Exactly. No more hes on my test and I'm waiting with my assessment bollocks.
Ole Gunnar Solskjaer | W15 D2 L4
- Thread starter Tom Van Persie
- Start date
Missed this. Nice article, actually puts forth the doubts some have in plain sight.
Against Spurs we could've been 2 or 3-0 up before the final 25 minutes of pressure they gave us. And that game being at the relative start under Ole is one reason for the ending. Our players were still functioning like they had been for the last years. Just trying to kick the ball as far as they can from our goal which gave the ball back to Spurs every time. They few times we tried to play out from the back ended with our forwards losing the ball and Spurs were on the front foot again.
If we had Spurs again this season i would be more confident of us handling their pressure as we have improved on defending as a team and playing out from the back. I'm not saying we would win again but i'm pretty sure it wouldn't play out like it did.
Burnley game was just one of those days really. Yes we made changes and some of our players had bad games but we should have won it. We had plenty of chances and they had the two which they scored ( maybe there was one or two more but can't remember now). In my eyes our front 3 was the biggest issue in that match. If Martial played like he was suppose to i think we would've won that game also.
Then the PSG game. PSG were better than us. But we had really good counter attack opportunities in the first half which we totally blew. Passes were behind or too slow killing the pace of the counter attack before it really got started. And in the end PSG killed the game in a 10-15 minute spell in the second half where we made some big individual mistakes. After that our final third play was really poor as it has been most of the time if we don't have Martial, Rash and Jesse playing.
If we continue playing like we have under Ole he should get the job. We will lose games that's a given. But so would any other manager with this team. As long as we continue to look like a team and improve i'm happy. Bad result happen and it's not always as simple as the manager is not good enough.
Even if we miss top 4 by just a few points i would still have Ole. It's not his fault we were 11 points behind when he took over. I'm enjoying our games again and actually believe we can beat anyone on our day. Haven't had that feeling in a long time.
If we had Spurs again this season i would be more confident of us handling their pressure as we have improved on defending as a team and playing out from the back. I'm not saying we would win again but i'm pretty sure it wouldn't play out like it did.
Burnley game was just one of those days really. Yes we made changes and some of our players had bad games but we should have won it. We had plenty of chances and they had the two which they scored ( maybe there was one or two more but can't remember now). In my eyes our front 3 was the biggest issue in that match. If Martial played like he was suppose to i think we would've won that game also.
Then the PSG game. PSG were better than us. But we had really good counter attack opportunities in the first half which we totally blew. Passes were behind or too slow killing the pace of the counter attack before it really got started. And in the end PSG killed the game in a 10-15 minute spell in the second half where we made some big individual mistakes. After that our final third play was really poor as it has been most of the time if we don't have Martial, Rash and Jesse playing.
If we continue playing like we have under Ole he should get the job. We will lose games that's a given. But so would any other manager with this team. As long as we continue to look like a team and improve i'm happy. Bad result happen and it's not always as simple as the manager is not good enough.
Even if we miss top 4 by just a few points i would still have Ole. It's not his fault we were 11 points behind when he took over. I'm enjoying our games again and actually believe we can beat anyone on our day. Haven't had that feeling in a long time.
A crappy article. Reads like author already decided Ole is not good enough and then just to prove his point assembled jumbled stats mixed with his opinion.
Informative, almost. It doesn't mention who are the managers with 'complex' tactics we may need. That is ironic. With all the stats it proudly presented, it failed to provide one important information to base their final opinion.
Yeah, basically summed up with "ManUtd are better at everything but...."
- ManUtd take twice high press shots and counter attacking shots but it's not tactically complex.
- Rashford is playing better than ever but it might be a blip.
- Pogba is playing as advanced midfield, pretty straightforward decision. He defensive work load is also increased maybe because of pressing from front.
- United lack structure even though we have seen clear pattern in attack.
- Praised De Gea for low goals conceded when he was busy only against Spurs
- Again Spurs game without context, ignoring they are home team and one of the strong teams in league, trailing at home and just went all out attack from 65th min.
- Again said there might be element of fortune in our results.
Overall a negative article for the sake of it.
This. And when you have all the stats in the world to use, you can spin whatever narrative you want. For example, why use Spurs and PSG as an example and not Chelsea and Arsenal? LvG had "complex tactics" and he almost bored us to death. Sarri has "complex tactics" and hes one more ugly defeat from being sacked.
Besides, using a stat like xG slapping on a chart without any context tells absolutely nothing. Did the author expect us to go to Wembley and roll over Spurs? I wont bother digging up the stats vs Burnely, but i bet our xG must show we should have trashed them, but we still only got a draw. Grinding out, gritty, ugly 0-1 away wins away from home is often what separates the champions from the runners up. xG means feck all, if you dont have the bottle to grind out those kinds of wins regularly.
Even if Ole remains unbeaten until end of season there will still be some here who will say 'But it wasn't a full season'!
Among the many positive things he has done is make us an attractive proposition for incoming summer players,of which we need many!
Among the many positive things he has done is make us an attractive proposition for incoming summer players,of which we need many!
I think the most impressive thing about Ole's reign is that he's playing great football and getting incredible results with a lot of bang average players.
If we get in a ST, RW, CB, RB and more mobile CDM we'd be in fantastic shape. Sure that's 5/11 players but each area needs a big upgrade.
If we get in a ST, RW, CB, RB and more mobile CDM we'd be in fantastic shape. Sure that's 5/11 players but each area needs a big upgrade.
Some valid points here. Not sure if it's just me but Lindelof seems to have indeed become more conservative with his passing ever since being shifted to LCB, which explains the lack of building from the back/passes into midfield. I do agree that Ole's tactics haven't seemed very complex - but it seems far too simplistic to characterize our attacking approach as "give the ball to Pogba and hope", because we've been utilizing a variety of classic attacking plays. It's true that Pog's our main attacking outlet, especially when playing on the counter. But against teams who've parked the bus there have also been elements of full-backs bombing on especially in the first few games under Ole, breaking down teams through creative wingplay (Rashford and Martial have been a big part of this), the late runner from midfield (Herrera, usually - see goal against Chelsea) etc. All "standard" plays, but if executed well they work wonders. Against PSG we went toe-to-toe with them for the first half; while Pogba got marked out of the game, we did look threatening until the injuries (Martial looked lively).
Our tactics on the counter aren't just "give it to Pogba and hope" either. The counter relies on Rashford and Martial/Lukaku staying upfield AND the full-backs playing conservatively in order to work: if they were bombing forward all the time we'd be way too exposed - Shaw's been playing very well in this regard. It also relies on the false 9 dropping into midfield to disrupt the orchestration of attacks from deep, and a high press. This worked wonders in the first half against Spurs (nobody seems to remember that Spurs were excellent in the 2nd half too, as much as we faded somewhat; Poch said it was the best he had ever seen his team play, and even so we almost killed the game with Lloris making some great stops) and also against Chelsea, although Mata was fortunate that Jorginho is even less physically gifted than he is.
Admittedly it hasn't been tactically complex on the level of fullbacks-playing-as-central-midfielders; but it doesn't need to be. Tactically complex doesn't necessarily mean better: cf. Sarri, Van Gaal. Tactically complex might still leave glaring deficiencies in the team, e.g. Wenger and an actual defence. And tactically simple doesn't necessarily mean worse. Sometimes simple is genius, as Jose would say. (Of McTominay.) And simple can still be deadly. Don't tell me Leicester won the title by playing some kind of complex Total Football. It was Kante, Mahrez, Vardy, and an insane team spirit (and some extreme good fortune). Don't tell me Zidane won 3 CLs by converting Ronaldo into a 10, playing Bale at CM and Modric at LWB. There's a case to be made that he just relied on the team's brilliance, but then look how Madrid have fallen apart since with most of the team still intact. And don't tell me SAF won so many titles with a complex system of tactics; some of them were revolutionary (4-6-0), but not complex: if you have Tevez, Rooney, Ronaldo and Giggs/Park fluidly interchanging, the key is not so much a detailed system where each player has a very specific set of duties as it is a deep understanding between the players, as much as their individual brilliance. And the old 4-4-2 doesn't need to be talked about. It wasn't complex.
So in summary, if by "complex" the writer means some kind of new-fangled, finely detailed system of play like Pep's Barca, then I think there's no real need for that at present. But if the writer means we need to explore new ways of breaking down opponents, then I don't disagree. I would like to see Lindelof step out into midfield or ping a pass into feet more often. I'd like to see more intricate give-and-go team goals like Martial's against Cardiff. I'd like to see a creator at RW to give teams other things to think about (but we've been demanding that for years anyway).
The other thing is that I know it sounds like people have been giving excuses for our good form, but I do think there's a point to saying that Arsenal and Chelsea weren't the sternest tests we could have had. The London clubs have been all keep-ball, and only Spurs put up some kind of fight against our go-to set-up-to-counter diamond. I'm going to assume we'll set up similarly against City, and then we'll know the limits of this particular counterattacking setup. Liverpool will be an interesting proposition because nobody knows how Ole will set up against the gegenpress. Maybe then we'll see some complicated system come into play, but it promises to be a cracker nonetheless.
Complex tactics, like Sarriball or whatever it is Van Gaal tried to do with us.
Yes, you need tactics but having someone who knows how to properly manage the players, the backroom staff, and put it all together is more important. You can have the world's best tactician come in and implement his plan but what good would it do if he pissed off everyone at the club a year (or 3) later?
Ole could get tactical advice from someone else, or even develop that part of his game in the future, but not a lot of managers could come in to United and immediately get what the club is about. That's his unique selling point, and the fact that he's brought us on this run means he should get his chance next season.
Funny thing was, when it's against Arsenal, their bad record vs us was used to hold it against Ole. But when it's against Chelsea, their great record against us suddenly doesn't count. How does that work?
I thought our play in the second half against Chelsea was underrated. Not only they didn't have a single shot on target in the second half, but we didn't resort to aimless punt when we tried to counter. There are actually some really good interplay from our midfielders when we had the ball to set up the counter. But since Chelsea had most of the ball in the second half, this got overlooked
How can that Paul Riley guy say Pogba's new role is a “criminal waste of talent and game control”. has he not been watching the games? the amount of goals and assists he's produced under Ole in 2 months is incredible, how is that a downgrade? totally baffled by this, he's playing further up the pitch and getting involved more in attacks, and still getting involved from deep, did he not see his assist for Rashford against spurs? Man some journo's really p**s me off..
Using the Spurs game as a criticism is unfair. Yes, Spurs finished the game stronger but United were off the back of a mini pre season with an intense fitness programme. Ole talked a lot about how much fitness work they did.
They clearly ran out of steam in the second half. You see it with teams early in the season all the time off the back of pre season.
They clearly ran out of steam in the second half. You see it with teams early in the season all the time off the back of pre season.
Yeah, except that's an utter lie and no sane person believed anything other than it was a freak season that Leicester managed to take advantage of. I think the majority expected them to struggle to even get near the European places the following season. I have also never seen a single post on here advocating hiring a journeyman like Ranieri based on an absolute bonkers anomaly of a season.
Last edited:
This is extremely unfair on a lot of posters here. Just because people point out caveats to our good performances, doesn't mean they don't want Ole as a manager, or want someone else.
I have been accused of being an "Ole basher" and a "Poch lover" on here for no reason other than that I've wanted to wait at least 3 months before deciding if I'm 100% behind Ole as a permeant manager over other candidates. People are so quick to box others into the Ole camp or Poch camp, and are seemingly never allowed to say: "I'd like more time before making my decision".
Our start was amazing, no doubt. But we were riding a wave of positivity, and anyone who denies that is kidding themselves. It was perfectly reasonable to be cautious then; look at Sarri's first 2 months at Chelsea, compared to where he is now!
Spurs was the first big test, and we did pass it. Ole won the tactical battle in the first half. But Spurs changed it up in the second, and lets be honest, they were very lucky not to get a point. At this stage, it was perfectly reasonable to be cautious.
Arsenal was an amazing result. I really didn't have anything negative to say about it. Lukaku was man of the match! The problem is that our last 2 managers, who have been widely critized on here, both won at Arsenal in almost exactly the same way. So forgive me if remain cautious at this stage.
Then came 3 more league games: a 2-2 fight-back against Burnely, a tight, 1-0 win against Leicester, and a comfortable 3-0 win against Swansea. The Burnley result showed a lot of character, and it was great to see us come back from a losing position for the first time under Ole. But many forgot we had the EXACT SAME result against Burnley at home last season: 2-0 down at half time, before coming back to rescue a point. So there wasn't really anything new here. The Leicester and Fulham performances were very impressive: the former a very difficult game where we produced a professional performance, the latter a comfortable victory where we probably could have scored more.
The PSG game was our first defeat. A weakened team, but still a quality one. And we actually started really well; if Martial and Lingard had stayed on the pitch I genuinely believe we could have won that game. However when we lost them, Ole didn't change our approach, even though we all could see we didn't have the players to play the same game anymore. And we got beaten. It may sound strange, but I was excited after that game. I have said from the start I want to see how Ole responds to a bad result, and I was excited to see whether we would bounce back. And boy, did we. An emphatic performance against Chelsea, who despite their poor form, started the game really well. But it's also worth remembering that their fans turned on them in the second half, and the atmosphere became toxic for them to play in. We defended well, and Chelsea's performance level dipped.
Notice throughout this, I've only actually criticised Ole once; for the PSG game. In all the other cases, I haven't criticised him at all. Your suggestion that people say "X result doesn't count because of reason Y" is a gross mischaracterisation of most people's comments, which can better be stated as "X was a great result, but we should also remember Y". Looking at results without their proper context is irrational, and you shouldn't criticise those who take a measured and balanced approach to their analysis of our performances.
I didn't say all the criticism is invalid. There are few posters who just posted excuse after excuse to downplay Solskjaer's time. I don't want us to make decision now, we have good enough time to evaluate his entire time and then make decision in may.
Not sure why you took offence to my post as I didn't blame anyone who said lets wait and judge. More on posters who came up with 'Win against Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea wasn't impressive because of XYZ reason"
You're comparing apples with oranges. There are so many variables that it's impossible to say "look at him over there, that didn't work, we should be cautious" and vice versa. Chelsea can't expect to hire Lampard and win 11 out of 13 games just like that because it's worked for us.
But there comes a point, and some would argue it's well before someone has been in charge for 10 weeks and managed 13 games, that this 'new manager' bounce wave of positivity stops.
The reality is, we have been underachieving for years due to poor management and the board only semi backing managers. Now we have a good manager, who's not only tactically astute but also shares the same vision as the board, players and the fans, and now we find ourselves in a position of actually performing at the level we know this team can, despite being pretty weak in some areas.
I don't understand this perspective of Spurs getting some sort of moral victory over us because we hung in there for the last 20 minutes and De Gea played brilliantly. I haven't seen anyone on here applauding Bayern Munich for their moral victory in the 1999 Champions League final, or our moral victory over Arsenal in the FA cup final when Scholes missed that penalty despite being the best team for a full 120 minutes. We beat Tottenham fair and square, sometimes you don't win those games but I know which side of luck I'd rather be on. We dropped points to Burnley that time Heaton played the game of his life against Zlatan, we were due one to go our way.
We set up for the PSG to play a certain way, no matter how much prep you do, you can't account for two players who define the way you play getting injured and having to come off and second rate replacements come on. We'd have been better off with them being injured before the game so we could set up a different way. There isn't much you can do as a manager when your game plan goes out of the window like that. You can switch your game plan and try something else but you know that will probably allow the other team to hurt you more as you're no longer exploiting their weaknesses/giving them a reason to have caution, or you can continue as planned with everyone well drilled after a week of prep and hope you get some luck.
I for one appreciate your non aligned opinion on all this and this is actually one of the most well thought out, logical and rational posts I've seen in this thread regarding Solskjaer's management. However, I do feel that this opinion is so on the fence you're overlooking some exceptional work that's been done behind the scenes.
You're right... mostly. I think the bigger picture is that this game by game analysis needs to stop and it is an unfair way of evaluating the performance of a manager. I'll give you a simple example... based on the standards that are being used to evaluate Ole's performance, I could criticize PSG; they failed to outplay Manchester United in the first half, and were only "lucky" that some key players got injured and that's how come they managed to win. Unfortunately, this is what is being done with every single Manchester United performance under Ole... people are deliberately ignoring the atmosphere around the club, the style of play, the performance of the players etc.
No team is ever expected to perform at 100% throughout the season while performing at 100% throughout each game... that criticism in bold can ALWAYS be said about ANY team in EVERY game... it shouldn't be an argument for not going with Ole.
You have to love a good football cartoon
People who aren't sure 2 months is enough time to judge a manager have valid concerns. But people who say that, then use examples from those 2 months to prove why he isn't good enough are driven by agenda clearly.
I think tactics are important but are overstated on here. Most of the great tactical managers today either aren't successful or play crap football. I think Ole does understand tactics, can improve and we can also hire someone to coach it anyway. Ole has already said he seems himself as a manager, not a coach.
I think tactics are important but are overstated on here. Most of the great tactical managers today either aren't successful or play crap football. I think Ole does understand tactics, can improve and we can also hire someone to coach it anyway. Ole has already said he seems himself as a manager, not a coach.
Great post. Simply put, the points are these:
1) Ole is doing an extraordinary job for a caretaker manager. Nobody in their right minds would deny that.
2) Even ignoring the fact he is an interim manager, he is doing as good a job currently as any permanent manager would.
3) The only criticism of Ole pertains to the PSG game where Wenger's analysis in terms of his tactics being inadequate was spot on.
4) Wins against Chelsea and Arsenal are impressive but they don't provide real clarity on whether Ole can make a good permanent manager. As you said, even Mourinho convincingly bear Arsenal away last year and almost got 3 points at the Bridge this season. Chelsea were in turmoil when we faced them and it is a fact. But to go there and beat them is still a credit to him, it merely does not give indications about his tactical prowess accurately.
5) Winning at Spurs away is a big thing considering we haven't done that in ages, but to downplay how Poch mixed it up in the second half and tactically bossed us by saying "They were at home so they dominated" is disingenuous to say the least.
6) Games against in-form Liverpool, City and even perhaps the PSG game might give an idea of how tactically flexible Ole is. These three teams are not as inflexible as Chelsea, Arsenal etc and we will see if Ole can match them.
Finally, what does this mean for Ole? Is he a legit candidate for the permanent job based on his work so far? Obviously yes. Should he be given the job at the end of the season? Would be very unfair not to hire him if he gets Top 4 or a Cup. Does this mean he has absolutely no flaws and doesn't deserve an iota of criticism? No.
@wolvored I don’t know about Dybala, but I do think (and hope) Ole sees what the rest of us do; the need for some serious upgrades in at least three positions. He’s done very well with what he got. However, PSG isn’t even one of the top teams, imo they’re just a level below Barca, Real, Juve etc. So if we really want to mix it up there, heavy investment and developing our current talent further is necessary.
@Dion I haven’t really put a lot of thought into it, but I agree with you. I was just trying to show Amadeus that even if Ole wants to upgrade some positions, it would do no good to talk about it, if it’s not in a private meeting with Ed.
@Dion I haven’t really put a lot of thought into it, but I agree with you. I was just trying to show Amadeus that even if Ole wants to upgrade some positions, it would do no good to talk about it, if it’s not in a private meeting with Ed.
Last edited:
I was more taking issue with the idea that pointing out caveats to our excellent performances should be taken as a sign that we have an agenda against Ole. But I may have taken your post more personally than intended, just sick of the "you're in the Ole camp or Poch camp" attitude that seems to be dominating the forum at the moment.
You're right, you can apply the minute variables that play out in any match to support any argument. But my overall point was the opposite, that you need a large sample size before you can truly judge a manager's performance. So I wouldn't say I'm fence sitting so much as asking for enough results to spot consistent trends that I would or wouldn't want in a manager.
You're also right that my previous post doesn't address the work done behind the scenes (which has clearly been excellent); I wouldn't have had enough time to address it in that post.
Again, you're absolutely right that game-by-game is not the right way to judge a manager. That's why I've been asking for a large sample size before being 100% behind Ole as our permanent manager. I'm not pitching any of those examples as a reason to go against Ole, rather as examples that we need time to judge Ole fairly and rationally compared to alternative candidates.
Realistically speaking though, all of this is a moot point, as I'm starting to believe our run of results is making it impossible for us to appoint anyone other than Ole at the end of the season.
I'm a big fan of Poch and my post history is poof for that. I don't mind if we appoint any of Ole or Poch. Saying that few move posts so much to downplay Solskjaer, it's funny and sad at the same time.
What i don't understand is why spurs fans come in here and says that we should get Poch. Do they don't want him in spurs anymore or are they just here to brag or something? Or are they just jealous?
Yup, that's basically what I was saying.
fecking hell, did anyone expect Manutd to go to Spurs stadium and dominate them? This min by min, half by half analysis is just tedious.
Also did anyone say that Solskjaer didn't make any mistake and doesn't deserve any criticism? If so I haven't read any posts like that.
Also did anyone say that Solskjaer didn't make any mistake and doesn't deserve any criticism? If so I haven't read any posts like that.
Very much spot on.
That article is actually bollocks.
For those that want a TLDR; Solskjaer's tactics completely revolve around Pogba creating chances for the strikers. Wenger says we lost against PSG because Marquinho marked him out of the game. We've only won against big sides due to their weaknesses and not our strengths.
My counter argument: Imagine Solskjaer wasn't using Pogba, just like Mourinho wasn't, where the feck would we be right now? I guess Liverpool need to stop using Salah, Barcelona stop relying on Messi and Juventus should drop Ronaldo, or maybe they should all get a manager with more complex methods? You play to your strengths, always. If you've only got one strength, you sign more players to give you more options.
Agree. I'm still in favour of Pochettino over OGS but his tactics have been impressive. It's not his fault we've got one player who's head and shoulders above the rest.
Exactly. Any article that uses some hexagon, xg stats is considered as insightful when the article is nothing but loads of excuses.
Not really.
It's perfectly acceptable to draw evidence from a small sample, without drawing any overall conclusions.
It's not perfectly acceptable to draw only evidence which backs up your argument and ignore the (larger) amount of evidence which undermines it.
One thing I've noticed around here is the bandying about of the word "tactics". Most of the time, if you don't agree with what a coach does, he's obviously using bad "tactics." And those are usually hindsight accusations. Folks, you don't win 11 of 13 with any sort of bad tactics. The lack of ability to change tactics because you don't have quality players, and specifically depth of quality players, is not bad tactics or lack of tactics. It's lack of options. Nevermind he's still figuring out all the combinations he has to work with because he's only been here two months.
Pointing out that Poch won the tactics battle when Ole's crew were spent (a point on conditioning that Ole made before even the first match) is ludicrous. Ole had the upper hand for 60+ minutes with squads that are pretty even on the talent side of things. But when our lads lost their legs playing a style they've not endured in recent memory, Spurs are suddenly tactically brilliant? For scoring no goals? Everyone had noticed that our guys couldn't keep up the pace at that point. They're doing better at that now, I might add.
And against PSG, Ole had no options on tactics once TWO of his main offensive players went down to injury at the end of the first half. Park the bus and hope for a 0-0 draw? Yeah, that would have gone over like a lead balloon! We were basically playing with 10 men for the last 10 minutes of the first half anyway because Martial was a dead man walking. People criticized Ole after the fact for putting Mata out there instead of Lukaku, but really, how much grief has Lukaku gotten for his play? The previous weekend, he'd been accused of being Fulham's #1 defender. Oh, and it still took PSG eight minutes after those two substitutions to score their first goal. And then PP gets himself thrown out with 5 minutes to go... Yet at the end of the night, PSG had only had the ball 56% of the time and two more shots off than we did. It was a heck of a lot closer than people want to make it out.
Excellent point, every team relies on its stars. That's why they sign them. And so what if we become "too reliant" on Pogba this year? Who else on this squad has that quality that we can rely on to get us through? Oh, I know. De Gea... but that's not a good thing either, as the Poch lovers seem to think.
(Is is me, or does it seem that among the multitude United supporters, there seems to be a very small subset that is genuinely angry that Tottenham lost that game?)
Out of curiosity, how many teams base their tactics on their strikers to creating their own chances? I mean, I guess you could, but really, the idea is to set your strikers up. We have a Pogba to do that. Other teams don't, so they might not be as good at it. Right now, without him, we're not as good at it, either. That lack of options again...
As for luck, it's part of the game. But you also make your own luck. You put yourself in a position to capitalize on it. Just ask Leicester.
/manifesto
Pointing out that Poch won the tactics battle when Ole's crew were spent (a point on conditioning that Ole made before even the first match) is ludicrous. Ole had the upper hand for 60+ minutes with squads that are pretty even on the talent side of things. But when our lads lost their legs playing a style they've not endured in recent memory, Spurs are suddenly tactically brilliant? For scoring no goals? Everyone had noticed that our guys couldn't keep up the pace at that point. They're doing better at that now, I might add.
And against PSG, Ole had no options on tactics once TWO of his main offensive players went down to injury at the end of the first half. Park the bus and hope for a 0-0 draw? Yeah, that would have gone over like a lead balloon! We were basically playing with 10 men for the last 10 minutes of the first half anyway because Martial was a dead man walking. People criticized Ole after the fact for putting Mata out there instead of Lukaku, but really, how much grief has Lukaku gotten for his play? The previous weekend, he'd been accused of being Fulham's #1 defender. Oh, and it still took PSG eight minutes after those two substitutions to score their first goal. And then PP gets himself thrown out with 5 minutes to go... Yet at the end of the night, PSG had only had the ball 56% of the time and two more shots off than we did. It was a heck of a lot closer than people want to make it out.
Excellent point, every team relies on its stars. That's why they sign them. And so what if we become "too reliant" on Pogba this year? Who else on this squad has that quality that we can rely on to get us through? Oh, I know. De Gea... but that's not a good thing either, as the Poch lovers seem to think.
(Is is me, or does it seem that among the multitude United supporters, there seems to be a very small subset that is genuinely angry that Tottenham lost that game?)Out of curiosity, how many teams base their tactics on their strikers to creating their own chances? I mean, I guess you could, but really, the idea is to set your strikers up. We have a Pogba to do that. Other teams don't, so they might not be as good at it. Right now, without him, we're not as good at it, either. That lack of options again...
As for luck, it's part of the game. But you also make your own luck. You put yourself in a position to capitalize on it. Just ask Leicester.
/manifesto
I can see @Gator Nate being promoted soon. Hopefully, there are more of this type of newbs out there
I can remember being a newb back in the day and dishing out paragraph posts, now days I've became a lazy bastard.
True that. Couldn't agree more.One thing I've noticed around here is the bandying about of the word "tactics". Most of the time, if you don't agree with what a coach does, he's obviously using bad "tactics." And those are usually hindsight accusations. Folks, you don't win 11 of 13 with any sort of bad tactics. The lack of ability to change tactics because you don't have quality players, and specifically depth of quality players, is not bad tactics or lack of tactics. It's lack of options. Nevermind he's still figuring out all the combinations he has to work with because he's only been here two months.
Pointing out that Poch won the tactics battle when Ole's crew were spent (a point on conditioning that Ole made before even the first match) is ludicrous. Ole had the upper hand for 60+ minutes with squads that are pretty even on the talent side of things. But when our lads lost their legs playing a style they've not endured in recent memory, Spurs are suddenly tactically brilliant? For scoring no goals? Everyone had noticed that our guys couldn't keep up the pace at that point. They're doing better at that now, I might add.
And against PSG, Ole had no options on tactics once TWO of his main offensive players went down to injury at the end of the first half. Park the bus and hope for a 0-0 draw? Yeah, that would have gone over like a lead balloon! We were basically playing with 10 men for the last 10 minutes of the first half anyway because Martial was a dead man walking. People criticized Ole after the fact for putting Mata out there instead of Lukaku, but really, how much grief has Lukaku gotten for his play? The previous weekend, he'd been accused of being Fulham's #1 defender. Oh, and it still took PSG eight minutes after those two substitutions to score their first goal. And then PP gets himself thrown out with 5 minutes to go... Yet at the end of the night, PSG had only had the ball 56% of the time and two more shots off than we did. It was a heck of a lot closer than people want to make it out.
Excellent point, every team relies on its stars. That's why they sign them. And so what if we become "too reliant" on Pogba this year? Who else on this squad has that quality that we can rely on to get us through? Oh, I know. De Gea... but that's not a good thing either, as the Poch lovers seem to think.
Out of curiosity, how many teams base their tactics on their strikers to creating their own chances? I mean, I guess you could, but really, the idea is to set your strikers up. We have a Pogba to do that. Other teams don't, so they might not be as good at it. Right now, without him, we're not as good at it, either. That lack of options again...
As for luck, it's part of the game. But you also make your own luck. You put yourself in a position to capitalize on it. Just ask Leicester.
/manifesto
Good post! Almost read all of it.One thing I've noticed around here is the bandying about of the word "tactics". Most of the time, if you don't agree with what a coach does, he's obviously using bad "tactics." And those are usually hindsight accusations. Folks, you don't win 11 of 13 with any sort of bad tactics. The lack of ability to change tactics because you don't have quality players, and specifically depth of quality players, is not bad tactics or lack of tactics. It's lack of options. Nevermind he's still figuring out all the combinations he has to work with because he's only been here two months.
Pointing out that Poch won the tactics battle when Ole's crew were spent (a point on conditioning that Ole made before even the first match) is ludicrous. Ole had the upper hand for 60+ minutes with squads that are pretty even on the talent side of things. But when our lads lost their legs playing a style they've not endured in recent memory, Spurs are suddenly tactically brilliant? For scoring no goals? Everyone had noticed that our guys couldn't keep up the pace at that point. They're doing better at that now, I might add.
And against PSG, Ole had no options on tactics once TWO of his main offensive players went down to injury at the end of the first half. Park the bus and hope for a 0-0 draw? Yeah, that would have gone over like a lead balloon! We were basically playing with 10 men for the last 10 minutes of the first half anyway because Martial was a dead man walking. People criticized Ole after the fact for putting Mata out there instead of Lukaku, but really, how much grief has Lukaku gotten for his play? The previous weekend, he'd been accused of being Fulham's #1 defender. Oh, and it still took PSG eight minutes after those two substitutions to score their first goal. And then PP gets himself thrown out with 5 minutes to go... Yet at the end of the night, PSG had only had the ball 56% of the time and two more shots off than we did. It was a heck of a lot closer than people want to make it out.
Excellent point, every team relies on its stars. That's why they sign them. And so what if we become "too reliant" on Pogba this year? Who else on this squad has that quality that we can rely on to get us through? Oh, I know. De Gea... but that's not a good thing either, as the Poch lovers seem to think.
Out of curiosity, how many teams base their tactics on their strikers to creating their own chances? I mean, I guess you could, but really, the idea is to set your strikers up. We have a Pogba to do that. Other teams don't, so they might not be as good at it. Right now, without him, we're not as good at it, either. That lack of options again...
As for luck, it's part of the game. But you also make your own luck. You put yourself in a position to capitalize on it. Just ask Leicester.
/manifesto
To face some setbacks is very interesting as they give us the opportunity to see how Ole reacts on them, how much of an "Plan B" he has etc.
E.g. Burnley - I would have tried something else. Why Lukaku out when we are trying to win this with crosses? Why not trying something like Jones/Pereira/Mata out and Fred/Herrera/Lingard in. Dominating the game more from the middle (Pereira was horrible...) with Herrera, Fred without defensive duties that he can press and try to be creative, width from the wingbacks and Pogba/Lukaku in the centre for the headers. Lingard to create space, Rashford for runs behind as otherwise it would be very one-dimensional to defend.
In the end it worked, we got our result (2-2...at least) but otherwise i would have thought the tactical changes were bad. But, important point: I am not a coach, not an expert, just a normal fan. I think Ole and his team has thought about their options, they see the boys everyday in training so they will have causes for doing what they do. As it worked, it was good.
But Burnley was very different to PSG. You can't blame Ole for not impacting the game and getting it into the right direction when two of our four Attackers get injured in the game. The reaction to an goal of PSG just before half time without injury problems on our side would have been interesting, but here you can't really criticise.
I am tense on Oles Plan B etc. - we should not forget, Sarri looked excellent as long as his Plan A worked. Now...you all know.
E.g. Burnley - I would have tried something else. Why Lukaku out when we are trying to win this with crosses? Why not trying something like Jones/Pereira/Mata out and Fred/Herrera/Lingard in. Dominating the game more from the middle (Pereira was horrible...) with Herrera, Fred without defensive duties that he can press and try to be creative, width from the wingbacks and Pogba/Lukaku in the centre for the headers. Lingard to create space, Rashford for runs behind as otherwise it would be very one-dimensional to defend.
In the end it worked, we got our result (2-2...at least) but otherwise i would have thought the tactical changes were bad. But, important point: I am not a coach, not an expert, just a normal fan. I think Ole and his team has thought about their options, they see the boys everyday in training so they will have causes for doing what they do. As it worked, it was good.
But Burnley was very different to PSG. You can't blame Ole for not impacting the game and getting it into the right direction when two of our four Attackers get injured in the game. The reaction to an goal of PSG just before half time without injury problems on our side would have been interesting, but here you can't really criticise.
I am tense on Oles Plan B etc. - we should not forget, Sarri looked excellent as long as his Plan A worked. Now...you all know.