I dont care for Moyes at all, but which manager for a lower table side would not try to defend a 1-1 away to City? Most managers would do the exact same thing, and it was hardly the managers fault that they conceded like that.
David Moyes | West Ham in talks with him for managerial job
- Thread starter Panther
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Last game at Upton park, a win= shot in European football
The comeback was way too soon. less than 70 minutes IIRC
Newcastle's last game in top flight- have nothing to play for
IIRC, it was around the 40th minute and not 80th minute
My point is, if you are away to one of the favourites for the title, hardly ever does a manager go for the kill, especially of you are getting a draw till this late in the game
Newcastle game at White Hart Lane! http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/35018988
You can only spin a result around. Point still remains even with this small sample (I didn't dig up all games, just picked those. I personally remembered on top of my head) that small teams would all be happy for a draw vs top 4 after equalizing.
How in God's name is it cowardly to defend for a point away against City? Are you people so blinded by hate that you can't think right? If I was him I would've gone even more defensive by going 5 atb as City had just brought on another forward and was playing essentially a 334. Remember all the late goals Bayern used to score last season. Even Juventus could not cope with them. And you expect Sunderland to go for the win? What world are we living in?
Not exactly go full out for a win, but leaving a forward who can run in behind as pressure-relief and reserve 1% of even getting a win.
As @Adisa pointed out, Moyes complained his team sat too deep in the end so conceded defeat. So you take off your only forward and more midfield/defender and complained about not being able to get out of your box/pushing up abit. What is the logic?
I think that's basically the point many have been trying to make, but it seems that that move is "too cowardly". Had the sub not happened, and they would have conceded, caf would be saying, "Moyes thinks too highly of himself and the team. Should have played for the draw"
It was cowardly. Not because 1-1 was a bad result to get but leaving on Defoe, who was causing City problems, woulr have helped get them the point they were looking for. It's not hindsight in case you say it, many people called it as soon as the sub was made that it will backfire. Most on here could see that inviting pressure was not a smart thing to do but apparently a professional football manager couldn't. The worst part is it didn't surprise people as Moyes is pretty spineless
That was the first game of the season. Defoe does not have to be managed from now on itself. As for the sub itself, the point is Borini was not doing anything the whole game. It would have been better taking him off than Defoe. Anyway, I don't care about Sunderland or Moyes although it would havr been good if they had got a point off our title rival.
While you are gazing into that crystal ball, could you also pass on the winning lottery numbers?
That's why he left Januzaj on. He was fresher. He was the one relieving pressure for Sunderland and their goal came from him running with the ball.
Your assumption part is not what I would agree with Caf if it happens that way. Had that happened that way (Moyes kept Defoe on/ at least close to closing minute as time wasting sub), I would have been defending Moyes out of my skin since he made the right choice.
Here I am agreeing with CAF that he is coward and he undoes himself by his own coward ironically.
I won't argue with your opinion on this, just want to point out I myself pointed out Januzaj' weakness is in hold up play/his back on opponent's goal. He's not suited for that kind of highest man in the front line. He's not fast enough for long distance foot race neither. His best position should be behind a forward either in the middle or on thing where he can run at defenders (the goal).
Defoe on the other hand played his kind of role his whole career. As old as he is, he is annoying fecker as this forward role. Perhaps Moyes has the same view as yours?
Last edited:
The opposite of sitting deep is moving the defensive line up and starts pressing. Not leave a lone striker on to punt the ball up to him. What's Defoe gonna do? I missed the first 60 minutes of the game so only watched the last 30. But other than scoring that goal Defoe did not relief any pressure for Sunderland. Januzaj did that.
The 2 shared the pressure relief roles and Sunderland was able to turn the momentum of the game round until Defore subbed off. Defoe helped pressing too, not lazy camping around.
City was rusty. I agreed with others that their possession football is as toothless as LVG's worse games with us. Sunderland might not have won the game with Defoe on, but I think they have more chance holding on to one point, had they been able to push out/ up more which they couldn't with that sub. They had less outlets and ended up being boxed in their own half again at the end..
Last edited:
What's more likely to happen? That Sunderland would score or that City would score? Even if they had left Defoe on. Doing that might've given them a 1% more chance of scoring like you said, but it could've equally remove 50% chance of getting a point. Remember, city had just brought on another forward themselves and were going for it. It would be extremely foolish to not do everything possible to secure the 1 point.
This is where our opinion differs. As I pointed out, reducing pressure relieve outlets can also mean the defense would be put under more pressure. In this case Moyes' post match indicate he didn't want more pressure on his defense and didn't want them to drop back too deep. Moyes' complaint is the opposite of what he did there: he reduced the outlet up front while demanding his team to maintain the position (the momentum was Sunderland was able to push out and less restrained back int their box around the time of their equalizer till sub) ! This is impossible vs possession team, unless that defender/midfield sub (in this case McNair) can help inncreasing possession stats (!) which is not the case.
The point is not Sunderland to win the game, but to maintain their momentum for a point and has 1% more to score. City put extra striker mean nothing if Sunderland can stretch the play in City half and time wasting. If Sunderland was boxed, then the extra striker would be more useful.
Last edited:
But Sunderland couldn't get out of their box the entire game. Even when their players were fresh. How are they going to be running and keeping the ball in city's half during the last 10 minutes?
I personally don't agree with Moyes's comments. From what I saw, what Sunderland needed was an extra defender to make the team not so stretch horizontally. It becomes even more true with City having 2 strikers. I did not see anyway how they could've scored a other. Agree to disagree but imo doing anything other than packing that box in and hope for the best is foolish.
City were absolutely dreadful yesterday with Pep failing to field a team that could do the basics well in his attempt to overcome the weaknesses in his squad. It's his Achilles heel, over analyzing the problem in front of him and ending up with more issues than the ones he had to deal with in the first place.
Moyes did nothing more yesterday than what he usually does whenever he faces a top four club away from home. He sets his team to defend as deep as it gets with 9/10 outfield players in a highly structured formation and playing within very small spaces, so that no one gets caught out of position. The more attacking players would occasionally try to mildly press the first ball out of the back, the midfielders would rarely try to steal a ball in the midfield but nothing special. In that sense, telling in the post match interview that he didn't want to invite pressure is an utter joke. This was the plan all along, invite them in his third and use Defoe's pace and Borini's runs to hit them on the counter.
Mainly because City players were "lost in translation" regarding what they were supposed to do on the pitch Sunderland got a chance. Then came the McNair sub. It was in accordance with Moyes' philosophy in football, no need to deny that. To narrow the spaces in his half of the pitch even more and limit the room each one of his defensive players had to operate in even further in order to secure the point. With ten minutes to go, some managers act likewise and some opt for a plan that will limit the time the ball is near their third of the pitch and take their chances to win the whole game. Moyes 10/10 times he will choose the former option. That's why he will never be able to manage a title winning side but that's also why he will relieve Sunderland fans of relegation worries sooner than later.
Moyes did nothing more yesterday than what he usually does whenever he faces a top four club away from home. He sets his team to defend as deep as it gets with 9/10 outfield players in a highly structured formation and playing within very small spaces, so that no one gets caught out of position. The more attacking players would occasionally try to mildly press the first ball out of the back, the midfielders would rarely try to steal a ball in the midfield but nothing special. In that sense, telling in the post match interview that he didn't want to invite pressure is an utter joke. This was the plan all along, invite them in his third and use Defoe's pace and Borini's runs to hit them on the counter.
Mainly because City players were "lost in translation" regarding what they were supposed to do on the pitch Sunderland got a chance. Then came the McNair sub. It was in accordance with Moyes' philosophy in football, no need to deny that. To narrow the spaces in his half of the pitch even more and limit the room each one of his defensive players had to operate in even further in order to secure the point. With ten minutes to go, some managers act likewise and some opt for a plan that will limit the time the ball is near their third of the pitch and take their chances to win the whole game. Moyes 10/10 times he will choose the former option. That's why he will never be able to manage a title winning side but that's also why he will relieve Sunderland fans of relegation worries sooner than later.
You said you didn't watch the whole game(?). I did. A repeat: What happened around the goal till the sub was: the momentum turned. Sunderland couldn't for entire game, but football can be decided in few minutes too. In that. Sunderland was able to push up/ out more. Sunderland was doing great for that one point at the time. Moyes' post match indicate he wanted that momentum continue, but his sub killed the momentum and shot himself in the feet! That's what he said and my interpretation.
We can agree to disagree, I agree. We have different perspective on this matter. Cheers.
Actually Juventus lost that game because the manager made a very similar move Moyes did and took off the striker for a striker with no pace allowing Bayern's defence to move up 20 yards further basically playing in Juventus half for the last 30 minutes of the game.
There's defending a draw and there's cowardice. This is the latter. There's so many ways to be more compact and defensive without having to sub a striker with a cb.
Tell the players to tuck in, stay back, keep possession, etc.
But taking your only striker for a cb is inviting pressure and with city quality it's bound to backfire, which it did. Off course it could have goes both ways but a percentage manager should know better that the odds of letting city run amok for a good 15 minutes is risky, more than simply going with the flow which at that point in time favors sunderland
Tell the players to tuck in, stay back, keep possession, etc.
But taking your only striker for a cb is inviting pressure and with city quality it's bound to backfire, which it did. Off course it could have goes both ways but a percentage manager should know better that the odds of letting city run amok for a good 15 minutes is risky, more than simply going with the flow which at that point in time favors sunderland
Yes actually you are right I agree. In Juventus's situation I would've done differently. However Sunderland is not Juventus. I simply don't think they had the ability to score another. Imo they needed all the help they can get to keep the score what it was.
Still scratching my head for a reason behind the Defoe substitution yesterday, the game was stretched and he was getting in behind a confused City defence.
Did the same with us, but with wins to draws vs Southampton and Cardiff, he is useless, play the same way that got you back into the match and they would have got something out of it
It wasn't about scoring another. Making that sub allowed City to push up even further as there was much less threat of a counter attack. Having Defoe on the pitch would have made the City defence more cautious and probably wouldn't have allowed them so much space in Sunderland's own half.
Also being able to hoof the ball up to Defoe could have relieved a lot of the pressure on the defence being able to waste valuable time and keep the ball up the pitch.
It wasn't an easy situation for Moyes to be in to be fair but I still think it was the wrong decision. I would have probably subbed Defoe off around the 90 minute mark to waste a bit more time at the very end.
Borini januzaj and khazri are good enough if you get a chance. As someone said, if Moyes went full throttle and conceded one more because of that they would have been critiscized for that. City weren't anyway going to give Sunderland the possession so they may as well put another defender on.Borini is better at defending too.
This isn't United. It's Sunderland. For them it's surely better to try to ensure 1 point than to go for 3 and get nothing.
It was the right thing to do going for a draw. I also disagree with his execution, but only because I would've gone even more defensive. But that is simply just speculation, as is everything else in this thread. No matter what he did, City were still the much better team and had a much better chance of scoring. He is a coward, but not based on yesterday's game.
City were not threatening and had to respect Defoe's pace. The moment he took Defoe off, he basically told City to come at them with everything they got. That was an absolutely crazy mistake to make. I am not sure of what would have been said had he not made that sub, but almost everyone in the match day thread called it out and said it was a mistake immediately.
So, it is easier to say that it was Sunderland and not United but not every smaller team makes that sub. In fact Sunderland were on the ascendancy at that time and Moyes basically single handedly took that away by bringing on McNair.
You may agree with the sub as it is your opinion and I am fine with it. For me, he is a big coward as a manager and it showed once again with that sub.
Cowardly is probably a strong word, "mistake" would be a better word.
As has been said numerous times in the thread so far, if you do not have an out ball, you can't get out.
If you choose, which he did, to play the percentage game and bet on his group of terrible defenders to hold on to a draw against one of the top teams in the league with no outlet for them to try and hit, then all he does is invite more pressure on them.
If Defoe was tired all he needed to do was replace him with his fastest available player, or another striker, instead he left a void up front, the city team could move en masse 20 yards further up the pitch and compress and strangle any chance Sunderland had of getting out.
School boy error.
No idea what everyones going on about, the game was finely balanced at 1-1 and Moyes decided to bring off Defoe and replace him with McNair unorthodox but it worked. The young lad scores the winner on his debut, masterstroke substitution if you ask me.
For a bad squad that had a dreadful offseaon I thought Sunderland gave it a good go v City
Moyesy does the bulk of his business between 19:52 and 23:59 on deadline day once he's made a finally decision on which players he wants to sign.
Remember in his first transfer window with United it took him two full months to decide he wanted to sign a player he had just managed for the previous 5 years. He probably needed to do some more scouting on him over pre-season.
Managers don't sign the players. They identify targets. That's it. If United dithered over signings before panic buying late in the window that really isn't on Moyes. There's plenty to blame him for at United without attaching the failures of others onto him.
This thread is rather pointless as 90% of the United fans posting in here will never be objective towards Moyes.
I personally liked his statement regarding Januzaj and that he wants to make sure he only holds himself accountable from day one. It'd be ironic if Moyes were the one that revived Adnan's career and caused him to become a productive player for United.
I personally liked his statement regarding Januzaj and that he wants to make sure he only holds himself accountable from day one. It'd be ironic if Moyes were the one that revived Adnan's career and caused him to become a productive player for United.
I think this might just be the best place for Moyes to be. I also liked his comments regarding Januzaj. I always thought he did a very good job with Everton. The problem was that Everton was his ceiling. He was never the right man to replace Fergie.
Oh give over i was actually taking the piss but seeing as you like to defend him lets be honest here. We all know Moyes is a ditherer he was notorious for it at Everton regularly waiting until the very end of the window to sign players, i suppose that was Bill Kenwrights fault for 11 years as well was it?
At United takes extended holiday then comes in July unprepared with unrealistic targets. Knew Fellaini had a buy-out clause for less than we eventually signed him for which elapsed in July but United didn't activate it why was that?
Obviously because either he wanted other midfielders instead of Fellaini (he had Woodward chasing Fabregas for over a month) or because of this nonsense where he is quoted as saying he didn't want Fellaini to have to deal with the pressure of being his first signing. Either way thats down to Moyes, Woodward played his part in that fiasco and other deals no doubt but the direction all came from Moyes so he has to shoulder a fair chunk of the blame in my book.
Last edited:
Yeah, he said that he wanted someone else to be the first signing, in order for Fellaini to not be questioned. He also said that until last day, he bid for both Fellaini and Baines knowing that Everton needs money, but if they sell one, they won't sell the other, so he made a combined double bid.What the actual feck?
btw, remind me again who his frist signing was?
That is the reason why we got Fellaini that late and above his release clause.
Why are some of you guys still obsessing over Moyes? He was 3 managers ago - let it go.
Is he back from holiday?
Exactly, the majority seem to be comparing every decision he now makes with those he made at United and turning this into yet another Moyes hate thread as if we haven't see that many already!
So, remind me again, who was his first signing?