Thomas Frank: The Unconventional Choice for Manchester United’s Rebirth

Here we go again with another deep dive into managerial options for Manchester United — this time focusing on yet another potential candidate named Thomas. Clearly, I need to be more creative with my choices!

Recently, I explored why Thomas Tuchel would have been an ideal candidate for INEOS to consider during the latest international break, especially if the decision-makers were unified in their desire to not only part ways with Erik ten Hag but also bring Tuchel on board. I believe he would’ve arrived as a highly credentialed coach, whose pursuit of perfection, while not without its flaws, would position him as an exceptional leader from a methodological, tactical, and success-oriented perspective.

However, not everything unfolds as we hope. The FA have officially announced Tuchel as the next England manager — an appointment I believe will significantly elevate a national team that has underperformed despite its elite talent. With Tuchel’s capabilities, I’m confident he can lead the team to greater success.

With Thomas Tuchel now off the table, I’ve turned my attention to other candidates. This exploration has proven to be a fascinating exercise, delving into the profiles of various managers, focusing on their methodologies and personalities, while evaluating their potential to helm a powerhouse club like Manchester United.

The intriguing dilemma for INEOS was their decision to keep Erik ten Hag as manager for the time being. While they may currently be unified in their choice, the question remains whether that alignment will persist in the coming weeks, months, or by the end of the season, particularly as performance fluctuates and pressure mounts.

During the recent international break, countless United fans brainstormed about potential managerial replacements, casting a wide net that included names like Thomas Tuchel, Zinedine Zidane, Ruben Amorim, Simone Inzaghi, and Kieran McKenna. Each of these candidates brings a unique blend of qualities and experiences, reflecting the diverse expectations and aspirations of a club steeped in history yet struggling to reclaim its former glory.

However, one name that repeatedly emerged in discussions — ironically coinciding with Manchester United’s upcoming league match against Brentford — was Thomas Frank.

I can already predict the reactions from some readers:

“Thomas Frank? Why would United go for him? He’s managing Brentford, we’re not Tottenham or Chelsea! We need an elite manager!”

“Frank’s not won any meaningful trophies, go and get a winner like Zidane.”

While these assertions might appear harsh or overly simplistic at first glance, they do possess an element of merit upon deeper reflection. Thomas Frank is indeed managing a mid-table team — albeit three spots above United — and has won only the EFL Championship playoffs in 2021 with Brentford.

So, does this disqualify him? After all, it didn’t work out for Graham Potter at Chelsea, so should we risk trying something similar with Frank?

There’s an old saying that one swallow doesn’t make a summer, which in short relates to the idea of not definitively judging something off a limited sample size, in the same way when formulating conclusions, it’s advised that you shouldn’t necessarily judge a book by its cover.

As I’ve emphasised in previous analyses, every managerial candidate INEOS considers — whether to replace Erik ten Hag or not — will come with their own set of flaws and challenges. The harsh reality is that it’s exceedingly unlikely Manchester United will discover another Sir Alex Ferguson. We were fortunate to experience the monumental success during his tenure, and that was a rare blessing.

But times have changed. Ferguson departed in 2013, and since then, Manchester United have not only stagnated but arguably regressed while other clubs have innovated, evolved, and leapfrogged us in both tactical acumen and player development. The Premier League landscape has shifted dramatically, with clubs like Manchester City and Liverpool not just competing for titles but also setting new standards in terms of playing style, recruitment, and overall club culture.

In light of this, Manchester United must focus on reinventing itself and crafting a future that moves beyond the legacy left by Sir Alex. This requires not only fresh leadership but also a clear vision that aligns with where football is heading today.

Typically, when ownership groups take over a football club, they often seek to install their own people, particularly a coach who reflects their ambitions and philosophy. Again, while INEOS have opted to support Ten Hag for now, I believe it’s unlikely they will maintain that commitment if results continue to falter. This brings us to a pivotal question: who would be a suitable candidate to lead Manchester United into this new era?

In my last piece on this platform, I delved into a statistical review conducted by Carteret Analytics, which employed various metrics to evaluate potential managerial candidates for Manchester United, should the club decide to part ways with Erik ten Hag. The analysis identified Ruben Amorim as the best statistical fit, and while I find him to be an intriguing option in isolation, I harbour some doubts regarding the methodology used in constructing and collecting the data that led to these conclusions.

In a sense, this piece serves as a counterpoint to the findings presented by Carteret Analytics. Although they included Thomas Frank as a candidate, they ranked him as the least favourable option for the next United manager. This raises significant questions about the criteria and rationale behind managerial appointments at Old Trafford.

Reflecting on the managerial choices made since Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement, it’s evident that there has been a lack of coherent direction regarding the club’s leadership. This inconsistency distinguishes the current ownership, particularly the Glazers, from INEOS in at least the short term. While Manchester United has historically boasted a clear footballing philosophy, the managerial merry-go-round post-Ferguson suggests a disconnect between vision and execution.

Reports indicate that Manchester United is aiming to adopt a data-driven approach, particularly in recruitment. This pivot is crucial, especially given that the club has spent over £1 billion since 2013 without securing either a Premier League title or a Champions League trophy. Sir Jim Ratcliffe has made it clear that the club will seek to attract “best-in-class” personnel, a commitment evidenced by recent appointments like Dan Ashworth, Omar Berrada, and Jason Wilcox. These moves signal an intent to reshape the club’s operational framework.

Yet, when it comes to arguably the most vital role within the club — the manager — there appears to be a lack of unity among decision-makers and supporters regarding whether Erik ten Hag is the right man to guide the team into the future. This indecision raises concerns about the overall strategic coherence of the club’s leadership structure.

As mentioned earlier, Thomas Frank’s name has surfaced multiple times as a potential candidate. Leading up to the FA Cup final in mid-May, he was widely discussed as a strong contender for the United role, having impressed key figures within the club with his work at Brentford. It was also noted that Frank has a relationship with INEOS, having also previously linked up with Sir Dave Brailsford.

So, why could Thomas Frank excel at Manchester United? That’s the central question of this piece. To dismiss the Danish coach solely based on his CV would be a disastrously short-sighted mistake. The objective here is to examine Frank holistically — as both a coach and a person — to provide United fans with a clearer understanding of what he could offer at Old Trafford.

Frank’s journey to England followed a successful tenure at Brøndby (2013–2016) and years managing Denmark’s youth national teams. In 2016, he joined Brentford as Dean Smith’s assistant, taking on a pivotal role in player development. His primary focus was ensuring a pathway for players transitioning from the B team to the first team — essentially nurturing talent for the future.

When Smith departed for Aston Villa in 2018, Frank was promoted to head coach. In an interview with The Coaches’ Voice, Frank revealed that one of the driving factors behind his decision to join Brentford was the alignment between his vision and the club’s: “We want to be an aggressive, pressing team, plus we wanted to dominate on the ball and really take charge in games.” This philosophy aligns almost perfectly with what INEOS seems to be looking for in a head coach — a dynamic, assertive style of play focused on control and aggression.

A common misconception is that Thomas Frank is a “long-ball” coach, often criticised by those who assume Brentford’s direct style in the Premier League is synonymous with basic, hoof-ball football. United fans, frustrated by their team’s current lack of fluency, might be quick to make this same assumption. But this view misses the nuance of Frank’s approach. Brentford’s more direct approach in the Premier League is not born out of rigid ideology but is instead a result of adapting to the personnel at his disposal and the competitive environment. Frank is pragmatic and adaptable — qualities that have defined his tenure in English football.

In the Championship, Brentford’s style closely resembled the high-octane, high-intensity football seen in many of Europe’s elite clubs. Frank’s Brentford was aggressive, pressing relentlessly, playing possession-based, attack-minded football with a high defensive line and positional discipline. It was “heavy-metal football” reminiscent of Jurgen Klopp’s early Liverpool sides. As a result, Brentford were one of the Championship’s standout teams during Frank’s final two seasons in the league.

What’s particularly intriguing about Frank is his flexibility. Unlike Erik ten Hag at United, who has remained wedded to a 4–2–3–1 system, Frank has demonstrated his ability to adapt and experiment with different tactical setups. At Brentford, he’s employed variations of a back three (3–4–3 or 3–4–1–2) and a back four (4–3–3 or 4–2–3–1), seamlessly switching between formations depending on the opposition and circumstances. In the Premier League, he’s shown he can either dominate possession or strike on the counterattack, depending on what is needed to give his side the best chance of success.

Thomas Frank’s approach at Brentford is built around using wide areas to launch dynamic, quick attacks — a tactic that could bring structure and purpose to Manchester United’s current wide players. Brentford’s reliance on width, whether through wingers or wingbacks, has been a cornerstone of their success in the Premier League, and this strategy would benefit United’s squad by giving players like Marcus Rashford, Alejandro Garnacho, and Amad Diallo more responsibility and clearer roles. Under Frank, these wide players would have a direct, purposeful role in stretching the field and contributing to United’s attack.

Brentford’s approach thrives on dynamism, precision, and unpredictability — traits United have lacked in recent seasons. Frank’s Brentford teams seek to catch opponents off guard by playing to their strengths, something United have struggled to do under Erik ten Hag, particularly in using long balls.

While United’s use of long balls under ten Hag often seems chaotic and symptomatic of disjointed possession play, Brentford’s long balls are calculated, efficient, and executed with purpose. Key players like Mathias Jensen and Vitaly Janelt have excelled at distributing these balls into dangerous areas, leveraging their accuracy to unlock defences and create scoring opportunities. Bryan Mbeumo, for example, has flourished under Frank’s leadership, using his speed and directness to devastating effect, especially in the absence of Ivan Toney.

This pragmatic, direct style could suit Manchester United, especially given their current issues with building out from the back. Brentford’s long-ball approach avoids the risks associated with playing through the backline, as demonstrated when they dismantled United 4–0 early in ten Hag’s tenure. Brentford’s aggressive press and compact defensive structure exposed United’s inability to cope with pressure in possession, underscoring the importance of having a strategy that fits the players at your disposal.

Defensively, Brentford are flexible but often most effective in a compact shape, either in a 5–3–2 or 4–5–1 formation. This organisation is crucial for two main reasons. First, a compact defensive structure makes it harder for opponents to create overloads in specific areas, which United have struggled to deal with. By limiting the opposition’s ability to isolate players and create numerical superiority, Brentford neutralises attacking threats and restricts opportunities for goal-scoring chances.

Second, a compact defence shares the workload, reducing the burden on individual defenders to make game-saving tackles. Brentford’s players work collectively to maintain defensive solidity, which minimises the risk of individual mistakes being exploited. This could be crucial for a United side that has often been exposed by lapses in defensive concentration.

When Brentford do press high, their compactness allows for a quicker, more aggressive pressing transition. This enables them to cause turnovers in advantageous positions and counter at speed, turning defensive solidity into attacking opportunities. This model of play could help United, particularly given their need for a more cohesive and well-drilled system to complement their talented but underperforming squad.

Ultimately, Frank’s adaptability is one of his strongest assets. He doesn’t adhere rigidly to one particular style or system. Instead, he assesses the opposition, understands the context of the league, and sets his team up in the way that makes them most effective.

Thomas Frank’s success as a coach is deeply rooted in his personal background and philosophy. Before becoming a professional coach, Frank worked in education, teaching everything from kindergarten to business school, which suggests that his communication skills and patience are well-developed. His academic background in Sports Psychology, studied between 2002 and 2005, complements his approach to coaching, allowing him to better understand and manage the mental side of his players’ development.

Frank’s ability to build strong relationships with his players is frequently praised. Bryan Mbeumo has openly discussed how close Frank is with his squad, while former midfielder Saman Ghoddos emphasised the belief the Dane instils in his players. His man-management skills reflect a level of empathy and trust that allows players to perform at their best. This is something Manchester United have sorely missed in recent years, as the lack of cohesion and belief within the squad has been a consistent issue.

At Brentford, Frank operates under four key principles: togetherness, hard work, performance, and attitude. These values have helped create a resilient and unified squad, one that consistently punches above its weight in the Premier League. His emphasis on “no dickheads” ensures a culture where only players who care deeply about the team’s success thrive. The commitment to hard work and putting performance first drives his players to achieve beyond expectations, while the combination of confidence and humility ensures that success is balanced with self-awareness.

These principles mirror the qualities that made Sir Alex Ferguson’s United sides so dominant. The legendary United teams were defined by their togetherness, work ethic, and winning mentality, all of which have been questioned in recent United sides. Frank’s ability to instil these values at a club like Brentford shows his potential to do the same at Manchester United.

One of the major concerns about Frank’s potential appointment at United would be the leap from managing a smaller club like Brentford to one of the largest football institutions in the world. The financial disparity, scale, and pressure at a club like Manchester United are of an entirely different magnitude. Yet, Frank’s ability to succeed with limited resources is a testament to his tactical acumen and adaptability. His data-driven approach, which aligns with Brentford’s innovative use of analytics, could be a perfect fit for United’s reported shift towards a more data-led strategy under INEOS.

Pep Guardiola has even praised Frank’s ability, noting that it’s only a matter of time before he is picked up by a bigger club. The idea that top clubs should only consider managers from elite-level teams is increasingly outdated. Recent appointments of managers like Enzo Maresca at Chelsea and Vincent Kompany at Bayern Munich, both of whom have earned praise for their work, have so far demonstrated that so-called “lower-level” managers can succeed at larger clubs.

Hiring Thomas Frank would certainly be a gamble for Manchester United, but it’s one worth considering. His ambition to manage a Big Six club, coupled with his ability to deliver results despite financial limitations, makes him an intriguing candidate. His emphasis on togetherness, hard work, and adaptability aligns with the values INEOS seeks to bring to Old Trafford. In this context, Thomas Frank might be exactly the kind of forward-thinking, innovative coach who can help United regain its status as a football powerhouse.