Rasmus would be feeding off scraps in this formationHow would you fix this from a tactical perspective? My honest opinion is Rashford and Bruno need a spell on the bench due to constant bad performances. I'd also drop Mainoo for a few games as he seems to have dipped since the Euros. I think the number of games is catching up on him.
--------------------- Onana---------------------
Mazraroui --- De Ligt ----- Martinez ---- Dalot
------Casemiro ------Eriksen-----Ugarte-------
Amad ------------------------------------------Garnacho
--------------------------Rasmus-----------------------------
I'd probably do something like this with pack the midfield to make it harder to play through us. Eventually putting Mainoo back in after a few weeks rest. Hopefully at some point Shaw or Malacia would be fit to play LB.
I'd agree with most of that (and all the points you raise in the OP), but disagree with Mourinho here. He set up the defence properly, but he had a similar flaw to LVG in that he expected the attack to just create everything on the individual level rather than set up systems and patterns of play that would allow them to create overloads and openings.I don't really agree with that.
LvG had us reasonably well set-up. We certainly never got battered like we do on the regular now and actually usually did OK in the big games.
OGS had loads of good results but ultimately couldn't find a way of beating mediocre opposition often enough. It wasn't the case that there were huge gaps everywhere though, we just looked devoid of ideas vs low-blocks.
And Jose...he just lost the dressing room because he was too impatient. It wasn't a tactical issue with him
Which is a difficult preset to do... Because it is next to impossible to judge a plan without considering the execution of that plan.
Definitely a big problem I agree. But to me, this probably isn't so much the positioning itself but the organisation - the match is in motion and as the team moves, we are losing our structure. It is something, that should go away over time. But for such synergies to form, we also have to stick to one system...
Thats definitely a problem. But at the same time, our wide positioning is also stretching the opposition to create more space in the centre of the pitch. It isn't an ETH specific thing but very common. Two sides of the medal, risk or reward. But I agree with you, too often it comes with no reward for us.
The tighter it gets, the higher the technical requirements on your players. So yeah, Pep obviously goes for this and in principle it is right, but when done correctly, our long balls are a good way of stretching the opposition. Especially one that tried to stay close to each other for short passing.
Thats part of the story - the wide players keep their width to stretch the back line - the striker occupies the CBs and the other attacker is supposed to keep the oppo DM busy - by pushing two 8s up, it should overload that area. The idea makes sense but for it to work, it needs good organisation and suited players. Without those, the risk-reward-ratio can quickly turn against you.
Thats also a pretty common thing these days. Most teams when in possession form a back three and one part from that backline will start supporting a different are on the pitch. The idea itself makes sense - the question is whether our players are suited for it.
I agree, I think, we are overdoing the fluidity part to a certain extent. Fluidity makes sense but I feel for some of our players it might be too much too handle at the minute, especially given that it is a collective thing - so even if one player does his part, he could still look awful when the next player doesn't.
This has always been a spectrum. I agree though, for the intensity our attackers press at times, the line should be higher. But for a long time, we had players there who were very uncomfortable pushing up. Which lead to that donut phenomenon - where the attackers push up while the defenders only push up hesitantly leading to a hole in the centre to form to bring shame to every player who is left there to take on opposition players at speed, in numbers. Mostly alone. Again, it is a risk-reward thing but it is something, that takes time to get instilled.
We definitely overdo it. But at the same time, I always feel that ETH (and many other coaches) happily surpass the midfield by simply making long passes, so it isn't a ETH specific thing but I agree, it would be better to get that under control.
I think, this is mostly down to your problem no. 1.
Not sure they are really inverted given they are instructed to hold the width. Issue with them is, we employ no wingers there but wing forwards who aren't looking to swing in crosses but try to get at the end of things. Add to that our fullbacks stand out for being unproductive in terms of exploiting space in the last third and you got what we see there so often.
This sounds awfully as if I am trying to rectify ETH. not my intention but some of the things you observe aren't any crazy ETH specific things but rather common things that simply fail for various reasons for us. Be that some players with very specific skillsets (that aren't the most modern), be that a rather subpar overall workrate and often times lacking intensity, be that the apparent lack of any form of organised pressing structure for years which set our players back. ETH has now to pay off the debt that the previous decision makers amassed. Which doesn't mean, that he is a poor victim and shouldn't be judged - he should - but nobody should fall for the illusion that the formentioned issues would simply go away as soon as the name of the manager changes.
The players do not matter at this point and this manager will never make us better regardless of what players we bring.Some still blaming players despite a high turnover. Its the bloody manager
I agree, it is a cheap exit. But the squad and its limitations plays a part. Lets get away from this simplified good enough - bad enough premise, that isn't going to cut it. Players are more or less suited to roles and responsibilities in a game plan, based on their skillset, their mentality and their physical attributes. Right now, we are finding ourselves. Could a different manager be faster in that process, I like to think yes, but I am not denying that I thought the same thing about the days of Ole. In some positions we are in a bit in a pickle - we have to make do without a reliable goal scorer yet, but we recruited well in terms of having the future in mind given that either Rasmus and JZ are known for being industrious strikers ready to work for their team. Our wing options are a set of very young and inexperienced players and older yet underperforming players - none of them particularly kean on playing traditional winger roles but rather trying to cut inside. Which isn't an ideal match given that they seem to be tasked to give our system its width (and who else could it be since our fullbacks aren't much useful in those traditional fullback roles as well). And I don't need to start about the midfield options, where we employ a 10 player in Bruno who can pick the greatest of passes yet is so uncomfortable on the ball that he actually isn't really suited to that part of the pitch. Apart from that our options are aging Casemiro and Eriksen, who suffer from too much space to cover which is a result of the team not moving as a group yet too much individually, and a rather inexperienced player in mainoo.I hate the argument that our squad isn't good enough.
We can argue until the cows come home about how it compares with Liverpool and Chelsea etc...but one thing is for sure, it's a better squad than the likes of Emery at Villa and Howe at Newcastle have, and they both manage to play decent football and pick up solid results.
Good coaches take a squad and mould it into an effective unit. If you gave Klopp this squad and gave EtHs current Liverpool side, I think you'd see league positions reversed.
I'd say that applies to Ole as well. To a degree, I'd even say it applies to ETHs first season as well. I always felt, that chance creation isn't something that looks very different today compared to all these years ago. Just different players. There is a point to be made that the decision makers wanted to take care of other areas first (ability to play out from the back first and 2nd year, more functional midfield this year) and leave the chance creation to the intuitivity of our players.I'd agree with most of that (and all the points you raise in the OP), but disagree with Mourinho here. He set up the defence properly, but he had a similar flaw to LVG in that he expected the attack to just create everything on the individual level rather than set up systems and patterns of play that would allow them to create overloads and openings.
Guess then you have missed this partMate the entire gist of your post seems to be saying that nothing is ETH's fault and everything is due to the players not being good enough or not executing ETH's tactics
Not saying it is the players. Both players and manager sucks right now and while the manager certainly made mistakes, taking out the players doesn't really make sense as well. I am not hung up on ETH. If there is the right candidate locked and loaded, then go on. But most likely that is not the case. And sacking ETH just for sackings sake and because some fans can't handle the results reeks of actionism. I am seriously worried by all the talk about Ole these days - people are so hung up on concurrent results, that they miss the big picture. ETH showed in his first season, that he knows how to set us up pragmatically - he played Ole ball with slightly different players and he got results. But thats not what the objective should be - as a topclub, we can't afford going down the Ole route of choosing the simplest game plan (even though it can be effective for particular games) because we need to be better than that. If it isn't ETH, thats fine for me, but we need a manager with a positive and modern approach to football. Who can make use of the technical players we brought in without going down the easy route of setting us up in a low block and wait for counters. Our team had quite a distance to go given that we had so bad and out-of-date managers and decision makers for so long. Barcelona bombed us in the CL final with organized pressing schemes fecking 15 years ago - these days everybody is using them yet we haven't implemented it in an organized way until last year. Of course it would take a while for it to bear fruits. That the core of my point - another manager can help to get us where we want to go, but it won't be pretty at first. More likely is he is going the pragmatic route which eventually will stabilize results but doesn't help in the long run.This sounds awfully as if I am trying to rectify ETH. not my intention but some of the things you observe aren't any crazy ETH specific things but rather common things that simply fail for various reasons for us. Be that some players with very specific skillsets (that aren't the most modern), be that a rather subpar overall workrate and often times lacking intensity, be that the apparent lack of any form of organised pressing structure for years which set our players back. ETH has now to pay off the debt that the previous decision makers amassed. Which doesn't mean, that he is a poor victim and shouldn't be judged - he should - but nobody should fall for the illusion that the formentioned issues would simply go away as soon as the name of the manager changes.
I'd say a lack of confidence is a more apt description than lack of motivation. The latter tends to imply that the players just can't be bothered to try their hardest. Which doesn't really fit with the large majority of the team, where the one thing that I will give ETH credit for is that he has assembled players that seem to have a good mindset.Spurs were way more motivated than us, way more. They were winning all the 50/50s, their passing was sharp and accurate, they were working harder than us. Thats because they were fired up. Think back to when you were playing sport, if you were fired up, everything came easier.
We on the other hand were second to all the 50/50s. Players were just safely passing it. Poor pass completion rate. We looked managerless. One player would try and another wouldnt etc.
All the top top managers are great motivators - then you give the tactics employed a chance to come to fruition. Ferguson even said he had read books on Vince Lombardi, that he used lie awake at night trying to come up with anecdotes to tell the players to inspire them.
What pep is doing with city is he has those players fired up, they want to win and they hate other teams. I can guarantee his demeanor behind closed doors is different to that when he is giving interviews. He has those city players wanting to win, to give 110%, then he tells them the tactics. Its like Lombardi said, winning isnt everything, but wanting to win is. We didnt even want to be out there today the players have given up on ten hag.
I guarantee the first few games after ten hag is sacked, we will suddenly look better, because the players will suddenly start giving more effort.
Interesting take. Sounds very plausible. But to stick to that mental image: how does a poker player become good at being loose aggressive - he has to attempt it on a regular basis, I guess, does he?United are playing "loose aggressive" football but without the skill edge to pull it off. Our style invites wide-open games that more organised, better-coached opponents can very easily exploit.
Yes so like anything, to become a good LAG (loose aggressive) player requires thousands of hours of study and play but it also requires a certain type of character as well. A LAG player needs to be brave enough to attack when they see an opportunity but calculated enough to know when blind aggression is folly. They need to present an image of recklessness whilst all the time being calm and serene beneath the surface and they need to be able to handle the variance that comes with playing a LAG style.Interesting take. Sounds very plausible. But to stick to that mental image: how does a poker player become good at being loose aggressive - he has to attempt it on a regular basis, I guess, does he?
I know, this sounds like card blanche for the manager, I actually can't believe that it is me of all people that is now looking like defending ETH, when I was critical of him even after our first season, but we really have to get our objectives right here. We can step away from being loose agressive, that is fine and certainly the best chance to stabilize results in the short run. But the big teams all have the ability to go loose aggressive as well, so, in my personal opinion, it is something we have to do as well, and we won't get there as long as we don't even attempt to do it.
I don't understand why we are not set up like we finished last season.
I am honestly starting to think ETH is deranged, he lives in a bubble where he is the main character and he is always right
Yeah I certainly agree. The fundamentals have to come first and there is a good chance that he is trying to do too much in too short of a time (or that it is too much for our players to handle, Dalot strikes me as somebody who might be overburdened with the complexity of his role). On the fundamentals part I'd comment that he might think, he has that taken care of looking at his first season where, at least to me, he showed that this rather simple game style is possible and functional. But on the rest, I wholeheartedly agree - just that it is a completely different "accusation" to ask whether somebody is doing the wrong things or whether he might doing the right things in the wrong way (i.e. too much too fast). edit: and to bring this thought to its result: the question is important in terms of what to do about it - whether to bring in somebody who does other things or to bring in somebody who is doing the same things but in a different way.Yes so like anything, to become a good LAG (loose aggressive) player requires thousands of hours of study and play but it also requires a certain type of character as well. A LAG player needs to be brave enough to attack when they see an opportunity but calculated enough to know when blind aggression is folly. They need to present an image of recklessness whilst all the time being calm and serene beneath the surface and they need to be able to handle the variance that comes with playing a LAG style.
Now, I can already potentially see what you're alluding to here, which is "how will we ever get good if we don't practice" etc...? The thing is, nobody advocates for playing a LAG style as a beginner or even an intermediate.
A professional poker coach, given a decent amateur, would work on the foundations of their game first. They would teach the player pre-flop charts, so that they knew which hands to open and from which position, when to 3-bet, when to 4-bet, when to shove all-in etc...then they would move on to the foundations of "Game Theory Optimal" (GTO) play and spend hundreds of hours making sure that is ingrained in a player before they would ever suggest they play like a LAG.
I assume you don't play Poker...if you loaded PokerStars now, deposited £100 and played a £10 buy-in game in a LAG style, it would be gone within the hour. BUT....if you played like a massive "nit" (very tight, very conservative), then you would maybe lose one or two buy-in's...or potentially even get lucky and win buy buy-in or two.
So the point I am getting at, and to bring this back to United, is that EtH is trying to implement a very "loose, aggressive" style, without first addressing some of the very basics, and it's asking for trouble.
I always think the first thing a manager should do is make it hard to score against his side. Get the defensive foundations in-place. This is akin to getting your pre-flop game right and learning GTO principles in Poker.
Then, once you have this nailed, you move on to worrying about how to score more goals and breakdown low-blocks, equivalent in Poker to "how do I win more money against tight opponents now I have mastered the fundamentals?".
You can't just rock-up to a casino or worse, a site full of studied, online professionals and start wildly raising, check-raising, three-betting flops, opening a wide-range of hands etc...you'd lose your house and bank account within a week.
Likewise, you can't take a good but unspectacular bunch of mismatched players who've suffered under various managers and try to have them play high-variance, highly complex "chaos-ball" and expect them to pull it off in the harsh environment of the Premier League.
That's on the coach. If I paid a Poker coach, I'd expect them to accurately assess my level, the good bits, the bad bits and then help me patch up my foundations first.
If the first thing my new coach does is start talking to me about "blockers" and check-raising flops out of position with backdoor straight draws then he/she isn't a good coach, EVEN if we accept that what they are saying is in theory correct...i.e. that those concepts are integral to becoming one of the best in the World.
To summarise what has become quite a lengthy post....in any sport or game, you master fundamentals first. You don't take up cricket and start coaching switch-hitting before you've mastered the forward defensive. You don't turn up to session one of swimming lessons and have the coach take a load of folks who can't swim to the highest diving board to practice triple-somersault twists.
Erik ten Hag might be right in one sense. To win the Premier League, we need to control games, we need to create spaces, we need to beat presses....but he's trying to do too much at once and ignoring the deficiencies of his squad...and all it's doing right now is hurting us and taking us backwards
Not just ETH. Seems every manager we've employed has us playing with massive gaps between defence, midfield and attack.
Its been a prevalent issue for a long time now. Yet nobody can fix it.
In all honesty, I'd have given Jose more time - I know that's unpopular hereExcept for Van Gaal. In hindsight maybe he should’ve been given the time (to find out how to make the team score) we now give Ten Haag.
Well he's clearly shown that when he accepts our limitations i.e. in the cup final vs City, and sets us up a certain way to exploit a better opponent, that he can set a team up very well and also the players have shown that they can execute.Yeah I certainly agree. The fundamentals have to come first and there is a good chance that he is trying to do too much in too short of a time (or that it is too much for our players to handle, Dalot strikes me as somebody who might be overburdened with the complexity of his role). On the fundamentals part I'd comment that he might think, he has that taken care of looking at his first season where, at least to me, he showed that this rather simple game style is possible and functional. But on the rest, I wholeheartedly agree - just that it is a completely different "accusation" to ask whether somebody is doing the wrong things or whether he might doing the right things in the wrong way (i.e. too much too fast). edit: and to bring this thought to its result: the question is important in terms of what to do about it - whether to bring in somebody who does other things or to bring in somebody who is doing the same things but in a different way.
