Case in the last twenty minutes with only Bruno alongside him definitely leaves us open - we know his legs fade as matches progress. Given our very recent history of conceding lots of soft second half goals, there was no way RVN was ever going to take that chance against a team with the quality Chelsea have through the middle. Home or not and interim or not, the manger is just not going to take a stupid risk like that IMO.
SAF was so often going with this "stupid risk" at home game, going for 3 pts.
Are you seriously likening what SAF did with his dominant Utd teams to what an interim manager could do in his second match after taking over a fourteenth placed team whose confidence is shot from a tactically inept manager who oversaw 18 months of awful form!?
Besides, you’re missing the point. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have gone for the win. I’m saying that leaving us really exposed in the middle of the pitch in the last twenty minutes of the match is not an effective way of getting the win. Ceding control in the middle is more likely to get you a loss.
Even if you forget about Fergie, and just focus on Ruud, its all about taking a risk if you have nothing to lose
Ruud had nothing to lose. If he lost 2-1 it doesnt affect his ability to stay or not, or any future prospects as manager. That isnt decided by a one goal swing.
Thats why i was surprised by the lack of risk
These players definitely deserve slagging off. What’s the problem?These wasters? Are we still slagging off the players these days? Let me guess they’ve thrown multiple managers under the bus too…
The fact is no players ever anywhere should be dictating who coaches or managers at any stage.
Why do you keep saying ceding control of midfield? We finished with having Lindelof next to Casemiro, which is not better than having Bruno and Casemiro deeper in terms of controlling a game / protecting defence.Doesn’t matter if a loss doesn’t affect him - it still affects the team and the club, and as interim he is responsible for the team and the club.
And again, tactically speaking, ceding control of the midfield against Chelsea in the last 20 minutes is not an effective way to try and win the game. You might think you came up with some genius tactical plan to win the match, but I just don’t agree that it is, which I why I don’t think any reasonable manager would have done what you’re saying they should have.
These players definitely deserve slagging off. What’s the problem?
They don't have power over Ruud's future anyway, but surely the team's opinion dies count for something? Or do caftards now believe footballers should grin and bear any staff member good or bad?Because I don’t think they do, they’ve spent the past 18 months running round in shithouse tactics without a clue as to what’s happening, are you suggesting the effort wasn’t there? Maybe Rashford can be called out for being lazy at times but the rest? They may not be very good (I believe better than has been shown, again thanks to Erik and his shenanigans) but you can’t for me question their effort levels.
They don't have power over Ruud's future anyway, but surely the team's opinion dies count for something? Or do caftards now believe footballers should grin and bear any staff member good or bad?
Why do you keep saying ceding control of midfield? We finished with having Lindelof next to Casemiro, which is not better than having Bruno and Casemiro deeper in terms of controlling a game / protecting defence.
And why the hyperbole 'genius tactical plan' I gave an option based on the fact that it was said our subs restricted us. It clearly didnt.
You can disagree all you want, but going for a win at home for United is so much better than trying not to lose because youre afraid of the opposition. Any ambitious manager would try to go for a win.
Again, youre getting hung up on the specific example I gave, (which again was an example)Bruno next to a tired Casemiro is absolutely worse at protecting a defence than having a more defensive minded player sitting behind Case, plus the latter frees Bruno to roam and create and get further upfield, as well as relieving the defensive pressure off Casemiro who was one of our most incisive passers.
And again, I’m not saying we shouldn’t have gone for the win. No idea why you keep implying that. I am specifically arguing that dropping Bruno back to play alongside a tired Casemiro is not a tactically effective way of going for the win.
Again, youre getting hung up on the specific example I gave, (which again was an example)
The point was 'like for like' subs, which changes nothing was disappointing to me, whereas I would have liked Ruud to go for it a bit more or change it up (and risk losing for the reward of winning).
Yes cos it an example to highlight the bigger point of doing something "different".I’m not getting hung up on anything. I just think the example you gave was tactically naive, and so I pointed that out.
Come on, Ruud has been here all of 5 minutes himself.I'd like to see him stay for a few months to do a handover to Amorin. Otherwise the new manager is coming in very cold and with very little knowledge of the players.
Yes cos it an example to highlight the bigger point of doing something "different".
You've clearly missed the point as you're focusing on specifics rather than the point I was making. That's fine though, cos you seem more content with the draw than trying to risk a loss to get a win.
Yes. as an example. Why is that so hard to comprehend? The point (which again youre missing) is about him doing something different / taking a risk (and my proposed changes were only pushed on by me when it was mentioned the sub bench was scraped together otherwise Id sit here and list out every single adjustment that was possible).You were the one that suggested something specific, so I specifically responded to the specific example you decided to give. If you don’t actually want to engage in a discussion about specific tactical adjustments, then perhaps don’t suggest them.
And once again, no, I am not content with settling for a draw. I just think the tactical adjustment you suggested is tactically naive and would not have made us more likely to win.
I have repeated that over and over again and so it’s disingenuous and dishonest of you to keep stating I’m more content with a draw, when I’ve explicitly and repeatedly stated that’s not what I’m saying.
It's his 3rd game in charge. Will you show similar patience when Amorim starts?Besides the fact that I love Ruud for the 150 times he scored for us, we have not seen anything to warrant him remaining at Man Utd after next Monday.
The only real change he's made to Ten Hag ball is to add two physical midfielders to the set up. Even then we're lucky that PAOK fella messed up Taison's through ball.
He is very well spoken. I still recommend the interview he did with Neville on The Overlap. That showed me there is a lot of brain capacity there.I really like listening to him speak, definitely has something.
I doubt its a case of "forcing." He's a very good coach who knows the club and its supporters. He could be a major asset to his coaching setup. Its not like he's Mike Phelan and you have to keep him around for the lols.To force Ruud on Amorim for continuity sake is not what we should be thinking.
That’s one of the primary benefits by letting a whole new coaching team get to grips with this squad. Why would you want the preconceptions of a failed team to taint fresh ideas?I'd like to see him stay for a few months to do a handover to Amorin. Otherwise the new manager is coming in very cold and with very little knowledge of the players.
Yes. as an example. Why is that so hard to comprehend? The point (which again youre missing) is about him doing something different / taking a risk (and my proposed changes were only pushed on by me when it was mentioned the sub bench was scraped together otherwise Id sit here and list out every single adjustment that was possible).
The point (which ill once again re-iterate) was that I was disappointed that Ruud basically did like for like changes, and didnt try anything different to try and go for the win. I refuse to believe he was limited to what he did, but we will not agree anyway.
You’ve outdone yourself… classicyou’d come home from a hard day at your menial job. giggs doesn’t look you in the eye, he just asks what’s for tea, any love in his voice long disappeared. you want to leave, every inch of your being yearns for change, but you look at the children and you can’t do it to them.
you arrive home and jose is waiting for you. he tosses a chanel dress at you and tells you to get changed. you appear 20 minutes later, looking passable, he tells you you’re the special one as a stretch limo pulls up. he spends the rest of the evening talking about himself. you arrive back home after dinner, he asks you to lay down on the floor whilst he pulls himself off.
you arrive home to ole and all the housework is done. he asks you what you’d like for tea. you ask him to make a decision. he cannot, he is too keen to please you to risk getting it wrong. that pang of regret returns to your stomach, how you long for a bit of fire, an argument, anything to spice things up. why won’t he just rip your clothes off and roll over you like a steam train? it’s all foot rubs and easing himself in. you’re bored.
you arrive home to carrick and he’s barricaded himself in the study, sinking bottle after bottle of newcastle brown ale and singing songs about keegan and shearer. you ask him if he wants to go out for dinner, but he just grunts that he wants a chippy takeaway.
but ruud, you come home to him and dinner is on the table, he’s lit candles, he’s got the music just right. the food smells divine. he walks in with a plate in each arm, a suave smile painted on his face, he reaches out to place the dish in front of you, when keown appears suddenly and jumps all over him. you’re covered in ragu.
i’d prbably go jose on the balance of play.