The metrics are a bit bollocks: we did not finish 15th did we, and could have easily finished above Spurs, Newcastle and Chelsea. How many times did we easily give away a winning position? We were also denied some stone cold penalties.
Why is it bollocks? Just because you don't like it? That's not a good reason. The underlying metrics always have variance to it. Hence why I said that you may have had more of an argument if it said United were like 9th or 10th place or 11th place. United were at 15th place.
Why I believe it's not bollocks, is due to how it captures performance better than the results table. I've used this example before, but when we had Mourinho in 2017/18 we finished 2nd and Liverpool finished 4th. The underlying metrics showed this..
The reason why this matters is because performances show the progression of your side grasping your manager's tactics and show whether your manager's tactics are worth believing or persisting with.
Klopp and Mourinho had rebuilding United sides in 2017/18.
2017/18 PL table
2. United with 81 pts, 68 goals scored, 28 goals conceded, +40 GD
4. Liverpool with 75 pts, 84 goals scored, 38 goals conceded, +46 GD
The results say that United are in a better position during the rebuild or at least tied. Anyone that watched could tell you de Gea was saving us that season. Anyone watching the performances can see that Klopp was doing a much better job. If Liverpool just put in superior players, his tactics which were showing great promise could lead to a further improvement, thus leading to big title challenges. The foundation was already working.
What a surprise that United end up sacking Mourinho next season, while Klopp goes on to get Liverpool to win the PL, CL, etc... in the following years.
Now let's look at underlying metrics.
2. United with xG 55.7, xGA 40.7, xGD +15
4. Liverpool with xG 72.9, xGA 33.8, xGD +39.1
Expected Points
2. Liverpool 79.38
6. United 62.33
This shows that United fans were right when thinking the performances were crap and results were misleading for Mourinho. The same is happening under Ten Hag, only worse.
Of course Ten Hag values compactness. The idea that teams are compact always is not true though, every team gives up space somewhere.
We do know how to play compact, we do it regularly. It makes us less effective in attack though, it is more conservative.
I think Hag came up with a temporary in between style that allows our slower defenders to sit deeper. They cannot defend 1v1 in space. I think our bad games had more to do with sloppy ball playing and lack of aggression, than the tactics.
First season:
If you remember, Ten Hag tried to play his style in the two opening games of his first season and had to abort.
The fact that he got third and the most clean sheets proves that he knows how to set up a team, something that is denied here. The expectation was we would finish somewhere around 6th place.
This season, we got some pieces in place to play Ten Hag’s style, so he went for it. Already one year behind on schedule, he did not want to compromise again on developing the strategy, injuries be damnned.
Look, Arsenal fans lost their nerve with Arteta, but he stayed and succeeded rebuilding a squad with a modern proactive style.
I don’t like the idea that we should go back to ‘being pragmatic’ it would be going backwards. Whether we go on with Ten Hag or get another manager who will develop the squad and playing style, is fine with me.
I also don't like the idea of going pragmatic. That has never been my argument. I understand why you confused what I said with what other said though, as many are simply in it for results, and others flip flop between being pragmatic and persisting with the style of play he demands. But once again, that has never been my argument.
I don't believe it makes us more conservative. I think it would give us far more of the ball, and allow us to attack more. Klopp doesn't believe in possession as much as Arteta or Pep do. Still he has his defensive line higher because compactness is good in creating turnovers, and deadening potential playing out from the back that more and more teams subscribe to now a days.
The reason why we didn’t play a high line is that we have a couple defenders with the speed and turn circle of a combine harvester. Just about every team has players that can dribble past them if they are on their own in space.
Add to that, the degeneration of Casemiro and Eriksen.
I don't have a problem with thinking this can be the case, but unfortunately none of us have proof. It's all based on belief. Secondly, if that were the case, we've already established (as did you) that Ten Hag is doing away with pragmatism this season in favor of long term progression of his system. So if that is the case, why is he not using a high line if it will give him a much bigger and better sample size of which players can handle his system? Players not able to handle the high line via performances are actual proof that they need to be sold. As he's not using a high line, the evidence is weaker because that part of his system is not being tested. I thought that was the whole excuse for this season? That we're using his system to progress as a team long term. Now he's being pragmatic in this instance, and we should instead just believe based on nothing?
Finally, if he's being pragmatic in regards to a high line, what benefit is it giving us? It's making us more open conceding as many xG as relegation sides. Through sheer luck (much like Mourinho had), United are actually in 8th place. So it's not like the deep defensive line is somehow benefiting us in any substantial way. We've conceded the long term future of his system by refusing to test it this season, and we're still defensively shit.
