[amolbhatia50k]

I hate seeing people mention this with regard to United. Bad enough Louis spouts it, but now fans buying it. Holding onto the ball for longer than the opposition really doesn't mean you controlled the game. It means the opposition has the intelligence to sit back and allow you the ball, because they know you really don't have the creativity to break them down. A bit more guile themselves and Leicester would have won the game, as they had better chances than we did. Can't remember who it was, but when they were breaking, lad picked out 1 guy at edge of our box when he should have given it to Vardy who was behind him. Either way, the lad with the ball probably should have scored but hit a weak shot straight at De Gea. Our "control" of the game is a mere illusion. We're giving up very good chances every week. We're just lucky we've such a freak of a keeper.

Of course. The only reason for our good defensive record is our keeper. Sure.

 

[Oo0AahCantona]

There needs to be a parliamentary inquest into darmians loss of form.

 

[prath92]

Smalling scored 4 goals last season?

I recall this season's goal, fantastic stuff.

I retract my point in part. Still, leaving our back line exposed as we did against an effective counterattacking side was not sensible. At least leave on CB back, either Blind or Smalling. But leaving Young and Darmian to defend against Vardy invited danger.

yeah he scored 1 vs city 1 vs hull 2 vs burnley, all from set pieces. I get your point but young should have done better there tbf.

 

[itso 7]

I really have to disagree with you that it's the reason, or even the main reason.

For me Bayern, Barcelona, and City and Arsenal (to a lesser extent) have players who can receive the ball under pressure, turn their man and carry the dribble the ball towards goal, or at least keep hold of the ball. They create better angles on the ball because of this. Bayern have Thiago, Robben, Costa, Lewandowski who will all take the pass at any speed, height, angle... and control it, turn with it, or shield it. Same for Barcelona.

Meanwhile, this United team has barely one player who's great at it. So what happens is they don't want to receive the ball in tight spots, and they don't pass to each other in tight spots.

Movement alone can't carve teams open. At some point the players need to get their foot on the ball and take opposition players out of the game, and create situations where runners are encouraged to come forward. We see Silva do it all the time. Get the ball under pressure, turn, hold it, and wait for the full back to gallop forward. It was Silva's use of the ball - not Zabaleta's run - that played the biggest role in creating that chance.

Barcelona players aren't just making better runs. They're making runs that require higher levels of technique. It's no good having Mata, Memphis and Rooney running into the exact places Messi, Neymar and Suarez do, because even if they making those exact same runs, they aren't going to have the technique/composure, strength... to control the intricate passes Barcelona make constantly.

Higher levels of player are needed in order for a possession game at the level of Bayern and Barcelona.

This, frankly there is nothing anyone can add on that.

 

[SoCross]

3 at the back and 5 in the middle provides defensive stability.
This was brought in immediately after the 5-3 thrashing last year, at the hands of LCFC.
LVG was fully aware of Vardy, so decided to opt for an ultra defensive 352 system, again.
The other issue is that injuries have currently ravaged our squad, so 352 allows us to play with fewer defenders.

Without 352, maybe we'd have conceded more.

I see your logic but in all our other games, we played four at the back and we had the best defensive record in the league? If it isn't broke etc etc. Not like we had defensive injuries either; could have opted for a back four of Blind, McNair, Smalling, Darmian on whatever combination - McNair RB, Darmian LB, Blind CB and so on.

But anyway, hope its just a one-off but I have a sneaky feeling (the mid-game reversion to it against Watford being the reason) that we will see it in our next game as well. I'm a huge supporter of LVG and quite content to be patient because I think his approach will pay dividends within a few years but unnecessary shifts in tactics - we know the 352 is a disaster - will put a slight question mark in him for me personally.

 

[SoCross]

There needs to be a parliamentary inquest into darmians loss of form.

Seriously. He hasn't recovered from Sanchez.

 

[dirkey]

Of course. The only reason for our good defensive record is our keeper. Sure.

I didn't say that. However, for a team that "controls" the game, we sure as hell give up at least one, and usually 2 or 3 great chances every week, so much so that our keeper has to be in full concentration mode to make his saves. Another reason we have such a record is because we're so boring, playing with 2 holding midfielders and a team who is asked to stay in shape so much that it stunts us going forward. We are basically creating perhaps 1 more chance per game than the opposition, when the opposition is of so called inferior quality. That's not good enough. And Louis will then talk in his post game interview about how we "controlled the game" (in other words, held the ball, created nothing much) and will lament, and wrongly single someone out - he did it with Memphis after the weekend - for missing the one chance we create. Instead of copping on and saying "You know what, we're not creating enough. I need to look at this. Maybe, just maybe my tactics are a problem." Heaven forbid he'd admit a mistake though. Nope, creating and missing one chance a game is enough for Louis.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I didn't say that. However, for a team that "controls" the game, we sure as hell give up at least one, and usually 2 or 3 great chances every week, so much so that our keeper has to be in full concentration mode to make his saves. Another reason we have such a record is because we're so boring, playing with 2 holding midfielders and a team who is asked to stay in shape so much that it stunts us going forward. We are basically creating perhaps 1 more chance per game than the opposition, when the opposition is of so called inferior quality. That's not good enough. And Louis will then talk in his post game interview about how we "controlled the game" (in other words, held the ball, created nothing much) and will lament, and wrongly single someone out - he did it with Memphis after the weekend - for missing the one chance we create. Instead of copping on and saying "You know what, we're not creating enough. I need to look at this. Maybe, just maybe my tactics are a problem." Heaven forbid he'd admit a mistake though. Nope, creating and missing one chance a game is enough for Louis.

Every team does that, or more. And most teams play with two defensively capable midfielders. Schweinsteiger isn't really a holding midfielder. He's an all-action midfielder who pops up everywhere. Either way we are good defensively. If we actually hurt teams with out possession we'd be winning the league comfortably. That's the issue. Controlling the game is a positive for me. Our inability to convert that into chances due to the front 4/managers decisions regarding the front 4/any other reason is the negative. We do two phases well for me, and one very very poorly. Just because we do one phase poorly doesn't mean the other two aren't acknowledged.

 

[dirkey]

Every team does that, or more. And most teams play with two defensively capable midfielders. Schweinsteiger isn't really a holding midfielder. He's an all-action midfielder who pops up everywhere. Either way we are good defensively. If we actually hurt teams with out possession we'd be winning the league comfortably. That's the issue. Controlling the game is a positive for me. Our inability to convert that into chances due to the front 4/managers decisions regarding the front 4/any other reason is the negative. We do two phases well for me, and one very very poorly. Just because we do one phase poorly doesn't mean the other two aren't acknowledged.

We don't control the game though. That's my point. We're basically creating as many chances as the opposition. Perhaps sometimes 1 or 2 more. Sometimes 1 or 2 less. Holding onto the ball is giving the illusion of control. "If we actually hurt teams". Yes. True. However, I can just as easily say "If teams took their easy chances against us, we'd be mid table", which is also completely true.

In my opinion we do 1 phase well. That's defend, and I include the defensive setup of the midfield as part of that. Midfield gets an OK mark for me, because while they're helping out the defence, they're doing nothing going forward. They're no threat whatsoever - Schweini was from set pieces the other day, but that's about it. No incisive passing. No late runs into the box to get onto anything. No decent long range efforts. No creativity.

The forward line is just muck.

However, I fail to believe that players with as much ability as these guys are ALL out of form at the same time. It's a tactical issue.

Either way, I really don't agree that we control games. We hold the ball yes. But this is mostly due to the fact that teams have learned that they can sit back and let us have the ball as they can comfortably cope with nearly everything we throw at them. They'll also know that they'll get chances on the break, as we've shown we're always giving them up. Yes, other teams all give up chances. The difference is that the top teams create a lot, lot more. So they'll give up 2 or 3 chances a game. Create 8 or 10. We're giving up 2 or 3, creating 2 or 3. We're basically playing teams with inferior players and hoping we'll manage to nick one of our chances, while they won't.

That's not control.

 

[Sam]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the reason we struggle to create chances is that we have so little movement off the ball. Effective attacking teams (Barcelona, Bayern, City and Arsenal (at times)) all pass the ball and then look to move into space to offer a return pass. We play a pass, whether forwards or sideways or wherever and then act like the job is done.

LVG instructs the players not to move, and wait for the ball to come to them. Herrera talked about it last season.

 

[SalfordRed1960]

Of course. The only reason for our good defensive record is our keeper. Sure.

Yep, this tired old saying just to prove a point that is already framed in the writers mind.

Looked to me like Leicester were trying desparately to get the ball off United, rather than sitting back and letting us have it.

Only agreement fans seem to have is that we can't break well organized defenses down and the style is not good to watch.

Those that don't appear to like LVG put all the blame his way and thus don't see anything good about what United do. We were lucky, DDG saved the day, the opposition didn't turn up, it was only ...

Those that give LVG the benefit see players making bad decisions, LVG making odd subs, see occasionally good play, see the team carrying 1 or 2 players and seeing work in progress.

The two will never see eye to eye.

 

[prath92]

LVG instructs the players not to move, and wait for the ball to come to them. Herrera talked about it last season.

except that is not what he said? I think what herrera said in that interview was that initially he used to run towards the players who had the ball and LvG told him to stay in the right place instead of wandering out of position as the players in the the team had the quality to find him.

You make it seem as if he was asked to stand still in the middle of the pitch.

 

[sunama]

LVG instructs the players not to move, and wait for the ball to come to them. Herrera talked about it last season.

This is down to TOTAL football.
The idea is that the ball can travel faster, when it is passed from one player to another, than if a player is dribbling and running with the ball.
The above strategy can work, but it requires fast one touch passing. It requires players of high technical ability and footballing intelligence.
This means that once a player receives the ball, he must attempt to dispatch it within 2 seconds.
Our problem is that our players received the ball. They dwell on the ball for about 2-5 seconds. Then pass it.

Also, when on a counter attack, our players stop the counter attack for some reason, which is ludicrous.
That goal scored by Vardy in our last game - there is no way that MUFC, using the current tactic could ever do something like that. In the space of 5 seconds (?) and 2 passes, the ball went from their GK, into our net. Granted, we don't have Vardy on our team, but we have Martial who is capable of doing something similar. We also have Carrick/Blind/Bastian who can all feed killer passes.

 

[dirkey]

Yep, this tired old saying just to prove a point that is already framed in the writers mind.

Looked to me like Leicester were trying desparately to get the ball off United, rather than sitting back and letting us have it.

Only agreement fans seem to have is that we can't break well organized defenses down and the style is not good to watch.

Those that don't appear to like LVG put all the blame his way and thus don't see anything good about what United do. We were lucky, DDG saved the day, the opposition didn't turn up, it was only ...

Those that give LVG the benefit see players making bad decisions, LVG making odd subs, see occasionally good play, see the team carrying 1 or 2 players and seeing work in progress.

The two will never see eye to eye.

Not in the slightest. Did I say that the only reason for our great defensive record was our keeper? Nope. I didn't. That's what I was paraphrased as saying, but was incorrect. Yes, we're very well organised defensively. But in my opinion it's at the cost of any attacking creativity. Van Gaal, and some fans, state that we "control" games. Which is rubbish in my opinion.

What I felt Leicester did was get back into their positions pretty quickly. Be happy to let Utd have the ball in the middle third of the field, then press when closer to their defensive third, at which point they'd try to break.

I put 90% of the blame on our sterile football on Louis. Not all, as players make mistakes too. But the set up is not conducive to good football. That's not to say I don't see anything good about United - defensive organisation is good, ball retention is good (but boring), midfield helping defense is good. The rest is bad, and it's on Louis.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

We don't control the game though. That's my point. We're basically creating as many chances as the opposition. Perhaps sometimes 1 or 2 more. Sometimes 1 or 2 less. Holding onto the ball is giving the illusion of control. "If we actually hurt teams". Yes. True. However, I can just as easily say "If teams took their easy chances against us, we'd be mid table", which is also completely true.

You could say that but it would be pointless because I could also say that if we took our easy chances we'd be champions elect and we'd be stuck in a cycle of complete pointlessness and saying random things.

Let me clarify as a few things are getting intertwined here possibly due to different interpretations of the word "control:

When LVG came here he was going to implement possession football, that much we all knew. So there are three steps in implementing that as far as I can see.

One is to be able to be comfortable in possession to an extent where you can dictate the football match for most of the time i.e dominate possession, pin the opposition back and monopolize where the game is played. That is what I call controlling a football match.

The benefits of this are obvious in that A) the other team has less of the ball and hence you have less defending to do and B) you have more of the ball to probe the opposition with patiently taking your time as opposed to having to do so hurriedly with less time.

The second step is to ensure that when you don't have the ball (which is drastically reduced if you do the first step fine), then you defend well against counter-attacks.

The third step is to utilize the extra time you have on the ball effectively to create chances and score goals.

For me, we do the 1st and 2nd steps well and do the 3rd poorly.

I find the refusal to give the team and the manager any credit for getting those parts right very narrow-minded as if criticism is the only thing on ones mind. At the same time if someone can't acknowledge that we have a problem with the 3rd part then again it's a case of masking issues and bias. The notion that we defend well because of our keeper is incorrect as top sides have keepers making good saves and we aren't any different. The notion that we defend well because "we are negative" is also incorrect because we aren't negative. We just don't attack very well. Us attacking poorly has little impact on our defence other than make it's work even harder as it's always fearful of costing us points.

However, I fail to believe that players with as much ability as these guys are ALL out of form at the same time. It's a tactical issue.

I agree to an extent. It's not just players that are out of form, it's also players that aren't actually that good. But yes, LVG still has to get us playing better on the ball. Lesser teams with lesser players than ours (even excluding the bang out of form ones) are showing more than us. I feel a simple quickening of tempo could help.

But this is mostly due to the fact that teams have learned that they can sit back and let us have the ball as they can comfortably cope with nearly everything we throw at them. They'll also know that they'll get chances on the break, as we've shown we're always giving them up.

I don't agree. A couple of teams would concede ground willingly but most would force-ably have to. I mean given how poor our attack and good our defence, they're better off having more attacks at our defence given our attack is likely to do even less with pressure on the ball.

They'll also know that they'll get chances on the break, as we've shown we're always giving them up.

Then they're awfully daft because we're consistently proving that we've got a quality defence. Even the best sides give a couple of chances away per game. I don't know why you're painting our defence in such poor light as if giving a few chances is supposed to actually mean something. Every team gives away chances.

 

[dirkey]

You could say that but it would be pointless because I could also say that if we took our easy chances we'd be champions elect and we'd be stuck in a cycle of complete pointlessness and saying random things.

Let me clarify as a few things are getting intertwined here possibly due to different interpretations of the word "control:

When LVG came here he was going to implement possession football, that much we all knew. So there are three steps in implementing that as far as I can see.

One is to be able to be comfortable in possession to an extent where you can dictate the football match for most of the time i.e dominate possession, pin the opposition back and monopolize where the game is played. That is what I call controlling a football match.

The benefits of this are obvious in that A) the other team has less of the ball and hence you have less defending to do and B) you have more of the ball to probe the opposition with patiently taking your time as opposed to having to do so hurriedly with less time.

The second step is to ensure that when you don't have the ball (which is drastically reduced if you do the first step fine), then you defend well against counter-attacks.

The third step is to utilize the extra time you have on the ball effectively to create chances and score goals.

For me, we do the 1st and 2nd steps well and do the 3rd poorly.

I find the refusal to give the team and the manager any credit for getting those parts right very narrow-minded as if criticism is the only thing on ones mind. At the same time if someone can't acknowledge that we have a problem with the 3rd part then again it's a case of masking issues and bias. The notion that we defend well because of our keeper is incorrect as top sides have keepers making good saves and we aren't any different. The notion that we defend well because "we are negative" is also incorrect because we aren't negative. We just don't attack very well. Us attacking poorly has little impact on our defence other than make it's work even harder as it's always fearful of costing us points.

I do give Louis credit for certain things, I think you're misreading what I'm saying if you think I don't give him credit. Obviously he has made us harder to beat, and he's improved results. He's also moved us up the table etc. You'd have to be a fool not to see that. I also think he's trimmed a lot of the fat from the squad, and he's happy to give youth a chance, which I love.

I would disagree that we do the second step well however. I know every team gives up chances - I'm not denying that. And at no point do I say that our defence isn't good. However, the team regularly gets caught badly on the break. Leicester showed it easily the other day, and I think most teams have. In the main, I think we defend well, just not fantastically on the counter, in my opinion.

I do believe we differ in our views of controlling a game. Control, to me, means you are ... in control of the game. That you're all over the opposition and that it's essentially a "footballing injustice" if you don't win it. I don't see that with United, mainly due to the toothless nature of our attack. We control more of the ball in most games, yes. But we don't do much with it.

I do believe we are negative as a side. I know you don't feel Basti is a defensive midfielder, in my opinion, he is. Playing with himself and Carrick is a negative set up. Just like going to 3 at the back the other day was. I think Louis' first and foremost thought is to not concede. That's negative. Other managers go out to try and take the game by the scruff of the neck, to get their team to attack and score first. I find this a negative mindset.

As you say though, this is all our own ways of viewing these things.

I agree to an extent. It's not just players that are out of form, it's also players that aren't actually that good. But yes, LVG still has to get us playing better on the ball. Lesser teams with lesser players than ours (even excluding the bang out of form ones) are showing more than us. I feel a simple quickening of tempo could help.

You're right. Certain players aren't that good. Yet Louis is the one who left us with this squad. He has to take the blame for that also. It was blatantly obvious going in that things aren't good enough up top, but he did nothing to sort that out. Bar sell, and loan out players who could potentially help us. I agree that a quickening of the tempo could help - again, this is on Louis. Why isn't he doing that? Because he's worried that they'll give the ball away if they try quicker passing, in my opinion, and he's obsessed with his illusion of control. And the thing that irks me the most I think, is Rooney. Terrible all season. Can't play at a high tempo. Yet he's in there, week in, week out. Anyone else - Mata, Herrera etc, they're dropped immediately after one mistake.

I don't agree. A couple of teams would concede ground willingly but most would force-ably have to. I mean given how poor our attack and good our defence, they're better off having more attacks at our defence given our attack is likely to do even less with pressure on the ball.

I do feel that most teams with "worse" players tend to sit back. They don't attack because they don't want to leave space ordinarily. They know how bad our attack is when asked to play through a packed area, that's why they don't attack. Look at the difference in our games when we score early. Things open up and the side looks half decent, starts creating chances. That's because the other team attacks.

Then they're awfully daft because we're consistently proving that we've got a quality defence. Even the best sides give a couple of chances away per game. I don't know why you're painting our defence in such poor light as if giving a few chances is supposed to actually mean something. Every team gives away chances.

I'm not painting our defence in such a bad light. I'm saying we're giving away almost as many chances as we're creating. For a team that "controls" the game, this shouldn't be the case. If we have the ball this long, why are we not creating more? Every team gives away chances, exactly. And yet, despite having so much more of the possession, we're not creating that many more chances. Basically, we're getting the default number of chances that any team in any game gets, despite having very expensive footballers having more possession of the football. It's not good enough at this stage in my opinion. Being hard to beat, that's fine for teams not trying to win things. We should be trying to win things.
Louis' biggest problem in my opinion is that he'll come in after games claiming we controlled it, and he'll point to 1 or 2 missed chances as to reasons why we didn't win it. At the same time, he won't acknowledge that the opposition has generally missed 1 or 2 very similarly easy chances. He's not talking about why our "control" isn't leading to us winning games comfortably. Which is basically the essence of my issue. Real control leads, in the most part, to comfortable wins. Real control doesn't lead to 10 goals in 10 games, nicking goals by the odd one, numerous draws, lamenting the odd missed chance while not talking about opposition similar chances.

He's had enough time to change what we're doing up front, and I see no evidence that he is trying to change anything. It's the same shape, same type of football week after week up there. The only changes are dropping a player here or there after a mistake or two.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

@dirkey I think we pretty much agree on most points barring a few things here and there.

What you call control, I call domination.

I agree that having the wrong players is also on LVG, but I see it as something he can fix in the coming summer as well.

Also I do think that every possession side does get caught on the counter. I think we've become quite good at it IMO. Even Barcelona are vulnerable on the counter, it's just that they create so much that a couple of chances here or there isn't cause for worry, whereas when you barely get many shots on goal per game, those chances on the counter become more important. However, they are unavoidable IMO, and our defending on the whole has impressed me this season.

 

[SalfordRed1960]

Not in the slightest. Did I say that the only reason for our great defensive record was our keeper? Nope. I didn't. That's what I was paraphrased as saying, but was incorrect. Yes, we're very well organised defensively. But in my opinion it's at the cost of any attacking creativity. Van Gaal, and some fans, state that we "control" games. Which is rubbish in my opinion.

What I felt Leicester did was get back into their positions pretty quickly. Be happy to let Utd have the ball in the middle third of the field, then press when closer to their defensive third, at which point they'd try to break.

I put 90% of the blame on our sterile football on Louis. Not all, as players make mistakes too. But the set up is not conducive to good football. That's not to say I don't see anything good about United - defensive organisation is good, ball retention is good (but boring), midfield helping defense is good. The rest is bad, and it's on Louis.

It wasn't personal and not intended to offend. It was a comment made to reflect it so tiring listening to the negatives from the moment the fixture becomes the next game to the post match analysis.

We could have only 11 fit players and the shit starts about formation, size of squad, LVG not on the side line, Liverpool have 2 more shots than us, Moyes had the same points and so on. Then when we get a result, we get the negative we only had n shots, no urgency, LVG clueless, team is shite because of LVG, Simone/Pep/klopp & Co would be better.

There are probably 20 odd posters already getting their script ready for WHU. The match day thread will become a focal point and off we go. I some times wonder whether half of them are even watching the game as they seem to be describing a totally different match to that which I am watching. And YES I do find the match very annoying like most, if not all, but a bit of balance would be nice and not real crackers like we are only where we are because of DDG as though no other GK makes a save.