pure arrogance for United's board to think otherwise. There is a sense of entitlement around the club as they watch their contemporary dominance fade further and further into the past. Manchester United is no longer the premium option for managers, it is no longer the pinnacle of their career. It is, at best, a calculated risk.

Mauricio Pochettino has been linked with the manager job at Manchester United

This is the situation Manchester United now find themselves in. They are too big for a mid-table manager to step-up and give them the instant success the fans crave, and still have the aftertaste of. But they are also too much of a mess for any reasonable top-level coach to touch them. This managerial limbo state will only serve to compound the issues at the heart of the main problem - The identity has been stripped from Manchester United. Over the course of five years, Woodward, the Glazers and the rest of the boardroom have turned Manchester United into a bloated cash cow, even more of a merchandising juggernaught than at the birth of the Premier League era, but now without the requisite star players or results to back it up. The quest for a revival of the astronomical endeavours with Alex Ferguson has turned the red half of Manchester edgily insane. No-one is good enough, no achievement worthy of quenching the voracious thirst for the first top flight title without the godlike Scotsman's name attached since 1967. It has bred a nasty atmosphere at the club which has made anything but the league title irrelevant to a measure of success. Look at the contempt held for Mourinho's predecessor, Louis Van Gaal. A manager who has won seven league titles across three European top flights, along with numerous cup competitions. Oh, and the small matter of the Champion's League. After taking the Dutch national side to the semi-finals of the 2014 World Cup, he led Manchester United to their first FA Cup win in 12 seasons. His reward? Sacked less than 48 hours later. To say there is a toxic atmosphere at Manchester United is an understatement.

That's what eventually did for Jose Mourinho. It's obvious he's not at his best with this squad, or even this job. He peaked during his Real Madrid era, and barring his last title with Chelsea, has had a relatively poor showing the past few years. His managerial style has been described as dictatorial, while his tactical methods are negative and defensive in an era of bright, counter-attacking football. His signings have left a lot to be desired, with many expensive flops failing to live up to the hype. He is stubborn, he is infuriating, and he plays up to all of this in front of the media, who reciprocate to create a negative feedback loop which sells a lot of papers, but completely distorts the man behind the myth. His power is waning, and his style of play is getting more and more outdated. In the face of all of this, he still managed to guide Manchester United to their first ever Europa League victory, also winning the League Cup in his debut season in charge. Last season was less flashy, but Manchester United finished in 2nd, along with getting to the FA Cup final. Results are results are results - In the midst of all this, Jose Mourinho managed to get trophies and consolidate a strong league position. It's doubtful that Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, current manager of Molde FK, the 2nd best team in Norway, will be able to replicate such feats. That the owners of this historic club would rather toy with experimental appointments from the 90's golden era at the expense of tried and true top level managers is maddening. It's indicative of the attitude up and down the club - We want the good times back! But unfortunately, Ole's iconic heroics against Bayern Munich at the Nou Camp are now almost two decades in the past. He is an unproven manager who has already failed in the Premier League with Cardiff City. He will not bring back the halcyon days, no matter how much the Stretford End faithful cross their fingers and squint.

Solskjaer is a fan favourite, but can he save the ship from sinking?

We also saw this attitude with the disastrous appointment of Moyes. While the idea of him getting the job at such a huge club was always going to be a risk, the fans got behind him, as Fergie's hand-picked protege was given his chance on the big stage. Rise, Sir David. He predictably underachieved, and wasn't even given a full season before being replaced with Ryan Giggs, a club hero whose playing career spanned the entirely of the Ferguson era. Giggs similarly failed to re-ignite the Ferguson fire and the club found themselves back at square one, with a full season wasted from bad decision making and lack of oversight. Four years and hundreds of millions of pounds later, the Manchester United board are showing us they have learned nothing. And that's the beating heart of the matter surrounding Jose Mourinho's sacking. It wasn't about getting a better manager. It was about getting rid of Mourinho. Since his failure to win the Premier League title in his first two seasons as manager, (an unforgivable sin in the eyes of the club and some of the more vocal fans) the clock has been ticking. And yesterday, the alarm rang out.

For a club so obsessed with titles and so keen to replicate historical success, Manchester United could scarcely have done better than Jose Mourinho. Since his first Primeira Liga title with Porto 15 years ago, he has won 25 trophies, including three Champion's Leagues and eight top flight titles in four different countries. He is 55, in the middle age of his managerial career, and any way you look at the stats, he has an exceptional record as a coach. To lay the blame for his shortcomings solely at his door is absurd. As the club post-Ferguson has sapped the life out of such world-class players as Alexis Sanchez, Angel Di Maria and Paul Pogba, so it has depleted Jose Mourinho. There's only so many aborted big-money signings, only so many heavily-decorated managers failing before scrutiny has to be placed on the upper board structure at the club. The buck cannot keep stopping at the manager. For Manchester United's sake, I hope that happens sooner rather than later. Jose Mourinho's failure is the symptom, and the rotten organisational structure is the disease. Only time will tell if the Biggest Club In The World™ will find a cure before Manchester United forever loses its identity in the stands, on the field, and in the boardroom. Unfortunately, there may be several more managerial casualties before that happens.

VAR. It's the future - I've tasted it!

VAR is only new in football, but there's already been a lot of opposition to it

Football in England is a funny old contradictory soup. We get to unprecedented levels of mania when the national team scrape a 1-0 win over Angola in the first game of the World Cup, then splutter and curse at our useless players as they get dumped out in the first knockout round. We want our clubs to have the best players in the world, then point out the lack of young English players being given a chance. We want an end to fixture congestion, but scrapping FA Cup replays is out of the question. We want to keep up with the supremacy of the top European teams but, rubbish the idea of a winter break. We want our cake, we damn well want to eat it, and we have no time for anyone who dares to suggest we compromise.

The latest example of this sneering dichotomy is the reaction to VAR. That's Video Assisted Refereeing for the uninitiated. A group of officials watch the game, with the aid of differing angles and replays. If the referee is deemed to have made an incorrect decision, they can discuss that with him, and possibly overturn it. Pretty grand idea, huh! Unfortunately, its introduction this season has illustrated a couple of long-standing issues within English football. From the outset, there has been criticism from all levels of the game over the use of VAR. Fans, players, managers and owners have all spoke out against the technology. It has been labelled a "shambles" by the media. It's seen as slow, pointless and even reaching the wrong decision by it's detractors. But dig a little deeper into the reasoning, and there's very little to base these objections on. Aside from the amount of time the decisions take, (which is about the same time that discussion between officials takes place anyway) there is no reasonable argument against the use of VAR. Yet the negative response keeps flooding through. Fans pour out luddist diatribes on Twitter and internet forums, lengthy mocking articles are written by self-important journalists, and ageing former players who somehow have a job as a pundit furrow their brows in consternation. All in response to this heinous affront to their beautiful game of inconsistency, rule breaking and frustration. How dare they mess with it! This brings me to the first issue - Fear of change.

Football is a fiercely traditional sport, which is a huge draw for me as a fan. Decades-old customs form the blood, muscle and bones of clubs and fans alike. Think about the reaction to Hull City's owners attempts to change the club's name, or when Cardiff changed their home strip from blue to red. Think of Leeds United's recently ridiculed new club badge. Think of the generation-spanning rivalries between big clubs, the fans singing songs on the terraces written twice their lifetime ago. Fathers tell sons with wide-eyed nostalgia about promotions and cup wins in the 70's and 80's. Think of me, after a big night out, can of lager in hand, searching Youtube at 3am for highlights of Sheffield United's 1998 FA Cup run. Football is based on nostalgia, which is in turn rooted in its proud, sacred rites. We know what we like, and we do rather like it the way it is, thank you very much.

Do you believe these guys or a pundit that doesn't know the laws of the game?

Unfortunately, this attitude can cause a negative side effect, where the game is reluctant or even directly opposed to improvements. Some of this is justified. Take the ludicrous situation with the Checkatrade trophy, or the proposed introduction of Premier League B teams in the lower leagues, both poisonous ideas, both thoroughly rejected by all right-thinking football people. Some of it however, is not so constructive, as we have seen with VAR. Ever since even the notion of introducing video technology has been tabled, there has been a groundswell of opposition within the game. The claims against technology are numerous, but predictably flippant - It will sanitise football, it will slow down the pace of the game, it's unnecessary because decisions "balance out" throughout the course of the season. The worst is one of the most incredulous, that favoured old illogical chestnut that VAR will "stop discussion" between fans in pubs. Frankly, none of these preliminary objections warrant more than a cursory dismissal. They all cannot answer this - VAR can (and does) improve the rate of correct decisions in football. How is that a bad thing? When you consider the small problems it causes and weigh them up with the vast improvements it gives, it's hard to build even a basic logical argument against VAR. When you see how virtually every other sport has adopted technology, and used it to improve the quality of decisions and gameplay, it's a no-brainer. VAR is only going to improve football.

My second point is something I've been banging on about for years. Simply put, most people involved in football don't know the laws of the game as well as they think. Let's take a look at the most recent "controversy" levelled against VAR as an example of this - The decisions during the FA Cup replay between Tottenham Hotspur and Rochdale. This was one of the cup games elected for VAR, and there were 3 incidents that invited the use of the technology. The first was a goal scored by Erik Lamela, that on VAR review was disallowed. The reason it was disallowed was cut and shut - Lamela had fouled Harrison McGahey in the build up to the goal, by impeding him with a shirt-pull - This is something that is explicitly forbidden in the laws of football, and is absolutely the kind of event VAR should be used for. Hard to spot in real time, but unequivocal when reviewed.

Sorry lads, it's a foul for me

The second was a correction after referee Paul Tierney initially awarded a free kick to Spurs on the edge of Rochdale's penalty area. Upon VAR review, it was overturned and given as a penalty, as the foul had clearly taken place inside the penalty box. This was a totally inarguable decision, and was correctly upheld. The third time VAR was used was moments later, when Son stopped halfway through his run-up to take the penalty before burying the ball in the back of the net - Again, a foul, as clearly stated in the laws of the game. The goal was overturned, and the correct decision had been reached.

Any objection (and there were many) to these decisions has to ignore the laws of the game. If you want to sit and talk about how it's a soft foul Lamela committed, about how it's a daft rule about stopping in the run up to a penalty, then you can go right ahead and do it. But it doesn't alter the fact that they are the laws of the game, and they were broken. The three times VAR had been used, it had come to the correct decision. What is shambolic about that? The only two arguments that hold any water are the amount of time the decisions took to be made, and the fact that fans in the stadium had no indication of what was going on. These are both easily fixed, and are not a reflection on the quality of decisions made by VAR. They certainly cannot be used as arguments against the use of VAR.

Fans may be left in the dark for a few minutes, but it's worth the advantages VAR brings

The concern should be about the fact that the referee missed Erik Lamela's foul in real time. It should be about the fact that he didn't even see that a foul had been committed in the penalty box. The concern should be about the fact that Son, a professional football player competing at the highest level doesn't understand the rules around taking a penalty. But instead, the media chose to frame this as a laughable controversy, proof that VAR doesn't work, and thus provided further fuel to the already raging fire of ill-thought criticism levelled at technology that is doing exactly what it has been tasked to do, and more importantly is doing it well. The criticism in the media about VAR is all fluff. There is no solid argument in the media against VAR, because there is no solid argument against it full stop. No amount of Alan Shearer pissing blood about a penalty not being given for light contact (contact in the box is one of multiple conditions needed to award a penalty, but he doesn't seem to know or care about that) should sway you on the fact that VAR is the best thing to happen to football in a very long time.

Everyone wants football to be fairer. We can all agree that as fans we have felt the uniquely piquant sting of a huge decision going the wrong way in the opposing team's favour. The hot, rising anger of being cheated out of an honourable display because the officials cannot keep up with the pace of the game. Football needs technological assistance, just as other sports need it. Rugby is the closest sport to football that uses video refereeing and technology to aid decisions. It's a fast, team-based ball game, with multiple decisions a minute to be made, and it is no indictment on the officials of that sport that they sometimes get it wrong. Who wouldn't? They're only human, and they only get to see each event once, in real time, under an unimaginable amount of pressure. There's nothing wrong with admitting you can't keep consistent in that situation. Rugby has embraced technology, has used it to better the sport, and most importantly, for a game that stops and starts a lot already, it has not slowed down the pace of the game or fan enjoyment one bit. Football needs to pull it's head out of it's backside and do the same.