We are an awfully coached team

[Peter van der Gea]

This is not down to poor coaching, this is down to having to try and get Pogba, Greenwood, Sancho, Ronaldo and Fernandes into the same side. Run the stats again for the West Ham game, when we played the McFred midfield

It's also why I instantly disregard the opinion of any poster who calls our two-man midfield 'negative'. All of the top clubs play a minimum of a two-man midfield. It's just that our two happen to be largely inferior to the central midfield players at Chelsea, City and Liverpool

Maybe we should hire a coach with a hip, new 1 man midfield system.

 

[Bilbo]

On the subject of United looking worse in attack against defensive opponents - everybody does. That's why they do it.

 

[Lentwood]

''That's the great thing about Coaching/Patterns Of Play. It's so vague and no one really knows what it's about.''

This is why it's such a difficult argument to overcome, it's like astrology or homeopathic medicine - it's psuedo science because it can't be tested and disproven

Case in my point, I can offer evidence that Solskjaer CAN coach, by pointing to our league positions and points totals relative to other teams. I can also take anecdotal evidence from our players, who seem to have absolutely no complaints about the training sessions or the coaching.

All the 'Ole can't coach' lot have is 'patterns of play' and 'we rely on individual brilliance' type vagueness. The statistics don't back it up.

 

[sullydnl]

''That's the great thing about Coaching/Patterns Of Play. It's so vague and no one really knows what it's about.''

This is why it's such a difficult argument to overcome, it's like astrology or homeopathic medicine - it's psuedo science because it can't be tested and disproven

Case in my point, I can offer evidence that Solskjaer CAN coach, by pointing to our league positions and points totals relative to other teams. I can also take anecdotal evidence from our players, who seem to have absolutely no complaints about the training sessions or the coaching.

All the 'Ole can't coach' lot have is 'patterns of play' and 'we rely on individual brilliance' type vagueness. The statistics don't back it up.

It's not vague though.

I describe exactly what it is here to another poster:

Spoiler

Patterns of play are pre-drilled combinations of play. So for example when X player is on the ball Y player move here and Z player moves here, with all three knowing who X will pass to and what the player who will receive it is supposed to do with it next. You drill varieties of these patterns and that allows you to play quicker football, as players are reacting to things before they happen and not having to weigh up options when they get the ball in those situations.

For example the end result might be the difference between AWB seeing Sancho on the ball and reacting by making a run to overlap/underlap or AWB making that run before Sancho gets the ball because both he and Sancho have been coached to know that's what comes next (and with the CF making a certain run to create space for AWB because he knows what's coming too). In both cases the same thing might happen but in the latter case it happens a lot quicker, which allows for more incision and gets players into more advantageous positions.

Another example might be: Shaw makes a run up the pitch, Ronaldo drops deep, Shaw plays the ball to Ronaldo. Fernandes is drilled to make an arching run, being able to time it so that he's in the correct position and body shape to comfortably receive the ball from Ronaldo while facing the goal. Shaw (knowing in advance that the ball he's playing to Ronaldo will be going to Fernandes next) is able to aim the ball to the foot that allows Ronaldo to play a one-touch pass to Fernandes. Meanwhile Pogba (playing at LW) knows he has to stay wide to keep the opposition fullback engaged and offer a secondary pass option for both Shaw and Ronaldo. Because this is pre-drilled they're able to execute that combination at speed and with the right timing. Whereas if it wasn't pre-drilled Ronaldo might have to take an extra touch which kills the first time pass to Fernandes.

Those sorts of patterns are why you always see City scoring that same cut-back goal over and over again, for example. It isn't an accident, they've been drilled with different combinations of passing and movement to get their players into those positions.

Those patterns don't have to just be to break down opposition defences either. They can be to used to play through an opposition press too. And aside from incision they stop you from losing the ball as easily in dangerous areas.

Hope that's a clear enough explanation.

And I'm an idiot. If even I can understand it, it's not all that difficult.

We're just talking about preparation and organisation, no more than that. Nobody in their right mind would say the concept of being organised at set-pieces is a vague pseudo-science, yet for some reason ye can't wrap their head around other systems within the team needing coaching.

It's not like it's some notion we've all made up. For example, I posted UEFA A Licence study support material earlier in the thread that discusses patterns of play. It makes it really hard to take arguments that we aren't undercoached seriously when people act like referencing now-standard coaching concepts and terminology are akin to believing in bigfoot.

 

[Bilbo]

Yes, it's the lack of movements and ideas for the player on the ball when we're building from the back

Player quality has a lot to do with this. Shaw is an outstanding left back and we rarely have too many problems advancing down his side of the pitch. AWB has different qualities but even so we often manage to advance down the right side. The problem is AWB is too often isolated out there and doesn't have the instinct to try to beat players, so those advances don't lead to opportunities anywhere near as often. Neither of these are coaching issues, unless we follow that logic and conclude that our coaches are far more skilled at producing left sided attacking movements, which of course is nonsense. Its simply a by product of player quality and the balance of the team.

Central is more complex. We do need work here, but its too easy to just put this down to our coaches having no idea what to do. Its a balance thing again. Pogba and Matic are better at it, but McFred offer the best overall package and are better for the team. Having said that there is little doubt in my mind that, Haaland possibility aside, the majority of our funds are going to be invested centrally in the next two seasons. You can improve players by a certain percentage but you can't make them something they are not. If that were possible clubs would rarely sanction expensive transfers, but even so if people think we are going to be looking for a player to sit in front of the defence it won't happen. Ole wants two all-rounders in there, and I think our midfield options next season will look quite different. McTominay is the only one nailed on to still be here IMO.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

There are games where Ole deserves criticism but for this game it's weird. West Ham away is a tough place to go, we scored 2 goals, hit the post once, Ronaldo missed 2 one v ones, he should have had 2 penalties. On other day this would have been much more comfortable win than what scoreline shows.

It is not wierd at all. There were loads of people complaining after the YB game that Ole outers only come out when we lose or draw and don't comment when we win. There were literally ten pages of complaining on the "Is the United forum safe to go into yet?".

Based on that criticism, Ole outers came out after this match, to criticize Ole and talk about patterns of play and pot noodles. Now Ole inners are saying, Ole outers shouldn't complain when we win. There is literally ten pages of complaining on the "Is the United forum safe to go into yet?". There is no winning with Ole inners. I am at a loss to what they want.

 

[roonster09]

It is not wierd at all. There were loads of people complaining after the YB game that Ole outers only come out when we lose or draw and don't comment when we win. There were literally ten pages of complaining on the "Is the United forum safe to go into yet?".

Based on that criticism, Ole outers came out after this match, to criticize Ole and talk about patterns of play and pot noodles. Now Ole inners are saying, Ole outers shouldn't complain when we win. There is literally ten pages of complaining on the "Is the United forum safe to go into yet?". There is no winning with Ole inners. I am at a loss to what they want.

You can check with Ole-Inners then.

On a whole I can see why he gets criticized but not sure why people moan about this game. There is a difference.

 

[sullydnl]

The weird thing about this thread is that since it was first posted we've had direct evidence that our coaching wasn't up to scratch.

We had set-piece problems many of us noted were down to coaching, Solskjaer recognised that, he appointed a coach to deal with it specifically. A coaching problem solved by better coaching.

Yet when we apply the exact same logic to other aspects of our game people get insanely defensive, as if it's an attack on the manager to say he should do more of a good thing he already did and keep improving our coaching.

It's also absolutely baffling to me that so many people here seem to think the concept of patterns of play are some sort of vague myth. When Barcelona were tiki-takaing us to death in CL finals over a decade ago, what the hell did ye think that was?

 

[Bilbo]

Patterns of play are pre-drilled combinations of play. So for example when X player is on the ball Y player move here and Z player moves here, with all three knowing who X will pass to and what the player who will receive it is supposed to do with it next. You drill varieties of these patterns and that allows you to play quicker football, as players are reacting to things before they happen and not having to weigh up options when they get the ball in those situations.

For example the end result might be the difference between AWB seeing Sancho on the ball and reacting by making a run to overlap/underlap or AWB making that run before Sancho gets the ball because both he and Sancho have been coached to know that's what comes next (and with the CF making a certain run to create space for AWB because he knows what's coming too). In both cases the same thing might happen but in the latter case it happens a lot quicker, which allows for more incision and gets players into more advantageous positions

This sounds like a plausible description but it describes an NFL play more than it describes football. Easy to put together in a set-piece situation or from a standing start like the NFL, but it doesn't take into account that there are 11 opponents on the pitch all moving around at the same time. If patterns of play can be learned, then they can also be studied and countered upon and that's where it all falls down. I'm not suggesting that patterns of play are not a thing, that would be stupid, but what I am saying is that its not the most important factor. Football is far too fluid a sport with far too many moving parts to rely on that alone, and if you go too far with it you end up with a team playing like we did under Van Gaal.

 

[tenpoless]

Need better coaching, hire better coaches. Problem solved. It doesnt have to be Ole that gets replaced. Or add more coaches, is there a limit to them for one club?

 

[kthanksbye]

Player quality has a lot to do with this. Shaw is an outstanding left back and we rarely have too many problems advancing down his side of the pitch. AWB has different qualities but even so we often manage to advance down the right side. The problem is AWB is too often isolated out there and doesn't have the instinct to try to beat players, so those advances don't lead to opportunities anywhere near as often. Neither of these are coaching issues, unless we follow that logic and conclude that our coaches are far more skilled at producing left sided attacking movements, which of course is nonsense. Its simply a by product of player quality and the balance of the team.

Central is more complex. We do need work here, but its too easy to just put this down to our coaches having no idea what to do. Its a balance thing again. Pogba and Matic are better at it, but McFred offer the best overall package and are better for the team. Having said that there is little doubt in my mind that, Haaland possibility aside, the majority of our funds are going to be invested centrally in the next two seasons. You can improve players by a certain percentage but you can't make them something they are not. If that were possible clubs would rarely sanction expensive transfers, but even so if people think we are going to be looking for a player to sit in front of the defence it won't happen. Ole wants two all-rounders in there, and I think our midfield options next season will look quite different. McTominay is the only one nailed on to still be here IMO.

Interesting take, hard to disagree with any of this. Like I said, I don't know much about patterns of play, but then when I watch other teams play, even the ones with inferior quality players, there seems to be a clear structure and style of play, like they know what is to be done, but the players are just not good enough to execute it.

For example I watched Brugge play against PSG the other day, absolutely loved the way Brugge were playing the players seem to be on the same wavelength, they overload the right side, have an extra man, which means the PSG LB had to stick to his man and Brugge had one free player to recycle possession. Made me wonder, how a team with inferior players are able to constantly put pressure and create chances against a team like PSG.

I hope you're right, once we have a couple of competent midfielders and a RB comfortable on the ball, we might look like an entirely different outfit when the players are able to execute the instructions better.

 

[sullydnl]

This sounds like a plausible description but it describes an NFL play more than it describes football. Easy to put together in a set-piece situation or from a standing start like the NFL, but it doesn't take into account that there are 11 opponents on the pitch all moving around at the same time. If patterns of play can be learned, then they can also be studied and countered upon and that's where it all falls down. I'm not suggesting that patterns of play are not a thing, that would be stupid, but what I am saying is that its not the most important factor. Football is far too fluid a sport with far too many moving parts to rely on that alone, and if you go too far with it you end up with a team playing like we did under Van Gaal.

You're right, it absolutely isn't the most important factor in football, far from it.

It's just that when you watch our team in particular, it's something we could do with improving. Because we often seem to find ourselves in positions where players are trying to feel and think their way through situations where having more prepared and well-drilled sequences of play would make life easier, be it in front of a parked defence or when trying to build play from back to front.

Take City as an extreme example, how often over the years have you seem them score seemingly the exact same cut-back & tap in goal? That doesn't happen by accident. And if it was that easy to stop, they wouldn't have been repeatedly scoring different variations of the same goal for years. The opposition isn't going to be able to put as much work into your patterns of play as you are, so there's only so much they can do.

But obviously as we've seen even with that City can still struggle to score in some games, particularly when they don't have the quality of attackers they'd want. But with our attacking depth a bit more organisation would do us wonders.

 

[Hoboman]

Believe that we need to up our tempo, intensity and concentration as much as to develop those patterns of play.

Too often the team look slow, letargic and even unfit. It becomes especially evident during first halves of games when we don't concede first and can't add any momentum afterwards.

 

[largelyworried]

This is why it's such a difficult argument to overcome, it's like astrology or homeopathic medicine - it's psuedo science because it can't be tested and disproven

Case in my point, I can offer evidence that Solskjaer CAN coach, by pointing to our league positions and points totals relative to other teams. I can also take anecdotal evidence from our players, who seem to have absolutely no complaints about the training sessions or the coaching.

All the 'Ole can't coach' lot have is 'patterns of play' and 'we rely on individual brilliance' type vagueness. The statistics don't back it up.

Those statistics only tell us that our current combination of coaching, tactics, personnel, transfer strategy and everything else adds up to 2nd place last season. It doesn't tell how much those different factors matter.

 

[Bilbo]

Interesting take, hard to disagree with any of this. Like I said, I don't know much about patterns of play, but then when I watch other teams play, even the ones with inferior quality players, there seems to be a clear structure and style of play, like they know what is to be done, but the players are just not good enough to execute it.

For example I watched Brugge play against PSG the other day, absolutely loved the way Brugge were playing the players seem to be on the same wavelength, they overload the right side, have an extra man, which means the PSG LB had to stick to his man and Brugge had one free player to recycle possession. Made me wonder, how a team with inferior players are able to constantly put pressure and create chances against a team like PSG.

I hope you're right, once we have a couple of competent midfielders and a RB comfortable on the ball, we might look like an entirely different outfit when the players are able to execute the instructions better.

Why would this not be applicable for United then? We have a fanbase that almost universally believe that McFred - or by extension our midfield options as a whole - are the weakest area of our team, but then in the same breath allow themselves to be convinced that our troubles there are entirely coaching related. We have to take into account that opponents will also target what they believe to be our weak point. You can see them sniffing around the central areas because this is where the opportunity is. The issue ends up compounding itself because the players perceived to be the weakest in possession also end up being the players most crowded when they are in possession, so it ends up looking worse than it is.

The main issue that United have overall is lack of movement IMO. I think many fans would agree that it is an issue, but then we have a manager that talks about drive and passion and the emphasis on running all the time, and people go wild about it.

 

[L1nk]

Why would this not be applicable for United then? We have a fanbase that almost universally believe that McFred - or by extension our midfield options as a whole - are the weakest area of our team, but then in the same breath allow themselves to be convinced that our troubles there are entirely coaching related. We have to take into account that opponents will also target what they believe to be our weak point. You can see them sniffing around the central areas because this is where the opportunity is. The issue ends up compounding itself because the players perceived to be the weakest in possession also end up being the players most crowded when they are in possession, so it ends up looking worse than it is.

The main issue that United have overall is lack of movement IMO. I think many fans would agree that it is an issue, but then we have a manager that talks about drive and passion and the emphasis on running all the time, and people go wild about it.

I imagine it shouldn't be applicable to us because our squad is worth over a billion in transfer fees, and is vastly superior to alot of clubs, both in terms of value and personnel, that play better football than us, so I can understand why people find it hard to accept when you roll out those numbers, especially when nearest to us in terms of monetary value is City, Chelsea etc

 

[Lentwood]

It's not vague though.

I describe exactly what it is here to another poster:


And I'm an idiot. If even I can understand it, it's not all that difficult.

We're just talking about preparation and organisation, no more than that. Nobody in their right mind would say the concept of being organised at set-pieces is a vague pseudo-science, yet for some reason ye can't wrap their head around other systems within the team needing coaching.

It's not like it's some notion we've all made up. For example, I posted UEFA A Licence study support material earlier in the thread that discusses patterns of play. It makes it really hard to take arguments that we aren't undercoached seriously when people act like referencing now-standard coaching concepts and terminology are akin to believing in bigfoot.

No, I think you're misunderstanding my point. I don't dispute 'patterns of play' is a thing - what I have a problem with is that every criticism of Ole seems to be focused around this notion that we can't or haven't coached 'patterns of play' into our attackers.

I think the point that myself and other posters are also making is that 14/15 of the teams we face will deploy a low-block, and this is the hardest system to break down. It's all well and good talking about patterns of play, but if the opposition have ten men behind the ball, sometimes it boils down to the quality/speed of the passing, the quality of the delivery from wide areas and the quality of the finishing.

I for one am optimistic that, with Pogba and Fernandes in the team, we have players capable of playing incisive passes. With Shaw in the team, we have at least one fullback who can cross the ball, and I don't think AWB is as bad as made out. In addition, we saw the difference a fit and firing Cavani made from January/February onwards, so I am hopeful that a proper CF (not converted wingers like Rashford/Martial) can sniff out more chances and finish more of those chances.

Important to remember that it's getting the first goal which is huge. If you can get the first goal nice and early against a low-block team, you usually win the game 3-0 or 4-0 (for example), because they have to open up. Therefore, the difference between 1-1s/0-0s and 1-0/0-1s versus 3-0/4-0s isn't as big as it might appear.

 

[Bilbo]

You're right, it absolutely isn't the most important factor in football, far from it.

It's just that when you watch our team in particular, it's something we could do with improving. Because we often seem to find ourselves in positions where players are trying to feel and think their way through situations where having more prepared and well-drilled sequences of play would make life easier, be it in front of a parked defence or when trying to build play from back to front.

Take City as an extreme example, how often over the years have you seem them score seemingly the exact same cut-back & tap in goal? That doesn't happen by accident. And if it was that easy to stop, they wouldn't have been repeatedly scoring different variations of the same goal for years. The opposition isn't going to be able to put as much work into your patterns of play as you are, so there's only so much they can do.

But obviously as we've seen even with that City can still struggle to score in some games, particularly when they don't have the quality of attackers they'd want. But with our attacking depth a bit more organisation would do us wonders.

I don't disagree with that. I don't think its a problem to the extent that our rabid fanbase do on here, but yes of course it can be improved.

City are a great example. Even so, I have often read that even Pep has the approach that, when it comes to the final third, he largely relies on his players to figure it out for themselves. City's success as a team has come, I would say, not through attacking patterns but predominantly from being a team that presses incredibly well with a great skill at fouling players to break up play when the press fails, For me, that is where Pep excels as a coach, far more so than from designing attacking patterns. It allows them to dominate possession which leads to everything else.

Ole obviously doesn't want to play that way. He likes to press but doesn't expect it as much from his attackers. Pep is trying to smother the game whereas Ole wants to open it up, so he likes our pressing to come from the next line of defence, presumably with the intention of then releasing our attackers with some space around them. For the same reason, a lot of our defensive passing is with the intention of drawing the opposition out but our opponents usually do the same as we do and stifle the next phase of the pitch. It may not be as pretty but it doesn't deter us from scoring goals most of the time.

I believe Sancho was signed with the express aim of trying to make us more cute in the final third, and Ronaldo will win us more matches against low blocks when we are struggling, so its not as if the club aren't making moves to improve the team and add more strings to our bow. They've done that extremely well, but similar to England our midfield options deter us from using certain styles of play but I think the staff are comfortable with that.

 

[largelyworried]

This sounds like a plausible description but it describes an NFL play more than it describes football. Easy to put together in a set-piece situation or from a standing start like the NFL, but it doesn't take into account that there are 11 opponents on the pitch all moving around at the same time. If patterns of play can be learned, then they can also be studied and countered upon and that's where it all falls down. I'm not suggesting that patterns of play are not a thing, that would be stupid, but what I am saying is that its not the most important factor. Football is far too fluid a sport with far too many moving parts to rely on that alone, and if you go too far with it you end up with a team playing like we did under Van Gaal.

I think the obvious counter point is that the last 5 league titles and last 3 CL titles have all been won by coaches who are known for this kind of approach to football. So I don't think there's really an argument that it works. The question is whether alternative approaches can be equally as successful.

 

[romufc]

Its pretty simple. 3 years in charge, same style of play.

Set up defensive, pass around the back, create 2/3 chances a game, concede 3/4 chances a game.

Defend with no pressure, go a goal down, conceded chances and hope for one move to pay off.

There is no dominating the game, no structure to the press or anything. Its all the same for 3 years.

 

[Lentwood]

Its pretty simple. 3 years in charge, same style of play.

Set up defensive, pass around the back, create 2/3 chances a game, concede 3/4 chances a game.

Defend with no pressure, go a goal down, conceded chances and hope for one move to pay off.

There is no dominating the game, no structure to the press or anything. Its all the same for 3 years.

Yet we have somehow managed to finish 3rd and then 2nd, with a young squad which most posters agree, in terms of quality and experience, was probably 4th or 5th best in the league.

Not bad to say we were awfully coached during that period

 

[RedSky]

create 2/3 chances a game, concede 3/4 chances a game.

Do you really believe that?

 

[romufc]

Yet we have somehow managed to finish 3rd and then 2nd, with a young squad which most posters agree, in terms of quality and experience, was probably 4th or 5th best in the league.

Not bad to say we were awfully coached during that period

Do you really believe that?

Its more that after 3 years we still havent got a way of dominating football games.

In respects to believing it, Wolves away they had the better chances, Southampton away they had the better chances, West Ham we had the better chances.

How often do you see Liverpool, Chelsea, City giving away better chances in games.

Well Chelsea and Liverpool haven't even conceded a goal from open play yet this season which shows how good defensively they are, which comes as a result from dominating football games and winning the ball back asap.

We struggle to do so, even in the last 10 mins against West Ham, it was not as if we piled on the pressure on them.

 

[redIndianDevil]

Yet we have somehow managed to finish 3rd and then 2nd, with a young squad which most posters agree, in terms of quality and experience, was probably 4th or 5th best in the league.

Not bad to say we were awfully coached during that period

We will have to wait for all other top teams to become crap for us win the title then. As long as Klopp, Guardiola and Tuchel now are around, we will forever be 2nd or 3rd or 4th.

 

[Flytan]

The weirdest thing I've thought about lately is how contradictory our games are. We play best after going down a goal but teams often sit back after scoring a goal and we supposedly have issues breaking down defensive teams. Like I don't understand. It's like our entire existence is an outlier on world football. I don't think Ole is or will ever be good enough and I still think the team falls apart at some point but I guess I'll just watch and hope I'm wrong.

 

[RedSky]

Its more that after 3 years we still havent got a way of dominating football games.

In respects to believing it, Wolves away they had the better chances, Southampton away they had the better chances, West Ham we had the better chances.

How often do you see Liverpool, Chelsea, City giving away better chances in games.

Well Chelsea and Liverpool haven't even conceded a goal from open play yet this season which shows how good defensively they are, which comes as a result from dominating football games and winning the ball back asap.

We struggle to do so, even in the last 10 mins against West Ham, it was not as if we piled on the pressure on them.

The only game we struggled to create chances in was Wolves imo. We had almost double the number of shots as Southampton and created better chances, they defended well and caught us on the break once.

I do agree we need to do better at controlling the game though but i'm just flicking through Xg stats from last year and the majority were in our favour. In the last 57 PL games (Bruno signing) we average 2 goals a game and concede less than 1 goal a game. I actually feel confident these days that if we do go behind in a game we can not only get a goal back but also can win. It's been a long time since I believed we could do that and on top of this we also are able to absolutely destroy teams on our day.

Despite us starting the season a little slow in terms of performance this year (3 new first teamers), we're still joint top and haven't lost a league game. If we're still playing like this come December then I think you'll have a reason to be concerned.

 

[Ole's screen]

We will have to wait for all other top teams to become crap for us win the title then. As long as Klopp, Guardiola and Tuchel now are around, we will forever be 2nd or 3rd or 4th.

Well they all had to wait for United to turn to shit before they started dominating in the way they are. And don’t worry both Tuchel and Pep will be gone in 2 years.

 

[RedSky]

We will have to wait for all other top teams to become crap for us win the title then. As long as Klopp, Guardiola and Tuchel now are around, we will forever be 2nd or 3rd or 4th.

What makes you think that? Klopp fecked it up last season and Liverpool aren't investing in the club and we all know what it's like at Chelsea. They go through waves of good results and then when the wheels grind to a halt they get all pissy and things go wrong, out goes the Manager and a new one is brought in. Peps the one to be concerned about, but personally City don't look all that and given Peps already stating he wants out it won't be long before City implode. We're gradually getting stronger and stronger with each season. We'll get silverware this season, i'm confident of that. It might not be the title, but we won't be far behind and we'll have a better points output than last season.

 

[lex talionis]

Speaking more about last season than this season — early days, three new players still integrating into the squad — our serious deficiencies have been the following:

Poor set piece defending
Poor movement off the ball
At times, shocking finishing

We’ve improved our set piece defending and Ronaldo gives us clinical finishing. But we could still improve our movement off the ball and, equally important, the player with the ball needs to anticipate that movement. Bruno and Pogba anticipate well, but they need from other midfielders to see those opportunities and their teammates need to do a better job of creating those opportunities.

 

[romufc]

The only game we struggled to create chances in was Wolves imo. We had almost double the number of shots as Southampton and created better chances, they defended well and caught us on the break once.

I do agree we need to do better at controlling the game though but i'm just flicking through Xg stats from last year and the majority were in our favour. In the last 57 PL games (Bruno signing) we average 2 goals a game and concede less than 1 goal a game. I actually feel confident these days that if we do go behind in a game we can not only get a goal back but also can win. It's been a long time since I believed we could do that and on top of this we also are able to absolutely destroy teams on our day.

Despite us starting the season a little slow in terms of performance this year (3 new first teamers), we're still joint top and haven't lost a league game. If we're still playing like this come December then I think you'll have a reason to be concerned.

I agree that we do have some sort of mentality coming from a goal down which does help, and like you said if we get an early goal, we could destroy teams with our attack.

I would like us to start games a bit quicker with more intent in the first 10=15 mins putting a marker down.

We are joint top which is good, hopefully that we start putting better performances and keep picking points up, we have a massive 6-8 weeks coming ahead, if we are 3 points off the top come December, i will take that.

Also, we need to get out this CL group.

 

[RedSky]

I agree that we do have some sort of mentality coming from a goal down which does help, and like you said if we get an early goal, we could destroy teams with our attack.

I would like us to start games a bit quicker with more intent in the first 10=15 mins putting a marker down.

We are joint top which is good, hopefully that we start putting better performances and keep picking points up, we have a massive 6-8 weeks coming ahead, if we are 3 points off the top come December, i will take that.

Also, we need to get out this CL group.

Our next 7 games, 6 are at home. We're much better at home with a crowd so i'm thinking we're going to have a very good October. November is the danger month, a hideous set of fixtures. But I feel like we can catch up through the wintert period as we've got a fairly kind run of fixtures in December. Wouldn't be surprised if we're 5/6 points behind coming into December but manage to peg it back going into 2022.

 

[Bilbo]

I think the obvious counter point is that the last 5 league titles and last 3 CL titles have all been won by coaches who are known for this kind of approach to football. So I don't think there's really an argument that it works. The question is whether alternative approaches can be equally as successful.

Agreed, but I mentioned in a later post that I believe the key strengths of Pep and Klopp lie in other areas rather than detailed patterns of play. Its just my opinion. People have a fundamental misunderstanding of tactics and the work that is done behind the scenes. Armchair tacticians were fawning over Tuchel's 'tactical changes' at half time vs Spurs, until he himself admitted he didn't change anything tactically, and used phrases such as 'lacking energy & intent' 'winning duels' 'aggression'. The type of things Ole talks about regularly and is vilified for. These things are still vital components at every level of football, and I don't think that any of Pep, Klopp or Tuchel over-coach their teams in an attacking sense.

I believe in what Ole is trying to do here. I agree with previous posters when they've said that, if there was any kind of sub-par or systemic failure in our coaching, then it would have been revealed by now. Players do due diligence on clubs just as much as clubs do on players and we simply wouldn't be signing the likes of Varane, or retaining the likes of Cavani, if there was a problem here. Footballers talk. Ole's decisions have been found wanting at times but I can live with that. You can't & won't always get it right in football, but I believe that we are moving towards having a formidable football team that will deliver trophies and I've always been prepared to be patient. Its vastly unfair to call this an awfully coached team. Its over the top, like so many other criticisms on social media, but people tend to use over the top language these days.

 

[Rash Decision]

Why would this not be applicable for United then? We have a fanbase that almost universally believe that McFred - or by extension our midfield options as a whole - are the weakest area of our team, but then in the same breath allow themselves to be convinced that our troubles there are entirely coaching related. We have to take into account that opponents will also target what they believe to be our weak point. You can see them sniffing around the central areas because this is where the opportunity is. The issue ends up compounding itself because the players perceived to be the weakest in possession also end up being the players most crowded when they are in possession, so it ends up looking worse than it is.

The main issue that United have overall is lack of movement IMO. I think many fans would agree that it is an issue, but then we have a manager that talks about drive and passion and the emphasis on running all the time, and people go wild about it.

Our structure can be better even with players like McFred. If our players keep getting isolated without passing options, or ending up as a one man midfield, or are often extra vulnerable to counterattacks (another example being Lampard’s Chelsea), that’s a structural issue.

Movement is related. It isn’t just about running all the time. Movement has to be synchronised, productive. Fred runs a lot. Is it productive? Often not because he’s not moving in sync with others. Teams like City Chelsea and Liverpool dominate games partly because their movements are more synchronised than ours. We shouldn’t put ourselves at a disadvantage by insisting that our players play off the cuff.

Having a more defined structure/pattern to the way we play football doesn’t mean we’re going to be like Van Gaal’s team. Why not like Pep’s teams, Klopp’s teams, Tuchel’s teams?

 

[elmo]

This sounds like a plausible description but it describes an NFL play more than it describes football. Easy to put together in a set-piece situation or from a standing start like the NFL, but it doesn't take into account that there are 11 opponents on the pitch all moving around at the same time. If patterns of play can be learned, then they can also be studied and countered upon and that's where it all falls down. I'm not suggesting that patterns of play are not a thing, that would be stupid, but what I am saying is that its not the most important factor. Football is far too fluid a sport with far too many moving parts to rely on that alone, and if you go too far with it you end up with a team playing like we did under Van Gaal.

The whole purpose of having patterns of plays is to pick the correct ones to exploit the opposition weakness. Opponent is weak aerially? Find a way to get crosses into the box. They've a slow backline? Give our forwards more opportunities to run at them. It's impossible for a team to completely change up their weakness within the season unless they get a new player into their starting lineup, but even then there's still always something new to target.

 

[Rash Decision]

The whole purpose of having patterns of plays is to pick the correct ones to exploit the opposition weakness. Opponent is weak aerially? Find a way to get crosses into the box. They've a slow backline? Give our forwards more opportunities to run at them. It's impossible for a team to completely change up their weakness within the season unless they get a new player into their starting lineup, but even then there's still always something new to target.

I think that’s more tactics? Patterns of play I believe are more about drilled set movements that allow the entire team to act as one unit. Not only does this allow teams to play much faster because everyone is already in sync (we keep complaining about this), it’s also a good fallback so there’s still a base level of competence when the players run out of ideas.

 

[Mickeza]

Our structure can be better even with players like McFred. If our players keep getting isolated without passing options, or ending up as a one man midfield, or are often extra vulnerable to counterattacks (another example being Lampard’s Chelsea), that’s a structural issue.

Movement is related. It isn’t just about running all the time. Movement has to be synchronised, productive. Fred runs a lot. Is it productive? Often not because he’s not moving in sync with others. Teams like City Chelsea and Liverpool dominate games partly because their movements are more synchronised than ours. We shouldn’t put ourselves at a disadvantage by insisting that our players play off the cuff.

Having a more defined structure/pattern to the way we play football doesn’t mean we’re going to be like Van Gaal’s team. Why not like Pep’s teams, Klopp’s teams, Tuchel’s teams?

When we played one of Tuchel’s teams last year in PSG I didn’t think they were well structured at all. We should have destroyed them in Paris second half and been well clear at home. They had a weak CM much like ourselves now. Ditto Klopp’s team last year minus VVD. Clearly personnel makes a huge difference.

 

[elmo]

I think that’s more tactics? Patterns of play I believe are more about drilled set movements that allow the entire team to act as one unit. Not only does this allow teams to play much faster because everyone is already in sync (we keep complaining about this), it’s also a good fallback so there’s still a base level of competence when the players run out of ideas.

You can have patterns of plays specifically targeted to run those tactics was what I mean.

I feel like we give our players too much freedom to wing it however they like and that just ends up with them looking like complete strangers at times when they try to figure out what they can do and if anyone is going to be on the same wavelength with them.

 

[DSG]

Its pretty simple. 3 years in charge, same style of play.

Set up defensive, pass around the back, create 2/3 chances a game, concede 3/4 chances a game.

Defend with no pressure, go a goal down, conceded chances and hope for one move to pay off.

There is no dominating the game, no structure to the press or anything. Its all the same for 3 years.

Its more that after 3 years we still havent got a way of dominating football games.

In respects to believing it, Wolves away they had the better chances, Southampton away they had the better chances, West Ham we had the better chances.

How often do you see Liverpool, Chelsea, City giving away better chances in games.

Well Chelsea and Liverpool haven't even conceded a goal from open play yet this season which shows how good defensively they are, which comes as a result from dominating football games and winning the ball back asap.

We struggle to do so, even in the last 10 mins against West Ham, it was not as if we piled on the pressure on them.

I believe that the Ole outers are expecting instant success and an instant improvement in attacking play. It’s binary for them — either we are greator we are shite.

In reality, it’s much more complicated. Our problems ran so deep when Ole took over from Jose, from squad mentality to depth, quality, even scouting and contracts, that we really had a long way to go.

I think also that the Ole Out Brigade is expecting attacking that is easy on the eyes, dominating possession, a Guardiola-esque type of attack.

The criticism of Ole is irrational. If the coaching team was so under qualified, so inept, we would be much further down the table. The level of competition is so high that preparation, training and tactics are incredibly important. I agree that this group of coaches are not as talented or experienced as City, Liverpool or Chelsea. However, for all the complaints about attacking play, we scored the most goals in the league last season since SAF retired. We finished 2nd, closer to the top than any season since SAF retired.

Is Ole a master tactician like Tuchel or Guardiola? No. But he is good, as evidenced by results in the PL and the continued improvement of the level of play? Yes.

I for one, want to see where this team goes with Ole in charge. Remember, managers can get better as well. If we mount a serious title challenge and hopefully (finally) win a trophy, I’m happy to see him continue.

 

[largelyworried]

Agreed, but I mentioned in a later post that I believe the key strengths of Pep and Klopp lie in other areas rather than detailed patterns of play. Its just my opinion. People have a fundamental misunderstanding of tactics and the work that is done behind the scenes. Armchair tacticians were fawning over Tuchel's 'tactical changes' at half time vs Spurs, until he himself admitted he didn't change anything tactically, and used phrases such as 'lacking energy & intent' 'winning duels' 'aggression'. The type of things Ole talks about regularly and is vilified for. These things are still vital components at every level of football, and I don't think that any of Pep, Klopp or Tuchel over-coach their teams in an attacking sense.

I believe in what Ole is trying to do here. I agree with previous posters when they've said that, if there was any kind of sub-par or systemic failure in our coaching, then it would have been revealed by now. Players do due diligence on clubs just as much as clubs do on players and we simply wouldn't be signing the likes of Varane, or retaining the likes of Cavani, if there was a problem here. Footballers talk. Ole's decisions have been found wanting at times but I can live with that. You can't & won't always get it right in football, but I believe that we are moving towards having a formidable football team that will deliver trophies and I've always been prepared to be patient. Its vastly unfair to call this an awfully coached team. Its over the top, like so many other criticisms on social media, but people tend to use over the top language these days.

To be fair, the language of football is pure hyperbole. It’s a running joke with my mates at OT that after every game we win, someone walking out says “We should have won by 6” and every game we lose someone says “In 30 years of coming to Old Trafford that’s the worst match I’ve ever seen”. That doesn’t bother me, it’s just the nature of the game.

My view on Ole is that, looking across everything that a manager does (coaching, motivation, tactics, buying players etc) he gets it right 8 times out of 10. An elite manager gets it right 9 times out of 10. And the difference is primarily around coaching and to a lesser degree tactics.

Ordinarily this might not matter, but we’re in an era of exceptionally high standards this season and probably for another couple more. The other three teams are all excellent. I don’t see how we make up a deficit in any area because our opponents match us in most ways. In motivation, team spirit, squad depth, individual quality there’s little to choose from. So while our coaching might not actually be “awful”, it’s not as good as Tuchel, Klopp or Pep and I don’t really see how we make up the difference.

 

[Bilbo]

Our structure can be better even with players like McFred. If our players keep getting isolated without passing options, or ending up as a one man midfield, or are often extra vulnerable to counterattacks (another example being Lampard’s Chelsea), that’s a structural issue.

Movement is related. It isn’t just about running all the time. Movement has to be synchronised, productive. Fred runs a lot. Is it productive? Often not because he’s not moving in sync with others. Teams like City Chelsea and Liverpool dominate games partly because their movements are more synchronised than ours. We shouldn’t put ourselves at a disadvantage by insisting that our players play off the cuff.

Having a more defined structure/pattern to the way we play football doesn’t mean we’re going to be like Van Gaal’s team. Why not like Pep’s teams, Klopp’s teams, Tuchel’s teams?

I don't disagree, then I also feel that we do have a defined structure to our play. We dominate the ball against most opponents, and that comes from having a foundation to our structure, but it tends to fall apart a little when McFred are not together because we have an odd mix of players at our disposal in midfield right now.

Our failures are over-analysed by our own fans, and I understand that, but every team struggles at times. Chelsea should have been behind at half-time in both of their last two league matches. They were fortunate that good chances were missed, and they had good fortune themselves. Even the Zenit game was a slog I hear, but I didn't catch that one. City were very poor against Southampton, who also had good chances to win it. Palace gave Liverpool a lot of problems. We shouldn't sit here and claim that our rivals do not give up good chances, or have periods in games where they look second best, because it happens fairly often. We don't tear those apart and hyper-analyse them though because we aren't emotionally involved. They find ways to win, just like United usually find ways to win.

I said in another thread that, only five games in, United have scored tap-ins, 30 yard screamers, counter-attacking goals and even from delicate passing moves inside the area. We've had assists from full-backs and centre-backs. Every goal has been from open play. I'm happy to get behind a team that does that.