Managers' leeway for defensive tactics

[M16Red]

So, Ole decided to stop playing counter football, after having already spend 120 millions on Maguire and AWB, players suited only for defensive football. Smart guy.

Same with ETH. If your players can't play your football, don't play them. I m sure if he had make it clear that Bruno, McT and Rashford are not suited to his plan, a solution would be found. Instead, we buy a mix of players who can play his football (Onana, Antony, Malacia, Hojlund), and we have others who don't. This won't work and we see it every week.

Your missing one very important player to play his type of football - Martinez. I really think Mount would have benched Bruno this year if he hadn't just disappeared.

Also I think he is happy with the pace on the wings, shame sancho couldn't get his head out of his arse because really he is a good player that would suit a possession based system.

 

[UpWithRivers]

Its not about better football. It's about winning football.
Ole realized that counter football will only get you so far. It wasn't so much that he wanted to entertain the fans. He wanted to go toe to toe with City. Over a game or two we could compete with City playing counter attacking. But he knew over a season it wasn't enough. It would get us 2nd/3rd ish and a minor cup. That has been proved time and time again.
The reason we can't go more attacking is because we are ingrained into the United Way. I made a thread about this. A manager cannot just change what he wants. Rashford for example is untouchable. This year some fans will accept a sale but definitely not before. Let's say a new manager comes in and says sell Rashford, Garnacho and Mainoo. There would be a fkn riot. So any new style of play has to fit with them 3. We start with the players and fit a style instead of defining a style and getting the players to fit. That's why ETH said he can't play his football at Utd.

 

[Borninthe80ts]

Ole was correct. He tried to take the leap to better more front foot football with the squad and it was ultimately his undoing. Because by the end of theprevious season, even though he had lost a european final thanks to De Gea being poor at everything to do with penalties, the fan tied had started to significantly turn against his defend deep and counter use of the players at his disposal. Factor into tha the added a 28 year old Varane, Sancho and CR7. Going for a more proactive style was the only logical next step the fans were going to tolerate.

It can be argued the exact same cycle is happening with ETH. Only that fans have lost patience much faster because they believed ETH to be a far higher calibre of manager than Ole ever was.


Personally I believe in giving a manager who has started as Ole and ETH did 3 years.

The first season always tends to be steadying the ship. Restoring morale and baseline performance with wing as a bonua


The second is usually to see if what is available in the squad with a few additions can take the leap to the style the manager really wants to implement and the board decides to fully commit to it. The year in which bad apples and bad characters for the standards are sifted out.

Then the third being the year when the ideal 11 and squad for that given manager are recruited and set, to implement from day one his ideal footballing phyilosophy and actually mount a serious challenge according to the scale of the club's ambitions. That in my view is the season in which sacking or renewing should be logically done. The season in which if he is sacked, someone better at implementing the exact style he was installing is recruited, since the playing squad is by then completely geared to that footballing direction.

In relation to the opening post I do believe Ole is right and that managers get caught in between strategies and styles with the personnel available. The demands of the clubs culture is attacking football even when those patterns of success take time to implement after years of stagnation.

I too believe in the 3 years cycle if a team really believe in the choice of manager, and there’s those highlighted signs of progress are evident. I believe both managers had that progress to varying degrees but then outside influences had effects that they both have and or are struggling to deal with.

One of the reasons that I’d like to keep Ten for at least the start of next season is the reluctance to carry on the cycle of mini progress then blow up and start again. With a improvement in the structure around him hopefully he can focus solely on making the team better. If not him then the same for his replacement.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

Posted about this in the Ole interview review and I think it needs a thread.

In Ole's interview, he says being more aggressive than his squad allowed ultimately cost him his job. He felt the fans demanded a more aggressive style and wanted to shift away from counter-attacking. It became clear the team couldn't maintain standards when he shifted to more attacking football.

EtH is playing extremely open football that it's clear our squad can't support. We don't press well enough up top. Our CBs aren't fast enough to push high up. That's exposing Casemiro, who hasn't got the legs to cover the gap that's exposed between front and back.

My question is whether Ole was right. Had he reached a point where better football was expected and required for the fans to continue supporting him? And looking forward, how long would you give a manager (EtH or new manager) who plays defensive counter-attacking football, consistently finishes top 4 or 5 (qualifies for CL), but never challenges for the title?

I don't think counter attacking football and "defensive" football are remotely the same thing. LVG had us hoarding possession almost more than any other team in the league at the time but we were also incredibly "defensive" in the manner with which we used the ball. Likewise, you can cede possession but still be extremely proactive and attacking when you have the ball to create chances and score goals.

In Ole's case, yes it was quite clear that the time had come for us to level up a bit to elevate to the top sides, as we often were forced to play in our own box against Liverpool/City/Arsenal which on it's own is one thing but our performances weren't good enough elsewhere for fans to be fine with it. Ole's problem was two-fold: our transfer business was quite poor his entire time here, and he didn't have the coaching expertise to drill a more modern, patterned way of playing out from the back and progressing the ball against the new wave of high pressing teams that had come into style in modern football. So we were stuck with a team that talent wise could still score/create/etc. but would be pinned back often by teams much worse because structurally we didn't know what to do.

As to your final question: If there aren't clear signs of progress after 2 seasons that we aren't building towards something greater than scraping by Top 4, then the manager should be gone. And that's not even a results based thing, it's performances based.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

In relation to the opening post I do believe Ole is right and that managers get caught in between strategies and styles with the personnel available. The demands of the clubs culture is attacking football even when those patterns of success take time to implement after years of stagnation.

I too believe in the 3 years cycle if a team really believe in the choice of manager, and there’s those highlighted signs of progress are evident. I believe both managers had that progress to varying degrees but then outside influences had effects that they both have and or are struggling to deal with.

One of the reasons that I’d like to keep Ten for at least the start of next season is the reluctance to carry on the cycle of mini progress then blow up and start again. With a improvement in the structure around him hopefully he can focus solely on making the team better. If not him then the same for his replacement.

I completely agree

 

[Martinez4midfield]

Right now, with rasmus out, I'm not sure what people are expecting. You want to dominate possession? Pass the ball around a million times? And for what? What's going to happen? What's the most likely way this team is going to score? Probably Rashford or Garnacho cutting in and getting a shot off. There's nobody in the middle to pass it to, team lacks a focal point in attack.

You might as well keep it tight, don't concede ,invite some pressure and counter attack before the opposition sets up. That seems pragmatic too me and playing to the strengths of your best players. No midfield with Scott Mctominay is going to tiki taka the ball into the back of the net I'm sorry.

 

[Demon Barber]

Just to change things up a bit - what specific qualities/personality would you want from a future United manager?

The arch tactitian who micro-manages everything? The pseudo-psychologist who "understands"? The one who rages at every official, journo and pundit? The over-exuberant one? The people's friend? One who squats philosophically on an imaginary bucket? Dave Bassett/Neil Warnock? Not Dutch?

Edit: totally the wrong thread. My apologies.

 

[Ekeke]

Its fine to take 3 years to get your tactics working perfectly and to start to be as successful as is hoped when you sign a big contract for big money to come be our manager.

It is not fine to play poor football with poor results with the players you inherit. Yes every manager wants time to build and shape their own time and few get it. The ones who do tend not to have been showing no signs of improvement over multiple seasons with a bunch of signings that arent among your best players. Those are signs that the manager is moving you in a bad direction. And the first job of every single manager is to come in and show you can do better with what you already have. That was the point of changing the last manager who would also would have wanted 3 seasons to show they could buid a team that is successful. And they most likely didnt get 3 years either.

Small improvement when theres been large investment isnt good enough either. If very little money is spent and you make incrimental progress with 98% the same squad as before its fine. Not when you spend over £100 million on transfers and the players who came in arent your best players and are struggling. LVG for example spent just under £300 million in 2 seasons and had us sitting 5th when he was relieved. Yes he had taken us up to 4th and then 5th at that point during his 2nd season from Moyes' 7th position but it was obvious that everything went wrong that first season with Moyes and that the players could do better than 7th. Unlike Moyes coming in after Sir Alex, it was the perfect time for a new manager to come in as there would be a natural improvement after that season and we gave him loads of money.

Personally I think overall LVG's signings have been the best era post Sir Alex. But he himself didnt use them very well and they mostly did better under the next managers. Shaw pre-injury and Blind who took time but eventually did become a good CB option are the only ones that he signed, put in and they did the best with him.

 

[Fahad Jawaid]

I actually don't feel sorry for Ole or ETH. You are at one of the biggest club in the world, you spend 150 - 200m million almost every transfer window and then you come out with this bullshit that the squad was not ready for attacking style etc.

We needed to sign highly technical players, and compliment them with strong and fast players who could play possession and high paced football. Ole wasted what 80M on Maguire, 50M on AWB and 75M on Sancho, lesser teams could completely overhaul their squad in that amount. Similarly ETH signed Antony (85M), Casemiro (60m) and Mount (55m) for 200M. One is over the hill, other can't remain fit and was not needed, the third one, everybody in the world is scratching their head, what made them pay 85M for Antony.

I believe we as a club became a top 4 or underperforming club, the moment we became okay with compromising on our style and identity. The moyes era was painful, we should have sacked him earlier to show that these stupid scorelines and records that were broken would not be accepted. We were trying to be too nice (only sacked him when top 4 was gone). We were at our peak at that time, and the question i always ask would Bayern, Barca or Madrid accept those results at that time.

We have compromised on the style and it continues to be the same even at this stage. Liverpool with such a weak starting 11 yesterday had 53% possession and against full strength City, whereas when we played them, it felt like we were a league 2 team. It's all about mentality and tactics from the manager and actually putting emphasis on keeping possession and actually deploying players who are good at keeping the ball. Amad is great example of player who is sidelined for no reason and would actually be good at possession based side.

 

[Herschel Krustofsky]

No midfield with Scott Mctominay is going to tiki taka the ball into the back of the net I'm sorry.

Just had flashbacks of some of his through balls on Saturday

 

[ifightdragons]

Is International football not the highest level?

Not sure if you're being serious...

International football is generally a much lower level than club football, and especially the Premier League, for a multitude of reasons:

1. Tempo is much lower.
2. Most teams outside of the 20+ best international teams in the world, are quite bad.
3. Look at the teams that England play. Hardly do they ever face really great teams. It's often teams like Poland, Switzerland, Lithuania. Or even worse, teams like San Marino and Liechtenstein. Teams that either have semi-professional players, or only 1-2 really good players in their squad.
4. National teams barely get any time to drill complex tactics.
5. They rarely play more than 10+ games every year.
6. Restricting player pool by nationality makes it impossible for most countries to field a truly good 11. It's just a completely different ball game, both regarding criterias and levels.

So yeah, international football is very, very far from the highest level. Except for the very rare matches when two of the best teams in the world play each other, which doesn't happen very often. 90% of games are qualifiers or friendlies against pretty poor teams. And most matches are played in what seems like slow motion, compared to the Premier League.

 

[ifightdragons]

Its not about better football. It's about winning football.
Ole realized that counter football will only get you so far. It wasn't so much that he wanted to entertain the fans. He wanted to go toe to toe with City. Over a game or two we could compete with City playing counter attacking. But he knew over a season it wasn't enough. It would get us 2nd/3rd ish and a minor cup. That has been proved time and time again.
The reason we can't go more attacking is because we are ingrained into the United Way. I made a thread about this. A manager cannot just change what he wants. Rashford for example is untouchable. This year some fans will accept a sale but definitely not before. Let's say a new manager comes in and says sell Rashford, Garnacho and Mainoo. There would be a fkn riot. So any new style of play has to fit with them 3. We start with the players and fit a style instead of defining a style and getting the players to fit. That's why ETH said he can't play his football at Utd.

This is a quality post, nailed it.

 

[Ekeke]

Not sure if you're being serious...

International football is generally a much lower level than club football, and especially the Premier League, for a multitude of reasons:

1. Tempo is much lower.
2. Most teams outside of the 20+ best international teams in the world, are quite bad.
3. Look at the teams that England play. Hardly do they ever face really great teams. It's often teams like Poland, Switzerland, Lithuania. Or even worse, teams like San Marino and Liechtenstein. Teams that either have semi-professional players, or only 1-2 really good players in their squad.
4. National teams barely get any time to drill complex tactics.
5. They rarely play more than 10+ games every year.
6. Restricting player pool by nationality makes it impossible for most countries to field a truly good 11. It's just a completely different ball game, both regarding criterias and levels.

So yeah, international football is very, very far from the highest level. Except for the very rare matches when two of the best teams in the world play each other, which doesn't happen very often. 90% of games are qualifiers or friendlies against pretty poor teams. And most matches are played in what seems like slow motion, compared to the Premier League.

Very strange that there are nations with lots of players from the top clubs playing together and its not considered the highest level

 

[ifightdragons]

Very strange that there are nations with lots of players from the top clubs playing together and its not considered the highest level

You're just ignoring all the facts.

There are 211 international teams.
Only a small fraction of these have squads that consists of many players from top clubs. And even in the top ranked 20 teams, you'll find a bunch of players who don't play for any of the best teams in Europe, let alone the very best teams. Many of these players play for relegation fodder clubs across a multitude of leagues of varying quality. Heck, some of them even play for lower division teams.

The rest of the international teams mostly consist of decent to average players, to downright semi-pros, not to mention a bunch of amateur footballers that literally have regular jobs when not on international duty. For every England, Germany or Argentina, there are dozens of teams like Peru, Canada, Mali, Faroe Islands and Vietnam. How many Faroesw players can you find in the genuine top teams across the world? Yet they all compete together in their respective qualifiers. Even bad teams regularly qualify for the World Cup and Euros, because they play even worse teams. So you'll always get a team like New Zealand or North Korea in these tournaments. Not to mention all the mediocre dross in between.

So of course international football isn't the highest level. A vast majority of these teams wouldn't even hack it in League Two.

And that's not to yet again mention the drop off in speed and intensity you get, even amongst the better teams. Look at England play, and compare that to the average Premier League game. It's night and day with regards to the general tempo and intensity. Y'know, that which actually makes football such a difficult game, alongside complex tactics, which also are lacking by the sheer necessity born out of almost no time to properly train and prepare for games, compared to a club where it's your full time job to train and improve tactically every day. But you can of course just ignore all that again, and convince yourself of a different reality.

 

[Ekeke]

You're just ignoring all the facts.

There are 211 international teams.
Only a small fraction of these have squads that consists of many players from top clubs. And even in the top ranked 20 teams, you'll find a bunch of players who don't play for any of the best teams in Europe, let alone the very best teams. Many of these players play for relegation fodder clubs across a multitude of leagues of varying quality. Heck, some of them even play for lower division teams.

The rest of the international teams mostly consist of decent to average players, to downright semi-pros, not to mention a bunch of amateur footballers that literally have regular jobs when not on international duty. For every England, Germany or Argentina, there are dozens of teams like Peru, Canada, Mali, Faroe Islands and Vietnam. How many Faroesw players can you find in the genuine top teams across the world? Yet they all compete together in their respective qualifiers. Even bad teams regularly qualify for the World Cup and Euros, because they play even worse teams. So you'll always get a team like New Zealand or North Korea in these tournaments. Not to mention all the mediocre dross in between.

So of course international football isn't the highest level. A vast majority of these teams wouldn't even hack it in League Two.

And that's not to yet again mention the drop off in speed and intensity you get, even amongst the better teams. Look at England play, and compare that to the average Premier League game. It's night and day with regards to the general tempo and intensity. Y'know, that which actually makes football such a difficult game, alongside complex tactics, which also are lacking by the sheer necessity born out of almost no time to properly train and prepare for games, compared to a club where it's your full time job to train and improve tactically every day. But you can of course just ignore all that again, and convince yourself of a different reality.

So the champions league isnt the highest level either because theres loads of teams with the chance to play through qualifying and only a small fraction are top clubs.Got it