It's not that Wilson doesn't make valid points. He does. It's that there is absolutely no journalistic balance at all.
The positive points, and there aren't many, are glossed over or immediately qualified with cynicism.
If I didn't know the result before reading the article I'd have assumed United had dropped points in a worryingly poor display. Whereas in fact they won 4-1 and the crowd was elated.
I personally think people are too giddy and the reality of our tactical and midfield shortcomings will all too soon be a talking point on here again. But come on, if you can't see that Saturday was a massive positive experience for United which had genuine seeds of hope for the season then you're either a curmudgeon, an ABU, or as in Wilson's case, both.
Actually, what he writes about our supposed tactical and midfield shortcomings is arguably even more annoying and contemptible than the obvious downright dislike, because it basically distorts points that are valid enough to merit discussion, and hence contribute to them not being discussed properly. Particularly his insistence that United gets into trouble against middling and low-block sides too often for a top club as a result of lacking tactical structure, which is simply not true (we do of course, but not nearly as often as Liverpool or Tuchel Chelsea did last season), and his absurd belief that we are still a team that likes to defend low and rely on the counterattack, as if it was still 2019.
In the first case; not many people would disagree that United has issues in the midfield. But Wilson more than implies that this reflects a general lack of tactical shape - even "incompetence" - which leaves United vulnerable to upsets by weaker teams in a way that other, better organised, more competently led top teams are not. But if that is true, then why did Liverpool and Chelsea under Tuchel (whom no one, and certainly not Wilson, would regard as anything other than firmly organised tactically and ably managed) drop more points against such teams than United did? Results are the objective measure of how well something works, and it is a fact that what OGS did against such teams worked better than what Klopp and Tuchel did. Either we're not as disorganised and tactically clueless as he implies, or a firm and clear tactical organisation matters less than he implies. Or both. While it is fair to point to the midfield as an area that needs improvement, both in terms of player quality and in terms of working out more clearly exactly what the midfield is supposed to deliver and its function in our overall game, this does not result in vulnerabilities that teams with a clearer organisation and comparable (or superior) squad quality don't have.
In the second case; I think you can only conclude that Wilson sticks to this narrative because it would support his point if it was true: Tactical one-trick ponies, with no plan B if the opponent refuses to oblige by trying to dominate the game and attack. But this is not how United plays, and we haven't played in this way for a long time. And again, you can only argue that we struggle unduly under such circumstances if you ignore the actual results. Since February 2020, no team has outperformed us in their results against lower-half opponents in the PL, save perhaps for Manchester City.
He's unable to make valid points about this, because he chooses to make points that are clearly contradicted by the reality of the team's results. Hence, he just contributes to clouding the issues.