Oh that makes more sense , I think Ten Hag became overambitious and clearly misjudged ability of Bruno and Casemiro to adapt to more aggressive set up add up all injuries he just lost the plot completely .
ETH on United philosophy: “Built a side to play direct football”… “Impossible to play like Ajax”
- Thread starter FrenchRed
- Start date
Only noticed the thread this morning, and have not read it yet. Do we know the question ETH was replying to? If he was asked "Why don't you try to make United play like Ajax?", it probably changes the impression you get from his words. Or am I wrong? (sorry, not properly awake yet, still having my first morning coffee)
Didn’t he signed Eriksen, Casemiro, Mount and Amrabat? Yet not a single one of them can do any of these. Which says it all.
I agree. The recruitment given the desired style of play, has been head-scratching.
The more I think about it a striker with the ability to drop into midfield would have done wonders for this squad. Look at how important Kane, Benzema, and Firmino were for the respective clubs in the build-up. This is no knock on Hojland, but it just reinforces that this is a team of square pegs.
I've no issue at all with us not playing like Ajax. If he wants to play direct then so be it. As long as he looks to bring in players that suit his system moving forward happy days.
I like direct football!
I like direct football!
He'll have to replace the 12 he brought in then.
Exactly this. A lot of posters are offended by this but it's not a bad thing provided he gets a better brand of football going.
Fully acknowledge hes nowhere near that yet but if he has an optimal style that transcends into a different type to Ajax then fine. Lets see how he tries to develop it over the coming weeks and months. Of course he needs to get points on the board pronto however, as even I can't defend him if he fails on that.
How do you play direct with a relatively short sweeper keeper, short and physically inferior defenders, midfielders with no outstanding physical attributes and a right winger with no ability to break through the defence? His recruitment doesn't make sense if he's trying to be a direct team that excells at counter-attacking.
Engaging and constructive.
To answer your points;
A sweeper keeper with a good passing range lends itself well to playing direct football does it not?
Short & physically inferior defenders? Strange statement. I guess Martinez is short for a centre half but I wouldn't class him as physically inferior? He's probably our most aggressive and physical player on the pitch when he plays. Even so... how does their supposed height and physicality affect their ability to help the team play direct?
Agree with you on this point, Antony does struggle to play on the outside. His main issue is him being so one footed nevertheless he is probably better suited to playing more direct that being in a possession based system. He has the tools to drive forward and take on his man, I've seen him do it at Ajax and maybe once or twice for us (ridiculous) he just chooses not to for some strange reason.
I also think a lot of the players the manager has wanted to bring in the club hasn't been able to get a deal done so he's been left with sub par options because they have been available. Thank lord some have been on a temporary basis!
I see 6 -8 potential starters from his transfers, you can't possibly put a Weghorst loan or Evans deal on him? He clearly had other ideas.
He clearly made a lot of mistakes when it comes to player recruitment, such waste of resources.
I am just wondering if this will be United's worst season after Ferguson..
I am just wondering if this will be United's worst season after Ferguson..
Why only Ajax style ? There will be no coherent style at all, in current enviroment.
I'd argue that the key to effective counter-attacking football and a direct style of football, is the ability to hit teams on the break and quickly progress the ball through the lines while the opposition is unsettled in defence. You have extremes, such as long ball to a big-small partnership, but most direct teams will look to take advantage of quick breaks and space in behind the defence. To answer your question with that in mind;
A sweeper like Onana, particularly one who is effectively an 11th outfield player, doesn't make much sense at all. A sweeper can be nice to have to avoid counter-attacks to your own transitions, but one that likes to keep the ball at his feet, feint attackers and get involved in a passing build-up with the defence, doesn't make much sense for a direct team. You want someone who will come out and dominate his box (so tall) and someone who will quickly recycle possession with kicks and throws. Onana does not do that.
Height and physicaility for a defender is important in direct football, because you have three objectives as a direct team - quick transitions, draw opponents out of a settled defensive shape, and making set-pieces both against and for you into potent attacking weapons. Therefore you want defenders who are tall and physically strong to win their aerial duels and sweep away crosses, corners and free-kicks. When defending set-pieces you want defenders who can win their duels easily and quickly get the ball out of the box to your own players for a counter-attack. In active play you want to sit deeper than a possession based team, which makes you vulnerable to aerial threats that you will need to deal with to a higher degree than if you were a possession based team that rarely sit that deep. Obviously because you rely on catching a team in an unsettled defensive position you need physically quick and strong central midfielders who can chase down the ball quickly, quickly progress the ball through the lines and overload central areas.
Against a low block you need players capable of forcing through and dragging defenders all over the place, and players who can beat their man and cause havoc in the middle against a settled defense. Oh, and players capable of taking long-shots at a reliably high level.
The ideal high-level direct team would be something like
Osimhen
Rashford - Bruno - RW(right footed, good dribbler)
Strong and quick CM - Exceptional passer
Shaw - Tall CB - Tall CB - AWB
Tall GK distributor
A team that can defend with 8 men behind the ball, two players waiting to pounce and with pace and physicality, and passing ability, to quickly break down a team in the middle of the park.Rashford - Bruno - RW(right footed, good dribbler)
Strong and quick CM - Exceptional passer
Shaw - Tall CB - Tall CB - AWB
Tall GK distributor
Hasn't he basically fooled the club and fans, that's why fans wanted him and what the club was looking for?
They absolutely should, yes.
This general truth does little to explain the particular signing of someone like Antony, though. Pretty much everyone assumed that ETH wanted him because he would be a good fit for a particular system (namely the one ETH employed at Ajax).
What we had under LVG was completely aimless passing it around in deep areas with no idea of how to move the ball forward and the players afraid to take risks. The entire aim was just to keep the ball for the sake of keeping the ball. That would have been fine in the short-term if it was obvious that it was the first step to building a more attacking style possession team, but instead our attacking patterns and tactics were getting worse as more time went past.
It's why bringing Mourinho in after LVG was such a terrible move. LVG had actually put in place the basics of maintaining possession that another manager could have come in and built on, but instead we did a complete 180 and went to a manager who didn't really care about possession at all.
Ajax never played a possession style of football in that sense like LvG, they just happened to have most possession from the way they played. It was very much based on vertical passing, not sideways boring passing like LVG. LvG vs EtH was very different styles which both ended up with the majority of possession.
Explains it pretty well here. Doesn't want to go for a long ball counter attack and also talks about the players available. Hints at results being the priority too.
I feel like reading the following will help digest his comments. He's not changing from his philosophy - He's doing exactly what he's always done.
Where were these issues at Ajax?
Right after the derby game, I had a chance to chat with
@htomufc in his space.
H asked "Was Ten Hag like this at Ajax too?"
My answer: Yes, he was.
ETH would often ask the team to go long or play very direct to the CF when short build up wasn't working or the key build up player of the team (FDJ, Blind etc) would be out. Him wanting his CFs to be target men + poacher + linker 9s (like Haller), his GKs (like Onana) to be short + long ball experts and generally every player to be well-rounded and capable of switching between extreme plans based on the opponent, form & gamestate, was always true.
It worked because:
1.
The switch to pragmatic schemes happened lesser because Ajax ran into trouble lesser. They were the best team in the league & usually had key players fit
2.
Ajax had a brilliant crop of players. FDJ, De Ligt, Tadic in his first team were elite players. Licha, Timber, Blind, Haller later too. A high quality team of problem-solvers who possessed elite in-possession traits to find answers on their own 3. The Ajax school produced well-rounded players who could play 3-4 positions each. That was/is the academy focus. With technical & physical well-roundedness across the team, ETH's sudden flexible plans & position shifts suffered much smaller drop-offs.
He was never a strong plan A type. His approaches were dictated by his players. His two Ajax teams itself were very different.
And many of the issues like not having a great rest defence structure & not having automated build-up patterns that every player could execute, were prevalent even at Ajax. We simply had no idea of knowing whether he'd improve those issues & develop a core philosophy at a rich big club or continue being player-dependent, flexible and even pragmatic when things get tough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So he's always adapted to the players he's had available and mount is exactly the type of player he wants because of his flexibility.
Where were these issues at Ajax?
Right after the derby game, I had a chance to chat with
@htomufc in his space.
H asked "Was Ten Hag like this at Ajax too?"
My answer: Yes, he was.
ETH would often ask the team to go long or play very direct to the CF when short build up wasn't working or the key build up player of the team (FDJ, Blind etc) would be out. Him wanting his CFs to be target men + poacher + linker 9s (like Haller), his GKs (like Onana) to be short + long ball experts and generally every player to be well-rounded and capable of switching between extreme plans based on the opponent, form & gamestate, was always true.
It worked because:
1.
The switch to pragmatic schemes happened lesser because Ajax ran into trouble lesser. They were the best team in the league & usually had key players fit
2.
Ajax had a brilliant crop of players. FDJ, De Ligt, Tadic in his first team were elite players. Licha, Timber, Blind, Haller later too. A high quality team of problem-solvers who possessed elite in-possession traits to find answers on their own 3. The Ajax school produced well-rounded players who could play 3-4 positions each. That was/is the academy focus. With technical & physical well-roundedness across the team, ETH's sudden flexible plans & position shifts suffered much smaller drop-offs.
He was never a strong plan A type. His approaches were dictated by his players. His two Ajax teams itself were very different.
And many of the issues like not having a great rest defence structure & not having automated build-up patterns that every player could execute, were prevalent even at Ajax. We simply had no idea of knowing whether he'd improve those issues & develop a core philosophy at a rich big club or continue being player-dependent, flexible and even pragmatic when things get tough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So he's always adapted to the players he's had available and mount is exactly the type of player he wants because of his flexibility.
Well, he's not adapting to not having his first choice defence. You can't expect Maguire and Lindelof to play from the back and press high. You can't allow Casemiro to play second striker from a DM position. Those things cannot be allowed yet they happen. Why?
Why can pep play the same way no matter the club, same with klopp, surely if your a good manager you can coach a team playing exactly how you want?
Pepe doesn't play same way, but he does have core principles he follows. He can do that because he buys players that suit his style. Then he tinkers with it endlessly until he gets it just the way he wants it, then tinkers some more with it until it works even better. Then, when you think he's done, he does something crazy like buy Haaland and tinkers even more. Around and around he goes. Sensational manager, damn him.
It is hard to say that it is the midfield fault entirely. He was banking on both Martinez and Shaw to plug the gap behind the midfield as well. Both of them failed to do it even before their injuries.
I think those comments were taken fairly out of context. Of course you play differently with different players, and he's always done so.
At Utrecht he often played a type of dynamic diamond midfield, which he adapted to the opponent, like when they almost knocked out Zenith (which was quite a feat at the time when comparing the players' levels) in the Europa playoffs.
Then after some tweaking (and a difficult/struggling) half year at Ajax his first full season was the one where they had their most legendary season with Frenkie, De Ligt, Ziyech and Tadic, etc. But after a year that was a little less fluid, the two seasons after that had a new foundation, where instead of Frenkies, you had a Gravenberchs, instead of Tadic false 9 you had Haller and instead of the playmaker RW Ziyech, you had Antony. Instead of two playmakers in DM/CM (Frenkie + Schøne) and one hole player/finisher midfielder (Donny), you had one holder helping a shorter but more technical, fast and agile CB duo in Alvarez, having Gravenberch and Berghuis around him to do more of the playmaking.
Both had a lot of possession focus, but played very differently.
The plan seemed to be to get Frenkie last year, but even then it would be very different. Bruno can finish, but he's not like Donny, and Casemiro is obviously better than Schøne, but Schøne was a real playmaker. So even with the super carrier, the midfield dynamic would be very different, and Bruno wouldn't suddenly be a tiki-taka guy who isn't addicted to the killer pass.
In a way it seems a little between the two Ajax sides he built, in design. The midfield is relatively close to his early Ajax, while the attack looks more like the later Ajax. I feel like the lack of playmakers is what causes the biggest difference. Take out Eriksen, and you have to hope Bruno is disciplined enough (in keeping composure) and Mount is calm enough. In that sense. That's very different from having Tadic, Frenkie, Schøne and Ziyech all in one setup, with someone like Blind in CB to add an extra dimension with his passing, and with Donny and Neres having their occasional moments of playmaking. It's also very different from having Gravenberch, Berghuis and Tadic, while also having an extremely dynamic backline in Blind, Licha, Timber and Mazraoui all having either playmaking or carrying skills, leaving a lot of room to use whatever space is there.
Now Shaw and Licha are under contract and are capable when in form and fit, AWB is growing at it. Eriksen can do his part, I guess they're hoping Mount will adapt to the part as well. Sancho seemed like a perfect part to this, but after so many months, and now this, it seems a lost hope. Casemiro can be all right in his passing, but when he's not in form it's getting clear the base line in his playmaking is pretty low. Bruno can do great things, but he's also a huge Bruno. Rashford can do some things, but if the play isn't ticking behind him, he will not carry the team. Last year the midfield was more solid, which led to Rashford having more physical and mental space to do what he's good at. A few years ago I thought he'd develop some more playmaking skills too, but I'm beginning to think that he will be a player great at doing his part. I think they were hoping that Hojlund could be something more between Tadic and Haller in type. At least when I watched videos, he did seem to play along pretty well.
So now it just kind of looks like some key foundation is missing to come close to those Ajaxes. And ETH is right that the injuries really do not help, but I think instead the squad building was not balanced enough. Now most backups can do a part, but if the whole back line is just doing a part, you miss 4 key assets. If the foundation is there you won't lose with an Evans or Maguire at CB filling in, or even with Lindelof doing a part at LB. But now the whole backline feels like a Lindelof playing LB. I'm not sure if I have faith in Mount, but I think it's too early to decide if he can or cannot adapt to the system of this team, even as an 8.
So even if ETH made a lot of mistakes, I don't think it's right to judge him too much just yet. I don't know enough about the Sancho situation, but with other players back they can start to build more on stronger foundations, but it does seem like it's even more urgent to fix the backups. You don't need to get rid of everyone, but you don't want to lose your entire backbone if Licha and Shaw are out. Defense doesn't score goals, but losing two playmaking elements, especially with midfields like we see nowadays, seems like a lot to me. Let alone if your entire front 3 aren't really playmakers either, nor is your leader in midfield. With such players back, even if Mount never amounts to bigger things, his worst will be less bad if he is aided by players who can take on more responsibilities in possession.
I'd understand if the ties tear, and maybe this squad and club doesn't fit with ETH. But I do feel like it'd be worth it to leave things as they are for now. But I hope the next injury wave won't create a similar assembly of parts in the weekly XI. The more I think about it the less it surprises me that there's no visible structure at the moment and that it feels like it's a lot of hoping for the best. Honestly, if your XI looks like this – and it might be a bad idea in the long run – it could be an idea to just grind it out like the Simeone Atleti 4-4-2 from the 2010s. It won't look pretty, but it would be a system that would cost you less if you have to build around McTs and even Brunos.
(obv I'm biased on many points so don't listen to anything I say pls)
At Utrecht he often played a type of dynamic diamond midfield, which he adapted to the opponent, like when they almost knocked out Zenith (which was quite a feat at the time when comparing the players' levels) in the Europa playoffs.
Then after some tweaking (and a difficult/struggling) half year at Ajax his first full season was the one where they had their most legendary season with Frenkie, De Ligt, Ziyech and Tadic, etc. But after a year that was a little less fluid, the two seasons after that had a new foundation, where instead of Frenkies, you had a Gravenberchs, instead of Tadic false 9 you had Haller and instead of the playmaker RW Ziyech, you had Antony. Instead of two playmakers in DM/CM (Frenkie + Schøne) and one hole player/finisher midfielder (Donny), you had one holder helping a shorter but more technical, fast and agile CB duo in Alvarez, having Gravenberch and Berghuis around him to do more of the playmaking.
Both had a lot of possession focus, but played very differently.
The plan seemed to be to get Frenkie last year, but even then it would be very different. Bruno can finish, but he's not like Donny, and Casemiro is obviously better than Schøne, but Schøne was a real playmaker. So even with the super carrier, the midfield dynamic would be very different, and Bruno wouldn't suddenly be a tiki-taka guy who isn't addicted to the killer pass.
In a way it seems a little between the two Ajax sides he built, in design. The midfield is relatively close to his early Ajax, while the attack looks more like the later Ajax. I feel like the lack of playmakers is what causes the biggest difference. Take out Eriksen, and you have to hope Bruno is disciplined enough (in keeping composure) and Mount is calm enough. In that sense. That's very different from having Tadic, Frenkie, Schøne and Ziyech all in one setup, with someone like Blind in CB to add an extra dimension with his passing, and with Donny and Neres having their occasional moments of playmaking. It's also very different from having Gravenberch, Berghuis and Tadic, while also having an extremely dynamic backline in Blind, Licha, Timber and Mazraoui all having either playmaking or carrying skills, leaving a lot of room to use whatever space is there.
Now Shaw and Licha are under contract and are capable when in form and fit, AWB is growing at it. Eriksen can do his part, I guess they're hoping Mount will adapt to the part as well. Sancho seemed like a perfect part to this, but after so many months, and now this, it seems a lost hope. Casemiro can be all right in his passing, but when he's not in form it's getting clear the base line in his playmaking is pretty low. Bruno can do great things, but he's also a huge Bruno. Rashford can do some things, but if the play isn't ticking behind him, he will not carry the team. Last year the midfield was more solid, which led to Rashford having more physical and mental space to do what he's good at. A few years ago I thought he'd develop some more playmaking skills too, but I'm beginning to think that he will be a player great at doing his part. I think they were hoping that Hojlund could be something more between Tadic and Haller in type. At least when I watched videos, he did seem to play along pretty well.
So now it just kind of looks like some key foundation is missing to come close to those Ajaxes. And ETH is right that the injuries really do not help, but I think instead the squad building was not balanced enough. Now most backups can do a part, but if the whole back line is just doing a part, you miss 4 key assets. If the foundation is there you won't lose with an Evans or Maguire at CB filling in, or even with Lindelof doing a part at LB. But now the whole backline feels like a Lindelof playing LB. I'm not sure if I have faith in Mount, but I think it's too early to decide if he can or cannot adapt to the system of this team, even as an 8.
So even if ETH made a lot of mistakes, I don't think it's right to judge him too much just yet. I don't know enough about the Sancho situation, but with other players back they can start to build more on stronger foundations, but it does seem like it's even more urgent to fix the backups. You don't need to get rid of everyone, but you don't want to lose your entire backbone if Licha and Shaw are out. Defense doesn't score goals, but losing two playmaking elements, especially with midfields like we see nowadays, seems like a lot to me. Let alone if your entire front 3 aren't really playmakers either, nor is your leader in midfield. With such players back, even if Mount never amounts to bigger things, his worst will be less bad if he is aided by players who can take on more responsibilities in possession.
I'd understand if the ties tear, and maybe this squad and club doesn't fit with ETH. But I do feel like it'd be worth it to leave things as they are for now. But I hope the next injury wave won't create a similar assembly of parts in the weekly XI. The more I think about it the less it surprises me that there's no visible structure at the moment and that it feels like it's a lot of hoping for the best. Honestly, if your XI looks like this – and it might be a bad idea in the long run – it could be an idea to just grind it out like the Simeone Atleti 4-4-2 from the 2010s. It won't look pretty, but it would be a system that would cost you less if you have to build around McTs and even Brunos.
(obv I'm biased on many points so don't listen to anything I say pls)
Your post was the most positive piece in the last few weeks so thank you for that. It is interesting analogy ( the bold part). We do seem like a team that is missing key parts. Hopefully it gets fixed, but i also think ETH is feeling the pressure and is not making the right decisions or at least it seems like it. You cannot have an entire squad out of form in a season regardless of who is out and or available.
I think it’s a thorough and weighted overview. One thing that is different, of course, is that the relative quality of Tadic, Haller, Alvarez, Blind etc to mid and lower table Erdivisie, is different from Antony, Højlund, Amrabat, Martinez vs PL.
The biggest difference between the spending of Man Utd and Man City, is that City have had the luxury and longsightednes (and corruption) to buy fewer players per season, and to fit a profile that the DOF and scouts all know well, and even when that is not foolproof, they have the cynicality and luxury to sell or bench players who doesn’t fit as planned.
Changingan entire squad in a few seasons to get the right profiles, means you have to spread the money or get forced into compromises. Ideally, United would have an established recruitment setup able to furnish Ten Hag with a team of shrewd 40m buys tailored to Ten Hag’s needs, but we don’t (yet), and ideally, fans and press wouldn’t go ballistic like thwy didn’t really do when Klopp’s Liverpool and Arteta’s Arsenal collected eigth places. Players implode more often at United than at other clubs, and it’s only partly the club’s fault.
I hope United stand together behind Ten Hag, because he has a plan, and there are nobody else waiting in line with a better or even similar plan. I don’t mind if we get eleventh in a season as long as we for once manage to stick to a plan for a few years, and I don’t care if the evidence of progress is plainly visible when we play for months with a chop and change B-list of players new to the club or just returning from injury. It’s almost impossible to detect progress under such circumstances.
Wout started a lot of games, despte being terrible. Weghorst gets a 10 for desire to be here and perform, a 2 for output.
But he is very shite at it isn't it? With all these money spent on "direct football", he can't even get our players moving into opponents box.
How do you break down a low defence with soley direct counter attack football?
Those managers would have spent 400m buying players to suit their system, it looks and feels like we’ve just signed random players and are playing any old random football. Hard to believe he’s actually managed multiple of his signings in the past.
This did set of alarm bells for me. In part he got the job in the hope he would recreate the football at Ajax. Instead he is saying he doesn’t have the players for it having bought a load of them and saying they are only suited to direct football. There are only two that play regularly that probably prefer direct football and those two are stinking the place up so why are we playing to their likes.
Buy two huge tall strong strikers then do a Moyes.
Mctominays physicality and height brings better balance to the midfield than Mount does
I believe you have Sancho with this ability to be positioned in between the lines from a central area. But barring pre-season, ETH has overlooked this
Ah, the 'we dont have a director of football' thread.
All of this goes away if you have a DOF whose job it is to direct the type, style and philosophy of football which the club is to build in its DNA, from youth academy all the way through to first team. He is responsible for identifying coaches and players who will fit that philosophy, and the great advantage is it lasts longer than a single manager (although as shown by teams like Brighton it can adapt to similar styles). We lack this, uniquely, and so go like a drunk looking for another beer from bar to bar, wandering aimlessly, hoping to get lucky.
All of this goes away if you have a DOF whose job it is to direct the type, style and philosophy of football which the club is to build in its DNA, from youth academy all the way through to first team. He is responsible for identifying coaches and players who will fit that philosophy, and the great advantage is it lasts longer than a single manager (although as shown by teams like Brighton it can adapt to similar styles). We lack this, uniquely, and so go like a drunk looking for another beer from bar to bar, wandering aimlessly, hoping to get lucky.
I don't think you can. Which is why successful teams are able to switch things up and adapt tactically depending on in game situations. What's your point?
Why have you put direct football in quotation marks? I agree though we haven't been very successful at playing direct this season so far. I'm not panicking though. I back him to turn things around.
