A cohesive modern structure/fluid style of play needs to come first before United can win big

[Raees]

I don't agree with that. In cup tournaments like the CL, you can definitely get away with playing ugly football, relying on goal prevention and a healthy amount of luck to carry you through. It's harder to do in the league, but it's still possible.

The problem isn't that you can't win one league title or one CL playing like this, but rather that it's not sustainable.

Name me one CL, where a team relied heavily on ugly, non-cohesive football to take them to the CL trophy.

I don't mean defensive, but disharmonious football, where they were constantly hoofing, and unable to string passes together fluently whether on the counter or otherwise.

Your prime candidates in terms of pragmatic football in the past 20 years of CL football, would be Chelsea 2012, Inter 2010, Liverpool 2005, Porto 2004. So out of 20 years of football, only 4 times was it won by say a pragmatic side.

Now out of those 4 if we look at it in depth, Inter and Porto were national champions, very very slick tactical outfits, capable of defending well as a unit yes, but very dangerous on the counter, every player knew what they were doing and they dominated both home and abroad.. so not lucky seasons by any means, they were genuinely champions who put in world class level of performances when needed. A far cry away from this current United side. Note that it was Jose who managed those sides, so its nothing to do with his tactics.. but whether he has possibly lost something in terms of attention to detail and ability to execute plans to the same degree. I understand that some argue his tactics might be outdated but for me more importantly he isn't implementing those tactics to the same precision he once was capable of.



Look at the way Porto press, keep the ball, bring it out of defence through Carvalho.

Post Madrid, Jose wasn't the same manager, he squeezed out a few solid seasons at Chelsea.. but it is very conceivable, that he might be a tad burnt out or like others have said, just a bad fit for United because he has to compromise alot on how he wants to build a side and he's playing players he wouldn't usually play and buying players he wouldn't normally purchase. Either way, a peak Jose Mourinho fresh from Porto would make us champions - I don't dispute that. Question is, whether the current Jose Mourinho is capable of producing that modern structure and getting that synergy and fluid football going.

To the naked eye, that Porto side from 2004 play a more vibrant, proactive, structured and fluent style of football despite being set up more pragmatically than this supposedly top heavy attacking United side with almost 5 attacking players on the pitch. I think the running feud with Barca, might also have had an effect on him becoming more and more entrenched with his own particular ideals/vision for the game versus putting into practice what he had been taught through the years and a desire to practice anything but the Barca way. Speculation of course, but it is interesting how his best midfields, most balanced midfields came in the earlier part of his career and his teams pressed higher in his earlier days too.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

As I said, a manager like Sarri or Pep would not have bought Matic or Lukaku which gives about 120-130M to spend on 2-3 starters wherever you think we're weakest (FB, CB, CM and one attacker depending on if Martial and Sanchez were playing wide or up top), but with the present squad I could see that being the team, though I could also see Matic being the DM and Blind, Jones, Bailly (obviously hasn't been healthy) or even Rojo at CB. Basically anyone but Smalling, and I think Lindelof would suit those managers.

You really think that team would finish out of the top 6? We'd get beaten on the break at times, but we'd also score more goals and like City last year, be obviously in need of 2-3 signings on defence to bolster a top heavy team. No reason to think Pep coaching our current squad wouldn't be somewhere between 2nd and 5th, like Mourinho will be, and most importantly, we'd have an obvious path going forward and play good football.

Pep arrived at City, was free to over haul his squad at the first time of asking, yet still bought duds like Nolito and Bravo and still didn't do all that well. Leading to another huge recruitment drive this summer. Yet you want us to believe given that background, a manager capable of also signing duds in key positions, at a club like ours, unable to over haul the majority of its roster to fit the manager's preferred playing style, would be fairing better than Mourinho? This is precisely why I say you Pep fans are deluded, Im sorry to say.

Pep struggled in his first season here yet he joined a team that had a system in placed geared to the advent of his arrival for 6 seasons! 6! There is simply no logical way his struggles would not have been double that if he had joined Manchester United instead. And if we were out of the top 4 being beaten often but playing beautifully, even the likes of you claiming it would "please you' would be up in arms. The biggest issue in MS is people have refused to acknowledge the actual challenges the United job had. They instead keep judging our job like it has the same conditions as the City job. And when we buy players like Lindeloff, who take time to adjust to the league, just like predecessors like Vidic and Evra did, it gets claimed Pep would 'use them better'. The same Pep who brought Nolito and Bravo to the league and impatiently discarded them when they struggled rather than getting them ready for the competition.

To some of you anything Pep does is creditable. Nothing Mourinho does is worth it. For example, Pep buying Bravo for a huge fee and impatiently discarding him when it didnt work is "great decision making'. And then bringing in Ederson was a 'coup'. Yet a Jose, buying Mhikitrayan, waiting for him to settle and integrating him into the team later, watching him become key, then deciding to let him go this season after he failed to lift himself from a malaise after ample chances, is chalked off as poor recruitment, poor man management and stifling of talent by Mourinho. This why arguments like 'Pepe would not have bought Lukaku' come up
. Like Pep and Mourinho have the same player requirements in their preferred playing systems. Aguero for example is begrudgingly used by Pep. But for Mourinho he'd be untouchable. In midfield Pep is happy playing two number 10s ahead of his DM as 8s. Yet for Mourinho he'd use them as inside forwards and 10s instead. Hence it makes zero sense to pine for Pep football, from a team set up to one day fully implement Mourinho's preferred football. I infact believe Mourinho if he switched jobs with Pep would be finding the City job much much easier than ours currently is. And he'd have them being just as deadly as his 2010 real side were in la liga, whilst also being entertaining. Even without reaching Pep levels of champagne football

 

[Raees]

I think you have answered your own question here. I think all this tactical debate about how to play is a bit overrated amongst fans and pundits. For me it is quite simple. What we are missing is not a different manager, or more talent in our squad. The missing piece of the puzzle is desire. I really think this is the major difference between us and City this year.

I think I've read that you have some coaching experience, so you must know how much desire can give you on the pitch. When you have the right mindset and the focus and passion you perform 20-30% extra. Tactics just don't give you that much in my opinion. I feel we are lacking the desire to take those extra sprints and run those extra miles in order to get the ball. Just look at our game against Newcastle. After they scored every player thought "Ohh feck this is not good" and you saw them sprinting and being more aggressive to get the ball and try and score. Why don't they do that earlier? City does. Mourinho didn't change anything in his tactics barely.

We need that rage and determination to go and smash every team from minute 1. I don't know if it is a lack of warrior mentality we need in the team or what it is. I don't know the players personally. I just can't seem to find in our team the likes of Schmeichel, scholes, Ronaldo and Keane who reminded their team mates about their responsibilities

Much to like about this post, even though we are in disagreement on overall viewpoint.

First point, if you think all that is separating us from City is just abit of extra desire, that is from the Big Sam school of lets put a bit more effort lads and get stuck in.. mental strength, yes we would be closer to City - no doubt, but quality wise, the mental strength alone would not make what is a very fractured team tactically suddenly start playing better football.. might get some more results yes, but fluent football which puts teams to bed, no - not necessarily.

Second point in bold - totally agree. If you have a team which is tactically well set up on paper but none of the players have any fight, desire to battle.. you'll end up with feck all. However, if you had say a team like Wimbledon in 1988, a team ready to battle, very mentally strong but tactically they're not as refined as say a Barcelona and lack the individual quality to go with it, they're bottle-necked as to how far they can progress, no matter how badly they want it.

Thirdly, for a manager to be able to extract desire and the will to run through walls.. he needs to win the hearts and minds of players first and foremost. Once he has that, they will be prepared to exert maximum effort and that is where a good tactical set up which is a good fit for the players at his disposal is key because if the players are on board as to how they're being utilised and there is harmony between coach and players on this front, there will be a greater chance of more desire being shown on the pitch. More happiness, equals more effort on the pitch and more chances of success which in turn leads to sustained growth in mental strength of the unit as a whole.

Take Barcelona for example, some will say well the players are naturally champions who will want to win no matter who is the manager. To some extent, it is kind of true in that as long as a manager doesn't go in there and totally feck up on a tactical front and start arguments with players, they're that experienced and mentally solid.. they should still win 90% of their games. However for them to win CL's and La Liga's, they're still going to need the right type of manager who has that humility to ensure he doesn't go in there trying to rewrite the whole book on how they play but still have the ability to get some players on board with the little tactical tweaks he does want to implement and feels is needed. If say Messi feels the new manager is making a cock up of things, and say someone like Iniesta is being played out of position.. do you think the players will just keep going at 100% capacity. No.. even at a team like Barca, the players will not just run through walls just because any tom, dick and harry has been given the role of manager. Even a seasoned veteran of a manager has to gain the respect of the players first and win their hearts and minds in order to extract the best from them.

See Ancellotti at Bayern. He didn't do that and even a 3 time CL winner was dumped unceremoniously. Guys who are legends of the game and have won nearly everything suddenly started holding secret training sessions and didn't want to play for him.

To summarise, yes desire was missing from Pogba in those last two games.. but that lack of desire in two games this season, cannot explain the lacklustre performances we have seen throughout the season, bar the odd good performance. The players have been trying, but tactically it hasn't looked right and at times many players have been unhappy this season versus squads from other teams where you don't see as much unhappiness or rumours of it, unless the player is looking for a transfer.. but how many rumours do you see from other sides about so and so is not happy with how they're being used tactically.

 

[Thepinhead]

First point, if you think all that is separating us from City is just abit of extra desire, that is from the Big Sam school of lets put a bit more effort lads and get stuck in.


Thirdly, for a manager to be able to extract desire and the will to run through walls.. he needs to win the hearts and minds of players first and foremost.

Take Barcelona for example, some will say well the players are naturally champions who will want to win no matter who is the manager. To some extent, it is kind of true in that as long as a manager doesn't go in there and totally feck up on a tactical front and start arguments with players, they're that experienced and mentally solid.. they should still win 90% of their games. However for them to win CL's and La Liga's, they're still going to need the right type of manager who has that humility to ensure he doesn't go in there trying to rewrite the whole book on how they play but still have the ability to get some players on board with the little tactical tweaks he does want to implement and feels is needed. If say Messi feels the new manager is making a cock up of things, and say someone like Iniesta is being played out of position.. do you think the players will just keep going at 100% capacity. No.. even at a team like Barca, the players will not just run through walls just because any tom, dick and harry has been given the role of manager. Even a seasoned veteran of a manager has to gain the respect of the players first and win their hearts and minds in order to extract the best from them.

First paragraf.
No it is not the only thing but as you say we would play a lot better and be a lot closer to City if our players had the same desire as the City players are showing st the moment. Remember City is having a freak season so I'm okay with us not winning this year. Even if we played a lot better we would probably not win the title.

Second paragraf.
I don't have the feeling that the players have any dislike for Mourinho. But if some players prefered a different I just think that playing for United should be motivating enough for the players. Don't you think?

Last paragraf.

I agree completely. But after most of the players have been coached by LVG previously I can't see why on earth they wouldn't be relieved of having Mourinho. His training and tactics in general seem to more focused on freedom to do what you want on the last third of the pitch compared to LVG who tried to control every aspect of the game. I feel Mourinho only requires disciplin on the defensive transitions and in generel when the other team has the ball.

 

[E-mal]

The irony is we'll probably be the ones to make one.
Watching Spurs over the last three weeks has thoroughly ruined my morale.
The reason is simple.
I'm convinced their squad of players isn't any better than ours.

You wanted Pochetino here bro, seems am fully on board with you.
The biggest issue is a distinct lack of purpose and proactiveness.

 

[RedStarUnited]

There is even more to it, had we not conceded a single goal, we would have still been behind them. Anyone who thinks it's not true, do your own counting, you'd be surprised.

Erm mate, let me entertain this..

Leicester > 2-2
Burnley > 2-2
Stoke > 2-2
Hudersflied > 2-1
Man City > 2-1

We dont conceed in the above games, we get an extra 15 points to give us a total of 71. Because City would have lost to us, you take 3 away from their tally of 72 and they end up with 69.

You sure you did the math?

 

[Bosnian_fan]

Erm mate, let me entertain this..

Leicester > 2-2
Burnley > 2-2
Stoke > 2-2
Hudersflied > 2-1
Man City > 2-1

We dont conceed in the above games, we get an extra 15 points to give us a total of 71. Because City would have lost to us, you take 3 away from their tally of 72 and they end up with 69.

You sure you did the math?

Well, how did you give us three extra points in Leicester, Burnley and Stoke games, when we have won one point there already? Max two extra points.

This is whole season: Newcastle loss one extra point, Tottenham loss one extra point, Burnley draw two extra points, Leicester draw two extra points, City loss three extra points, Chelsea loss one extra point, Huddersfield loss three extra points, Stoke City draw two extra points. This pretty much sums all the season.

What I haven't taken into account is that City would have three points less, so yes, you are right. But surely our defense is not the problem, if we would have had not to concede a single goal in order to be on par with them, which was my original point?

 

[Raees]

We look broken. Have done for most of the season tbh. Games like Liverpool are anomalies

 

[Random Task]

We look broken. Have done for most of the season tbh. Games like Liverpool are anomalies

You are too good of a poster to believe that nonsense.

Jose needs to show more faith in the players, allow them a little more freedom to drift forward and make things happen, rather than relying on errors from the opposition. It frustrates me no end to watch our lads dither about the pitch, lacking drive and direction, when you know they are capable of so much more.

Our players looked nervous, unsure of themselves, almost as if they are not entirely comfortable with the strategy, or worse, they lack faith in that strategy. Playing defensive/counterattacking football is perfectly acceptable when confronted with a Liverpool team whom will attack as if their lives depend on it, leaving gaping holes in behind with which to exploit, but Sevilla are an entirely different animal altogether.

Why Jose decided on such a defensive strategy is beyond my imagination. They were their for the taking and we played like a bunch of cowards. I really cannot figure out this performance.

 

[BRRRRAP]

You are too good of a poster to believe that nonsense.

Jose needs to show more faith in the players, allow them a little more freedom to drift forward and make things happen, rather than relying on errors from the opposition. It frustrates me no end to watch our lads dither about the pitch, lacking drive and direction, when you know they are capable of so much more.

Our players looked nervous, unsure of themselves, almost as if they are not entirely comfortable with the strategy, or worse, they lack faith in that strategy. Playing defensive/counterattacking football is perfectly acceptable when confronted with a Liverpool team whom will attack as if their lives depend on it, leaving gaping holes in behind with which to exploit, but Sevilla are an entirely different animal altogether.

Why Jose decided on such a defensive strategy is beyond my imagination. They were their for the taking and we played like a bunch of cowards. I really cannot figure out this performance.

Agree with the point you almost made , that is that Mourinho's stifling of our creative play is the reason we lost this match. He has his players playing anxiously as he just does not trust them to attack fluently and do a job on Sevilla which I believe if left off the leash, they could easily tear this Sevilla team one. Mourinho's natural conservatism has translated as fear and in that sense he has lost or is very close to losing the dressing room.

It's a shame to see us wasting such talent as Mata, Pogba and Martial as we play hoof ball to Fellaini and with Lingard running around like a headless chicken.
I would love to see an attack minded manager see what they can do with this team with the addition of two or three new signings, in the summer, to bolster defence and get a holding midfielder in.
Mourinho needs to be replaced by someone like Sarri or Tuchel or Nagelsmann. Sadly, like VanGall he is a coach of the past. The tactics world has evolved since his emergence but the Portugese hasn't kept up with it. Time to go with a younger, more entertaining and attacking manager.

 

[Raees]

You are too good of a poster to believe that nonsense.

Jose needs to show more faith in the players, allow them a little more freedom to drift forward and make things happen, rather than relying on errors from the opposition. It frustrates me no end to watch our lads dither about the pitch, lacking drive and direction, when you know they are capable of so much more.

Our players looked nervous, unsure of themselves, almost as if they are not entirely comfortable with the strategy, or worse, they lack faith in that strategy. Playing defensive/counterattacking football is perfectly acceptable when confronted with a Liverpool team whom will attack as if their lives depend on it, leaving gaping holes in behind with which to exploit, but Sevilla are an entirely different animal altogether.

Why Jose decided on such a defensive strategy is beyond my imagination. They were their for the taking and we played like a bunch of cowards. I really cannot figure out this performance.

He will never show the requisite faith needed to get us playing a truly proactive brand of football because it runs counter to his footballing ideology.

The issue with Jose is that his vision of football post Inter began to supersede his desire to win. He didn't just want to win football matches anymore he wanted to do it his way and be seen as a tactical visionary like Pep but in his own unique way.

Hence why sometimes a game is crying out for him to take it to an opponent he fails sometimes to recognise the correct strategy to win but instead goes back to his tried and tested which was not what peak Jose was like. Jose at his peak was very versatile and his teams dominated games, albeit they weren't particularly beautiful but they were damn good footballing sides whereas his grasp of good elite quality football is getting further and further away from him.

He seems very confused and his teams reflect the confusion within. It's like he's trying to put on this act like he can be adaptable and be a Big club attacking manager but then deep down he wants to win things his own way and his selections and tactics just come across as a mish mash and compromised by all these conflicting expectations. There is no sense of clarity from the manager and you can sense it from the players too.

The transfers seem ad hoc as does selections.. he has pet favourites who never got dropped and easy targets. This type of man management might work when you're super successful but when results aren't coming through it just causes divisions and the team looks fractured tbh. Body language looks very very poor across the board.

 

[Turkleton]

The issue with Jose is that his vision of football post Inter began to supersede his desire to win. He didn't just want to win football matches anymore he wanted to do it his way and be seen as a tactical visionary like Pep but in his own unique way.

This is so painfully like LVG with his pass the ball until everyone is asleep plan. If we have a manager who puts ideology above results, it should at least be a manager who's ideology matches that of our attacking tradition.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

It's sad that so many have held this view (before this thread) for a long view but it still hasnt happened.

 

[Theonas]

We look broken. Have done for most of the season tbh. Games like Liverpool are anomalies

I don't think that was an anomaly at all. It was a very similar performance from a tactical point of view. The game went a different way because we got an early first goal thanks to a flick from Lukaku. This gave us more confidence, allowed us to commit more men behind and have something to defend, and gave us more space behind them as they had to come forward. If we got a goal tonight early from a corner or a piece of individual brilliance or something of that sort, it could have easily gone the same way and we'd be talking about a brilliant tactical master plan and all that nonsense.

The same with Conte and the way Chelsea played Barcelona and City. One had Willian being brilliant hitting the post twice and scoring, the other didn't. The narrative as usual followed the result when the tactical approach was exactly the same. Whether you win or lose, playing that close to your goalkeeper and having so little of the ball is an extremely low percentage way of playing. It means you have less time to create and more time where you are a mistake away from conceding. If you can guarantee that your defenders are flawless and that every single game you will have some amazing player doing something brilliant, then it is a high percentage approach that will yield more wins. Since that is pretty much impossible especially in the modern game, it is an extremely low percentage way of getting results which is why for every Liverpool, there will be a Sevilla.

 

[kouroux]

I don't think that was an anomaly at all. It was a very similar performance from a tactical point of view. The game went a different way because we got an early first goal thanks to a flick from Lukaku. This gave us more confidence, allowed us to commit more men behind and have something to defend, and gave us more space behind them as they had to come forward. If we got a goal tonight early from a corner or a piece of individual brilliance or something of that sort, it could have easily gone the same way and we'd be talking about a brilliant tactical master plan and all that nonsense.

The same with Conte and the way Chelsea played Barcelona and City. One had Willian being brilliant hitting the post twice and scoring, the other didn't. The narrative as usual followed the result when the tactical approach was exactly the same. Whether you win or lose, playing that close to your goalkeeper and having so little of the ball is an extremely low percentage way of playing. It means you have less time to create and more time where you are a mistake away from conceding. If you can guarantee that your defenders are flawless and that every single game you will have some amazing player doing something brilliant, then it is a high percentage approach that will yield more wins. Since that is pretty much impossible especially in the modern game, it is an extremely low percentage way of getting results which is why for every Liverpool, there will be a Sevilla.

Great post. Isn't it annoying that he sticks to this shit brand of football when you so adequately put that "low percentage" is at its core.

 

[Raees]

I don't think that was an anomaly at all. It was a very similar performance from a tactical point of view. The game went a different way because we got an early first goal thanks to a flick from Lukaku. This gave us more confidence, allowed us to commit more men behind and have something to defend, and gave us more space behind them as they had to come forward. If we got a goal tonight early from a corner or a piece of individual brilliance or something of that sort, it could have easily gone the same way and we'd be talking about a brilliant tactical master plan and all that nonsense.

The same with Conte and the way Chelsea played Barcelona and City. One had Willian being brilliant hitting the post twice and scoring, the other didn't. The narrative as usual followed the result when the tactical approach was exactly the same. Whether you win or lose, playing that close to your goalkeeper and having so little of the ball is an extremely low percentage way of playing. It means you have less time to create and more time where you are a mistake away from conceding. If you can guarantee that your defenders are flawless and that every single game you will have some amazing player doing something brilliant, then it is a high percentage approach that will yield more wins. Since that is pretty much impossible especially in the modern game, it is an extremely low percentage way of getting results which is why for every Liverpool, there will be a Sevilla.

Good post and I totally agree. What I mean is that in games like Liverpool where you're up against a really top heavy side which can be exposed on the counter - it can make sense tactically to set up like we did and yes the goal got us in the mood etc but we did totally nullify Salah and that wasn't just luck it made sense how we set up. Obviously not my preference but I could see the logic in it.

Problem is unlike under Fergie where such tactical set ups were exceptions to the rule and pulled out only vs Arsenal, for Jose it is his stock philosophy to rely on such low percentage football like you put it and very sparingly he takes the handbrakes off and seems very hands off when it comes to attacking patterns of play. The result is the messy performances we've seen for the most part and yet many on here would have you believe we're truly on the pathway to being an elite side if we sign some more shiny toys blissfully unaware that it is the system, poor man management and lack of proper coaching which is wasting a lot of talent and until we don't rectify that .. we will keep signing big players and keep watching them turn to shit.

Having this debate with @Invictus but for the life of me I can't see why United don't prioritise getting an attacking spirit in charge - why on earth have we made three back to back appointments of pragmatic managers .. we are Manchester United ffs.

Talk about trying to run before you can walk. When rebuilding you sort out the performances first, the style of football which is most likely to lay foundations for long term success and then you tweak the formula to make it effective in high level encounters consistently if need be. We are trying to win without a leg to stand on..

 

[liamp]

Good post and I totally agree. What I mean is that in games like Liverpool where you're up against a really top heavy side which can be exposed on the counter - it can make sense tactically to set up like we did and yes the goal got us in the mood etc but we did totally nullify Salah and that wasn't just luck it made sense how we set up. Obviously not my preference but I could see the logic in it.

Problem is unlike under Fergie where such tactical set ups were exceptions to the rule and pulled out only vs Arsenal, for Jose it is his stock philosophy to rely on such low percentage football like you put it and very sparingly he takes the handbrakes off and seems very hands off when it comes to attacking patterns of play. The result is the messy performances we've seen for the most part and yet many on here would have you believe we're truly on the pathway to being an elite side if we sign some more shiny toys blissfully unaware that it is the system, poor man management and lack of proper coaching which is wasting a lot of talent and until we don't rectify that .. we will keep signing big players and keep watching them turn to shit.

Having this debate with @Invictus but for the life of me I can't see why United don't prioritise getting an attacking spirit in charge - why on earth have we made three back to back appointments of pragmatic managers .. we are Manchester United ffs.

Talk about trying to run before you can walk. When rebuilding you sort out the performances first, the style of football which is most likely to lay foundations for long term success and then you tweak the formula to make it effective in high level encounters consistently if need be. We are trying to win without a leg to stand on..

Because I don't think it's a particularly significant factor for people making the decisions. Moyes was a nepotism hire, so I'm erasing him from this both for peace of mind and because of the specter of SAF's influence. Van Gaal and Mourinho were polar opposites of their predecessors in terms of their teams' approaches, but I think they were both hired because of their experience running big clubs. I think the lesson the board learned from Moyes was that it was imperative to find candidates who were capable of serving as a manager (note: Not just a coach) for a club of this size. Between philosophy/tactics and capability to run footballing operations, I think they placed much greater emphasis on the latter and next to none on the former.

 

[Nori-]

Problem is a fluid style of play wont come anytime soon if our main weapon against defences is kicking the ball up to Lukaku and hoping someone gets on the end of his header.

With the talent we have on paper, we should really be opening teams up like a can of beans. Jose is sucking the life out of these players. My fear is he stays long enough to cause so much damage to some of them that they'll need to move clubs to get back to playing at the levels they've made their name on.

 

[Ace of Spades]

Basically, agree with the point @Raees is making.

 

[Sultan]

Even more confusing is we have talent across the team in abundance to play quality, expansive football.

The following players would grace any team in the world. DDG, Bailly, Matic, Pogba, Sanchez, Martial, Lukaku, Rashford, Mata. Young and Valencia are hardly defensively minded players.

 

[Yorkeontop]

Win in style, yes, win big, I'm not sure. José slow poison, bottom line football will always give you a chance I reckon (won 2 trophies last season).

 

[Theonas]

Great post. Isn't it annoying that he sticks to this shit brand of football when you so adequately put that "low percentage" is at its core.

I think it's all he knows really. Just like every top manager, there is a core methodology about them. They build their success around it and along the way, there are many times when they are criticized to a level that it truly takes an extremely strong personality and high level of stubbornness to get through it. This obviously means that not only are they always skeptical and dismissive of criticism to what they would consider inferior footballing minds and rightfully so, but also incapable of doing anything else. To be as good as Mourinho is at what he does, it requires total commitment to it. He cannot just one day change approaches radically because that would also take years of commitment, honing and improving.

In Mourinho's case, this approach was not low percentage. Throughout the '00s, most teams played with a similar mindset. The big games were cagey affairs where you feel your opponent, make sure you don't concede that all important first goal and capitalize on mistakes to get your noses up front. We at United had to discover that the hard way many times in Europe and domestically against his very own Chelsea. Since everyone approached the game that way from Benitez's Liverpool, the Italian sides and later on our very own club especially in Queiroz's time, Mourinho was a true master mind and stood out from the rest since he could read the game better than anyone else. His skill set of being able to nullify opponents' strengths and ensuring a warrior like mentality with his teams through game and man management, and working with players who were more recipient to that ideology like Essien, Lampard, Terry, Drogba, Zanetti, Cambiasso, Motta, Milito and few others, meant he had the edge over most. He was still considered boring by English football standards where the norm was taking risks and playing a less tactical game. But he was not viewed as the anti football he is today because his methods were seen as no more than bringing organisation and attention to tactical detail to a country that likes it football a bit more chaotic.

What happened to him afterwards however is that Barcelona and Pep came along. They won by abandoning the previous agreed upon wisdom and not only that, everybody treated them as the ultimate team to aspire to. Everyone started to copy them, maybe not exactly in terms of tactics but definitely in terms of approach in the sense that "we will look to be pro active and go for goals instead of waiting and reacting to events". Klopp's Dortmund and Heynckes' Bayern are stand out examples in that sense. This has made Mourinho no longer the new innovator, but the champion of an ideology that is not only not as efficient, but viewed with less love and adulation. This is where according to some journalist and people familiar with him, he went even further in his stubborn mode where now he felt he needed to not only win, but win by proving all these new "Einsteins" are nothing more than "poets". Add to that Barcelona rejecting him and knowing what they represent in world football, and it makes perfect sense that he felt almost on duty to be their exact opposite.

You still see this obsession quite regularly. He will always bring up how he is not the type of manager who tells players that player A should pass to B and B to C etc ... like he did last Saturday. He will talk about controlling without the ball. When Chelsea won the league he used the celebration party to talk about how some other teams like us and Arsenal were more interested in possession stats. Something comes up that hints to his disdain for this school of thought on a regular basis. The man is an absolutely fascinating character, maybe the most fascinating character in football in recent memory.

 

[Velvet Revolver]

I think it's all he knows really. Just like every top manager, there is a core methodology about them. They build their success around it and along the way, there are many times when they are criticized to a level that it truly takes an extremely strong personality and high level of stubbornness to get through it. This obviously means that not only are they always skeptical and dismissive of criticism to what they would consider inferior footballing minds and rightfully so, but also incapable of doing anything else. To be as good as Mourinho is at what he does, it requires total commitment to it. He cannot just one day change approaches radically because that would also take years of commitment, honing and improving.

In Mourinho's case, this approach was not low percentage. Throughout the '00s, most teams played with a similar mindset. The big games were cagey affairs where you feel your opponent, make sure you don't concede that all important first goal and capitalize on mistakes to get your noses up front. We at United had to discover that the hard way many times in Europe and domestically against his very own Chelsea. Since everyone approached the game that way from Benitez's Liverpool, the Italian sides and later on our very own club especially in Queiroz's time, Mourinho was a true master mind and stood out from the rest since he could read the game better than anyone else. His skill set of being able to nullify opponents' strengths and ensuring a warrior like mentality with his teams through game management, and working with players who were more recipient to that ideology like Essien, Lampard, Terry, Drogba, Zanetti, Cambiasso, Motta, Milito and few others. He was still considered boring by English football standards where the norm was taking risks and playing a less tactical game. But he was not viewed as the anti football he is today because his methods were seen as no more than bringing organisation and attention to tactical detail to a country that likes it football a bit more chaotic.

What happened to him afterwards however is that Barcelona and Pep came along. They won by abandoning the previous agreed upon wisdom and not only that, everybody treated them as the ultimate team to aspire to. Everyone started to copy them, maybe not exactly in terms of tactics but definitely in terms of approach in the sense that "we will look to be pro active and go for goals instead of waiting and reacting to events". Klopp's Dortmund, Heynckes' Bayern are stand out examples in that sense. This has made Mourinho no longer the new innovator, but the champion of an ideology that is not only not as efficient, but viewed with less love and adulation. This is where according to some journalist and people familiar with him, he went even further in his stubborn mode where now he felt he needed to not only win, but win by proving all these new "Einsteins" are nothing more than "poets". Add to that Barcelona rejecting him and knowing what they represent in world football, and it makes perfect sense that he felt almost on duty to be their exact opposite.

You still see this obsession quite regularly. He will always bring up how he is not the type of manager who tells players that player A should pass to B and B to C etc ... like he did last Saturday. He will talk about controlling without the ball. When Chelsea won the league he used the celebration party to talk about how some other teams like us and Arsenal were more interested in possession stats. Something comes up that hints to his disdain for this school of thought on a regular basis. The man is an absolutely fascinating character, maybe the most fascinating character in football in recent memory.

This is a great post and summarizes what Jose was, is and his psyche. The fact that he was not a player like most of the good/great ones today adds to his ever-growing urge to prove the world wrong.

I wonder if pep was not at city, he would have been a little more relaxed!

 

[Cassady]

What constantly amazes me is how people keep judging us by the standards of the current Manchester City. Which is like judging a fish be its ability to climb trees. I dont understand why none of our current detractors can grasp that we are NOT at the same stage of development as they are.

Since 2012 they've had a harmonized transfer recruitment strategy and have hired managers to implement a style all geared to one day hiring Guardiola. 6 solid years.

In comparison we have gone from 4 managers, with totally different philosophies and tactical styles and polar opposite recruitment. Not only Have we had a quick manager turn over, we have had the same with players. Yet by some miracle, these Mourinho critics expected him two walk into a United project, two years into an LVG project, a manager who is nigh a polar opposite of him, change direction of the club 360 degrees, and some how after less than 2-3 seasons get us playing the fluid champagyne manner of Manchester City or Liverpool. Are you serious?

Klopp is Liverpool's fifth manager in seven seasons and has only been there since 2015 .

 

[Son Of Sam]

Even more confusing is we have talent across the team in abundance to play quality, expansive football.

The following players would grace any team in the world. DDG, Bailly, Matic, Pogba, Sanchez, Martial, Lukaku, Rashford, Mata. Young and Valencia are hardly defensively minded players.

You seem to forget the missing piece here.....which is desire.

Compare when Man City lose the ball and what the entire players do to recover the ball quickly to ours?

That to me tops the array of talents we have. It’s the reason a team like Bristol FC can knock the almighty United out of a cup competition.

The ‘99 TREBLE team wasn’t necessary the best XI in Europe as at that time but they had desire. There was no stand out player, everyone worked together in unison.

I think that is what the current squad is lacking. I don’t know how to reach desire. I don’t necessarily think Jose’s approach was terrible last night, the players just didn’t do enough to carry the team past the forward line.

SAF/Queiroz deployed the same approach against Barcelona in 2007/8. The first leg was goalless and the 2nd leg was a cagey affair where the only goal came through a mistake in the Barca midfield. Scholes scored and we defended with 10 men for the rest of the game.

 

[edcunited1878]

As of right now, United don't have the quality of players to win the PL or CL. As harsh as that sounds, United don't have proper fullbacks. They can pass in midfield and wide areas to an extent, but there is major weakness in the fullback areas in terms of quality and consistency compared to rival PL teams and teams vying for the CL.

So the quality and consistency of that quality comes first, then the style of play comes second. You can't play chess with checkers.

 

[L1nk]

To be honest, we won't win anything big for a while even if we got another manager in, however, i would just like to enjoy my football again, please? I work hard, i pay, i go to the matches, i watch the matches if I can't get there, and for what? I want to see my team play some damn football, i don't want to see them cower at home against a team like Sevilla, i don't want to see negative crap that sucks the energy out of the team and the match. I just don't get the joy out of watching United as much anymore, i continue because I love and always will love the club, and it's not about winning everything, I understand not everyone can win every match, i'd be okay with losing some of them, but at least lose with some damn fight, some passion, some semblance of attacking play, play how United have always done throughout the years, what everyone knows us for, some swagger, a twinkle in the eye....

It genuinely makes me sad to see the state of the football on the pitch under LVG and Mourinho, the 2 legs against Sevilla are genuinely some of the worst i've seen us. Look at the players, you tell me we shouldn't be witnessing some lightning quick, exciting football in attack, I won't be convinced that with the players we have we cannot play that way.

 

[Amira]

I don't think there's any doubt that we are suffering tactically in attack. If you look at our defense, more often than not Mourinho has a plan and you can clearly see what it is and see it work (or not).

In attack though everything seems clunky, mechanical and seems to be thought of on the fly. There are no patterns to our attacks and no clear strategies for breaking down the defense. We rely heavily on individual brilliance on that end and that can only take you so far.

Our strategy seems to be "Stop them from scoring and hope we score". Hope being the keyword.

 

[Amira]

As of right now, United don't have the quality of players to win the PL or CL. As harsh as that sounds, United don't have proper fullbacks. They can pass in midfield and wide areas to an extent, but there is major weakness in the fullback areas in terms of quality and consistency compared to rival PL teams and teams vying for the CL.

So the quality and consistency of that quality comes first, then the style of play comes second. You can't play chess with checkers.

I'm trying to relate your post with City's evolution from last season to this season. So would you say they were taking care of quality and consistency last season and with that sorted out have now embraced a style of play?

And if so, where would you say we are currently?

 

[Cheesy]

I feel like the extent to which our managerial instability has plagued us in recent years gets overplayed. Plenty of managers can turn what seems like very little into sudden, unexpected success. Football is a lot more unpredictable than people give it credit for (albeit only to a certain extent) and a team that’s seen as in decline at the start of one season can suddenly shock everyone the next.

Very few people would have regarded Atletico as even remotely near good enough to compete for La Liga when he arrived but within a couple of years he took them to the title and was a minute away from winning the CL against a far stronger Real Madrid side financially. Chelsea were a bit of a mess when Conte came in, and he won the title within a year. While they were filled with undeniable talents, Barca in 2008 were quite stale and lacking in any unity when Guardiola took over and within a year he’d managed to put together one of the most impressive footballing units we’ve seen. Even Mourinho himself – while with absurd money at his disposal – managed to take what was a decent Chelsea side and mould it into one of the most dominant English teams in modern times with some transfer business that was shrewder than he typically gets credit for.

Obviously matching this runaway City side was always going to be tough, but I feel like some of the excuses aren’t really justified. We have a lot of money. We can afford to pay players a lot. We have a manager who’s supposed to be one of the best in the world at what he does, and it’s his job to address our current problems and get us back to a position where we’re winning – or at least looking like winning – big competitions again. He has resources aplenty and should be capable of doing that within a couple of years. If he fails to do so he’ll have helped us to improve but will have failed in his larger objective.

 

[Cloud7]

I feel like the extent to which our managerial instability has plagued us in recent years gets overplayed. Plenty of managers can turn what seems like very little into sudden, unexpected success. Football is a lot more unpredictable than people give it credit for (albeit only to a certain extent) and a team that’s seen as in decline at the start of one season can suddenly shock everyone the next.

Very few people would have regarded Atletico as even remotely near good enough to compete for La Liga when he arrived but within a couple of years he took them to the title and was a minute away from winning the CL against a far stronger Real Madrid side financially. Chelsea were a bit of a mess when Conte came in, and he won the title within a year. While they were filled with undeniable talents, Barca in 2008 were quite stale and lacking in any unity when Guardiola took over and within a year he’d managed to put together one of the most impressive footballing units we’ve seen. Even Mourinho himself – while with absurd money at his disposal – managed to take what was a decent Chelsea side and mould it into one of the most dominant English teams in modern times with some transfer business that was shrewder than he typically gets credit for.

Obviously matching this runaway City side was always going to be tough, but I feel like some of the excuses aren’t really justified. We have a lot of money. We can afford to pay players a lot. We have a manager who’s supposed to be one of the best in the world at what he does, and it’s his job to address our current problems and get us back to a position where we’re winning – or at least looking like winning – big competitions again. He has resources aplenty and should be capable of doing that within a couple of years. If he fails to do so he’ll have helped us to improve but will have failed in his larger objective.

Managerial instability has always been our go to excuse to justify the failures of our managers. Pelligrini, Ranieri, Mourinho himself, Conte and now Pep within the last 8 years or so have all won the PL within 2 years of becoming managers at their club, Pep aside, none of them had any massive player overhaul, or as it’s called here, “getting your own players in and making the team your own”.

Yet we had two years of Vangle and didn’t win anything major. Now we’re approaching two years of Jose, again without winning anything major (Europa league is not a major trophy) and the only justification that can be given is that he needs more time and to spend more money in order to properly challenge and/or win a major trophy.

It’s an absolute farce that I can’t believe gets repeated on here so much. We mock the scousers but United fans have almost as bad of a “cult of the manager” personality as they do.

Like you said, many managers can and have turned very little into a lot.

 

[POF]

I think it's all he knows really. Just like every top manager, there is a core methodology about them. They build their success around it and along the way, there are many times when they are criticized to a level that it truly takes an extremely strong personality and high level of stubbornness to get through it. This obviously means that not only are they always skeptical and dismissive of criticism to what they would consider inferior footballing minds and rightfully so, but also incapable of doing anything else. To be as good as Mourinho is at what he does, it requires total commitment to it. He cannot just one day change approaches radically because that would also take years of commitment, honing and improving.

In Mourinho's case, this approach was not low percentage. Throughout the '00s, most teams played with a similar mindset. The big games were cagey affairs where you feel your opponent, make sure you don't concede that all important first goal and capitalize on mistakes to get your noses up front. We at United had to discover that the hard way many times in Europe and domestically against his very own Chelsea. Since everyone approached the game that way from Benitez's Liverpool, the Italian sides and later on our very own club especially in Queiroz's time, Mourinho was a true master mind and stood out from the rest since he could read the game better than anyone else. His skill set of being able to nullify opponents' strengths and ensuring a warrior like mentality with his teams through game management, and working with players who were more recipient to that ideology like Essien, Lampard, Terry, Drogba, Zanetti, Cambiasso, Motta, Milito and few others. He was still considered boring by English football standards where the norm was taking risks and playing a less tactical game. But he was not viewed as the anti football he is today because his methods were seen as no more than bringing organisation and attention to tactical detail to a country that likes it football a bit more chaotic.

What happened to him afterwards however is that Barcelona and Pep came along. They won by abandoning the previous agreed upon wisdom and not only that, everybody treated them as the ultimate team to aspire to. Everyone started to copy them, maybe not exactly in terms of tactics but definitely in terms of approach in the sense that "we will look to be pro active and go for goals instead of waiting and reacting to events". Klopp's Dortmund, Heynckes' Bayern are stand out examples in that sense. This has made Mourinho no longer the new innovator, but the champion of an ideology that is not only not as efficient, but viewed with less love and adulation. This is where according to some journalist and people familiar with him, he went even further in his stubborn mode where now he felt he needed to not only win, but win by proving all these new "Einsteins" are nothing more than "poets". Add to that Barcelona rejecting him and knowing what they represent in world football, and it makes perfect sense that he felt almost on duty to be their exact opposite.

You still see this obsession quite regularly. He will always bring up how he is not the type of manager who tells players that player A should pass to B and B to C etc ... like he did last Saturday. He will talk about controlling without the ball. When Chelsea won the league he used the celebration party to talk about how some other teams like us and Arsenal were more interested in possession stats. Something comes up that hints to his disdain for this school of thought on a regular basis. The man is an absolutely fascinating character, maybe the most fascinating character in football in recent memory.

That is one of the best posts I have read on here. Absolutely nailed an extremely complex character.

You seem to forget the missing piece here.....which is desire.

Compare when Man City lose the ball and what the entire players do to recover the ball quickly to ours?

That to me tops the array of talents we have. It’s the reason a team like Bristol FC can knock the almighty United out of a cup competition.

The ‘99 TREBLE team wasn’t necessary the best XI in Europe as at that time but they had desire. There was no stand out player, everyone worked together in unison.

I think that is what the current squad is lacking. I don’t know how to reach desire. I don’t necessarily think Jose’s approach was terrible last night, the players just didn’t do enough to carry the team past the forward line.

SAF/Queiroz deployed the same approach against Barcelona in 2007/8. The first leg was goalless and the 2nd leg was a cagey affair where the only goal came through a mistake in the Barca midfield. Scholes scored and we defended with 10 men for the rest of the game.

I agree with your point about the unity and desire of the 99 team but I think you are understating the quality. Keane and Stam were clearly the best players in their position in the competition that season (arguably Irwin too), Yorke was going toe to toe with Rivaldo at the Nou Camp and Beckham, Giggs and Scholes were also top class European players that season.

I still think the 99 team was a better team overall than 08 and arguably deserved to win the competition more.

 

[Giggs86]

I don't think there's any doubt that we are suffering tactically in attack. If you look at our defense, more often than not Mourinho has a plan and you can clearly see what it is and see it work (or not).

In attack though everything seems clunky, mechanical and seems to be thought of on the fly. There are no patterns to our attacks and no clear strategies for breaking down the defense. We rely heavily on individual brilliance on that end and that can only take you so far.

Our strategy seems to be "Stop them from scoring and hope we score". Hope being the keyword.

That is literally the basics of the philosophy that all of Mourinho's craft was built on top of.

He's a destroyer, not a creator. His game is based on destroying the oppositions game plan and ruthlessly punishing them. Every Mourinho team was based on those principals and he implemented that with rock solid defense and highly skilled individuals in attack. The problem with that is when the opposition doesn't try to create anything and just sits deep like yesterday, he becomes clueless.

 

[kouroux]

I think it's all he knows really. Just like every top manager, there is a core methodology about them. They build their success around it and along the way, there are many times when they are criticized to a level that it truly takes an extremely strong personality and high level of stubbornness to get through it. This obviously means that not only are they always skeptical and dismissive of criticism to what they would consider inferior footballing minds and rightfully so, but also incapable of doing anything else. To be as good as Mourinho is at what he does, it requires total commitment to it. He cannot just one day change approaches radically because that would also take years of commitment, honing and improving.

In Mourinho's case, this approach was not low percentage. Throughout the '00s, most teams played with a similar mindset. The big games were cagey affairs where you feel your opponent, make sure you don't concede that all important first goal and capitalize on mistakes to get your noses up front. We at United had to discover that the hard way many times in Europe and domestically against his very own Chelsea. Since everyone approached the game that way from Benitez's Liverpool, the Italian sides and later on our very own club especially in Queiroz's time, Mourinho was a true master mind and stood out from the rest since he could read the game better than anyone else. His skill set of being able to nullify opponents' strengths and ensuring a warrior like mentality with his teams through game management, and working with players who were more recipient to that ideology like Essien, Lampard, Terry, Drogba, Zanetti, Cambiasso, Motta, Milito and few others. He was still considered boring by English football standards where the norm was taking risks and playing a less tactical game. But he was not viewed as the anti football he is today because his methods were seen as no more than bringing organisation and attention to tactical detail to a country that likes it football a bit more chaotic.

What happened to him afterwards however is that Barcelona and Pep came along. They won by abandoning the previous agreed upon wisdom and not only that, everybody treated them as the ultimate team to aspire to. Everyone started to copy them, maybe not exactly in terms of tactics but definitely in terms of approach in the sense that "we will look to be pro active and go for goals instead of waiting and reacting to events". Klopp's Dortmund, Heynckes' Bayern are stand out examples in that sense. This has made Mourinho no longer the new innovator, but the champion of an ideology that is not only not as efficient, but viewed with less love and adulation. This is where according to some journalist and people familiar with him, he went even further in his stubborn mode where now he felt he needed to not only win, but win by proving all these new "Einsteins" are nothing more than "poets". Add to that Barcelona rejecting him and knowing what they represent in world football, and it makes perfect sense that he felt almost on duty to be their exact opposite.

You still see this obsession quite regularly. He will always bring up how he is not the type of manager who tells players that player A should pass to B and B to C etc ... like he did last Saturday. He will talk about controlling without the ball. When Chelsea won the league he used the celebration party to talk about how some other teams like us and Arsenal were more interested in possession stats. Something comes up that hints to his disdain for this school of thought on a regular basis. The man is an absolutely fascinating character, maybe the most fascinating character in football in recent memory.

Fantastic read.

 

[Theonas]

Good post and I totally agree. What I mean is that in games like Liverpool where you're up against a really top heavy side which can be exposed on the counter - it can make sense tactically to set up like we did and yes the goal got us in the mood etc but we did totally nullify Salah and that wasn't just luck it made sense how we set up. Obviously not my preference but I could see the logic in it.

Yes absolutely. That setup in isolation would not stand out as particularly negative. It would have been interpreted as simply adapting for a one off game but of course as you point out, because this Mourinho and he has 15 years of managerial history behind him, it is difficult not to see it as part of a larger pattern. We did nullify Salah indeed but that is not surprising at all. I do think Mourinho is as good as anyone if not the best at nullifying a player or a system. His brilliance at it can be seen even more when he is not burdened by having to commit men forward like we had it on Saturday.

Problem is unlike under Fergie where such tactical set ups were exceptions to the rule and pulled out only vs Arsenal, for Jose it is his stock philosophy to rely on such low percentage football like you put it and very sparingly he takes the handbrakes off and seems very hands off when it comes to attacking patterns of play. The result is the messy performances we've seen for the most part and yet many on here would have you believe we're truly on the pathway to being an elite side if we sign some more shiny toys blissfully unaware that it is the system, poor man management and lack of proper coaching which is wasting a lot of talent and until we don't rectify that .. we will keep signing big players and keep watching them turn to shit.

I thought this since he has been appointed and was absolutely sure of it after our game against Liverpool at Anfield last season, the one on Monday night. Being great at a system takes time. A huge part of being brilliant at it is the commitment you put to it in terms of time, every training session, every transfer, and the practice of every game. It is why City were doing the exact same things last year they are this year. Whereas last year they were making mistakes, they insisted on keeping at it even when it cost them. That time and absolute commitment has been essential in becoming as good as they are right now.

This is why if Mourinho was ever going to have us play fluid football, we would have seen traces of it within a month of his appointment. We would have been bad at it as he may not have had the players or the time, but the blueprints should have been obvious. When you are willing to compromise and change depending on every game, you naturally never practice what you are doing. How can you therefore develop fluidity? You have top teams in the world with top players using every game as another opportunity to do what they believe in. How can you compete with that when you are "adapting" with each game? The only way you can make up for that lack of in game time spent is by having a hugely superior individual quality which obviously will never be the case in the current reality of super clubs.

This is why it's not that I believe he had or has the players. I think it's a totally irrelevant subject when discussing our fluidity and attacking cohesion related problems. Being successful at playing fluid pro active football necessitates a certain quality of players. Implementing it at a basic level, the level that is necessary to go through in order to be eventually successful, does not.

Having this debate with @Invictus but for the life of me I can't see why United don't prioritise getting an attacking spirit in charge - why on earth have we made three back to back appointments of pragmatic managers .. we are Manchester United ffs. Talk about trying to run before you can walk. When rebuilding you sort out the performances first, the style of football which is most likely to lay foundations for long term success and then you tweak the formula to make it effective in high level encounters consistently if need be. We are trying to win without a leg to stand on..

To be fair, I do think a lot of the things LvG coaches, if not all, are necessary if you want to play on the front foot. Our possession stats under him and ability to barely concede chances with a high line even against the top teams in the league were the baby steps into developing the kind of team that can go toe to toe with the best. He however could not or was not good enough to improve on that. This led to very uneventful football but it was not necessarily reactive. It was impotently pro active which leads to maybe even more boring results.

I do agree however with your main point about our board. I think many have touched on that on here already. @liamp puts it well indeed when he says that they prioritized management of footballing operations over a strict footballing philosophy. The model of the club was very outdated with one man taking care of everything. The owners and the board were used to that setup. "Give a football man total reign and we take care of the money". They were basically guilty of trying to recreate Fergie which was obviously never going to happen. The funny thing is that most managers have such big egos that they genuinely do think they can fulfill that role. Rafa Benitez spent his entire career whinging about not having enough control. A lot of them used to claim they loved working in England because it is the only country that allows as much control. LvG and Mourinho never worked in a setup like ours but I can see both letting their ego convince them they can do it. The result obviously is a messy footballing strategy.

 

[trafford1980]

I think it's all he knows really. Just like every top manager, there is a core methodology about them. They build their success around it and along the way, there are many times when they are criticized to a level that it truly takes an extremely strong personality and high level of stubbornness to get through it. This obviously means that not only are they always skeptical and dismissive of criticism to what they would consider inferior footballing minds and rightfully so, but also incapable of doing anything else. To be as good as Mourinho is at what he does, it requires total commitment to it. He cannot just one day change approaches radically because that would also take years of commitment, honing and improving.

In Mourinho's case, this approach was not low percentage. Throughout the '00s, most teams played with a similar mindset. The big games were cagey affairs where you feel your opponent, make sure you don't concede that all important first goal and capitalize on mistakes to get your noses up front. We at United had to discover that the hard way many times in Europe and domestically against his very own Chelsea. Since everyone approached the game that way from Benitez's Liverpool, the Italian sides and later on our very own club especially in Queiroz's time, Mourinho was a true master mind and stood out from the rest since he could read the game better than anyone else. His skill set of being able to nullify opponents' strengths and ensuring a warrior like mentality with his teams through game management, and working with players who were more recipient to that ideology like Essien, Lampard, Terry, Drogba, Zanetti, Cambiasso, Motta, Milito and few others. He was still considered boring by English football standards where the norm was taking risks and playing a less tactical game. But he was not viewed as the anti football he is today because his methods were seen as no more than bringing organisation and attention to tactical detail to a country that likes it football a bit more chaotic.

What happened to him afterwards however is that Barcelona and Pep came along. They won by abandoning the previous agreed upon wisdom and not only that, everybody treated them as the ultimate team to aspire to. Everyone started to copy them, maybe not exactly in terms of tactics but definitely in terms of approach in the sense that "we will look to be pro active and go for goals instead of waiting and reacting to events". Klopp's Dortmund, Heynckes' Bayern are stand out examples in that sense. This has made Mourinho no longer the new innovator, but the champion of an ideology that is not only not as efficient, but viewed with less love and adulation. This is where according to some journalist and people familiar with him, he went even further in his stubborn mode where now he felt he needed to not only win, but win by proving all these new "Einsteins" are nothing more than "poets". Add to that Barcelona rejecting him and knowing what they represent in world football, and it makes perfect sense that he felt almost on duty to be their exact opposite.

You still see this obsession quite regularly. He will always bring up how he is not the type of manager who tells players that player A should pass to B and B to C etc ... like he did last Saturday. He will talk about controlling without the ball. When Chelsea won the league he used the celebration party to talk about how some other teams like us and Arsenal were more interested in possession stats. Something comes up that hints to his disdain for this school of thought on a regular basis. The man is an absolutely fascinating character, maybe the most fascinating character in football in recent memory.

This is a fantastic post!

I’d like to add though, one of my biggest frustrations with watching United this season is how consistently inconsistent we are within a single 90 minutes. You can never look back on a United performance and conclude that we played a great 90. Just never happens. We only produce in bursts and It’s makes for frustrating analysis.

This isn’t to say we’re inconsistent results wise, because we’re second in the league. Chelsea, Liverpool & Spurs all have off matches, more so than us, and the league table reflects this. However, they all produce more consistent 90 minute efforts. This isn’t an uncommon thought among pundits, neutrals in my social-circles, and even the United supporters on various fan-cams. How often do you hear/read “how on earth did United win that?” after an uncomfortably large number of matches. I refuse to attribute this to an ABU or anti-Mourinho agenda, it’s just not the case. We’re just riding our luck more so than our peers and it’s not a sustainable long-term tactic.

I’m not a Mourinho hater, and I’d take consistent “anti-football” if it meant solid 90 minute efforts week-to-week, but we’re the least well drilled Mourinho team I can remember. We pale in comparison to his Porto, Inter and his first Chelsea teams. Eric Bailly aside (my feeling is he could go either way,) we’re a De Gea transfer away from having an Arsenal level defence, something I thought I’d never attribute to a Jose team.

 

[liamp]

I do agree however with your main point about our board. I think many have touched on that on here already. @liamp puts it well indeed when he says that they prioritized management of footballing operations over a strict footballing philosophy. The model of the club was very outdated with one man taking care of everything. The owners and the board were used to that setup. "Give a football man total reign and we take care of the money". They were basically guilty of trying to recreate Fergie which was obviously never going to happen. The funny thing is that most managers have such big egos that they genuinely do think they can fulfill that role. Rafa Benitez spent his entire career whinging about not having enough control. A lot of them used to claim they loved working in England because it is the only country that allows as much control. LvG and Mourinho never worked in a setup like ours but I can see both letting their ego convince them they can do it. The result obviously is a messy footballing strategy.

I feel like this is true for the old guard, but the younger up and comers (most of whom have experience strictly as coaches) don't feel this way at all. Pep and Klopp most prominently have adamantly said that they see themselves as coaches, not managers. Pep even went so far as to say he didn't have any interest in most of the responsibilities that came with the role of "manager."

It's why I'm hesitant to bin Jose unless they're ready to move on to a more modern organizational structure. I don't think there are any readily available candidates who'd be willing to act as a manager and do a better job at it.

 

[Nikelesh Reddy]

Do you not agree that we need to play a good brand of football in order to win the league or the CL? by good I mean cohesive, consistent, patterned, fluid?

Why are we constantly splashing the cash, when we don't have a proper vision for how we want to play the game set up first.

Mourinho does have a vision,but he still doesn't have the players who can implement his vision.Yes,despite spending 300 million,we are still nowhere close to being the real deal.I think a lot of folks on here have probably forgotten how shambolic we were under LVG and Moyes,both on and off the field(in the transfer market).

When Mourinho took over he inherited a hopelessly unbalanced squad,lacking in quality,strength and depth.He has slowly rebuilt the squad and he has got us to a place where we feel dissapointed despite being 2nd in the league.We won 2 trophies last year,will/could win another trophy this year....We are on course to qualify for the CL 2 times in a row,we are on course to finish in the top 3 for the first time since 2013.If this isn't progress,what is?

Jose needs 4 more players(for the starting 11) to really take us to the next level.We need a top class ball playing CB,someone who can comfortably pass the ball/carry the ball forward in the big games.We need a quality LB,plus we need 2 Central midfielders(1 DM plus 1 box to box 8).

If we finish 2nd and win the FA cup,that's discernible,definitive progress.We have to back Jose this summer,we have to help him sort out the midfield and the defence...We have no other choice and he definitely deserves to be given another season at the very least....

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I think it's all he knows really. Just like every top manager, there is a core methodology about them. They build their success around it and along the way, there are many times when they are criticized to a level that it truly takes an extremely strong personality and high level of stubbornness to get through it. This obviously means that not only are they always skeptical and dismissive of criticism to what they would consider inferior footballing minds and rightfully so, but also incapable of doing anything else. To be as good as Mourinho is at what he does, it requires total commitment to it. He cannot just one day change approaches radically because that would also take years of commitment, honing and improving.

In Mourinho's case, this approach was not low percentage. Throughout the '00s, most teams played with a similar mindset. The big games were cagey affairs where you feel your opponent, make sure you don't concede that all important first goal and capitalize on mistakes to get your noses up front. We at United had to discover that the hard way many times in Europe and domestically against his very own Chelsea. Since everyone approached the game that way from Benitez's Liverpool, the Italian sides and later on our very own club especially in Queiroz's time, Mourinho was a true master mind and stood out from the rest since he could read the game better than anyone else. His skill set of being able to nullify opponents' strengths and ensuring a warrior like mentality with his teams through game and man management, and working with players who were more recipient to that ideology like Essien, Lampard, Terry, Drogba, Zanetti, Cambiasso, Motta, Milito and few others, meant he had the edge over most. He was still considered boring by English football standards where the norm was taking risks and playing a less tactical game. But he was not viewed as the anti football he is today because his methods were seen as no more than bringing organisation and attention to tactical detail to a country that likes it football a bit more chaotic.

What happened to him afterwards however is that Barcelona and Pep came along. They won by abandoning the previous agreed upon wisdom and not only that, everybody treated them as the ultimate team to aspire to. Everyone started to copy them, maybe not exactly in terms of tactics but definitely in terms of approach in the sense that "we will look to be pro active and go for goals instead of waiting and reacting to events". Klopp's Dortmund and Heynckes' Bayern are stand out examples in that sense. This has made Mourinho no longer the new innovator, but the champion of an ideology that is not only not as efficient, but viewed with less love and adulation. This is where according to some journalist and people familiar with him, he went even further in his stubborn mode where now he felt he needed to not only win, but win by proving all these new "Einsteins" are nothing more than "poets". Add to that Barcelona rejecting him and knowing what they represent in world football, and it makes perfect sense that he felt almost on duty to be their exact opposite.

You still see this obsession quite regularly. He will always bring up how he is not the type of manager who tells players that player A should pass to B and B to C etc ... like he did last Saturday. He will talk about controlling without the ball. When Chelsea won the league he used the celebration party to talk about how some other teams like us and Arsenal were more interested in possession stats. Something comes up that hints to his disdain for this school of thought on a regular basis. The man is an absolutely fascinating character, maybe the most fascinating character in football in recent memory.

Great post. But a little depressing as I find that particular ideology as dull as dishwater. Sigh.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Klopp is Liverpool's fifth manager in seven seasons and has only been there since 2015 .

Klopp is there only manager since 2015. We've changed direction twice.