Erik ten Hag | 2022/23 & 2023/24

[DJ_21]

Not too sure what subs he could have made. I thought they were the best he could do given the squad depth.

Sending Fred on is always quite endearing as he never stops trying: that part where he made a break from our defence with a great run and then booted it to their goalkeeper instead of across the pitch

Performance wise is was a bit of a step backwards and i'm sure he'll be aware of that.

Ye id much rather Fred be brought on then mctominay. I worry when mctominay comes on because there’s always a chance of him conceding a stupid penalty. At least with Fred he brings energy and non stop trying.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

How the feck did I not answer it? I thought you could put two and two together when I mentioned the winger sitting on the bench. The one that cost £70m. His name is Jadon Sancho.

Who appointed you the oracle on when a managers decisions can be critiqued? You obviously suffer from a very short memory because you’ve never been slow to complain before.

This isn’t an attack on Ten Hag. It’s critiquing his decisions. What is the fecking point of a football forum if we don’t do it?

So you’d have replaced Elanga with Sancho? Fair enough. At least you’re brave enough to give an opinion. I think that would have been a disaster, personally. He’s been playing really really badly and, even on a good day, gives his fullback very little support. At the very least, ETH’s decision not to bring him on was understandable.

 

[acnumber9]

He changed the shape of the team and didn't use the wide players that were actually on the bench, it prevented us from doing anything on the counter and his changes didn't even allow us to control the game or limit the amount of chances that West Ham were creating.

And the initialy lack of response is due to your attitude, it doesn't really convince anyone to engage conversation with you.

West Ham actually created considerably more after the changes. He made changes for the change of momentum that was actually triggered by the changes. It baffles the mind that anybody could argue it.

 

[JPRouve]

No you didn’t. What subs would you make? Simple question. Still unanswered.

As for what’s wrong with me. You really need to re-read our exchange here. Go back to the first time I quoted you. You’ve been ridiculously over-sensitive.

Any of the three wide players that he kept on the bench, he can pick anyone from Sancho, Garnacho or Pellestri to replace Elanga instead of shoe-horning McTominay and Bruno into a ackward positions. Fred for Eriksen was fine.

 

[acnumber9]

So you’d have replaced Elanga with Sancho? Fair enough. At least you’re brave enough to give an opinion. I think that would have been a disaster, personally. He’s been playing really really badly and, even on a good day, gives his fullback very little support. At the very least, ETH’s decision not to bring him on was understandable.

Yes. And if West Ham then began stacking up set pieces then bring McTominay on. We were in next to no danger when the sub was made. We were so much worse afterwards I can’t understand your tack here.

How could bringing Sancho on have been any worse than what happened?

 

[TMDaines]

Third favs for top four now on the Betfair Exchange and 538. It’s mega tight though between us, Liverpool and Spurs.

Let’s keep on grinding out the wins.

 

[acnumber9]

Fred coming on and running everywhere is great and all. Except for the fact we lose any semblance of shape as a result.

 

[EtH]

West Ham actually created considerably more after the changes. He made changes for the change of momentum that was actually triggered by the changes. It baffles the mind that anybody could argue it.

We were loose and sloppy in possession the entire match. That is not the manager’s fault. That’s just how it is some days. At some point Eriksen has to come off. Elanga was out to lunch.

And your answer is to bring on another soft player who is low on confidence because he has been playing dogshit all season.

Classic Caf.

 

[Adam-Utd]

I could listen to him talk all day. Really really like Erik. You can tell he is a very smart man, the perfect manager for us.

 

[RedOrange]

He loves Casemiro

Casemiro struggled on the ball in this match. I'm not sure who else would have come on though. McTominay is the only player who can remotely approximate what Casemiro does but it seems like ETH wanted to rest Antony for this match and also had to sub Elanga off, so Bruno to RW and McTom as the high midfielder was the only option given those constraints.

 

[Lights Out]

Love his interviews. He knows his stuff, knows what he wants.

I'm seriously happy with him

Exactly my thoughts.

Scrappy performance today but we ground out a win and kept a clean sheet.

My nerves could just do with a comfortable 4-0 win at some point

 

[Pogue Mahone]

West Ham actually created considerably more after the changes. He made changes for the change of momentum that was actually triggered by the changes. It baffles the mind that anybody could argue it.

Because West Ham also made Changes. Antonio played very well. Held the ball up much better than Scamacca. That was the most influential substitution of all. Right now ETH can only dream of having a powerful and effective attacker like that on the bench.

 

[city-puma]

This intensive run of games have pushed our squad to the limits. It’s madness to host world cup there.

 

[JPRouve]

We were loose and sloppy in possession the entire match. That is not the manager’s fault. That’s just how it is some days. At some point Eriksen has to come off. Elanga was out to lunch.

And your answer is to bring on another soft player who is low on confidence because he has been playing dogshit all season.

Classic Caf.

So it was a perfect decision that had the desired effect and visibly worked?

 

[acnumber9]

We were loose and sloppy in possession the entire match. That is not the manager’s fault. That’s just how it is some days. At some point Eriksen has to come off. Elanga was out to lunch. And your answer is to bring on another soft player who is low on confidence because he has been playing dogshit all season.

Classic Caf.

We were considerably better before the first sub. Anyone that thinks otherwise is absolutely insane. West Ham didn’t have a shot on target until after McTominay came on. They finished the game with more than we had.

 

[shabin_d_great]

our lack of intensity and tempo during first half. We should have scored at least one more goal by playing it faster. We allowed westham into the game and then coudlnt cope with it.
ETH wont play on the counter.. there were enough chances with fast wingers during second half. Baffles me why he kept on bruno, cr7 and rash who all were done..

 

[DomesticTadpole]

This intensive run of games have pushed our squad to the limits. It’s madness to host world cup there.

It is, but unlike Mr Klopp, we just get on with it, not moan and groan and make the players feel sorry for themselves.

 

[JagUTD]

We've got 5 very winnable games coming up now before we play City and Arsenal in the same week.

There's some minor inconvenience inbetween the 5 games to deal with but the next 7 may well define our season. Take more than 15 points and we'll look good for top 4.

 

[flappyjay]

How the feck did I not answer it? I thought you could put two and two together when I mentioned the winger sitting on the bench. The one that cost £70m. His name is Jadon Sancho.

Who appointed you the oracle on when a managers decisions can be critiqued? You obviously suffer from a very short memory because you’ve never been slow to complain before.

This isn’t an attack on Ten Hag. It’s critiquing his decisions. What is the fecking point of a football forum if we don’t do it?

We are supposed to log on, hold hands and sing kumbaya.

 

[Marwood]

Just because a sub didn't work doesn't nean it was the wrong decision. Or that the alternative sub was the right decision.

It's just how it goes sometimes.

 

[acnumber9]

Because West Ham also made Changes. Antonio played very well. Held the ball up much better than Scamacca. That was the most influential substitution of all. Right now ETH can only dream of having a powerful and effective attacker like that on the bench.

They made positive changes. We didn’t. As a result we were clinging on for dear life with our keeper to thank for us keeping a clean sheet against a team who have scored three away goals all season.

 

[Strelok]

Because West Ham also made Changes. Antonio played very well. Held the ball up much better than Scamacca. That was the most influential substitution of all. Right now ETH can only dream of having a powerful and effective attacker like that on the bench.

Spot on. We're also a bit tired and that Antonio guy is simply a beast. No idea why Moyes started Sacamacca instead of him.

 

[acnumber9]

Just because a sub didn't work doesn't nean it was the wrong decision. Or that the alternative sub was the right decision.

It's just how it goes sometimes.

I would agree with that but it’s his default sub and didn’t work the last time he did it either. I would expect him to learn.

 

[TMDaines]

Just because a sub didn't work doesn't nean it was the wrong decision. Or that the alternative sub was the right decision.

It's just how it goes sometimes.

Agreed. I thought those were the right changes. It was more down to the players making the wrong decisions and pulling out of a few 50-50s, which was more culpable.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

They made positive changes. We didn’t. As a result we were clinging on for dear life with our keeper to thank for us keeping a clean sheet against a team who have scored three away goals all season.

Yes. They made positive changes because they could. We didn’t because our options on the bench were poor. The faith you seem to have in Sancho swinging the game in our favour is very odd. Assuming you’ve seen how poorly he played in his last few games?

 

[Adnan]

Left 37 year old Ronaldo for his 2nd 90 mins of the week, Rashford looked tired from around 70mins. Fred was our only outlet for counters even though he was in midfield. EtH could have done better.

No one is saying he couldn't have done better, but we started the game with a lack of intensity and a number of players could've been substituted at the end, and Bruno in particular was poor. His lack of physical strength and lack of pace got exposed on a number of occasions. And along with Eriksen, there's a lack of physicality and tenaciousness that couldn't match West Ham's midfield.

Keeping Rashford on was the correct decision because he gives you the counter attacking threat.

And like I said in my previous post, it's about giving enough rope to the existing players which will then enable the manager to make better decisions going forward on who to keep and who to sell.

 

[EtH]

We were considerably better before the first sub. Anyone that thinks otherwise is absolutely insane. West Ham didn’t have a shot on target until after McTominay came on. They finished the game with more than we had.

Ah yes. Has nothing to do with West Ham bringing on Antonio and Fornals against our tired legs. It’s all to do with our tactical impotence brilliantly exposed by @acnumber9 of Redcafe.net.

 

[acnumber9]

Yes. They made positive changes because they could. We didn’t because our options on the bench were poor. The faith you seem to have in Sancho swinging the game in our favour is very odd. Assuming you’ve seen how poorly he played in his last few games?

We didn’t need to swing the game in our favour. We just needed to retain an attacking threat that we completely lost. Would you be so kind when Mourinho was making decisions like that?

I’ve seen Bruno playing wide and know it doesn’t work. If you want to bring somebody on to defend set pieces then at least retain your shape. Don’t just concede any control of the game. We were playing West Ham for fecks sake.

 

[acnumber9]

Ah yes. Has nothing to do with West Ham bringing on Antonio and Fornals against our tired legs. It’s all to do with our tactical impotence brilliantly exposed by @acnumber9 of Redcafe.net.

We also had subs. Are you a fecking child?

 

[Adisa]

My only complaint was Ronaldo playing the 90.
I undertand the Fred and McTominay subs, we needed legs in midfield.

 

[baskinginthesun]

Ye id much rather Fred be brought on then mctominay. I worry when mctominay comes on because there’s always a chance of him conceding a stupid penalty. At least with Fred he brings energy and non stop trying.

That one time he concedes an arguably soft penalty and all of sudden he's the guy that gives away all the penalties. Might want to rethink that.

I thought it was the right move bringing midfielders on. Sancho seems to be struggling and Garnacho probably would have been kicked off the park as West Ham were pushing forward. He's 18 and has next to no PL minutes. Chucking him on simply because he's a wide player is not the right answer, IMO.

 

[redshaw]

Ten Hag might want to show Sancho he needs to do a lot better to start or either come on as sub. Long term it might be right but could've done with him in place of Elanga.

We were quite hampered the whole game with the thin quality in the squad.

 

[MUnchies]

You can enjoy good form whilst questioning approaches mate. On other days DDG doesn’t make the world class saves.

On another day Fred scores the header and doesn't hit the post. Ifs and buts

 

[JPRouve]

Ah yes. Has nothing to do with West Ham bringing on Antonio and Fornals against our tired legs. It’s all to do with our tactical impotence brilliantly exposed by @acnumber9 of Redcafe.net.

I don't really get this. You recognize that a manager can affect the game positively thought changes but somehow doesn't accept that a manager could affect a game negatively through changes?

Also I don't think anyone is suggesting that United are tactically impotent, managers aren't perfect and sometimes may not take the ideal decision. As outsiders we can sometimes see it or see something different and talk about it. And for what it's worth my remark could be wrong but to act as if it was wrong by default without ever bringing a single remotely interesting point is a bit questionable.

 

[Strelok]

Yes. They made positive changes because they could. We didn’t because our options on the bench were poor. The faith you seem to have in Sancho swinging the game in our favour is very odd. Assuming you’ve seen how poorly he played in his last few games?

What do you think if we replace Ronaldo with Garnacho then move Bruno to the center? Or replace Bruno with Garnacho?

Bruno was pretty out of gas and is not really fast either. We would have had at least two good counters if he was a bit faster. Moving him to the center or keep Ronaldo there while putting Rashford and Ganarcho wide to attack the space their fullbacks left behind would be very dangerous imo.

 

[mu4c_20le]

We also had subs. Are you a fecking child?

No, he's ETH

 

[EtH]

I said when we signed ten Hag that Bruno would find himself playing wide at times. If he keeps wasting possession consistently he’ll find himself playing wide of the pitch. On the bench that is.

You can’t have a player who offers nothing defensively against any physical opposing midfield in the side if he’s not pulling up trees going forward.

This is management 101. Although I’m sure many will still lose their minds if and when it happens as if it’s some sort of negative football dinosaur decision. Which it isn’t at all.

 

[CM]

I said when we signed ten Hag that Bruno would find himself playing wide at times. If he keeps wasting possession consistently he’ll find himself playing wide of the pitch. On the bench that is.

You can’t have a player who offers nothing defensively against any physical opposing midfield in the side if he’s not pulling up trees going forward.

This is management 101. Although I’m sure many will still lose their minds if and when it happens as if it’s some sort of negative football dinosaur decision. Which it isn’t at all.

Fernandes got himself suspended for the Villa game next week with that late booking so it'll be interesting to see how we do in his absence in that game. It's a bit annoying that it's come at a time where we're already missing a couple of players.

 

[EtH]

I don't really get this. You recognize that a manager can affect the game positively thought changes but somehow doesn't accept that a manager could affect a game negatively through changes?

Also I don't think anyone is suggesting that United are tactically impotent, managers aren't perfect and sometimes may not take the ideal decision. As outsiders we can sometimes see it or see something different and talk about it. And for what it's worth my remark could be wrong but to act as if it was wrong by default without ever bringing a single remotely interesting point is a bit questionable.

Obviously I thought his decisions were reasonable which is why I’ve been defending them.

I am sorry that none of my points have interested you.

 

[bond19821982]

Sancho is a terrible sub to be made against the likes of West Ham. Man, the arm chair experts are really into something.

Garnacho - yeah, let's bring a kid against the most physical side . But sure, it's an option.

Pellestri- you got to be kidding .

Take off Ronaldo - yes, but if we need a goal we really don't have anyone to bring on . West Ham will just play low block and with us no presence in the box, they won't get a better day than today.

McT was brought on for his height and Fred for his intensity in the midfield which we clearly lacked in the second half.