Behind the trends

Solius

(• ___ •)
Staff
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
91,256
Something I've noticed about us in the last 10-15 years is as a club we are always one of the last to do something, or sometimes we never do it.

A lot has changed in this period. Certain styles of play have come and gone, structures at clubs, etc.. and I feel like one of the reasons we've really struggled is this inability to keep up with the ever-changing pace of the whole operation. Some are big, some are small, some maybe insignificant but I thought it interesting that we are hardly ever one of the teams at the forefront. Every time we do eventually catch up to something it seems like it's been and gone. Or it feels like we waited way too long to make that change.

Some examples:

- I'm pretty sure we were the last Prem team to get a Twitter account.
- We still do not have a sweeper keeper whereas probably the majority of the league do. It has also been a thing for a while now.
- We only just this summer purchased our first proper inverted RW of the modern era, despite this also being a thing for the longest time.
- Majority of teams now have very well drilled pressing structures and again we have only just started really working on this in the last year. Pressing has been popular since about 2014/15.
- False nines came and went. We're playing without a striker really this season (I guess not out of choice) just as the Number 9 comes back into fashion.
- We held onto a very old school way of playing, with individuals there to bail us out instead of a system (some remnants of this obviously remain)
- There was our obvious aversion to buying a DM/Destroyer type for many, many years.
- I'm pretty sure we held onto the 4-4-2 way longer than others.
- We're actually nicely aboard the current 'full-backs joining the midfield' trend which is refreshing.

Almost feels like there's been (and might still be) a stubbornness at Utd as if they're saying "Well we were good once so we know what we're doing" and refusing out of spite to catch up to the modern way of playing. Insisting their way is better.

Hoping that will slowly turn a corner as ETH is the most tactically progressive and aware manager we've have for a while now, but just thought it was interesting.
 
If it doesnt bring in more money for the parasites its put to the bottom of the 'to do' pile. Eventually it surfaces to the top as other things are pushed in at the bottom.
 
Too many other clubs including the smaller clubs are better run than us. They are constantly looking for the edge be it in the transfer market and scouting, analytics and data, coaching. We’ve lagged so far behind surviving on our brand alone post Fergie. That’s all the glazers care about keeping the brand relevant. Unfortunately with this many fans anyone could have done that. They just got lucky. All of our decisions including major transfers come from a reactive standpoint. We are always playing catch up.
 
Solius said:
- We're actually nicely aboard the current 'full-backs joining the midfield' trend which is refreshing.
Click to expand...

I think we're kind of late to the party on this one. Pep's been at it for years. We're basically only getting on board now it's already mainstream. We need more indie band tactics and less Taylor Swift.

Good thread though. Definitely feels like a very long time since we were ahead of the curve on anything.
 
Solius said:
Something I've noticed about us in the last 10-15 years is as a club we are always one of the last to do something, or sometimes we never do it.

A lot has changed in this period. Certain styles of play have come and gone, structures at clubs, etc.. and I feel like one of the reasons we've really struggled is this inability to keep up with the ever-changing pace of the whole operation. Some are big, some are small, some maybe insignificant but I thought it interesting that we are hardly ever one of the teams at the forefront. Every time we do eventually catch up to something it seems like it's been and gone. Or it feels like we waited way too long to make that change.

Some examples:

- I'm pretty sure we were the last Prem team to get a Twitter account.
- We still do not have a sweeper keeper whereas probably the majority of the league do. It has also been a thing for a while now.
- We only just this summer purchased our first proper inverted RW of the modern era, despite this also being a thing for the longest time.
- Majority of teams now have very well drilled pressing structures and again we have only just started really working on this in the last year. Pressing has been popular since about 2014/15.
- False nines came and went. We're playing without a striker really this season (I guess not out of choice) just as the Number 9 comes back into fashion.
- We held onto a very old school way of playing, with individuals there to bail us out instead of a system (some remnants of this obviously remain)
- There was our obvious aversion to buying a DM/Destroyer type for many, many years.
- I'm pretty sure we held onto the 4-4-2 way longer than others.
- We're actually nicely aboard the current 'full-backs joining the midfield' trend which is refreshing.

Almost feels like there's been (and might still be) a stubbornness at Utd as if they're saying "Well we were good once so we know what we're doing" and refusing out of spite to catch up to the modern way of playing. Insisting their way is better.

Hoping that will slowly turn a corner as ETH is the most tactically progressive and aware manager we've have for a while now, but just thought it was interesting.
Click to expand...
I'd also suggest we conflate buying expensive players as being the best way to invest in the squad. The worst thing we could do this summer is "do an Anthony" and massively overpay for a single player a club doesn't wish to sell. We waste so much money and get no return on the premium. Those mistakes then prove really costly. We need to be far more willing to buy less glamorous signings that can be coached into what we need. £80-100m for Kane could age incredibly poorly, despite current protestations.
 
Same can be said about Data Science department at our club. Feck, I read an article in Athletic a couple of years ago how scousers were already at the forefront in the league in terms of analytics stuff and that they used it to analyse players, on field events, etc. We only started doing this what? two years ago maybe?
 
TMDaines said:
I'd also suggest we conflate buying expensive players as being the best way to invest in the squad. The worst thing we could do this summer is "do an Anthony" and massively overpay for a single player a club doesn't wish to sell. We waste so much money and get no return on the premium. Those mistakes then prove really costly. We need to be far more willing to buy less glamorous signings that can be coached into what we need. £80-100m for Kane could age incredibly poorly, despite current protestations.
Click to expand...

Signing Kane for huge money only for him to immediately look over the hill would be such a typical post-Fergie signing for us. And it would be even more painful if it coincides with Casemiro's current wobbles turning into a more substantial decline. Which is a far from unlikely scenario, if we're honest with ourselves.
 
wolvored said:
If it doesnt bring in more money for the parasites its put to the bottom of the 'to do' pile. Eventually it surfaces to the top as other things are pushed in at the bottom.
Click to expand...

It's more about the profile of managers that we have had in the past decade. SAF, Moyes, LVG, Mourinho, Ole and ETH. ETH is the only one that could be described as a contemporary, the others are from the previous generation if not older. And they cost a fortune so it's not a case of bringing money because every single one of them leaked money like nobody's business at the exception of SAF.
 
not surprising when you have owners who only care about profit and put an accountant in charge
 
We fecked up by having 5 wrong managerial appointments in a row, and keeping all of them except Rangnick way too long. This is probably a record.

Even worse, we refused to build a proper footballing structure above the manager and gave to the manager a complete freedom to buy whoever he wanted. Combined this with changing the style with every manager (Moyes shit on a stick, Van Gaal trying to keep the ball for the sake of keeping the ball, Mourinho ultra-defensive, Ole shit on a stick, Rangnick gegenpress gone wrong), we ended with a Frankenstein squad. The players are not that bad, but the sum is far smaller than the parts.

The other things you mentioned are a symptom of this wrong mentality.

ten Hag (in paper) is the first good managerial appointment we have made but it is not clear if he is that good (many hot managers from lesser leagues got found out in top leagues, see AVB who was considered even hotter) and even more importantly, he was put in this no-win scenario where there is not much support from the club except ‘here is the money to play football manager’. For all his failure as a coach with Rangnick, I think he should have been kept as part of the team above the coach (DoF or some similar position), cause he had the right ideas albeit was a poor manager.

I think there is a high probability that ten Hag will fail and the squad will become even more expensive yet actually worse. Until the new owners hopefully change everything and finally build a supporting team above the manager.
 
Tarrou said:
not surprising when you have owners who only care about profit and put an accountant in charge
Click to expand...

City have an accountant in charge, "accountants" are very common when it comes to being CEOs. And being out of sync and not successful isn't profitable, it doesn't even make you spend less.

The issue on that topic isn't about the owners or profit, it's a cultural issue that also happened to Liverpool and many other clubs. When you have someone like SAF that is everything for your club and at the same time anachrostic there is a fair chance that you will struggle to quickly get in line when that person leaves. And then United went with the safe choices which at the time were supported by the fan base, plenty of fans were behind Moyes, LVG and Mourinho when they were announced.

The reality of Football goes against the ideal that United fans want to follow. There isn't a single club out there that knows how to appoint managers, they either are lucky and get the good one early or go through a lot in a relatively short period of time, United have largely been too slow to accept that reality.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Signing Kane for huge money only for him to immediately look over the hill would be such a typical post-Fergie signing for us. And it would be even more painful if it coincides with Casemiro's current wobbles turning into a more substantial decline. Which is a far from unlikely scenario, if we're honest with ourselves.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Yet most on here cream themselves over the thought of us going for Kane. 5 years ago? Sure. But now? Heard there's a hot project in Napoli scoring shit ton of goals though.
 
We were years behind in terms of setting up a women's team as well.
 
Godfather said:
Exactly. Yet most on here cream themselves over the thought of us going for Kane. 5 years ago? Sure. But now? Heard there's a hot project in Napoli scoring shit ton of goals though.
Click to expand...

I have an issue with both and to some extent it is in line with the OP. It's senseless for United to constantly be after the hottest and most expensive player in a position of need, that's exactly why we have spent that much on the team and barely have a full starting eleven. We need to be after players that aren't hyped up yet.
 
Solius said:
Something I've noticed about us in the last 10-15 years is as a club we are always one of the last to do something, or sometimes we never do it.

A lot has changed in this period. Certain styles of play have come and gone, structures at clubs, etc.. and I feel like one of the reasons we've really struggled is this inability to keep up with the ever-changing pace of the whole operation. Some are big, some are small, some maybe insignificant but I thought it interesting that we are hardly ever one of the teams at the forefront. Every time we do eventually catch up to something it seems like it's been and gone. Or it feels like we waited way too long to make that change.

Some examples:

- I'm pretty sure we were the last Prem team to get a Twitter account.
- We still do not have a sweeper keeper whereas probably the majority of the league do. It has also been a thing for a while now.
- We only just this summer purchased our first proper inverted RW of the modern era, despite this also being a thing for the longest time.
- Majority of teams now have very well drilled pressing structures and again we have only just started really working on this in the last year. Pressing has been popular since about 2014/15.
- False nines came and went. We're playing without a striker really this season (I guess not out of choice) just as the Number 9 comes back into fashion.
- We held onto a very old school way of playing, with individuals there to bail us out instead of a system (some remnants of this obviously remain)
- There was our obvious aversion to buying a DM/Destroyer type for many, many years.
- I'm pretty sure we held onto the 4-4-2 way longer than others.
- We're actually nicely aboard the current 'full-backs joining the midfield' trend which is refreshing.

Almost feels like there's been (and might still be) a stubbornness at Utd as if they're saying "Well we were good once so we know what we're doing" and refusing out of spite to catch up to the modern way of playing. Insisting their way is better.

Hoping that will slowly turn a corner as ETH is the most tactically progressive and aware manager we've have for a while now, but just thought it was interesting.
Click to expand...
I think that our training methods, facilities and philosophy are all behind the curve.

We went from Fergie who was more old school, to Moyes who isn't exactly a cutting edge manager, used to being pragmatic, then onto LVG who again, is more rooted in the old school, structured football, stay in your zone type, zombie passing, to Jose who is more a counter punching, negative manager, then onto Ole who was more counter, chaos, speed focused, no shape, tactics etc.

Now onto ETH who is the first progressive manager we've had in ten years.
 
JPRouve said:
I have an issue with both and to some extent it is in line with the OP. It's senseless for United to constantly be after the hottest and most expensive player in a position of need, that's exactly why we have spent that much on the team and barely have a full starting eleven. We need to be after players that aren't hyped up yet.
Click to expand...

I'd have no issue trying Ferguson for example. Although I'd rather give him a chance as a sub to a more established striker. Not some 30 year old though.
 
JPRouve said:
City have an accountant in charge, "accountants" are very common when it comes to being CEOs. And being out of sync and not successful isn't profitable, it doesn't even make you spend less.

The issue on that topic isn't about the owners or profit, it's a cultural issue that also happened to Liverpool and many other clubs. When you have someone like SAF that is everything for your club and at the same time anachrostic there is a fair chance that you will struggle to quickly get in line when that person leaves. And then United went with the safe choices which at the time were supported by the fan base, plenty of fans were behind Moyes, LVG and Mourinho when they were announced.

The reality of Football goes against the ideal that United fans want to follow. There isn't a single club out there that knows how to appoint managers, they either are lucky and get the good one early or go through a lot in a relatively short period of time, United have largely been too slow to accept that reality.
Click to expand...

City's accountant has a track record in football for many years, which is why they got him. Our lad just got involved during the takeover, eventually was put in charge and kept in charge despite years of pissing into the wind.

I do agree on your wider points about the culture, this is of course a multi-faceted issue with many reasons behind it. But for me one of those reasons is definitely the leadership from the owners.
 
Godfather said:
I'd have no issue trying Ferguson for example. Although I'd rather give him a chance as a sub to a more established striker. Not some 30 year old though.
Click to expand...

I haven't paid attention to Ferguson but based on the profile made by some posters, I wouldn't even go for a more established striker. Basically my idea is that we spent 22-23 without a proper striker, so I would gamble on two young and relatively cheap striker as long as they have above average technique and are either fast or physical but generally athletic. Their current end product wouldn't be a big factor mainly because my focus would be on putting Rashford in a better situation to reach 35-40 goals in all competitions, the other ones are just supposed to add goals by committee(on the short term).

Basically I would prefer to spend 60m on two promising strikers and then 100m on a AM and a CM then spend 160m on a striker. The figures are just an illustration of my logic.
 
Last edited:
All stems from the owners. The Glazers simply view us as a lucrative cash register and only act when we’re at our lowest. They never strike when the iron is hot. They do the bare minimum and hope for miracles.

They employ Ed Woodward who says that on field results don’t matter and gives contracts to players to simply preserve their value, rather than they are simply not good enough standard. Phil Jones should really have gone three years ago yet he’s still here for another few weeks or so.

Woodward does not look to employ a Director of Football or Technical Director to run the on-field happenings and foolishly thinks he can do it himself, so we were still stuck with the dynamic that worked with Ferguson that even then was outdated as feck.

It’s why everyone’s anxious and tense about this takeover saga probably, especially if you’ve been following United since they initially took over. Ferguson masked them for the initial 3 years, and then the bullshit really began with the ‘no value in market’ transfer stuff when Ronaldo was sold, people wondered where the feck the £80m went and why we weren’t spending it on a decent replacement.
 
Were we not one of the first to get rid of the 442 formation. Have memories of the crowd chanting 442 at SAF when he switched to playing RVN as a lone striker.
 
Tarrou said:
City's accountant has a track record in football for many years, which is why they got him. Our lad just got involved during the takeover, eventually was put in charge and kept in charge despite years of pissing into the wind.

I do agree on your wider points about the culture, this is of course a multi-faceted issue with many reasons behind it. But for me one of those reasons is definitely the leadership from the owners.
Click to expand...

He had no track record until he got a big job, your point is senseless because Football CEOs are largely business people. You could have just stated that Woodward was a bad CEO which has nothing to do with previously being a CFO, he was just a bad CEO which is fairly common, not everyone that gets a promotion manage to do a good job and evolve properly.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Signing Kane for huge money only for him to immediately look over the hill would be such a typical post-Fergie signing for us. And it would be even more painful if it coincides with Casemiro's current wobbles turning into a more substantial decline. Which is a far from unlikely scenario, if we're honest with ourselves.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we seem to have the opposite of the Midas touch.
 
JPRouve said:
He had no track record until he got a big job, your point is senseless because Football CEOs are largely business people. You could have just stated that Woodward was a bad CEO which has nothing to do with previously being a CFO, he was just a bad CEO which is fairly common, not everyone that gets a promotion manage to do a good job and evolve properly.
Click to expand...

I think you've misunderstood my point (my bad there it was unclear). I'm not saying finance people can't be good CEOs, of course they can. I've been a CFO myself.

He was an accountant with no experience of running a business let alone a massive football club. The Glazers put him in charge and kept him there when he was failing.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I agree about De Gea. When we signed him he was brilliant with his feet and we were expecting to be ahead of the curve on that. He has regressed hugely and we have not recognised it.


Tarrou said:
not surprising when you have owners who only care about profit and put an accountant in charge
Click to expand...

David Gill was an accountant who had no experience of football when he joined.
 
11101 said:
I'm not sure I agree about De Gea. When we signed him he was brilliant with his feet and we were expecting to be ahead of the curve on that. He has regressed hugely and we have not recognised it.




David Gill was an accountant who had no experience of football when he joined.
Click to expand...

and if he failed as badly as Woodward I am sure the board would have fired him

apologies I didn't mean to make it sound like the problem was he was an accountant (moreover someone without the right experience)
 
Tarrou said:
I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not saying finance people can't be good CEOs, of course they can. I've been a CFO myself.

He was an accountant with no experience of running a business let alone a massive football club. The Glazers put him in charge and kept him there when he was failing.
Click to expand...

I got your point and it doesn't make sense when you look around in sports and Football. Soriano didn't had that experience either, the vast majority of CEOs in sport didn't had that experience and Woodward got the job after nearly 7 years working as the CFO of the biggest or second biggest club in the world. Even when people suggest that he didn't had Football experience that's nonsense, it's just a nice soundbite, the reality is that Woodward had experience in Football, he was an active board member of the ECA, he was presumably a good CFO but he happened to not be a good CEO.

We don't really need to alter reality in order to recognize a deficiency in Woodward as a CEO and the board probably keeping him too long. But it's not based on the fact that he was a CFO or that he lacked Football experience because the profile of Football CEOs tell a different story, all Real Madrid board members are businessmen, they entered Football without a larger experience than Woodward, Watzke at Dortmund is the same is experience is actually pretty similar to Woodward, some have even more strange backgrounds like film producers.


Edit: And to be clear, I do think that something was wrong with Woodward but I suspect that it was a management issue, he probably wasn't a good manager, not a good planner.
 
Lack of competitive football culture and small-club mentality. All stemming from disinterested owners using the club as a piggy bank.
 
R.N7 said:
"The United Way" cult spearheaded by Solkjaer set the club back numerous years.
Click to expand...
It was never spearheaded by Solskjaer at all. Look further back at the 'cut from the same cloth' comments the club gave when they replaced the greatest manager the country has ever known with David fecking Moyes.

The whole thing is bad manageent, lack of vision and ambition from the very top. Utter complacency has seen the club to where it is now.
 
JPRouve said:
I got your point and it doesn't make sense when you look around in sports and Football. Soriano didn't had that experience either, the vast majority of CEOs in sport didn't had that experience and Woodward got the job after nearly 7 years working as the CFO of the biggest or second biggest club in the world. Even when people suggest that he didn't had Football experience that's nonsense, it's just a nice soundbite, the reality is that Woodward had experience in Football, he was an active board member of the ECA, he was presumably a good CFO but he happened to not be a good CEO.

We don't really need to alter reality in order to recognize a deficiency in Woodward as a CEO and the board probably keeping him too long. But it's not based on the fact that he was a CFO or that he lacked Football experience because the profile of Football CEOs tell a different story, all Real Madrid board members are businessmen, they entered Football without a larger experience than Woodward, Watzke at Dortmund is the same is experience is actually pretty similar to Woodward, some have even more strange backgrounds like film producers.
Click to expand...

Woodward was an auditor who then went into mergers and acquisitions. At United he was in charge of commercial and media operations.

As far as I'm aware, he was never CFO of anything. He was never in charge of any business, or sitting on any BoDs (might be wrong?). He wasn't even on the board at United until he was made top dog. And just anecdotally, just watching him in an interview you can clearly tell he lacks leadership qualities. The Glazers just wanted a 'yes' man in charge.

When he effectively became CEO of United he wasn't just running the finance and business side of things either, which would be sensible, he was meddling in the football side too and wouldn't appoint a DoF (this decision alone surely set us back?). When people say he has no experience in football, that's what they are referring to.

He was out of his depth, he proved that very quickly but was kept there anyway.
 
Traub said:
We were years behind in terms of setting up a women's team as well.
Click to expand...

Forgot about this too. We were woefully behind on that one.


RaddyRed said:
Were we not one of the first to get rid of the 442 formation. Have memories of the crowd chanting 442 at SAF when he switched to playing RVN as a lone striker.
Click to expand...

Might be me misremembering then!
 
Well the owners have their fault but I would put most of the blame on our ex-managers post SAF and the people in charge of transfers(the same managers...or?!).
With SAF I can understand he was reluctant to change, but he was smart and I believe he adapted enough to keep us competitive until his last game. What came afterwards was the real issue.
From the archaic Moyes and LVG who were well behind the trends to a rigid Mourinho and wannabe SAF Ole, no manager has given us the boost in tactics, player recruitment, pressing and passing ability etc. and for that reason we are one of the last of the big clubs at doing everything including winning trophies(and I'm not talking only about the PL clubs).
 
Good thread, but at a price - many of these things don't really depend on one another. So while the general assessment is spot on ime, it sort of doesn't translate into how the team is supposed to develop from here. I'm thinking of football as a wheel, and with three quarters of a revolution alteady behind us, doesn't it make some sense to grind through the rest, and eye for the next trend (which is 20 years old) to then be on top again? Steering late into trends that are about to become oldfashioned, that just prolongs the wheeling, doesn't it? So I have my doubts about now jumping the train when it comes to football tactics, but mentality and leadership wise, yeah, I too feel your way
 
Tarrou said:
Woodward was an auditor who then went into mergers and acquisitions. At United he was in charge of commercial and media operations.

As far as I'm aware, he was never CFO of anything. He was never in charge of any business, or sitting on any BoDs (might be wrong?). He wasn't even on the board at United until he was made top dog. And just anecdotally, just watching him in an interview you can clearly tell he lacks leadership qualities. The Glazers just wanted a 'yes' man in charge.

When he effectively became CEO of United he wasn't just running the finance and business side of things either, which would be sensible, he was meddling in the football side too and wouldn't appoint a DoF (this decision alone surely set us back?). When people say he has no experience in football, that's what they are referring to.

He was out of his depth, he proved that very quickly but was kept there anyway.
Click to expand...

The bolded part is key for me and I don't really understand it. What makes you think that he was meddling in the football side?

We targetted and signed players that Moyes wanted and scouted, we also made structural changes that were demanded by Moyes, the same happened with LVG, Mourinho and Ole. What do you think is more likely that Woodward somehow managed to shapeshift into all of these managers and follow completely different ideas and tendencies or these managers led nearly entirely the football side of things. I personally think that this idea is BS, I don't think that Woodward morphed into the manager that he appointed.

And keep in mind that to me this is the reason why I claimed years ago that he was incompetent as a CEO, because he didn't meddle, he followed the SAF logic where the manager leads entirely the Football side of things which is a very bad idea unless you have SAF, when it comes to changing the structure and adding a technical direction, I have defended that idea but the reality is that many people in the media and among fans were vocally against it and claiming that it was an attempt from Woodward to take control away from the manager and put it towards him, he should have done it anyway but we should act as if it was an obvious thing at United, it was for a long time a controversial topic due to SAF doing it differently and successfully.

We agree on the idea that Woodward was incompetent but disagree on why and how. Which isn't that important when it comes to Woodward but is important when it comes to United and the OP. The cardinal sin that Woodward made was to cling onto the SAF blueprint which isn't one that works without SAF and is objectively outdated and out of place. We recently changed that and now we need to refine it and understand how it actually works which could take a few years.
 
Good.

We just have to keep it slow and the trends will do a full circle and we'll be on top!

Oh god how i miss having 2 center forwards.
Any news on that being a "thing" again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.