Is the 'United Way' killing us?

[Rapsinfour]

He was no innovator, he was an adapter and quite brillant at that.

I think SAF doesnt get the credit for being an innovator that he deserves. CR7, Rooney and Tevez in an interchanging front three ( of that calibre) was something we ( especially in the PL) hadn't seen.

As far as I headr, Ferguson was a rather pragmatic manager in his prime who reinvented himself regularly

I think adaptability( not just in footballing terms, but also moving forward in step with culture and not being the old guy who always did back in my day) was definitely one of his strengths. I think the best way I heard someone describe Fergie is that he could take his and beat yours, and then take yours and beat his. He was not wedded to a style ( 442, 433, 451), but he did have a philosophy that it was the football's job to entertain the fans who had worked all week and were looking for relief. And that philsophy was that of attacking football; when he went to 433, he had tevez, rooney and CR7 and he wanted to get all three on the pitch and infront of the goal. I read somewhere that Pep's ideal team is one of midfielders, and Jose ideal team is one of all defenders. I use to think Fergie's ideal team was of attackers. So yes, Fergie was pragmatic ( in terms of of formations etcc..) but the formations were driven by trying to get as much attacking talent on the pitch as possible ( The obvious counteract to this is the last 6-7 yrs he was here, but I will maintain that it is the Glazers and with a limited spending power, the best way for him to win was the setup we had. I firmly believe that if he could have had an unlimited budget, he would still be playing Roy of Rovers football).

Moreover, you generalize quite much. Klopp and Guardiola are different managers and so are Ten Hag, Tuchel, Nagelsmann or de Zerbi. But all of them have things in common and that is that they want to control the game. And it is only logical because if you're the favorite, you are convinced you're the better tram then you want to dictate the game and minimize the chance/luck factor as much possible. You're essentially opting for underdog tactics and if you do so, you'll get underdog results.

Oh! I don't necessarily disagree with you here! Playing that way is logical. There is a thread on this site elsewhere asking how Pep's football is like catenaccio; the answer is risk aversion. They avert risk different ways, but the underlying premise is to remove as much risk as possible. Under catennacio, they only want the ball when they attack as they think that bad things happen when you have the ball so to only have the ball for the minimum time available to score goals. Under Pep's system, you buy the best players and then keep the ball 70%, what chance does the other team have ( especially when you foul tactically)? The point is:- are you watching football for risk aversion/ efficiency or entertainment, because I find up and down football much more entertaining (and riskier) than the possession football.

I, also, want to point out that I said that the most well- resourced teams (Bayern, United, City, Chelsea, Arsenal based on recent spending) are essentially hiring Xeroxed managers. ETH, Arteta are Xeroxes of Pep, and Nagelsmann, Tuchel are essentially Klopp- lite. I won't speak of DeZerbi as I only have really paid attention to him this year. The point is Pep and Klopp succeeded, and we are all trying to get bootleg version of them. (You will notice that top clubs have stopped hiring the next Jose (whoever that is), but teams hired Andre- villa boas, Nuno etc.. because they were the next Jose. United had been trying to hire the next Fergie for the last few years, and seem to have given up and just gone for the next Pep). The point of this paragraph is that executives look at what has been successful, and try to get that, but failing that will get the closest to that. It is a copycat league/ world and people will play possession football, until a manager wins with attacking football consistently ( if possible) and top clubs will try to get that person or bootleg copy.

p.s: Still on 3 post limit so there is a delay in my posts!

 

[Zehner]

I think SAF doesnt get the credit for being an innovator that he deserves. CR7, Rooney and Tevez in an interchanging front three ( of that calibre) was something we ( especially in the PL) hadn't seen.







I think adaptability( not just in footballing terms, but also moving forward in step with culture and not being the old guy who always did back in my day) was definitely one of his strengths. I think the best way I heard someone describe Fergie is that he could take his and beat yours, and then take yours and beat his. He was not wedded to a style ( 442, 433, 451), but he did have a philosophy that it was the football's job to entertain the fans who had worked all week and were looking for relief. And that philsophy was that of attacking football; when he went to 433, he had tevez, rooney and CR7 and he wanted to get all three on the pitch and infront of the goal. I read somewhere that Pep's ideal team is one of midfielders, and Jose ideal team is one of all defenders. I use to think Fergie's ideal team was of attackers. So yes, Fergie was pragmatic ( in terms of of formations etcc..) but the formations were driven by trying to get as much attacking talent on the pitch as possible ( The obvious counteract to this is the last 6-7 yrs he was here, but I will maintain that it is the Glazers and with a limited spending power, the best way for him to win was the setup we had. I firmly believe that if he could have had an unlimited budget, he would still be playing Roy of Rovers football).





Oh! I don't necessarily disagree with you here! Playing that way is logical. There is a thread on this site elsewhere asking how Pep's football is like catenaccio; the answer is risk aversion. They avert risk different ways, but the underlying premise is to remove as much risk as possible. Under catennacio, they only want the ball when they attack as they think that bad things happen when you have the ball so to only have the ball for the minimum time available to score goals. Under Pep's system, you buy the best players and then keep the ball 70%, what chance does the other team have ( especially when you foul tactically)? The point is:- are you watching football for risk aversion/ efficiency or entertainment, because I find up and down football much more entertaining (and riskier) than the possession football.

I, also, want to point out that I said that the most well- resourced teams (Bayern, United, City, Chelsea, Arsenal based on recent spending) are essentially hiring Xeroxed managers. ETH, Arteta are Xeroxes of Pep, and Nagelsmann, Tuchel are essentially Klopp- lite. I won't speak of DeZerbi as I only have really paid attention to him this year. The point is Pep and Klopp succeeded, and we are all trying to get bootleg version of them. (You will notice that top clubs have stopped hiring the next Jose (whoever that is), but teams hired Andre- villa boas, Nuno etc.. because they were the next Jose. United had been trying to hire the next Fergie for the last few years, and seem to have given up and just gone for the next Pep). The point of this paragraph is that executives look at what has been successful, and try to get that, but failing that will get the closest to that. It is a copycat league/ world and people will play possession football, until a manager wins with attacking football consistently ( if possible) and top clubs will try to get that person or bootleg copy.

p.s: Still on 3 post limit so there is a delay in my posts!

Xavi was once interviewed after a match and asked what he thinks about people finding their play style boring. He answered that you shouldn't blame them but the opponent for playing defensively. They don't keep possession for the sake of it. Pep wants to play forward as quick as possible as long as.there is space. But when the opponent parks the bus, it makes no sense to play into his cards. So I think 'defending with the ball' is definitely a thing but it is rather a byproduct of the opponent's risk aversion. There's this Cruyff quote that when you receive the ball, you should look to the farthest player away from you and if he's free, get the ball to him. But only when he's free. And we're actually seeing this in modern possession football. Xavi's Barca plays many chipped long balls early in the build up, Ten Hag and even Guardiola with de Bruyne have adapted that.

For me, I'm not watching risk aversion but intelligent decision making. I find it incredibly frustrating if the team I supports keeps spamming low probability crosses and long balls, always goes for the Hollywood option instead of the simple option. Which is why I disliked the traditional English "kick'n'rush" style. Possession oriented teams in comtrast get the right players constantly in situations in which they excel (e. g. Pep's approach at City to create overloads on the wings. I love it if they play themselves out of pressure situations through clever positioning, technique and easy passes.

Anyway, I understand that people find it boring if every team plays like that. If you are looking for a different approach that might become successful, maybe take a look at this:

 

[Rapsinfour]

Xavi was once interviewed after a match and asked what he thinks about people finding their play style boring. He answered that you shouldn't blame them but the opponent for playing defensively.

On a side note, I have to say that I find Xavi to be very sanctimonious and precious. He is a manager of a side ( Barcelona) that has stacked the league in its favor by how TV payments are paid out ( with RM and Barca getting a lion's share); they spend hundreds of millions more in transfer fees and tens of millions more in wages than the rest of their competitors ( RM excepted). So for Xavi, it is not enough that his team has spent so much more money than his competitors, the competitors must also play in the manner (that Xavi approves) and not that gives the opposition the best chance at a result. Talk about entitlement!

For me, I'm not watching risk aversion but intelligent decision making. I find it incredibly frustrating if the team I supports keeps spamming low probability crosses and long balls, always goes for the Hollywood option instead of the simple option. Which is why I disliked the traditional English "kick'n'rush" style. Possession oriented teams in comtrast get the right players constantly in situations in which they excel

I don't necessarily disagree ( content wise) about what you have said. Pep's teams ( most of the time) can be aesthetically pleasing to watch ( especially on TV). It is the best coaching with the best talent (money can buy); it is a hard combination to beat. The only issue I would take with what you said is that you find it more enjoyable than traditional kick-n-rush; of course, by and large, the best version of something is usually more enjoyable to watch than a run-of-the-mill something.

Pep's, teams a lot of time, create space by manipulating the ball, and the spaces defenders leave/ vacate. It can be pleasing to watch, but I prefer watching players ( like Nani, Neymar, Hazard, Pogba) create space for themselves and their teammates by their ingenuity and their passing ingenuity. And I genuinely don't think there is a place at top ( Ajax model) teams for these kind of players anymore. Neymar didn't really fit post-Pep Barca. At the end, it is just a different preference. I grew up watching kick and rush football, and a lot of us prefer what we grew up watching. Also, I find it thrilling in a primal manner when a player beats another based on athleticism, or the player completely fools his opponent by being a masterful dribbler.

Also, I did watch the video and found it interesting; there is a little bit less control/ structure by manager which I enjoy. At the end of the day, I want to be entertained and the players who can make a fool of others (like Benarfa, Zaha, Giggs, Pogba) are the ones I enjoy the most.

Regardless, I am not sure how we got here, but I just wanted to say we are not failing because of some United Way thing; we have just been mismanaged (whether it be hiring the wrong people, giving people too much power etc..).

 

[Ricardo de la Vega]

I dont know if its the "United Way" but we definitely have the "Victory Disease" if you ask me. By that, I mean we have the inertia and reluctance to overhaul every aspect of the way we are run, operated and built in the way which we would if we had been relegated perhaps. Its a psychological affliction or bias which is very difficult to shift after years of success begin to be followed by failures to reach those levels: the victor becomes risk averse - wanting to do the things which made it successful in the first place, afraid to lose what they still have in terms of garnered prestige etc, despite increasing evidence that its no longer tenable - people pass off failure under loads of different guises in an attempt to avoid facing the truth of it and look for easy answers and fixes instead.

The symptoms in the football club - switching the manager regularly - hes the wrong guy, to inexperienced, too inflexible, plays too bad football, winds the players/fans up the wrong way/lost dressing room whatever.

Bad scouting - overpaying for players - instead of believing that you can build a team for the future using good scouting for a system of play which a director of football wants the team to build into its DNA over a number of years, we try to "fix" problems for the current manager by buying a plug and play star. Usually costs massive amounts.

Judging players according to standards of the victory years - obviously going to mean players like Rashford, Sancho, Fernandes, Anthony etc are playing under massive expectation and fan pressure when they're expected to recreate Yorke, Cantona, Scholes, Keane, Giggs etc. Coming from other clubs, they probably never expected that and its clearly difficult to adjust to being labelled a failure for a few bad performances etc.

I dont know what the fix is. Its not my job. But I think that the victory disease is present. Would a club like Brighton act the way we do, buying players, judging their players the way we do, switching coaches as we have done since SAF left? The attempt to result in a seamless transition to Moyes failed all those years ago and we're still stuck trying to sort it out. ETH's reign feels like me that there is chance for a real turnover here, but the club still hasn't made any real structural changes to the way the recruitment/tactical/director of football role is run or managed which allow for real change so we are run in the way which more successful clubs are finding success through (relative to their resources).

 

[The Mitcher]

We haven't played the United Way since Fergie left. The United way is in it's simplest terms, entertaining, attacking football with a never say die attitude. We don't play like that.