You’re constantly having little sly comments, just look at the last page for you fishing for it
Erik ten Hag | 2022/23 & 2023/24
- Thread starter sewey89
- Start date
- Status
Do you know what a wum is? I've done nothing like that.
No wonder we can't create any chances, we can't even get inside the box.
I would bet good money that Antony would be the attacker with the least touches inside the box.
Someone on the wind up? So you posting along the lines of ooo that’s going to ruffle some feathers, hopefully knowing full well that post was out of date and meaningless anyway is not winding up? Ok.
Carry on anyway, hopefully our form will swing back to how it was 9 months ago. We’ve been waiting a while now
I posted that because its obvious it would. Observing that an outdated win % article would ruffle feathers here is not a wum. A lot of posters in the camp that want Ten Hag out are very sensitive, to the extent they will name call and react outlandishly to most insinuations that he might be a good manager.
I've been sensitive to the sack talk when it was earlier on in the season, but in my own posts I say that despite I'm a fan of his there is no defending that many losses and its not sustainable in any way. Is that me wumming too?
Obviously they have lost any trust. I would rather not buy than waste more money.
I don't see a clear obvious need that can be fixed in Jan, other than maybe a striker. But I wouldn't want to spend say 60 on say Toney. No major signings for me for sure.
Yeah small signing(s) or loans. But INEOS are needing to be consulted with regardless right?
This is an interesting idea. Let's compare the CL final 2013 formation to United yesterday:
Neuer
Lahm - Boateng - Dante - Alaba
Martinez - Schweinsteiger
Robben - Müller - Ribery
Mandzukic
Onana
AWB - Varane - Evans - Dalot
Mainoo - Eriksen
Antony - Bruno - Garnacho
Rashford
Neuer is of course far better than Onana, but I guess they are somewhat comparable in their abilities
Bayern had both fullbacks playing on their natural side, both are comfortable in possession and have the ability to play as DM a well as FB, which means they can fill the midfield if necessary, but also can do overlapping runs. Dalot and AWB on the other hand are not that good in possession, nobody would ever expect them to be a good DM, so they lack the skill to support the midfield and overlapping runs are a problem as well - Dalot can do it better than AWB, but as he had to play on the left it's not naturally for him to cross from that side. However I think with Shaw as LB and Dalot as RB it gets a bit closer to Bayern, but still I miss the ability to support the DM in these players.
Boateng/Dante and Varane/Evans again is a quality gap more than an ability gap again I think (like with the keepers)
Mainoo/Eriksen vs Martinez/Schweinsteiger is one of the biggest differences in how the teams set up. Bayerns DMs both were physically strong fighters that had solid to good passing ability. They weren't expected to do crazy stuff with the ball, but to keep it and cycle it around. Considering the support they got from the CBs and FBs their passing abilities were well enough to keep possession easily and see the ball progress on the pitch. Neither Mainoo nor Eriksen come close to the defending abilities of even Schweinsteiger, not even thinking about Martinez who really was a beast at that time. Their skills in comparison are more in regard to their passing and they are tasked with progressing the ball quickly. Which is not surprising considering that there simply is no one around them who would be a strong passer. Fielding Casemiro here would be an uptick in defensive ability, but still we would see him being the only true DM keeping position, while at Bayern the CBs and DMs usually formed a kind of square as a real anchor for their team.
Ribery/Robben vs Garnacho/Antony is in so far similar that they all played as inverted wingers. I would even say that Garnacho/Robben can be seen as the "striking winger" while Ribery/Antony can be called the "playmaking winger". Again the quality gap is huge. But I think here we also see a tactical difference. Robben and Ribery didn't (always) need to keep the width as Lahm/Alaba could do overlapping runs. This allowed them to thrive in half spaces opened up by those runs and gave them far more passing options than what we currently often see at United. Talking about runs...
Müller/Kroos vs Bruno. Bayerns team of that season is interesting as they started with Kroos as their AM until he got injured, than Müller was first choice. Hard to imagine two players interpreting that position more differently, yet with both Bayern were unstoppable. As we all know Kroos is an excellent passer of the ball, he very rarely lost it and just kept their possession play running. The way he played more or less made it a 433 more than a clear 4231 like it was with Müller, as Kroos rarely got into scoring positions himself. Müller on the other hand never impressed with his passing or creativity, but he is just so good at moving around, dragging defenders out of position, darting into opening spaces etc that he enabled his teammates to either score themselves or pass to him in places where strikers rarely are expected and let him score/assist. Bruno on the other hand loses the ball all the time while trying to play risky stuff - something neither Kroos nor Müller did. They would usually go for the smart and simple solution rather than the Hollywood pass, Bruno has his priorities the other way.
Mandzukic vs Rashford. Again it couldn't be much different. Mandzukic was always known as a fighter in the box, a true striker of limited quality but unlimited fighting spirit. Rashford isn't a striker like that, he likes to run towards the defence (if he likes to run at all)
So is EtH trying to implement Bayerns 2013 style? I don't really see it. That Bayern team was built to control matches, it wasn't built as a transition team like EtH claims he wants United to play. Bayern that year where absolutely able to play that way, relying on their strong defensive core and passing ability, but when you look at them you see a central axis full of fighting spirit and creativity and technical ability on the wings. That's also where they were willing to take risks and lose the ball, especially Ribery and Robben just had the license to try whatever they liked to get Bayern to score. If the ball was lost there Bayern had the defensively strong players in the center to prevent the ball from being played into dangerous areas.
At United we see it essentially the other way around - little fight in the center, but more passing and creativity (especially Bruno and Eriksen), instead the strong fighters like AWB on the wing. Which simply results in them being quite open all the time, as they lack that solid core in the middle that just can't be penetrated.
You are both incorrect. Football is not about winning games, it is about winning titles. The existence of draws (which get you points in a league competition) and the rules of knockout competitions (where progress is determined by goal difference) make 'winning percentage' an indirect assessment of a manager, which makes the claim that a manager is "statistically the best" because of win percentage dubious.
The Real Madrid manager with the highest win percentage is Manuel Pellegrini. Nobody on earth thinks he's the best manager Real Madrid has had on any level, because his win percentage didn't win him any titles.
I never said anything about ETH. I just said your comparison is wrong.
Not talking about Ten Hag. You just made a weird comment comparing win% to goals scored (!?).
You win titles by winning games. If you have a very good win % its better than just scoring a lot of goals (since you may well leak goals in the other end).
Your point is basically nonsense.
I'd disagree with this example and those pointing to City "failing" and leaving them 2 points behind the leaders at the half-way point.
First of all, it was easy to chalk the drop in Liverpool's results up to an injury crisis because Klopp had already taken them to three 90+ point finishes. So it made sense to conclude that the seasons where they dropped off were affected by injuries. For ETH, we're really just giving him the benefit of the doubt without enough evidence. It's been a year since we've played consistently well over a number of games. Can't all be down to injuries. I mean, take the Wolves game at the start of the season. Wtf was that? That's been the tone of the season, injuries or not.
Secondly, the point many are missing is not the terrible results. It's the game plans of ETH (both pre-game and in-game). I don't care if we finish 8th if our style is clearly developing.
In your example, Liverpool's results dropped, but their style was exactly the same. In fact, that was a big problem for them. They just kept playing the same high line regardless of the players on the pitch and that cost them whenever the main defenders were injured or if the forwards drew a blank. A more recent example for you is Ange. We know what sort of game we can expect from his team regardless of the actual playing XI and regardless of the result, they're going to continue playing that way. On the other hand, we've to go digging for a few clips here and there or point to a first half here, a second half there and claim that that's the actual plan.
Not to mention that our goal-scoring, goals conceded etc stats are some of the worst in the entire league - 17th, 18th etc
The only reason our win % is high is because we never draw. Means nothing clearly since we are 7th and will be 8th soon
We are a shit team. The only stat we are top of the league with - highest wage budget of them all
Overpaid garbage team with stubborn, delusional manager who keeps playing McT and Onana
It's odd how invested a Real fan is with ETH and you were the same with Rangnick. Its also crazy how you're wrong so often, despite your pseudo-intellectual persona.
You do not win titles by winning games. You win titles by winning points.
I think we had a lot of touches in the box against Forrest. We just didn’t make it count. What you say about Shaw and Licha is true, although Dalot did ok.
You win points by winning games.
Our style is also the same regardless of injuries. 4-1-5, aggressive pressing.
You are not happy with our performances despite what you say in the bolded bit, cuz the style is clearly developing. Our pressing is clearly getting better.
The same logic can be applied on comparing his win percentage in 1.5 years to Alex Ferguson who stayed for 27 years yet you didn't comment and jumped on the hype train. So I'll compare him to Carrick alright.
Maybe after Amad came on for Antony.
Definitely don't remember many from the first half when we controlled better and got to the final 3rd a lot.
On a related note, for an attack as poor as ours I'd never neuter the full backs like that by playing Dalot at LB and AWB at RB. I'd definitely go with Dalot RB and Reguilon LB. Our attack needs all the support it can get. Another wrong choice by ETH imo.
SAF isn't really relevant in that table, I don't think the point of the post was to say he's better than SAF, and you know that.
Tbf, these kind of win % stats etc. mean very little. The bulk of those wins were accumulated last season, and we've looked a-lot poorer this time around. I also remember Ole looking much better than he was due to some selective stats.
Last edited:
I’m glad Amad is back. Antony tries, but competition is good; maybe this will sharpen him
up.
The article was saying he's United Best manager ever, clearly in both the title and body of the article, and you had no issue with that.
We are 11th in xG, but joined 18th in goals.
I had no issue with that? I think its clear the point being made by the poster is that his win % was not bad in spite of the atrocious season. Do you actually think the poster was trying to say he's better than SAF? Have a think about that.
David Moyes' win percentage at United is higher than Matt Busby's, I say we take that fraud's statue down and put one up for Moyesy. Apparently win percentage without any other context is a hugely significant metric.
Away from your discussion the context of the points addressed are on the money. There is a case where injuries have had an impact on this season and there's an even bigger factor of the managers ineptitude. The fact that a teams press is being used to define a style of play when it's a phase of the game is telling.
United fully fit or not are still poor in possession, unable to score goals and unable to perform consistently. I think the best the team has been was a 2 month period from November to January (last season). 2-3 months with a manager over an 18 month tenure isn't good. There's a good argument to theorise that this manager has peaked in that period. He's unable to transition his ideology from Ajax, in one more season there's a potential outlay of 600 million and if anything the more resources Erik is given the more unpredictable he becomes.
The good thing is he's backed himself into a corner by using injuries as the outlier for his own poor performance. If injured players return and the team is still struggling to establish itself, his dismissal is beyond justifiable.
But no one is saying his win percentage last season was bad. The 42% win percentage and the 50% loss percentage this season is the issue.
I am right on this, win percentage is an indirect measure. This is obviously true in a sport where draws exist. That doesn't mean it has zero correlation to outcomes; of course it does. So do goals.
Really my issue is with the rhetorical leap from "high win percentage" to "statistically the best ever." Since when do statistics consist of one single data point, let alone one with multiple obvious flaws?
Last edited:
The article he's posting says so.
And our point is that win percentage is an atrocious way of evaluating a manager. According to it, Carrick is our best manager ever. Prove otherwise.
Yep it is. Think the poster probably wanted to remind everyone that Ten Hag is capable of doing good as well as bad.
And the bad comes down to a host of factors - the injuries and poor transfers mean that he's not got room for any human error for in game management mistakes, personnel selection mistakes etc. Of course, he has made such mistakes on top of the bad luck and bad transfers, so he's on the rocks.
Had he & Murtough bought better in the transfer window, he may have had more room for his own mistakes because he'd have more dependable players to play. That being said though - if we take say, Hojlund, I've got no idea who else on the list was discussed that would have been tangibly better.
Mount was a panic buy reportedly by Athletic and I put Murtough on the stake for that more than him. We apparently were worried about how we'd look if he went to Arsenal or Liverpool, which is not really the way to conduct business. It doesn't really matter though - Mount and Hojlund & Onana were not superb moves looking back, at least thus far. And we probably should have kept Fred.
I don't think win % is atrocious, it's what managers are looked back on alongisde what they've won.
Didn't Liverpool set a record for no goals at Anfield when their CB's were all injured?
Think so but I cant remember what the specific record was in terms of how many years or games
Yea, think that was the COVID season. Like I said in my post, that was understandable because they were coming off a 97 and 98 point seasons with a CL and PL win. So it was obvious that injuries were the major problem along with a drop in motivation. Naturally they were back at it the next year almost getting a fecking quadruple.
Great. Ten Hag's win percentage this season is 42.8%, win 12 games out of 28 in 5 months time period, lost 14, with loss percentage 50%. I hope that's good enough for you for him to stay in job.
Agree to disagree.
It's not great, don't get me wrong. But it can change again in just a few games if he gets wins.
But then you wont like win% as a stat anymore, I bet
It's not great, don't get me wrong. But it can change again in just a few games if he gets wins.
But then you wont like win% as a stat anymore, I bet
Well, I'm not the one who used it as an evidence to back my opinion from the start. As I said it's an atrocious way of evaluating managers and there're many evidences on this.
- Status