matherto
ask me about our 50% off sale!
I expect we'll find out the hard way against City in a couple of weeks.
I can only hope he decides to go like he did against Liverpool this season and just low block and frustrate them.
I expect we'll find out the hard way against City in a couple of weeks.
That's because Ole and Mou didn't press high. We have a clear structure, but it's difficult to implement with the players we have. Ten Hag is trying to play to our strengths by balancing attacking intent with pragmatism, and that may involve surrendering the ball to pounce on turnovers.No but it means dominating the shape of the game and having a clear structure. You could play a bit like Ole and Mou to try and have a really strong defense and rapier breaks. At the moment we charge forward and lose ball high up with players committed, and then are wide open as our defense is too deep and oppo has acres of free space. Our matches are chaos, zero control of anything
I think because that chaos suits us - Gary Neville was right in that regard, we tend to fare well against middling teams when it's a bit chaotic as they think they can go at us, and we have tremendous pace in behind to hurt them. Yes it's risky, but it's working. To answer your question its certainly not the end goal for Ten Hag's style. I think he's working with the tools he has right now because his defence is still at 50% and his DM is over the hill.Correct, and going back to my question, how does anybody suggest ETH has any real intent to control games? Playing counter attacking game is good if you score 2 goals inside first 10 minutes, but even then we conceded far too many chances/shots so we were not really in control over anything.
We play "coin flip" football style.
20 shots to the worst team in the league yesterday. If that's more resilient I'd hate to see what bad is.I disagree completely. If anything our defending has become more resilient.
Everybody complained about our away record and rightly so. In our last 11 games we’ve played 3 at home. This isn’t an easy run we’re on and our balance within the team is off but we are creating far more than the opposition are since we’ve rejigged the front 3. You don’t average 3 goals a game and not win a lot more than you draw / lose.
Isolated stats are so bullshit. 20 shots that equated to what, 1.76 XG?20 shots to the worst team in the league yesterday. If that's more resilient I'd hate to see what bad is.
They are not the worst team in the league.20 shots to the worst team in the league yesterday. If that's more resilient I'd hate to see what bad is.
I actually think the mods should start handing out warnings to posters who use the term fraud, it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
Ok, can you point out an Onana save or even a desperate tackle to clear the ball?20 shots to the worst team in the league yesterday. If that's more resilient I'd hate to see what bad is.
Wow.That's because Ole and Mou didn't press high. We have a clear structure, but it's difficult to implement with the players we have. Ten Hag is trying to play to our strengths by balancing attacking intent with pragmatism, and that may involve surrendering the ball to pounce on turnovers.
Ole and Mou parked the bus a lot more, and I didnt' think that was as progressive. Of course Ole had some better chance creation in his highs, but in his lows I think he was dire. And Ten Hag is currently in his low, he's just grinding out wins like any good manager would.
I think because that chaos suits us - Gary Neville was right in that regard, we tend to fare well against middling teams when it's a bit chaotic as they think they can go at us, and we have tremendous pace in behind to hurt them. Yes it's risky, but it's working. To answer your question its certainly not the end goal for Ten Hag's style. I think he's working with the tools he has right now because his defence is still at 50% and his DM is over the hill.
Sorry this is rubbish. We don't have a clear structure. Our high press is overrated, we are nowhere now near the top stats now and most games I dont see it. If you are going to press high the whole team needs to push forward and have a proper team structure to reflect that. We have is disjointed groups of players doing a bit of a press. It is directly what leaves us massive exposed when it breaks down, with ETH playing the single pivot and the defensive midfielder overrun, especially if its Amrabat or Casimero. Chaos doesnt suit us, it means we are not evolving as a team and will not compete seriously.That's because Ole and Mou didn't press high. We have a clear structure, but it's difficult to implement with the players we have. Ten Hag is trying to play to our strengths by balancing attacking intent with pragmatism, and that may involve surrendering the ball to pounce on turnovers.
Ole and Mou parked the bus a lot more, and I didnt' think that was as progressive. Of course Ole had some better chance creation in his highs, but in his lows I think he was dire. And Ten Hag is currently in his low, he's just grinding out wins like any good manager would.
I think because that chaos suits us - Gary Neville was right in that regard, we tend to fare well against middling teams when it's a bit chaotic as they think they can go at us, and we have tremendous pace in behind to hurt them. Yes it's risky, but it's working. To answer your question its certainly not the end goal for Ten Hag's style. I think he's working with the tools he has right now because his defence is still at 50% and his DM is over the hill.
There are plenty of people who aren’t full convinced by Ten Hag that can elaborate as to why with a clear defined reasons without resorting to childishness, exceptional levels of misery or unrealistic expectations.I actually think the mods should start handing out warnings to posters who use the term fraud, it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
I don't think we're balancing anything, we either attack with too many players or defend too deep, allowing opposition too many crosses/shots. I also don't think we're any better than under Ole, he was not trying to be too smart with pressing high up the pitch but his counter attacking football was just as, or maybe even more, effective.That's because Ole and Mou didn't press high. We have a clear structure, but it's difficult to implement with the players we have. Ten Hag is trying to play to our strengths by balancing attacking intent with pragmatism, and that may involve surrendering the ball to pounce on turnovers.
Ole and Mou parked the bus a lot more, and I didnt' think that was as progressive. Of course Ole had some better chance creation in his highs, but in his lows I think he was dire. And Ten Hag is currently in his low, he's just grinding out wins like any good manager would.
I think because that chaos suits us - Gary Neville was right in that regard, we tend to fare well against middling teams when it's a bit chaotic as they think they can go at us, and we have tremendous pace in behind to hurt them. Yes it's risky, but it's working. To answer your question its certainly not the end goal for Ten Hag's style. I think he's working with the tools he has right now because his defence is still at 50% and his DM is over the hill.
We had many occasions where we've pressed a team very high and been exposed at the back as a result. I'm not saying it's full proof but the plan is clear. The pressing triggers are very obvious to see - we are still up there in terms of teams with biggest turnovers in opponent's half.Wow.
Sorry this is rubbish. We don't have a clear structure. Our high press is overrated, we are nowhere now near the top stats now and most games I dont see it. If you are going to press high the whole team needs to push forward and have a proper team structure to reflect that. We have is disjointed groups of players doing a bit of a press. It is directly what leaves us massive exposed when it breaks down, with ETH playing the single pivot and the defensive midfielder overrun, especially if its Amrabat or Casimero. Chaos doesnt suit us, it means we are not evolving as a team and will not compete seriously.
Quality of shots would worry me. If we conceded 20 big chances on the regular I’d be 100% Ten Hag out because clearly something isn’t working. But 20 shots for 1.75xg is 0.0875 per shot. Am I happy to average a less than 10% chance of scoring on an average shot against us? Yeah because it suggests sides are taking pot shots or half chances.The shot count thing is overblown but the real concern should be how much of the ball they had in our half.
Considering they had few shots on target and barely troubled Onana beyond a lucky deflection it's not exactly damning nor are Luton the worst team in the league.
We also capitalized on their defender easy mistake, so it goes both ways. This is the reason the sheer "volume" of chances we give away is a big big problem, and will invite crazy results.The shot count thing is overblown but the real concern should be how much of the ball they had in our half.
Considering they had few shots on target and barely troubled Onana beyond a lucky deflection it's not exactly damning nor are Luton the worst team in the league.
Garnacho and Hojlund suit the press and Rashford will need to work on it. I disagree re. Bruno, I think he covers a lot more ground and makes a lot of good defensive work (As the stats would also show).I don't think we're balancing anything, we either attack with too many players or defend too deep, allowing opposition too many crosses/shots. I also don't think we're any better than under Ole, he was not trying to be too smart with pressing high up the pitch but his counter attacking football was just as, or maybe even more, effective.
One thing I don't get is we are a team that is not suited to pressing high. Our two most dangerous players (on a break) are absolutely terrible defensively (Bruno tries, he's just really weak and easy to go past; Rashford doesn't even try). So when you say "it's difficult to implement with the players we have", do you actually mean that we will be moving those two players in the near future?
The chaos that we create has not been proven effective yet, I think we're doing good job getting the results but eventually with a bit of bad luck we'll be losing points in games like vs Luton - because the actual "gap" is so small (we allow awful lot of chances, it is asking for trouble).
Is every shot a chance? Summarised nicely below:We also capitalized on their defender easy mistake, so it goes both ways. This is the reason the sheer "volume" of chances we give away is a big big problem, and will invite crazy results.
Quality of shots would worry me. If we conceded 20 big chances on the regular I’d be 100% Ten Hag out because clearly something isn’t working. But 20 shots for 1.75xg is 0.0875 per shot. Am I happy to average a less than 10% chance of scoring on an average shot against us? Yeah because it suggests sides are taking pot shots or half chances.
That is a weird way of looking at it. "20 shots for 1.75xg" means the team is just as likely to score 1 and 3 goals. Are you ok with taking that chance week in week out?Quality of shots would worry me. If we conceded 20 big chances on the regular I’d be 100% Ten Hag out because clearly something isn’t working. But 20 shots for 1.75xg is 0.0875 per shot. Am I happy to average a less than 10% chance of scoring on an average shot against us? Yeah because it suggests sides are taking pot shots or half chances.
If this were true wouldn’t every team be doing it? Why work the ball into the box at all?That is a weird way of looking at it. "20 shots for 1.75xg" means the team is just as likely to score 1 and 3 goals. Are you ok with taking that chance week in week out?
@VP89 this is also a response to your comment.
There's a problem with your interpretation of XG. Having lots of pot shots with little XG aggregating to a larger figure flatters the perceived chance creation. That's also why XG rarely reflects the actual goals scored in a game.That is a weird way of looking at it. "20 shots for 1.75xg" means the team is just as likely to score 1 and 3 goals. Are you ok with taking that chance week in week out?
@VP89 this is also a response to your comment.
The point was he didn’t get who he wanted! Now we have a structure in place he will. Go watch another team then if you’re still crying even though we’re winning games. Pathetic.How ridiculous this sounds. You can play football without feckin frankie de jong in the team, and we still bang on how the club didn't give him the one and single player that would transform our football.
How did you come to that conclusion? Because everything ETH does suggests he's very happy to give away the possession, and even against Luton we are apparently forced to "soak" pressure because of Marinez missing and Shaw quasi-fit.
No but criticising him when we’re winning games makes you a sad person rather then being happy we won. He can’t win really can he with halve of this fan base being the way they are. We could have had Guardiola or Klopp in charge and lose the game… in fact one only just beat Luton like us and the other only just got a draw against them.Some of the defense of him is embarrassing. He wasted a whole summer chasing FDJ, he was never coming and so we panicked into Casimero. He has a veto and strong input on transfers so lets not pretend anyone was forced on him. Jury still out on whether FDJ could hack the PL, Rice was widely reported that summer to be open to a United move. ETH was desperate for Antony and allowed to get him for an insane fee, yet offers nothing in the PL, in fact he's a liability given how much he loses the ball. We sign Onana to play out from the back and against Luton we hoof it long. Spurs and Brighton play brave football from the back having spent a fraction of what we spent. The idea that a coach needs to have his own hand picked squad of 16 players before they can be judged. Criticising the manager doesnt make you a doom moonger, nor does blindly supporting him make you a top red.
Imagine Antony taking a shot everytime he gets the ball around the box. He will score 1/20 times, but 19/20 he'll just lose the ball. Most (top) teams are usually not happy to give the ball away freely. Bottom table teams however will fancy their chances, and we actually encourage them to do so, what will bite us back with "unlucky" deflection, an own goal, or just a 1/100 wonderstrike. This is why top teams don't allow opposition to create as many chances, City have been miles ahead of other teams in that regard in the last seasons because of how they defend as a team, not because they have two CBS that win 100% of the aerial duels. We on the other hand invite the pressure and this is poor tactics long term - especially if your team is known for being poor at defending corners.If this were true wouldn’t every team be doing it? Why work the ball into the box at all?
They’re not even shots on goal, it’s blocked shots that are going nowhere most of the time.
I understand XG relies on quality of chances based on past games etc but how many non scoring wide men or DMs who have 3/4 career goals taking shots form 22 yards out actually fly in?
No, because even taking 20 pot shots increases the chances scoring a goal, a deflection, badly defended corner, etc. If your opponent aggergates that xG, then it's a problem.There's a problem with your interpretation of XG. Having lots of pot shots with little XG aggregating to a larger figure flatters the perceived chance creation. That's also why XG rarely reflects the actual goals scored in a game.
Jaime Charrager said this himself about Liverpool when they faced United. XG is flawed for that reason, and also when it doesn't consider big moments like a two on one, but one player fails to make the right pass etc. That's seen as a big chance but not registered on XG (side point but we had quite a few of these yesterday and in previous games).
Think it's about 50/50, which, to be fair, is a lot better than all of our recent managers. If you look at only his permanent signings from both seasons the hit rate probably does go up, some of the signings look worse in hindsight due to factors outside of the manager's control like injuries.Excluding loans and free transfers I think he's had a decent hit rate so far.
I think Mount will be a good player eventually but obviously difficult to argue that right now.
We don't always lump it forward. We play longer passes, not blind lumps, when the opposition have a suicidal press. Luton and Villa both did that to us and we picked them off. We should have scored a lot more in fact, as shown by our own XG. If a team wants to go ultra attack against us and muster an XG of 1.9, as long as we are carving them up as a consequence and outperforming it's fine (we had an XG of >3, and thats not counting the missed opportunities to play an obvious pass in playing players through).No, because even taking 20 pot shots increases the chances scoring a goal, a deflection, badly defended corner, etc. If your opponent aggergates that xG, then it's a problem.
I just don't see why we can't hold to the ball for a few mins and we are so happy to lump it forward for someone to chase. We're making it difficult for ourselves with those tactics. We don't always need to get to their goal with 3 passes, just let them chase it for a while instead of lumping the ball forward.
Can we then stop crying about not getting one player that only a few people are naiive to think would solve our problems? We didn't get De Jong, Eric has to make it work with what we have.The point was he didn’t get who he wanted! Now we have a structure in place he will. Go watch another team then if you’re still crying even though we’re winning games. Pathetic.
But if we sat back like that every week and conceded the same low quality of shots that leaves 1 flukey goal a game on the table then that XG would leave us with one of the best defensive records in the league?Imagine Antony taking a shot everytime he gets the ball around the box. He will score 1/20 times, but 19/20 he'll just lose the ball. Most (top) teams are usually not happy to give the ball away freely. Bottom table teams however will fancy their chances, and we actually encourage them to do so, what will bite us back with "unlucky" deflection, an own goal, or just a 1/100 wonderstrike. This is why top teams don't allow opposition to create as many chances, City have been miles ahead of other teams in that regard in the last seasons because of how they defend as a team, not because they have two CBS that win 100% of the aerial duels. We on the other hand invite the pressure and this is poor tactics long term - especially if your team is known for being poor at defending corners.
No, because even taking 20 pot shots increases the chances scoring a goal, a deflection, badly defended corner, etc. If your opponent aggergates that xG, then it's a problem.
I just don't see why we can't hold to the ball for a few mins and we are so happy to lump it forward for someone to chase. We're making it difficult for ourselves with those tactics. We don't always need to get to their goal with 3 passes, just let them chase it for a while instead of lumping the ball forward.
I think part of the problem, actually his biggest problem, is that he too often got exactly who he wanted.The point was he didn’t get who he wanted! Now we have a structure in place he will. Go watch another team then if you’re still crying even though we’re winning games. Pathetic.
But if we sat back like that every week and conceded the same low quality of shots that leaves 1 flukey goal a game on the table then that XG would leave us with one of the best defensive records in the league?
Conceding 20 shots is not a sustainable way to win games. Top clubs will go years without conceding as many shots in a single game.
It is if your goal is to be in the upper half of the table and qualify for Europe. It's not if you aspire to be a top team and go toe to toe with the best. That's basically the brand of football that would be perfectly fine at Everton.playing like we did yesterday is 100% sustainable.
I see XG is never mentioned when it’s in our favour butConceding 20 shots is not a sustainable way to win games. Top clubs will go years without conceding as many shots in a single game.
1.8 xG against a relegation fodder is also terrible.I see XG is never mentioned when it’s in our favour but
1.8 v 2.98 is sustainable and if we do play like that every game we will win a lot more games.
20 this, 20 that. The number is 4. 4 shots on target against us
I didn‘t watch the highlights of those games, but it is hard to imagine anyone getting more 1v1 opportunities than we did yesterday.We didn't play well after the 1st 15mins but did we end up creating more good opportunities than the likes of City and Liverpool?
What is their average home xG?1.8 xG against a relegation fodder is also terrible.
1.3What is their average home xG?
To be fair the goal was probably a massive chunk of their total yesterday being so close to goal. They had like 20+ shots so most of the rest is sheer volume.1.3
0.81 v Liverpool
0.51 v Arsenal (despite scoring 3 goals )
0.33 v City
We went 2-0 up against Luton and then lost control of the game. I don't know what is wrong but I'm not the one being paid big money as Manchester United manager. Guy has to sort it out.