Connect with us

Culture

Ten Hag’s ‘two trophies’ line is true – but it’s not the only measure of progress

Published

on

Ten Hag’s ‘two trophies’ line is true – but it’s not the only measure of progress

It was about as close as an FA Cup-winning manager has come to a mic drop.

In a room of journalists who had spent the previous few days reporting on his bosses’ plan to replace him, a bruised, embattled but belligerent Erik ten Hag defended his record as manager of Manchester United.

“Two trophies in two years is not bad,” he said. “Three finals in two years is not bad. If they don’t want me, then I go somewhere else to win trophies because that is what I do.”

It was a good line, worth repeating, which he did. After Ten Hag’s contract was extended and his future settled, he sat down with MUTV in July and reiterated his “two trophies” point.

Then he said it again a few days later in Trondheim after United’s first pre-season friendly, adding: “Apart from (Manchester) City, that’s more than any other club in English football.”

Advertisement

He repeated it again after the friendly against Rangers in Edinburgh.

Then again on the tour of the United States.

That was just pre-season. Since the start of the campaign proper, Ten Hag has referenced his two domestic cup wins in six exchanges with journalists during pre- and post-match press conferences, to say nothing of interviews with broadcasters.

The latest instance, after Sunday’s 3-0 defeat to Liverpool, came amid a tense exchange with one journalist who Ten Hag invited to name the “mistakes” his team were accused of making. After the journalist rattled off a long list of repeated errors, Ten Hag retreated to his old faithful.

“I have a different vision. I think we won, after City, the most trophies in English football,” he said. “I am sorry for you.”

Advertisement

He’s right, of course. It is as true now as it was at Wembley. But three games into a new season, an argument with which he neatly skewered his critics in May is fast becoming a crutch to fall back on.

On Friday, having just repeated his favourite point, Ten Hag added: “There’s only one thing in football and that’s at the end of the season if you win prizes, trophies, or not.” But as others have noted, that view is in stark contrast to that of his predecessor Ole Gunnar Solskjaer.

“Any cup competition can give you a trophy but sometimes it’s more of an ego thing from other managers and clubs to finally win something,” Solskjaer said in March 2021.

“It’s not like a trophy will say, ‘We’re back’. It’s the gradual progression of being in and around the top of the league and the consistency and the odd trophies. Sometimes a cup competition can hide the fact you’re still struggling a little bit.”

Advertisement

Solskjaer’s words are those of a manager who had the opposite problem to Ten Hag. Under the Norwegian, United’s league finishes steadily improved — from sixth to third to second — but the trophy cabinet was bare.

Solskjaer was defending his record by claiming that the league is a true barometer of progress, just as Ten Hag is defending his record by pointing to silverware. As to which view is correct, opinions will vary.


Ten Hag with his other trophy, the Carabao Cup (Julian Finney/Getty Images)

As critical as it was for Solskjaer’s United to qualify for the Champions League on the final weekend of the 2019-20 campaign, do you remember who they beat that day? Do you remember the score? Maybe you do, but that 2-0 win behind closed doors at Leicester City is hardly a result that will echo through the ages.

Similarly, memories are not made by being runners-up in the league. Solskjaer’s side finished 12 points adrift of champions Manchester City the year they finished second, in 2021, having not topped the table from late January.

The only trophy United came close to winning that year was the Europa League. Speaking before the final in Gdansk, Solskjaer maintained that silverware sometimes “hides other facts”. But after United lost to Villarreal in a penalty shootout, he admitted he could not consider the season a success having failed to deliver silverware.

Advertisement

Ask some who have known the inner workings of Old Trafford over the years and they would say you cannot survive as United manager without winning trophies. Solskjaer’s spell in charge is arguably evidence of that, while Ten Hag’s proves the inverse: deliver a trophy plus the greatest day of United’s post-Sir Alex Ferguson era and you can survive anything, even the worst-ever Premier League finish.

go-deeper

There was also the 4-3 quarter-final win over Liverpool, of course — one of Old Trafford’s best games and atmospheres this century. Add the Carabao Cup victory on top, and the past two years have given supporters indelible memories, highs to balance out the lows.

But Solskjaer’s view is much closer to how performance is coldly assessed at the elite level in modern football. A league campaign over 38 games home and away is undeniably a truer gauge of a side’s quality, as well as typically the gateway to lucrative Champions League qualification, which affects budgets in a way the FA Cup cannot.

go-deeper

United may be the second-most successful side in English football over the past two years, as Ten Hag points out, but nobody would sincerely argue that they have been the second-best team.

Nor would anybody suggest United are closer to challenging City for major honours than Arsenal, despite Mikel Arteta only adding a Community Shield to his honours list since Ten Hag’s appointment.

That is the reality. In a quieter moment, outside the adversarial nature and pitched battles of a press conference, even Ten Hag would agree that trophies are not enough. You need both pots and points.

Advertisement

United’s decade-plus of underachievement will only have ended when the club are regularly competing for Premier League titles and reaching the latter stages of the Champions League again.

There were mitigating factors last season — injuries, off-field turmoil, takeover uncertainty, the absence of an established left-back — but United were below standard in the competitions that matter most.

That, despite domestic cup success, is why their manager is under pressure to prove progress has and can still be made, and why he will only be able to point to his two trophies for so long. When not staring down a room of journalists and television cameras, even Ten Hag would accept that.

go-deeper

GO DEEPER

Analysing Ashworth and Berrada’s Man Utd transfer briefing – ‘Erik has our full backing’

(Top photo: Erik ten Hag with the FA Cup; by Alex Pantling via Getty Images )

Advertisement

Culture

What America’s Main Characters Tell Us

Published

on

What America’s Main Characters Tell Us

Literature

Oedipa Maas from ‘The Crying of Lot 49’ (1966) by Thomas Pynchon

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

“The unforgettable, cartoonish protagonist of this unusually short novel is a California housewife accidentally turned private investigator and literary interpreter, and the mystery she’s attempting to solve — or, more specifically, the conspiracy she stumbles upon — is nothing less than capitalism itself,” says Ngai, 54. “As Oedipa traces connections between various crackpots, the novel highlights the peculiarly asocial sociality of postwar U.S. society, which gets figured as a network of alienations.”

Advertisement

Sula Peace from ‘Sula’ (1973) by Toni Morrison

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

“Sula arguably begins to disappear as soon as she’s introduced — despite the fact that the novel bears her name. Other characters die quickly, or are noticeably flat. This raises the politically charged question of who gets to ‘develop’ or be a protagonist in American novels and who doesn’t. The novel’s unusual character system is part of its meditation on anti-Black racism and historical violence.”

The speaker of ‘Lunch Poems’ (1964) by Frank O’Hara

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

Advertisement

“Lyric poems are fundamentally different from narrative fiction in part because they have speakers as opposed to narrators. Perhaps it’s a stretch to nominate the speaker of ‘Lunch Poems’ as a main character, but this book changed things by highlighting the centrality of queer counterpublics to U.S. culture as a whole, and by exploring the joys and risks of everyday intimacy with strangers therein.”

This interview has been edited and condensed.

More in Literature

See the rest of the issue

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Culture

Poetry Challenge: Memorize “The More Loving One” by W.H. Auden

Published

on

Poetry Challenge: Memorize “The More Loving One” by W.H. Auden

Advertisement

Let’s memorize a poem! Not because it’s good for us or because we think we should, but because it’s fun, a mental challenge with a solid aesthetic reward. You can amuse yourself, impress your friends and maybe discover that your way of thinking about the world — or even, as you’ll see, the universe — has shifted a bit.

Over the next five days, we’ll look closely at a great poem by one of our favorite poets, and we’ll have games, readings and lots of encouragement to help you learn it by heart. Some of you know how this works: Last year more Times readers than we could count memorized a jaunty 18-line recap of an all-night ferry ride. (If you missed that adventure, it’s not too late to embark. The ticket is still valid.)

This time, we’re training our telescopes on W.H. Auden’s “The More Loving One” — a clever, compact meditation on love, disappointment and the night sky.

Advertisement

Here’s the first of its four stanzas, read for us by Matthew McConaughey:

Advertisement

The More Loving One by W.H. Auden 

Looking up at the stars, I know quite well 

That, for all they care, I can go to hell, 

But on earth indifference is the least 

Advertisement

We have to dread from man or beast. 

Matthew McConaughey, actor and poet

In four short lines we get a brisk, cynical tour of the universe: hell and the heavens, people and animals, coldness and cruelty. Commonplace observations — that the stars are distant; that life can be dangerous — are wound into a charming, provocative insight. The tone is conversational, mixing decorum and mild profanity in a manner that makes it a pleasure to keep reading.

Advertisement

Here’s Tracy K. Smith, a former U.S. poet laureate, with the second stanza:

Advertisement

How should we like it were stars to burn 

With a passion for us we could not return? 

If equal affection cannot be, 

Let the more loving one be me. 

Advertisement

Tracy K. Smith, poet

These lines abruptly shift the focus from astronomy to love, from the universal to the personal. Imagine how it would feel if the stars had massive, unrequited crushes on us! The speaker, couching his skepticism in a coy, hypothetical question, seems certain that we wouldn’t like this at all.

This certainty leads him to a remarkable confession, a moment of startling vulnerability. The poem’s title, “The More Loving One,” is restated with sweet, disarming frankness. Our friend is wearing his heart on his well-tailored sleeve.

Advertisement

The poem could end right there: two stanzas, point and counterpoint, about how we appreciate the stars in spite of their indifference because we would rather love than be loved.

But the third stanza takes it all back. Here’s Alison Bechdel reading it:

Advertisement

Admirer as I think I am 

Of stars that do not give a damn, 

I cannot, now I see them, say 

Advertisement

I missed one terribly all day. 

Alison Bechdel, graphic novelist

The speaker downgrades his foolish devotion to qualified admiration. No sooner has he established himself as “the more loving one” than he gives us — and perhaps himself — reason to doubt his ardor. He likes the stars fine, he guesses, but not so much as to think about them when they aren’t around.

Advertisement

The fourth and final stanza, read by Yiyun Li, takes this disenchantment even further:

Advertisement

Were all stars to disappear or die, 

I should learn to look at an empty sky 

And feel its total dark sublime, 

Though this might take me a little time. 

Advertisement

Yiyun Li, author

Wounded defiance gives way to a more rueful, resigned state of mind. If the universe were to snuff out its lights entirely, the speaker reckons he would find beauty in the void. A starless sky would make him just as happy.

Though perhaps, like so many spurned lovers before and after, he protests a little too much. Every fan of popular music knows that a song about how you don’t care that your baby left you is usually saying the opposite.

Advertisement

The last line puts a brave face on heartbreak.

So there you have it. In just 16 lines, this poem manages to be somber and funny, transparent and elusive. But there’s more to it than that. There is, for one thing, a voice — a thinking, feeling person behind those lines.

Advertisement

W.H. Auden in 1962. Sam Falk/The New York Times

When he wrote “The More Loving One,” in the 1950s, Wystan Hugh Auden was among the most beloved writers in the English-speaking world. Before this week is over there will be more to say about Auden, but like most poets he would have preferred that we give our primary attention to the poem.

Advertisement

Its structure is straightforward and ingenious. Each of the four stanzas is virtually a poem unto itself — a complete thought expressed in one or two sentences tied up in a neat pair of couplets. Every quatrain is a concise, witty observation: what literary scholars call an epigram.

This makes the work of memorization seem less daunting. We can take “The More Loving One” one epigram at a time, marvelling at how the four add up to something stranger, deeper and more complex than might first appear.

Advertisement

So let’s go back to the beginning and try to memorize that insouciant, knowing first stanza. Below you’ll find a game we made to get you started. Give it a shot, and come back tomorrow for more!

Your first task: Learn the first four lines!

Play a game to learn it by heart. Need more practice? Listen to Ada Limón, Matthew McConaughey, W.H. Auden and others recite our poem.

Question 1/6

Advertisement

Let’s start with the first couplet. Fill in the rhyming words.

Looking up at the stars, I know quite well 

Advertisement

That, for all they care, I can go to hell, 

Advertisement

Tap a word above to fill in the highlighted blank.

Advertisement

Ready for another round? Try your hand at the 2025 Poetry Challenge.

Advertisement

Edited by Gregory Cowles, Alicia DeSantis and Nick Donofrio. Additional editing by Emily Eakin,
Joumana Khatib, Emma Lumeij and Miguel Salazar. Design and development by Umi Syam. Additional
game design by Eden Weingart. Video editing by Meg Felling. Photo editing by Erica Ackerberg.
Illustration art direction by Tala Safie.

Illustrations by Daniel Barreto.

Text and audio recording of “The More Loving One,” by W.H. Auden, copyright © by the Estate of
W.H. Auden. Reprinted by permission of Curtis Brown, Ltd. Photograph accompanying Auden recording
from Imagno/Getty Images.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Culture

Famous Authors’ Less Famous Books

Published

on

Famous Authors’ Less Famous Books

Literature

‘Romola’ (1863) by George Eliot

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

Who knew that there’s a major George Eliot novel that neither I nor any of my friends had ever heard of?

Advertisement

“Romola” was Eliot’s fourth novel, published between “The Mill on the Floss” (1860) and “Middlemarch” (1870-71). If my friends and I didn’t get this particular memo, and “Romola” is familiar to every Eliot fan but us, please skip the following.

“Romola” isn’t some fluky misfire better left unmentioned in light of Eliot’s greater work. It’s her only historical novel, set in Florence during the Italian Renaissance. It embraces big subjects like power, religion, art and social upheaval, but it’s not dry or overly intellectual. Its central character is a gifted, freethinking young woman named Romola, who enters a marriage so disastrous as to make Anna Karenina’s look relatively good.

Advertisement

It probably matters that many of Eliot’s other books have been adapted into movies or TV series, with actors like Hugh Dancy, Ben Kingsley, Emily Watson and Rufus Sewell. The BBC may be doing even more than we thought to keep classic literature alive. (In 1924, “Romola” was made into a silent movie starring Lillian Gish. It doesn’t seem to have made much difference.)

Anthony Trollope, among others, loved “Romola.” He did, however, warn Eliot against aiming over her readers’ heads, which may help explain its obscurity.

All I can say, really, is that it’s a mystery why some great books stay with us and others don’t.

Advertisement

‘Quiet Dell’ (2013) by Jayne Anne Phillips

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

This was an Oprah Book of the Week, which probably disqualifies it from B-side status, but it’s not nearly as well known as Phillips’s debut story collection, “Black Tickets” (1979), or her most recent novel, “Night Watch” (2023), which won her a long-overdue Pulitzer Prize.

Phillips has no parallel in her use of potent, stylized language to shine a light into the darkest of corners. In “Quiet Dell,” her only true-crime novel, she’s at the height of her powers, which are particularly apparent when she aims her language laser at horrific events that actually occurred. Her gift for transforming skeevy little lives into what I can only call “Blade Runner” mythology is consistently stunning.

Advertisement

Consider this passage from the opening chapter of “Quiet Dell”:

“Up high the bells are ringing for everyone alive. There are silver and gold and glass bells you can see through, and sleigh bells a hundred years old. My grandmother said there was a whisper for each one dead that year, and a feather drifting for each one waiting to be born.”

Advertisement

The book is full of language like that — and of complex, often chillingly perverse characters. It’s a dark, underrecognized beauty.

‘Solaris’ (1961) by Stanislaw Lem

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

You could argue that, in America, at least, the Polish writer Stanislaw Lem didn’t produce any A-side novels. You could just as easily argue that that makes all his novels both A-side and B-side.

Advertisement

It’s science fiction. All right?

I love science and speculative fiction, but I know a lot of literary types who take pride in their utter lack of interest in it. I always urge those people to read “Solaris,” which might change their opinions about a vast number of popular books they dismiss as trivial. As far as I know, no one has yet taken me up on that.

“Solaris” involves the crew of a space station continuing the study of an aquatic planet that has long defied analysis by the astrophysicists of Earth. Part of what sets the book apart from a lot of other science-fiction novels is Lem’s respect for enigma. He doesn’t offer contrived explanations in an attempt to seduce readers into suspending disbelief. The crew members start to experience … manifestations? … drawn from their lives and memories. If the planet has any intentions, however, they remain mysterious. All anyone can tell is that their desires and their fears, some of which are summoned from their subconsciousness, are being received and reflected back to them so vividly that it becomes difficult to tell the real from the projected. “Solaris” has the peculiar distinction of having been made into not one but two bad movies. Read the book instead.

Advertisement

‘Fox 8’ (2013) by George Saunders

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

If one of the most significant living American writers had become hypervisible with his 2017 novel, “Lincoln in the Bardo,” we’d go back and read his earlier work, wouldn’t we? Yes, and we may very well have already done so with the story collections “Tenth of December” (2013) and “Pastoralia” (2000). But what if we hadn’t yet read Saunders’s 2013 novella, “Fox 8,” about an unusually intelligent fox who, by listening to a family from outside their windows at night, has learned to understand, and write, in fox-English?: “One day, walking neer one of your Yuman houses, smelling all the interest with snout, I herd, from inside, the most amazing sound. Turns out, what that sound is, was: the Yuman voice, making werds. They sounded grate! They sounded like prety music! I listened to those music werds until the sun went down.”

Once Saunders became more visible to more of us, we’d want to read a book that ventures into the consciousness of a different species (novels tend to be about human beings), that maps the differences and the overlaps in human and animal consciousness, explores the effects of language on consciousness and is great fun.

Advertisement

We’d all have read it by now — right?

‘Between the Acts’ (1941) by Virginia Woolf

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

You could argue that Woolf didn’t have any B-sides, and yet it’s hard to deny that more people have read “Mrs. Dalloway” (1925) and “To the Lighthouse” (1927) than have read “The Voyage Out” (1915) or “Monday or Tuesday” (1921). Those, along with “Orlando” (1928) and “The Waves” (1931), are Woolf’s most prominent novels.

Advertisement

Four momentous novels is a considerable number for any writer, even a great one. That said, “Between the Acts,” her last novel, really should be considered the fifth of her significant books. The phrase “embarrassment of riches” comes to mind.

Five great novels by the same author is a lot for any reader to take on. Our reading time is finite. We won’t live long enough to read all the important books, no matter how old we get to be. I don’t expect many readers to be as devoted to Woolf as are the cohort of us who consider her to have been some sort of dark saint of literature and will snatch up any relic we can find. Fanatics like me will have read “Between the Acts” as well as “The Voyage Out,” “Monday or Tuesday” and “Flush” (1933), the story of Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s cocker spaniel. Speaking for myself, I don’t blame anyone who hasn’t gotten to those.

Advertisement

I merely want to add “Between the Acts” to the A-side, lest anyone who’s either new to Woolf or a tourist in Woolf-landia fail to rank it along with the other four contenders.

As briefly as possible: It focuses on an annual village pageant that attempts to convey all of English history in a single evening. The pageant itself interweaves subtly, brilliantly, with the lives of the villagers playing the parts.

It’s one of Woolf’s most lusciously lyrical novels. And it’s a crash course, of sorts, in her genius for conjuring worlds in which the molehill matters as much as the mountain, never mind their differences in size.

Advertisement

It’s also the most accessible of her greatest books. It could work for some as an entry point, in more or less the way William Faulkner’s “As I Lay Dying” (1930) can be the starter book before you go on to “The Sound and the Fury” (1929) or “Absalom, Absalom!” (1936).

As noted, there’s too much for us to read. We do the best we can.

Advertisement

More in Literature

See the rest of the issue

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending