Yeah, after we lost Ronaldo and Tevez, our play became pretty much Valencia crosses for Rooney to score. And our central midfield deteriorated as Anderson never reached his potential and Hargreaves had injury issues, so only Carrick was our quality CM. But in theory, if those two reached their potential a CM 3 of Hargreaves, Carrick and Anderson would have been pretty complete and had everything.
Cox: Don't judge Ole on Fergie's 'attacking philosophy' - It didn't exist. | The Athletic
- Thread starter Hoof the ball
- Start date
Yeah, after we lost Ronaldo and Tevez, our play became pretty much Valencia crosses for Rooney to score. And our central midfield deteriorated as Anderson never reached his potential and Hargreaves had injury issues, so only Carrick was our quality CM. But in theory, if those two reached their potential a CM 3 of Hargreaves, Carrick and Anderson would have been pretty complete and had everything.
How was the holiday?
So you have gone from not being entertaining to not controlling games and I suppose you would not credit Fergie for bringing through the class of 92 as they would have come through regardless of the manager?????
Bingo. Love the guy, but yes.
It was quite incredible just how effective we were with this plan, though. We actually scored more league goals while spamming crosses in 2009/10 and 11/12 than we did while playing gorgeous football in 06/07 and 07/08!
It's another example of Fergie's tactical acumen, if anything. Our teams throughout the 4 seasons between Ronaldo's departure and Fergie's retirement were the very definition of a well-coached, extremely high-functioning unit that knew exactly what to do to break teams down consistently - it wasn't always pretty, and other teams (Chelsea and later City) probably had more individual talent, but we won 2 titles in those 4 seasons, losing one on goal difference and another by 1 point.
With Moyes in charge, the same team that was on course to set a record points total in 12/13 was resorting to pumping 80-odd long balls into the box to try and nick a goal against Fulham. All within six months.
I judge him on his horrible track record.
I am talking purely about Ole. The Ferguson comparison is ridiculous.
His style of football isn’t entertaining (it is chaotic and it’s often painful to watch), it does not bring consistent results, the vast majority of players have not improved under him. He hasn’t won anything, he hasn’t hired quality coaches, he hasn’t picked a good captain.
He hasn’t implemented any sort of style, he hasn’t improved the team and he hasn’t built a balanced squad despite spending an absolute fortune.
He has brought through one young player. He hasn’t “brought through youth”.
If that is good enough at a club likes ours nowadays, God help us.
I don't think he really ever had an eye for a manager to be fair. Well, at least as far as United manager goes. For instance, Moyes is a good manager but couldn't hack it at a top club. We also don't necessarily know if he is backing Ole either. I remember last season reports coming out that Fergie was upset that Ole essentially cut him off. Can't really trust what media says.
Stay on point mate,
If our football was as disjointed as the way you construct an argument we would be relegated before Christmas.
I don’t even know what you are trying to argue. The football is terrible, the lack of coaching is atrocious and highly visible in games, results and the underlying stats.The fact that we win games at times because we have some great players just doesn’t cut it.
At least I have an argument. Your whole argument is “at least there are goals + Greenwood”. Awful.
Your “exciting football” is a mess that has seen us embarrass ourselves numerous times already this season and “bringing in the youth” is one player in 3 years and a 400+ million pound spend.
Give yourself a shake mate.
It's funny how counter attack is seen as the equivalent of defensive by some. We're Klopp's Liverpool defensive when they kept ripping up teams with quick passing interchanges at Dortmund or first few years at Liverpool? We're Madrid under Zidane and Ancelotti defensive? Firstly the best so called counter attack teams might attack with pace and intent, but they could also keep it when needed. Same was true for SAF. People hold on to the odd game vs peak Arsenal and Barcelona and think that made him a pragmatic coach. He could be but in general his teams were attacking and more importantly did the set up excellently.
Hopeless
The fact that we win games at times because we have some great players just doesn’t cut it.
At least I have an argument. Your whole argument is “at least there are goals + Greenwood”. Awful.
Your “exciting football” is a mess that has seen us embarrass ourselves numerous times already this season and “bringing in the youth” is one player in 3 years and a 400+ million pound spend.
Give yourself a shake mate.
I believe didactics, or didactic method is a highly structured method of learning where instructor tries to have students acquire knowledge by conveying body of content comprising knowledge. In contrast, Pedagogy is often described as a way to give students learning skills where learning is more interactive and students themselves are eventually able to learn how to acquire knowledge. Or some shit like that.
Now with that, saying: "Ferguson’s ability and success lay in him being skilled in didactics where Ole is just trying to apply a pedagogy" sounds like SAF was directing a bunch of robots by telling them what exactly to do whereas Ole is "just" (?!) trying to develop more wholesome players who understand why they do what they do?
And that makes any sense with the reality we actually observe?
Your point being?
Last edited:
We dont look like a team.
With and without the ball we're fecking all over the place.
That's on the coaching.
With and without the ball we're fecking all over the place.
That's on the coaching.
Very true. SAF new the squad had become limited in certain areas especially flair and creativity so adapted. Also those were austerity years under glazers
I think your post should have ended after the first sentenceIn general, you should not comment on an article you haven't read. However, going off the extracts I think Cox has put 2 and 2 together and got 5.
Is it true that Ole's coaching ability shines through most when he sets up to be compact and counter? Yes.
Is it true that a lot of Fergie's old players have not proven to be attacking coaches? Yes.
Is it true that Fergie never had an attacking style of play and got all his ideas from outside? No.
The quoted bits of the article make it seem like Cox is basically saying: Cos none of Fergie's players could do what Fergie did then the idea of Fergie's style is a myth. This seems a strange bar to set. That's like saying that Ronald Koeman's boring football is evidence that Cruyff's style never existed.
Fergie was very much a great coach with a pleasing style of football to watch. He introduced several tactical innovations and plans to the English game e.g. playing with no target man at Carrow Road in 1993. Developing specialised marking plans for Steve McManaman. Where he brought in coaches from outside it was to help him execute his own ideas e.g. Fergie had tried moving away from 442 in Europe before Quieroz was appointed, with Veron. Quieroz didn't give Fergie the idea. Fergie saw in Quieroz a partner that would help him realise his own vision for how to modernise his team.
Its like people listen to the likes of Van Persie and Rio talk about how Fergie directed the midfielders to look for Robin's runs and ignore it, because the media says Fergie didn't do any coaching in his later years.The man had clear ideas about the game, he worked on what he wanted to see when his team had the ball and he was able to execute that vision over decades to win trophy after trophy. I dunno why its become fashionable to treat Fergie like he a Scottish Kevin Keegan, pumping up his teams on emotion. Very strange.
. Suspect a high proportion of people moaning on this thread haven't read the full article.The idea that a lot of the guff ole/the United pr department come out with about the United way doesn't make much sense given there is no one United way, seems sensible to me.
Jeez, I wouldn't have guessed that but it's true. Just goes to show that it's not always the amount of goals scored that makes a more attractive playing style. I remember we won against Blackburn 1-0 in 2006/07 and even Mark Hughes who was boss of Blackburn said after the match that our attacking play was extremely dynamic and exciting. We definitely tired towards the end of the season but that year was fantastic football for the most part.
He's at it again. Pseudo intellectual tosspot