Ralf Rangnick | ex-interim manager | does anyone rate him?

[Daengophile]

Looks like he is a quick learner,

4-2-2-2 didnt work - he switched to 4-3-3
Defence was not good--He put Harry/Shaw on bench to give them a proper kick and now we can see the old Harry
Bissaka Problem : He promoted Dalot and we can see a better play on right side of the pitch
Bruno Form : He started playing him more in NO-8 role or close to McFred and we can see the improvement.
Midfield Problem : He knows McFred is not our solution but he praised Scott by telling he is the captaincy material and since then Scott started giving us regular 8/10 performances instead of an occasional 1 or 2 good matches
Players domination : He told Pogba that he should request us to extend rather we are asking him to stay (excellent bit) and called back from Dubai / Put Martial's agent in check / Told Ronaldo club comes first than anyone else
Giving youth a chance : Promoting Elanga and playing both Rashford/ Greenwood even they are not in best form / Ralf said he is really looking forward to bring in Hannibal as he is very much impressed with him (music to my ears)
Giving our players a bit of home work (video analysis), payback time for taking it so easy for years

Once he gets the tune out of |Rashford/Greenwood/Sancho with Ronaldo/Cavani as a backup, we could be devastating

Seems media made up so many wrong stories after Wolves defeat but it feels like players are buying his methods / happy to see Ronaldo joking with C|hris Armas after the game yesterday shows the relationship is bulding with Ralf's coaching team.

I am happy Guys, in the end its not all gloom and doom and his best asset is finding best deals in the transfer market, so I am looking forward to good days again.

That's a great post. No 2 ways about it

It looks like Rangnick started with the defence, then midfield control and now he's working on the one area that we thought was world class.

Indeed, we have some fantastic players up front. But their thinking is suspect. If he can get them making the right decisions instead of thinking of themselves then we can put the fear of God in any defence.

Then we can look at tinkering and fine tuning

 

[tomaldinho1]

Nonsensical rant. Everyone and their dog know that Greenwood ain't the problem. A soon to be 37 old on the other side...

Why are people so keen to blame players, Ronaldo was part of the goal. WHUM are solid this season, they ended Pool's unbeaten run by playing the exact same way and I don't think anyone on this forum thinks our attack is up there with Pools as it stands. Main thing that is important is this game we deserved to win, they had a single shot on goal in 90mins...that kind of suffocating play, even if we're not scintillating in attack is what will get us top four this season and maybe an outside bet for a cup.

 

[UncleBob]

Why are people so keen to blame players, Ronaldo was part of the goal. WHUM are solid this season, they ended Pool's unbeaten run by playing the exact same way and I don't think anyone on this forum thinks our attack is up there with Pools as it stands. Main thing that is important is this game we deserved to win, they had a single shot on goal in 90mins...that kind of suffocating play, even if we're not scintillating in attack is what will get us top four this season and maybe an outside bet for a cup.

Bowen had a shite touch in the 92,5min when he was in control, Telles goes for the long ball and a West Ham player heads it onwards to Ronaldo, we then proceed to score in what is pretty much the last touch of the game, slim fecking margins, really. Our xG until that point was 0,82, the lowest we've had all season apart from our losses against Manchester City and Wolves.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Bowen had a shite touch in the 92,5min when he was in control, Telles goes for the long ball and a West Ham player heads it onwards to Ronaldo, we then proceed to score in what is pretty much the last touch of the game, slim fecking margins, really. Our xG until that point was 0,82, the lowest we've had all season apart from our losses against Manchester City and Wolves.

Game ended:
1.73 v 0.97 xG in our favour
19 v 7 shots in our favour
57% v 43% possession in our favour

We weren't amazing but we were the better team - that hasn't been the case in many of our previous games. If we can keep shutting teams down offensively we have a chance.

 

[UncleBob]

Game ended:
1.73 v 0.97 xG in our favour
19 v 7 shots in our favour
57% v 43% possession in our favour

We weren't amazing but we were the better team - that hasn't been the case in many of our previous games. If we can keep shutting teams down offensively we have a chance.

It ended 1.76 v 0.24 in our favour, and we had 18 shots, but 16 of them were absolutely useless (unless we're going to start wanking over Dalot shooting from 35 yards in pure desperation). Up until the 92,5min, we failed to create chances and our xG was the third lowest all season, way below our average and half of the average xG vs West Ham, and the chance we created which ended with a goal was a result of Bowen giving away the ball and the West Ham player heading the ball onwards to Ronaldo, slim margins. Up until the 92,5 min it looked like we could've played on for another 90 mins without creating a proper chance...The West Ham match isn't much of a example to use, as we certainly won't have much of a chance if we continue to struggle with creating chances, not to mention it was pure luck on our side that the header on West Hams corner went outside the post.

 

[That_Bloke]

Why are people so keen to blame players, Ronaldo was part of the goal. WHUM are solid this season, they ended Pool's unbeaten run by playing the exact same way and I don't think anyone on this forum thinks our attack is up there with Pools as it stands. Main thing that is important is this game we deserved to win, they had a single shot on goal in 90mins...that kind of suffocating play, even if we're not scintillating in attack is what will get us top four this season and maybe an outside bet for a cup.

Mate, cool down. My post was aimed at that hysterical Ronaldo fanboy/girl, whose continuous inane ramblings are a joy to read. Never saw someone showing so little understanding of football and yet hammering their opinion as undisputed facts with such a pashun, putting every shortcoming of their idol on either Rangnick or Greenwood. Or both. And anyone who contradicts them is labelled a hater.

(S)He didn't take the bait. For the record, I personally thought that it was one of his best games. Something's changed about his positioning and runs and consequently, his link-up play improved vastly.

 

[tomaldinho1]

It ended 1.76 v 0.24 in our favour, and we had 18 shots, but 16 of them were absolutely useless (unless we're going to start wanking over Dalot shooting from 35 yards in pure desperation). Up until the 92,5min, we failed to create chances and our xG was the third lowest all season, way below our average and half of the average xG vs West Ham, and the chance we created which ended with a goal was a result of Bowen giving away the ball and the West Ham player heading the ball onwards to Ronaldo, slim margins. Up until the 92,5 min it looked like we could've played on for another 90 mins without creating a proper chance...The West Ham match isn't much of a example to use, as we certainly won't have much of a chance if we continue to struggle with creating chances, not to mention it was pure luck on our side that the header on West Hams corner went outside the post.

I'm using Footystats FYI. Not really sure what your issue is with what I said. Did we control the game? In my opinion, yes. Did we limit WHUM offensively? Yes. If you want to/expect to see us playing scintillating attacking football already with a new manager, I think your expectations are a bit naïve. If you're looking at the bigger picture the WHUM game was a definite positive when you assess it next to the Villa and Brentford games, particularly when you factor in league position of the opponents.

Your point about luck and their header is bizarre; I could just say Varane's header was much easier, uncontested and he really should have scored or Fred cold have just placed his shot for a routine finish instead of blasting it at Areola.

 

[UncleBob]

I'm using Footystats FYI. Not really sure what your issue is with what I said. Did we control the game? In my opinion, yes. Did we limit WHUM offensively? Yes. If you want to/expect to see us playing scintillating attacking football already with a new manager, I think your expectations are a bit naïve. If you're looking at the bigger picture the WHUM game was a definite positive when you assess it next to the Villa and Brentford games, particularly when you factor in league position of the opponents.

Your point about luck and their header is bizarre; I could just say Varane's header was much easier, uncontested and he really should have scored or Fred cold have just placed his shot for a routine finish instead of blasting it at Areola.

West Ham sat back and they were rarely interested in pressing us until we went past the halfway line, and West Ham's league position isn't sustainable, they aren't that good...they were much more negative in their approach than Aston Villa and Brentford. Happy to let us have the ball because we were doing feck all with it, backed up by the fact that we were well on course to have a much lower than average xG against West Ham up until the second last kick of the ball. They fecked up the result they were after. You'd have to be the unluckiest team in the world to allow a United player to score from a corner this season , but yes, Varane could've scored from his header, but it's hardly a much easier header than Soucek's. Fred was in a great position, but even that chance was the result of pure luck as Rice clears the ball into Fred who tries to jump over the ball, it then bounces in the right direction and he suddenly finds himself in front of goal.

The bigger picture would be not jumping to conclusions based on results, especially when we end up with 6 points from two matches which could've very easily been 2 points or even just 1. Brentford had larger variations and created decent chances by pressing us high up the pitch, could've easily had a 2-0 goal at half time, instead it was 0-0. We then play West Ham, who sat back, naturally it will also look like we're overall more in control. What you're left with is an improvement in how we press as a team when we lose the ball, preventing West Ham from taking advantage of us losing the ball, but very little about how we cope with teams pressing us and not allowing us time on the ball. If we've turned a corner or not in terms of controlling matches remains to be seen, fortunately there's still matches coming up where we can improve before we have to play teams that are unlikely to be as wasteful as Brentford or as negative as West Ham

 

[tomaldinho1]

West Ham sat back and they were rarely interested in pressing us until we went past the halfway line, and West Ham's league position isn't sustainable, they aren't that good...they were much more negative in their approach than Aston Villa and Brentford. Happy to let us have the ball because we were doing feck all with it, backed up by the fact that we were well on course to have a much lower than average xG against West Ham up until the second last kick of the ball. They fecked up the result they were after. You'd have to be the unluckiest team in the world to allow a United player to score from a corner this season , but yes, Varane could've scored from his header, but it's hardly a much easier header than Soucek's. Fred was in a great position, but even that chance was the result of pure luck as Rice clears the ball into Fred who tries to jump over the ball, it then bounces in the right direction and he suddenly finds himself in front of goal.

The bigger picture would be not jumping to conclusions based on results, especially when we end up with 6 points from two matches which could've very easily been 2 points or even just 1. Brentford had larger variations and created decent chances by pressing us high up the pitch, could've easily had a 2-0 goal at half time, instead it was 0-0. We then play West Ham, who sat back, naturally it will also look like we're overall more in control. What you're left with is an improvement in how we press as a team when we lose the ball, preventing West Ham from taking advantage of us losing the ball, but very little about how we cope with teams pressing us and not allowing us time on the ball. If we've turned a corner or not in terms of controlling matches remains to be seen, fortunately there's still matches coming up where we can improve before we have to play teams that are unlikely to be as wasteful as Brentford or as negative as West Ham

My sole point has been we deserved to win on balance and restricted WHUM to almost nothing offensively. Then I said it's a positive because of what has come before (i.e. two games where we could and arguably should have lost. which you agree with above). Not sure which conclusion you think I have jumped to from the above?

 

[frutti di mare]

What’s gone under the radar is that Rangnick is actually succeeding at getting good results and keeping us in the top 4 race while also changing the the style of play, fixing our poor defence and making us a team. Usually a manager in the short term does one of the extremes… gets results at the cost of long term coaching or goes all out to instil the philosophy and gets battered.

Since RR took over Played / Points
MAN CITY 9/25
MAN UTD 8/17
LIVERPOOL 7/14
CHELSEA. 9/11

That’s in only 8 matches, 2 months, small steps of progress that are visible in each match add up. Once we start creating more chances, which I think there’s no reason to suggest why he can’t coach that into us, this team will be very very good.

 

[frutti di mare]

It ended 1.76 v 0.24 in our favour, and we had 18 shots, but 16 of them were absolutely useless (unless we're going to start wanking over Dalot shooting from 35 yards in pure desperation). Up until the 92,5min, we failed to create chances and our xG was the third lowest all season, way below our average and half of the average xG vs West Ham, and the chance we created which ended with a goal was a result of Bowen giving away the ball and the West Ham player heading the ball onwards to Ronaldo, slim margins. Up until the 92,5 min it looked like we could've played on for another 90 mins without creating a proper chance...The West Ham match isn't much of a example to use, as we certainly won't have much of a chance if we continue to struggle with creating chances, not to mention it was pure luck on our side that the header on West Hams corner went outside the post.

Does XG consider the fact that United conceded 4 to Watford, 5 to Liverpool only 2 months or so ago. Does it consider the fact that United is a team where De Gea is the goalkeeper whose made the most save in the league this season? Mendy is 12th, Alison 16th, and Ederson is 19th?

Does XG look at unforced errors, misplaced passes, times players are dispossessed in the past and compare it to the match vs West Ham? Does XG look at passing retention in previous matches and compare it to the match vs West Ham ?

No XG doesn’t do any of those things so how can it give an accurate indication of the things that were done so well against West Ham!

 

[stefan92]

Does XG consider the fact that United conceded 4 to Watford, 5 to Liverpool only 2 months or so ago. Does it consider the fact that United is a team where De Gea is the goalkeeper whose made the most save in the league this season? Mendy is 12th, Alison 16th, and Ederson is 19th?

Does XG look at unforced errors, misplaced passes, times players are dispossessed in the past and compare it to the match vs West Ham? Does XG look at passing retention in previous matches and compare it to the match vs West Ham ?

No XG doesn’t do any of those things so how can it give an accurate indication of the things that were done so well against West Ham!

In a way it does... All those problems and mistakes give chances away, so if you look at that, xGA vs Watford was 2.73. Roughly calculated (I know that's not correct, but whatever) this means that United was 10 times as good at defending and not making stupid mistakes against West Ham than against Watford. Does sound nice, doesn't it?

 

[frutti di mare]

In a way it does... All those problems and mistakes give chances away, so if you look at that, xGA vs Watford was 2.73. Roughly calculated (I know that's not correct, but whatever) this means that United was 10 times as good at defending and not making stupid mistakes against West Ham than against Watford. Does sound nice, doesn't it?

I suppose if we look at XG, XGA, XGX, XA-1, XGx3, XGa2+b2/c2 and let’s not forget XGsin=∏=1∞(1−222) and compare them to previous matches then they might also tell us the same thing as watching the matches

 

[UncleBob]

Does XG consider the fact that United conceded 4 to Watford, 5 to Liverpool only 2 months or so ago. Does it consider the fact that United is a team where De Gea is the goalkeeper whose made the most save in the league this season? Mendy is 12th, Alison 16th, and Ederson is 19th?

Does XG look at unforced errors, misplaced passes, times players are dispossessed in the past and compare it to the match vs West Ham? Does XG look at passing retention in previous matches and compare it to the match vs West Ham ?

No XG doesn’t do any of those things so how can it give an accurate indication of the things that were done so well against West Ham!

xG doesn't consider your posts either, which seem very special, but I'm not entirely sure what it's got to do with what I wrote.

 

[frutti di mare]

xG doesn't consider your posts either, which seem very special, but I'm not entirely sure what it's got to do with what I wrote.

Your point about United’s performance Vs West Ham not being great is based solely on xG = our lack of chances in that match. I was pointing out that there are other areas that people are assessing when judging that performance in relation to previous matches and xG/chances doesn’t give an accurate picture.

 

[UncleBob]

Your point about United’s performance Vs West Ham not being great is based solely on xG = our lack of chances in that match. I was pointing out that there are other areas that people are assessing when judging that performance in relation to previous matches and xG/chances doesn’t give an accurate picture.

It's not.

Hope this helps.

 

[frutti di mare]

It's not.

Hope this helps.

It was not about the low xG and lack chances ?

1) 16 of them were absolutely useless (unless we're going to start wanking over Dalot shooting from 35 yards in pure desperation).
2) Up until the 92,5min, we failed to create chances
3) our xG was the third lowest all season, way below our average and half of the average xG vs West Ham,
4). Up until the 92,5 min it looked like we could've played on for another 90 mins without creating a proper chance...
5) We certainly won't have much of a chance if we continue to struggle with creating chances,

Ok my bad, I don’t know what from you post could have given me the idea that you was not impressed by the match vs West Ham because of xG and low number of chances

 

[UncleBob]

It was not about the low xG and lack chances ?

Ok my bad, I don’t know what from you post could have given me the idea that you was not impressed by the match vs West Ham because of xG and low number of chances

If you think the crux of my posts about the performance against West Ham, and our recent performances, is simply about the xG then I suppose there isn't much I can offer you.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

Man United interim boss Ralf Rangnick piles on the homework as he 'sends players home with hours and hours of footage to study... but some dismayed stars claim it interferes with their home life'

Enough said.

Honestly, it depends on which source of media is actually reporting this. Because the title could be a misleading. The players could tell the media that the downside is that it interferes our home life but we have no problem with it and willingly to do the ''homework'' as it can benefit us to be better players and win trophies. The media could just use the first half of what the players said while ignore the other half of it just to attract more views and attention.

 

[bond19821982]

Gone are the days when we were thumped with last minute winners. Now the armchair experts come up with xG shit and can't enjoy the win at OT.

Man, thank God these guys never had anything like this during SAF era. Because, in simple terms that's what I saw against West Ham. Bringing a striker for a midfielder and nicking a last minute winner against a top 4 rival. Who the feck cares if we had a low xG.

 

[VidaRed]

Gone are the days when we were thumped with last minute winners. Now the armchair experts come up with xG shit and can't enjoy the win at OT.

Man, thank God these guys never had anything like this during SAF era. Because, in simple terms that's what I saw against West Ham. Bringing a striker for a midfielder and nicking a last minute winner against a top 4 rival. Who the feck cares if we had a low xG.

I wonder what would have been the xg from the 99 cl game

 

[Ali Dia]

I’d say we’d very low xg in 2013. RVP was just clinical as hell. The best players can keep it tight and finish their chances when they arise. If we press and compete hard for every 50-50 good things will start happening again. All this conserving energy and leaving your man to the next guy was just trying to be too cute and pandering to a squad that wasn’t happy to change and do the extra work required. If we keep it tight and tough we just need one or two consistent players to come up with the magic for us while we develop as a team

 

[RedCurry]

Gone are the days when we were thumped with last minute winners. Now the armchair experts come up with xG shit and can't enjoy the win at OT.

Man, thank God these guys never had anything like this during SAF era. Because, in simple terms that's what I saw against West Ham. Bringing a striker for a midfielder and nicking a last minute winner against a top 4 rival. Who the feck cares if we had a low xG.

I think the concerns are legitimate. We’ve been shite for so long that fans are afraid to get excited. They are also looking for stats to show them that we are progressing towards the title challenging team that we need to be. Different situation from the times where we would win the title regularly.

The thing for me is that xG isn’t the right stat to be looking at right now. I would much rather see us keep clean sheets without parking the bus or some miraculous saves from De Gea. Having clean sheets means that we can score any time and win all three points. That’s a clear sign of progress for me. I would be much more entertained with a 4-3 win but I know that a 1-0 win where the opposition didn’t have a sniff, is better performance that can be built upon.

 

[bond19821982]

I think the concerns are legitimate. We’ve been shite for so long that fans are afraid to get excited. They are also looking for stats to show them that we are progressing towards the title challenging team that we need to be. Different situation from the times where we would win the title regularly.

The thing for me is that xG isn’t the right stat to be looking at right now. I would much rather see us keep clean sheets without parking the bus or some miraculous saves from De Gea. Having clean sheets means that we can score any time and win all three points. That’s a clear sign of progress for me. I would be much more entertained with a 4-3 win but I know that a 1-0 win where the opposition didn’t have a sniff, is better performance that can be built upon.

No, the concerns arent legitimate. It's just complaining for the sake of it. West Ham offered absolutely nothing. When a team has no interest to come out of a low block , the shots on target for the opposition is going to be low. It's common sense. We just take that win and move on. We have seen this under SAF where teams don't even come out of box and we nick a win in the end.

.

 

[lawliet354]

No, the concerns arent legitimate. It's just complaining for the sake of it. West Ham offered absolutely nothing. When a team has no interest to come out of a low block , the shots on target for the opposition is going to be low. It's common sense. We just take that win and move on. We have seen this under SAF where teams don't even come out of box and we nick a win in the end.

.

Yeah and this West Ham actually won against Chelsea and Liverpool scoring 6 goals, don't know what people are expecting tbh. Winning against them with a cleansheet, while all stats pointing towards our dominance should be celebrated, not be twisted in a negative way

 

[RedRonaldo]

Gone are the days when we were thumped with last minute winners. Now the armchair experts come up with xG shit and can't enjoy the win at OT.

Man, thank God these guys never had anything like this during SAF era. Because, in simple terms that's what I saw against West Ham. Bringing a striker for a midfielder and nicking a last minute winner against a top 4 rival. Who the feck cares if we had a low xG.

Totally agree. I find it cringeworthy that modern fans are so obsessed in XG stats analysis and over-analysis. Its IMO the most pointless obsession in football. Fans should just go back to basic - celebrate goals, celebrate wins and appreciate the beauty and drama of the game.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

Surely all that matters is the goals you do score not the ones you might.

 

[wolvored]

Totally agree. I find it cringeworthy that modern fans are so obsessed in XG stats analysis and over-analysis. Its IMO the most pointless obsession in football. Fans should just go back to basic - celebrate goals, celebrate wins and appreciate the beauty and drama of the game.

Well said.

 

[Ixion]

Ive never understood the fascination with xG. Like yeah, the team that created the better chances should win the game, no shit.

 

[Smores]

Yeah and this West Ham actually won against Chelsea and Liverpool scoring 6 goals, don't know what people are expecting tbh. Winning against them with a cleansheet, while all stats pointing towards our dominance should be celebrated, not be twisted in a negative way

Most of these people were predicting we'd get smashed by West Ham. We actually win and they still want to pick it apart.

Scoring in the closing minutes and the opening minutes doesn't have different value. We scored a goal and controlled the game, they didn't look like doing so.

 

[AltiUn]

Your point about United’s performance Vs West Ham not being great is based solely on xG = our lack of chances in that match. I was pointing out that there are other areas that people are assessing when judging that performance in relation to previous matches and xG/chances doesn’t give an accurate picture.

It wasn't really a great performance though, was it? It was a pretty solid one with signs of improvement which gives us some reasons to be optimistic about the coming matches.

 

[Anustart89]

Ive never understood the fascination with xG. Like yeah, the team that created the better chances should win the game, no shit.

When assessing the team's performance at the end of the season, how would you quantify our ability as a team to create chances? Genuinely asking, what stats would you look for in terms of assessing how Manchester United 21/22 did in terms of creating and converting chances? Would you just go "ah well I watched all the games and we were a bit shite"? Would you look at the shots for/shots on goal columns for the respective team and class every shot as a chance? I'm just asking because I find xG and actual performance relative to xG very useful since I can't remember the events of a game once it's ended, let alone a game from four months ago.

 

[Ixion]

It wasn't really a great performance though, was it? It was a pretty solid one with signs of improvement which gives us some reasons to be optimistic about the coming matches.

Its all relative. You can probably count on one hand the number of truly "great" performances we've had over the past few years, subjectively great when next to the best sides in the world. Great for us now is having decent control of a match and deserving to win.

 

[Ixion]

When assessing the team's performance at the end of the season, how would you quantify our ability as a team to create chances? Genuinely asking, what stats would you look for in terms of assessing how Manchester United 21/22 did in terms of creating and converting chances? Would you just go "ah well I watched all the games and we were a bit shite"?

At the end of a season I don't sit down and look at stats to judge our season.

I can watch a game and decide whether we played well, created good chances etc. without a number telling me so. It feels like a stat for people that didn't watch a game themselves.

 

[Anustart89]

At the end of a season I don't sit down and look at stats to judge our season.

I can watch a game and decide whether we played well, created good chances etc. without a number telling me so. It feels like a stat for people that didn't watch a game themselves.

Let's say you were to have an opinion on last season's performances then, in terms of whether we were making progress under Ole, would you still be able to remember the individual games and how we played?

I mean, obviously a lot of the time xG would confirm what you would see with your own eyes when watching the game, but for longer stretches of games where you wouldn't necessarily remember the individual chances of a game I think it gives valuable context, more-so than the stats that are usually displayed do. When googling "Manchester United West Ham stats" I'm finding shot statistics showing we had 19 shots to their 7. That doesn't really reflect a game where pretty few chances of note were actually created and either keeper wasn't tested much, but that's what we get from traditional stats pages usually and it tells us even less about the game.

Now, I'm not saying that xG in itself is the be all and end all of football statistics, but IMO it adds context. If a team takes 20 shots and all shots combined give a team a total xG of 1.0 and the game ends 0-0, then that's telling me that the shots taken weren't taken from great positions and most likely being very low percentage chances. It would tell me more than just seeing that a team had 20 shots, so it'd be in addition to the stats we're already getting during and after games. That in itself, given a consistent run like that over time, that the team is poor at creating good goalscoring opportunities which they have to work on. Just seeing 20 shots game after game without further context would falsely make one believe that a team is great at creating chances, but shots ≠ good goalscoring chances

 

[Ixion]

Let's say you were to have an opinion on last season's performances then, in terms of whether we were making progress under Ole, would you still be able to remember the individual games and how we played?

Yes, I watch every game. I don't need a number to tell me Rashford getting the ball at his feet 2 yards out is a good chance, or Dalot shooting from 30 yards isn't. Nobody does.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

Totally agree. I find it cringeworthy that modern fans are so obsessed in XG stats analysis and over-analysis. Its IMO the most pointless obsession in football. Fans should just go back to basic - celebrate goals, celebrate wins and appreciate the beauty and drama of the game.

They're sucking the joy out of football.

 

[Anustart89]

Yes, I watch every game. I don't need a number to tell me Rashford getting the ball at his feet 2 yards out is a good chance, or Dalot shooting from 30 yards isn't. Nobody does.

I keep editing my posts to further expand but you're too damn quick.

You're obviously not interested in discussing xG since you've made your mind up, and you're resorting to the above argument in an attempt to score easy points, so I'll just leave it at this.

 

[Pogba's Barber]

What’s gone under the radar is that Rangnick is actually succeeding at getting good results and keeping us in the top 4 race while also changing the the style of play, fixing our poor defence and making us a team. Usually a manager in the short term does one of the extremes… gets results at the cost of long term coaching or goes all out to instil the philosophy and gets battered.

Since RR took over Played / Points
MAN CITY 9/25
MAN UTD 8/17
LIVERPOOL 7/14
CHELSEA. 9/11

That’s in only 8 matches, 2 months, small steps of progress that are visible in each match add up. Once we start creating more chances, which I think there’s no reason to suggest why he can’t coach that into us, this team will be very very good.

We've had a pretty easy run of games though

 

[SteveCoppellFan]

There were way too many issues at United when Ole left to sort out in just a few games.

Ive been quite impressed with the new manager tbh, seems a honest type who says it as he sees it.

Sure, the football has not been brilliant at times but we are getting results and things are improving slowly.

Things will only get better from here on in so lets just enjoy the run in and hope further improvements brings us top 4 and maybe a trophy.

Then in the summer Ralf can move upstairs and sort the mess out there whilst we get a decent manager in and new players and kick on next season.

Feels like we are going in the right direction at least.