ETH: "We want to be the best transition team in the world"

FrankDrebin said:
#OleBallReturns
Click to expand...
EtH 22/23 - 53.8% possession, 58 goals
Mostly Rangnick 21/22 - 52.1% possession, 57 goals
Ole 20/21 - 54.5% possession, 73 goals
Ole 19/20 - 54.6% possession, 66 goals

OleBall wasn't that bad. It's just that Solskjaer didn't have a cool reputation, so people judged him based on what they wanted to believe. A return to some elements of OleBall wouldn't necessarily be that bad.
 
ChaddyP said:
Good ...its my favourite type of ball and something we are actually really fecking good at.
Click to expand...

Surely to go as far as "really fecking good (at it)" would require the team to score more than fifty-eight goals in a season, which is seven more than relegated Leicester, less than every other team in the top six, and on par with Brentford, who were newly promoted just the season prior. Yes, scoring goals is an essential part of being a "transition team", and being a good football team in general.
 
Telsim said:
This is very disappointing to me. I hate defensive football, and I hate football that cedes anything to the other team.
Click to expand...
Did you even read what was said?
 
izec said:
You need to be good in possession as well. Not the best, we wont be better than City anyway, but you need to be able to keep the ball for periods. I have said this 5 years ago and it is still valid today. If you lose your head and cant keep the ball in pressure situations, you wont win titles, no matter how good you are in transition. That is our biggest weakness for more than a decade now.

Liverpool and Real were great sides in transition years ago, but also great sides in possession (not the best, but still pretty good could keep the ball and play out of a press on a consistent basis). We cant.
Click to expand...

The second paragraph is literally one of the key differences between a world class transitional team and a counter attacking one.

We're building towards being strong at:

Direct counter attacking play
Building from the back quickly in our defensive transition
Counter pressing in the opponents defensive transition

As well as trying to improve threat against low block with more presence up front and third man runners from midfield.
 
dubplate warrior said:
That's not what transition football is.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I know exactly what transition football is. And it's not dominant and offensive enough for me, though. But that is just entirely my personal preference. No wrong way to play football as long as you win. If that's what he wants to do, then fine.
 
Devil You Know said:
EtH 22/23 - 53.8% possession, 58 goals
Mostly Rangnick 21/22 - 52.1% possession, 57 goals
Ole 20/21 - 54.5% possession, 73 goals
Ole 19/20 - 54.6% possession, 66 goals

OleBall wasn't that bad. It's just that Solskjaer didn't have a cool reputation, so people judged him based on what they wanted to believe. A return to some elements of OleBall wouldn't necessarily be that bad.
Click to expand...

Ole was shit. There's a reason opposition fans wanted him to stay, what's the point of having someone who'll never win anything?

In his near enough three years here, we never had any patterns of play, couldn't play out of the back and played with a low block. Individual brilliance was a term you heard alot when he was here and there was a rain why.
 
Basically how we played under Sir Alex for many years, against the lower clubs we'll play possession and beat them with our quality and against the bigger teams we'll look to be compact and then break on them from different areas of the pitch
 
Is there any difference between a "counter attacking" style and a "transition" style?

There's nothing wrong with being a counter attacking side in my eyes but is there any differnce?
 
dubplate warrior said:
Ole was shit. There's a reason opposition fans wanted him to stay, what's the point of having someone who'll never win anything?

In his near enough three years here, we never had any patterns of play, couldn't play out of the back and played with a low block. Individual brilliance was a term you heard alot when he was here and there was a rain why.
Click to expand...
So is your post.
 
Telsim said:
Trust me, I know exactly what transition football is. And it's not dominant and offensive enough for me, though. But that is just entirely my personal preference. No wrong way to play football as long as you win. If that's what he wants to do, then fine.
Click to expand...

What's your definition of transitional football? My interpretation is that we win the ball back quickly and attack quickly. That's not inherently negative or regressive.
 
duffer said:
Is there any difference between a "counter attacking" style and a "transition" style?

There's nothing wrong with being a counter attacking side in my eyes but is there any differnce?
Click to expand...

My very basic understanding is that counter-attacking indicates drawing teams on to you before hitting them on the break from deep, whereas this transition style involves pressing on the front foot and winning the ball back close to the opposition box.
 
noodlehair said:
That isn't what he says in the quotes where he specifically talks about how United have traditionally played is it? It's something you've invented entirely by yourself and are now being sarcastic about for some reason.



When we were winning the league most years players would still get criticised exactly the same. Nani got as much if not more shite than Antony gets. So don't buy that at all



My big concern in pre season is whenever ETH has his preferred 11 on the pitch, it doesn't have a midfield, and we just get cut through with ease every single time we lose the ball, which is often because we have no midfield so have to play percentage balls.

These comments about being overly concerned with transition kind of explain it and it's concerning me.

It's no good being the best team in the world at transition if it means letting every opponent run at your back 4 every 2 minutes.



They don't. The quotes he's banging on about how we used to play. He's literally talking about us going backwards.

I don't want to hear our manager concerning himself with stuff that is at best completely irrelevant.



Which is exactly what my concern is, because it is what will very obviously happen.

Every time we lose the ball the opposition have 1 player to beat to get at our centrebacks, and about 80 yards of space to play with in order to do it...and we will be losing the ball a lot because every other pass will have to be either a punt up the pitch or final ball.

This was the entire first half today. Yeah it's only a friendly but neither Mount or Fernandes are going to magically transform into a central midfielder by next weekend.

Really not getting how this is worth it for 2 nice counter attacks a half.
Click to expand...

That's what I was saying. That's my concern too. Question is why is this happening. Thinking about what we are trying for seems similar to Liverpool and Arsenal last year. So to me conpared to them, it cuz we are not yet good enough with our counter pressing or we lack a Saliba/VVD to better deal with transitions. Probably combination of the two factors.
 
noodlehair said:
That isn't what he says in the quotes where he specifically talks about how United have traditionally played is it? It's something you've invented entirely by yourself and are now being sarcastic about for some reason.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps he has that quote isn’t the only thing he’s ever said in his life and he hasn’t only now just started managing. He’s framing what he wants in how United have historically played as well as the players he has to hand. He likes positional play, but he has always been a manager who believes in fast transitions. High pressing, counter pressing and moving the ball to goal with pace. Even his Ajax side yes dominated the ball mostly in the Dutch League, but in Europe was more pragmatic. His preferred style of football at Ajax was closer to Klopp than pep.

But yes get hung up on him framing things within the context of the club he is at.
 
noodlehair said:
That isn't what he says in the quotes where he specifically talks about how United have traditionally played is it? It's something you've invented entirely by yourself and are now being sarcastic about for some reason.



When we were winning the league most years players would still get criticised exactly the same. Nani got as much if not more shite than Antony gets. So don't buy that at all



My big concern in pre season is whenever ETH has his preferred 11 on the pitch, it doesn't have a midfield, and we just get cut through with ease every single time we lose the ball, which is often because we have no midfield so have to play percentage balls.

These comments about being overly concerned with transition kind of explain it and it's concerning me.

It's no good being the best team in the world at transition if it means letting every opponent run at your back 4 every 2 minutes.



They don't. The quotes he's banging on about how we used to play. He's literally talking about us going backwards.

I don't want to hear our manager concerning himself with stuff that is at best completely irrelevant.



Which is exactly what my concern is, because it is what will very obviously happen.

Every time we lose the ball the opposition have 1 player to beat to get at our centrebacks, and about 80 yards of space to play with in order to do it...and we will be losing the ball a lot because every other pass will have to be either a punt up the pitch or final ball.

This was the entire first half today. Yeah it's only a friendly but neither Mount or Fernandes are going to magically transform into a central midfielder by next weekend.

Really not getting how this is worth it for 2 nice counter attacks a half.
Click to expand...
Don't take everything he says so literally. Some of the stuff is for the fans cause it sounds good. He won't make as play as like when we played under Fergie cause he said that.
 
mav_9me said:
That's what I was saying. That's my concern too. Question is why is this happening. Thinking about what we are trying for seems similar to Liverpool and Arsenal last year. So to me conpared to them, it cuz we are not yet good enough with our counter pressing or we lack a Saliba/VVD to better deal with transitions. Probably combination of the two factors.
Click to expand...
We need to deal better with transitions ideally before the ball reaches our defence.
That was my main issue with the Mount signing, as Case, Bruno, Mount isn’t strong enough in possession. I am curious to see how ETH tackles this.
 
dubplate warrior said:
What's your definition of transitional football? My interpretation is that we win the ball back quickly and attack quickly. That's not inherently negative or regressive.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what you said. Quick transition from defense to attack and vice versa by forcing mistakes through incessant pressing and capitalizing on the momentary disorganization in the other team. This could probably be improved if you are look to put it into the thesaurus, though.

I personally liken it to a cunning cobra. I myself prefer instead a boa constrictor. Both lethal, of course. But I prefer the offensive power of undeniable overwhelming force with high degree of control than precise attacks and finesse.
 
Last edited:
macheda14 said:
Or perhaps he has that quote isn’t the only thing he’s ever said in his life and he hasn’t only now just started managing. He’s framing what he wants in how United have historically played as well as the players he has to hand. He likes positional play, but he has always been a manager who believes in fast transitions. High pressing, counter pressing and moving the ball to goal with pace. Even his Ajax side yes dominated the ball mostly in the Dutch League, but in Europe was more pragmatic. His preferred style of football at Ajax was closer to Klopp than pep.

But yes get hung up on him framing things within the context of the club he is at.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. There's a weirdly negative reaction to this despite the fact he clearly states that wants to be proactive defensively. It seems like people have forgotten that good football is more than just tika taka. Arsenal played transition football during the Henry years. We did in both the 1994 and 2008 team. Real Madrid in 2012 and later with Zidane did that. In fact, their preseason game against us was a clear sign of that. As did Milan under Ancelotti. Liverpool and Dortmund under Klopp play the closest to ETH's Ajax, which is similar to what he's talking about. Yet despite us clearly seeking to play high pressing football (our signings are a clear sign of this). Should he say he plans to play like any other team aside from United. He's not Moyes
 
Adisa said:
Yes. His Ajax team were always more like Liverpool than City. Don't know where the Pep comparison came from.
City are also very good at transitions, mind you.
Click to expand...
I think it’s purely because he used to coach for Pep for two years at Bayern.
 
FriedClams said:
There are only a few players capable of doing that role by themselves and luckily, Casemiro is one of them.
Click to expand...

The man is going to get burned out by November if we continue to leave almost all of the defensive work to him.
 
duffer said:
Is there any difference between a "counter attacking" style and a "transition" style?

There's nothing wrong with being a counter attacking side in my eyes but is there any differnce?
Click to expand...

Transitions are the moment one team loses the ball to the other. When a side is described as a transition team it implies heavy focus on coming out on top in those moments possession changes hands.

Which in real terms means counter-pressing to win the ball back quickly/aggressively after losing it and attacking quickly/directly when you regain possession and your opponents aren't set defensively.

So counter attacks are part of that, but not the whole thing. For example you could also set up to counter attack by not aggressively counter-pressing at all, sitting deep, inviting the opposition on to you and hitting them on the break. That would also be counter-attacking football, but it wouldn't be what people mean when they talk about transition football in this context.
 
V.O. said:
The "United way" stuff is just window dressing. That's not the actual reason we're playing as we are. Ten Hag is a pragmatist (in the real sense of the word, rather than the "plays defensive football" way that football pundits like to use it for some reason) who wants to find the best way to win with the players that he has.

When your best players are Fernandes, Casemiro, Rashford etc, the way to win with them is to play more direct, and it looks like we're already doing that with more structure and control than we were under Ole/Mourinho etc. We also now have the players in the back five to knock accurate long passes to runners or play out patiently as the situation calls for.

If we're good enough in possession to beat the shite, and good enough in transition to beat the better sides, we'll go far. That's pretty much been Real Madrid's model for a good few years now, Liverpool's when they were winning a couple of pots, and City were more like that last year than before as well (Arsenal had 64% possession against them and lost 3-1, Bayern had 56% and lost 3-0).
Click to expand...

Yeah agree this makes sense and ETH has built up a level of trust based on last season, and maybe the United stuff is just words to try and keep some people happy, but it still makes me uneasy hearing it. It probably would make me less uneasy if I wasn't also concerned with our set up in pre-season whenever he has his preferred players on the pitch. If he goes with the team he did today, which seemed to be base don directness and transitions, we'll just get opened up by pretty much every opposition, and be relying on them messing up enough opportunities to keep us in the game, which is not going to end well.

What worries me is how he keeps using Mount, because it makes no fecking sense and imbalances the whole team so far towards quick attacking play that we have pretty much no control over anything else....but at the same time it made no real sense making Mount a priority signing, so I can only think this IS his plan for him, and its going to take x amount of awful performances (and quite possibly results to go with) before he accepts its a terrible idea.
 
Steve 007 said:
Do you think that’s why we are looking at Amrabat too?
Click to expand...

Has to be. We simply can't leave all that workload on Cas, and the drop off when we play Fred is pretty big. Not to mention when he inevitably gets his three match suspension, we're gonna need proper depth.
 
Devil You Know said:
EtH 22/23 - 53.8% possession, 58 goals
Mostly Rangnick 21/22 - 52.1% possession, 57 goals
Ole 20/21 - 54.5% possession, 73 goals
Ole 19/20 - 54.6% possession, 66 goals

OleBall wasn't that bad. It's just that Solskjaer didn't have a cool reputation, so people judged him based on what they wanted to believe. A return to some elements of OleBall wouldn't necessarily be that bad.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.
 
united_99 said:
We need to deal better with transitions ideally before the ball reaches our defence.
That was my main issue with the Mount signing, as Case, Bruno, Mount isn’t strong enough in possession. I am curious to see how ETH tackles this.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you mean strong enough out of possession? How is our combination really any weaker than Rice/Odegaard/Havertz? Interesting to see if they have similar problems?

Anyway dealing better with transitions is basically down to better counter pressing as soon as we lose the ball, in this approach.
 
edcunited1878 said:
You can still have these principles when in possession. The shape and pace of play when pinning the opposition within their half is something United have shown they can do under EtH.
Click to expand...
And you can use possession to create transitional moments as well. Tifo did a video on Brighton under De Zerbi, about how they use their possession to draw opponents into their half, and then once things are set the way they want, they launch a quick attack through the spaces that have opened up. (And probably that video posted on page 1 talks about that as well, but I can't watch it now.) Like what @siw2007 said here:
siw2007 said:
I think our strategy will be to recycle the ball in our half using Onana, Martinez, Shaw etc and drawing teams on to us before initiating direct attacks with the likes of Bruno, Rashford, Garnacho etc to exploit the space we have opened up in the final third. I don’t think it’s too dissimilar to how Klopp used to utilise Salah and Mane.
Click to expand...
And like the goal against Arsenal last season (was it?), where United had a long spell of possession, but the actual goal came out of sudden quick vertical play from the back. As everyone is saying here, that's all really more Klopp than Guardiola.

It's also very much how he played with Ajax, so as for the 'United history's bit, or @noodlehair's comment:
noodlehair said:
Don't like all this United identity stuff.

It's not progressive if you start factoring the history of the club and how it used to play in the past into your tactics and how you play now, is it? That's literally the exact opposite of being progressive.
Click to expand...
I think it's pure PR to bring United's history into it. Quick vertical (transitional) play was exactly what Ten Hag did at Ajax and what you should have expected to get at United all along. Ten Hag obviously wasn't honouring United's history at Ajax, so I'd rather interpret this as United PR team telling Ten Hag that he should try if he can to link his approach to what fans feel is the United way.
 
mav_9me said:
I'm assuming you mean strong enough out of possession? How is our combination really any weaker than Rice/Odegaard/Havertz? Interesting to see if they have similar problems?

Anyway dealing better with transitions is basically down to better counter pressing as soon as we lose the ball, in this approach.
Click to expand...

Or indeed Liverpool's set-up: Szoboszlai, Mac Allister and a black hole at DM they're still trying to fill.

If we think our midfield has problems, imagine Casemiro wasn't there at all.
 
Every good team is a good transition team. A huge part of peps Barcelona team was to stay in position when having the ball so then could win it back as soon as possible when they lost it, to counter.

Its not like a team good in transition is the same as beeing bad in possession. Its just a team coached by a person who understand that the easiest time to score is when the other team is unorganized, in other words, in transition.
 
dubplate warrior said:
.


It works if you have incredible attacking players, but we don't have that. Barring Marcus we need another player who can score 20 plus goals.
Click to expand...
How many teams have 2 players that score 20+ a season?
 
mav_9me said:
I'm assuming you mean strong enough out of possession? How is our combination really any weaker than Rice/Odegaard/Havertz? Interesting to see if they have similar problems?

Anyway dealing better with transitions is basically down to better counter pressing as soon as we lose the ball, in this approach.
Click to expand...
No, I meant in possession. I mean the new Arsenal combination hasn’t really been tried in competitive games yet so we will need to see. But as neither Case, nor Bruno/Mount are that good in possession we are “light/weak” in midfield. At Madrid Case was playing next to Modric/Kroos so got away with being not as good in possession. Here Bruno/Mount are different type of players.
 
Two main areas to improve this season.

- Scoring more goals, especially against bottom half teams.
- Performing better against City/Liverpool.

I can get onboard with the Bruno/Mount pairing coming good against the bottom half teams and possibly resulting in more goals scored.

But I haven't seen anything in preseason which would suggest United are ready to go head to head against City just yet.
 
dubplate warrior said:
Ole was shit. There's a reason opposition fans wanted him to stay, what's the point of having someone who'll never win anything?

In his near enough three years here, we never had any patterns of play, couldn't play out of the back and played with a low block. Individual brilliance was a term you heard alot when he was here and there was a rain why.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's quite as black and white as that. Everything went completely tits up in his final season here, and that's what sticks in people's minds, but there were some good elements that came before that.

I think the 'individual brilliance' line got peddled a bit too often and wasn't completely fair, we beat Pep's City team 4 times while Solskjaer was manager, for example. Those types of results don't just happen by themselves. Obviously that isn't enough in isolation, and we were never going to become the most dominant team in the country while City and Liverpool were about, but we were ruthless on the counter at times and still played better attacking football than we did under van Gaal and Mourinho.
 
sullydnl said:
Telling graph from that:

Screenshot_20230805_145303_Chrome.jpg
Click to expand...
This reminded me of Big Sam.. I remember him talking about the statistics and data about how many seconds needed to be between winning the ball back and having a shot.. or how many touches before a shot was taken..
He was all in on that way back when he was at Bolton.

He does talk a lot.. but his Bolton were great to watch..
 
2cents said:
My very basic understanding is that counter-attacking indicates drawing teams on to you before hitting them on the break from deep, whereas this transition style involves pressing on the front foot and winning the ball back close to the opposition box.
Click to expand...

This is the difference… In big games Ole ball was to let Arsenal, City & Pool dominate possession and hit them on the counter. Where as ETH wants United to press and counter press up high on the pitch and transition quickly into offense which will lead to hopefully more goals!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.