Surprises me how so many people still don't recognise what Ole and his staff was/is trying to achieve (too much Tifo, FMS, Sky Sports, Ornstein's, and Romanos, etc. Not enough Manchester United IMO but I digress), all tactics from GenGen to Positional Play come from an idea based on yesteryear - so I find it hilarious when people say "forget United DNA stuff, we need to move on - it's old" well so was Tiki Taka till Pep brought it back. Alternatively, Bartomeu talked about modernising Barca left them in ruins today old flame Xavi walks through the door.
The thing is there is nothing to recognise. You are acting as if Ole is trying to bring us back to where we were with SAF, being really good at lots of things, and I guess, you might be right, he is trying to do that but it it obviosly doesn't work. For this to be true, we should be able to see improvements (ever so slight ones) in every aspect of the game. But we do not. So you slamming others to see something you seem to see is a difficult starting point for the discussion. But lets see...
Said it before on here the 4-2-4 we played with McTominay and Fred was clearly trying to replicate the 424 with Anderson and Cleverly (see United 8-2 season against arsenal Nani and Giggs were HIGH! Evra and Rafael pushed up). The very similar structure just inverted forwards this time, patterns of play then were immense. Read Rene Muelesteen's book to understand exactly what the principles are. Wiel Coerver to understand how to coach players to do it - the principles are to encourage players to take initiative within a framework, players are not babied and told where to stand, etc, as one of Sir Alex's instructions was to be unpredictable (this is why IMO Ole states we don't want specialist, we want players who know how to do it all) it's not restrictive - it's a multi-framework.
Clearly? Clearly? That is confident. The system from that famous season start in 2011/12 was not a 4-2-4. If any, it was a 4-2-4-0 and I remember reading on zonal marking back then, that they would describe it as 2-2-6 most of the time because we were attacking in great numbers and with extremely high positioned fullbacks. The match against Arsenal, I think we had Smalling being the right-back. So you saying we tried to implement that system, again, might be the case but only thing we did is to take the formation aspect out of without all of the rest. Which is stupid. That famous season start ended when multiple injuries hit us. But I think, even without it would have come to an end because it was very very risky attacking with such numbers and opponents most likely would have figured out how to hurt us. The beauty of that system was playing a very high line and be very very attacking, it wasn't too connected to specific players or their qualities, even though it certainly helped that Ando and Cleverly were very mobile.
Apart from that, I am also very sure, that "our current 4-2-4" isn't something that we are actively trying to do, it is more the result of the inexistence of specific instruction leading to Bruno joining the forward line and leaving his midfield space. Add to that us employing two strikers in Greenwood and Rashford as "wingers" then you know, why we are so disjointed. Sorry mate, I am sure you took the time to dig into materials but it seems that you either a) read them through the lens of some sort of bias ("what Ole does is not a mistake per se") or you haven't grasped the concepts completely.
And as I wrote above, if you are trying to implement a "multi-framework" then you have to work on all aspects of it. We are not great in possession. We are good on counters. We are bad at defending counters. We are bad in (coordinated) pressing. We are decent in a low block. We are alright with crosses. We are not great defending set pieces. We are not great attacking with set pieces. So where is the progress in your "multi-framework"? That is where we were when Mourinho was in charge as well more or less (guess we were worse in counters and better in defending as a low block, but the extents aren't huge).
Sir Alex instructed Rene to teach the team to know how to be compact in a Low Block, Press high, Set traps and Press in certain areas, dominate possession, and quick transitions. It wasn't a one-trick Gegen Press or Positional Play or Tiki-Taka. It was all of it. Players were coached and trusted their own initiative qas a group what defensive strategy to implement based on the opponent, and in moments which one to use. United attacked with "Pace, Power, Penetration and Unpredictability". Unpredictability was SAF big marker, it's why we could switch up to 4-2-4, 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1. It didn't matter players were coached to have tactical initiative and ball mastery to understand how to trust your team mates initiative in situations and be creative in order to help our plays remain unpredictable.
I could sit here and write the whole thing but folks would just pile on the insults and negativity (probably use social media terms like "delusional"). To put it simply it's not a "One System philosophy": The team is supposed to recognise as a unit when to press high, when to press in areas transition to a low block etc within a game take initiative and integral to the philosophy "hurt" opposing teams.
Your idea makes sense, having a robust framework is able to give the players the structure to express themselves, to be creative and unpredictable. Sounds great on the package, doesn't it. But you have to have a structure first. And it also isn't really a good idea to compare to the late SAF teams, that were FULL of seasoned winners and pros. So many leading figures, today is completely different. In terms of us not having these figures and maybe even in terms that current players need more structure than players back then.
Nobody would criticize the manager if progress in the different facets of the game were there but it isn't. Ole managed to make us into a very good counter attacking side. And last year, he was also getting some results out of opponents playing the low block. But that is it. If we want to be a top club, we have to have a game plan for any opponent. The low blocks, the pressers. We have to be good in possession and out of possession. And we aren't really.
Again, I agree, the text on the box sounds awesome, would buy the product myself. But the box is empty.
Reasons IMO why it failed:
- None of the coaches who were implementing have successfully implemented it, Rene was the coach - Phelan was SAF second pair of eyes and more for dressing room atmosphere, for the life of me I could never understand why they never brought Rene in or even a Ricardo Moniz who also good at coaching ball mastery.
- A lot of modern players lack initiative, and I'm beginning to think need to be told exactly where to be when, and when to implement the exact defensive structure - they hide behind systems etc.
- Ole picked the wrong captain, he isn't a leader and certainly isn't the man to command instructions to players.
- Mckenna is talented but unproven I do believe he will show his worth one day, somewhere - however, coaching world-class players came too soon for him.
- Martyn Pert, improved Fred but it wasn't enough - especially in the 4-2-4 the 2 have to have "HIGH energy and be good on the ball, Fred suffers extremely on the latter - for all of Andersons limitations he was better on the ball.
- The CBs couldn't carry the load - this is a big one! CBs have to be good enough to carry the load - especially when we chose 4-2-4 you would see full backs push up making it an almost 2-4-4 Rio and Vida could carry that load. Go back watch those old games/clips you will see it often they were last man and didn't need their hands held by Anderson and Cleverly. Yes they would shout and order them into positions but by and large they enabled their attacking players to take risks.
- It needs to be tweaked to deal with todays modern players and opposition - just like Pep modernised Cruyffs total football and then transformed from tiki taka to positional play. The philosphy needs to evolve (this is why I felt they probably felt Mckenna was perfect young talented and new ideas).
All good points I guess. Definitely agree that we have a "multi-framework" of reasons that it doesn't work at United.
Personally I liked the idea of having a philosophy which was unpredicatable and could switch to deal with all systems, wheter they were posession orientated like Wenger or Low Block like Boltons. Almost like a Pokemon Ditto just adaptable and fluid deal with a Gengen and a Positional Play, I really hoped they could pull it off but it's become evident they're struggling.
But don't take my word for it - if you love Manchester United there's plenty of videos, interviews, books and websites the information is out there. Research them watch the old games then watch the recent ones you will see it for yourself. It will make a change from the fan channels, ITDs, Sky Sports journalists and twitter. Do some Manchester United digging - I find it much better.
Yeah sounds all great but just to note it: I am sure that Klopp isn't really sitting at home in feat that at some point he gets figured out because he doesn't adapt the plan. Same with Pep. Those systems are adaptable as well and if you have great players who are doing a great job executing a great plan, then your opponents can be as adaptive as they want - they will have issues. So yeah, I am with you, I have absolutely no issues to go for a generalistic approach, be adaptable, be good at lots of things. But then things have to move. Maybe not even all at once but different aspects of the game need to improve over time. And that is very difficult to see for me.
P.S. If you don't agree - fair enough, but I implore you if you're kind enough to quote me. Do not highlight certain part of my posts to take it out of context to make your argument stronger by pathetic framing, this trend is making the forum toxic and is quite a dimwitted trick and getting old. And if I had permission I would post links to the articles books and interviews that explain it better than me. Sadly you would have to Google the games and names yourself.
I'd say a big part of that "toxicity" comes also from passive-aggressive stuff like that. Just because you spent some time reading doesn't make your opinion better or more substantial than others. Your arguments may be more refined and more convincing but that is it.
I liked your post though - you spent time and you layed out your thoughts about things. I appreciate that as it gives us material to discuss on a more interesting level than "he is just not good enough". Good to see you getting a like for the post, would have given you one as well.