"save energy & avoid injuries" strategy against top teams?

[Gasolin]

Please can we not compare SAF to Ole though? SAF didnt really struggle as frequently as Ole did, and even in comparable tough times early on we knew he'd take us on to greatness because he was a winner before he joined us, and built credibility when he came along the way. Ole hasn't done that remotely as much to suggest we can draw parallels like that. I'm also being fair and not placing Klopp level expectation on him, because I know he's not Klopp - or I'd be out there demanding title challenges right now.

The games against the listed teams were struggles. We struggled to beat them, that's backed even by the statistics of the game and the XG. We do struggle to break smaller teams down this season. And we struggle to get at the top teams too.

A win means we don't struggle. And as far as I can see, since the switch was the Spurs game:

https://understat.com/team/Manchester_United/2020

Newcastle (A): 1:4 (xG 0.87 vs 2.22)
Chelsea (H): 0:0 (xG 0.65 vs 0.22)
Arsenal (H): 0:1 (0.39 vs 1)
Everton (A): 1:3 (0.38 vs 1.60)
WBA (H): 1:0 (2.43 vs 0.44)
Southampton (A): 2:3 (0.50 vs 2.48)
West Ham (A): 1:3 (2.53 vs 1.79)
Manchester City (H): 0:0 (0.59 vs 1.28)

I mean, Newcastle, Everton, WBA, Southampton, we didn't struggle in term of xG and we won the games.
West Ham is the only one where we "conceded" the xG battle.
So why this narrative?

 

[Odin]

I'm well aware you can slice statistics to tell your own story, but go and read the posts and the talk please.

And you took from what I said that Borys uses statistics wrong?

To me, Manchester United squad before and after Bruno look like two different teams. This may have changed both squad dynamics and OGS approach towards games. If I want to understand team dynamics, look at trends and predict for the future, I myself think Borys choice of data subsets makes sense.

Is it my comprehension, my stance or both you have a problem with, since you suggest I read all that nonsense again?

 

[Morpheus 7]

I'm not defending him. If that's the strategy, we will only be able to judge it later on (I guess After Liverpool game). Just pointing out those games in the EPL are less intense on purpose from both sides.

You might use some time off the internet, if that angers you.

You might need time off watching football in general, shit threads anger me. Your point in nonsensical, comes across as an excuse for Ole. Another bullshit pro Ole thread, the delusion in the fanbase in horrible at the moment.

 

[Borys]

You might need time off watching football in general, shit threads anger me. Your point in nonsensical, comes across as an excuse for Ole. Another bullshit pro Ole thread, the delusion in the fanbase in horrible at the moment.

ok pal. A lot of things seem to anger you so like I said, might be a good thing for your mental health to avoid internet forums. No offense. It's just im interested in discussing opinions, not emotions.

 

[VP89]

Wouldn't we want that to happen? It's not that I'm defending Ole, because I really wanted us to go for a win (because it's a derby!) even if that meant risk of getting hit by a counter, but I think them coming at us is what we prefer and exactly what happened last season as we got those big wins, right?

Yeah, hard to argue, "last season" being to operative phrase though. And I pointed out, THIS season is different and it certainly looks like the strategy has changed, not only from Ole, but also from opposition teams coming at OT. Which doesn't suit us IMO, so it seems we tend to go for a "safe" draw.

Lets see. We got 2 points versus City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham at home this season. It will be intriguing now to see such teams fare in their home fixtures. I think they'll do better than 2.

 

[VP89]

And you took from what I said that Borys uses statistics wrong?

To me, Manchester United squad before and after Bruno look like two different teams. This may have changed both squad dynamics and OGS approach towards games. If I want to understand team dynamics, look at trends and predict for the future, I myself think Borys choice of data subsets makes sense.

Is it my comprehension, my stance or both you have a problem with, since you suggest I read all that nonsense again?

That's to you - to me I still see chronic issues that are consistent before Bruno arrived, lack of high press and urgency being one of them, lack of familiar attacking patterns being another, in ability to defend the back post being another, etc.
Bruno's individual brilliance will bail us out of many games, and to that end I can understand how we "look" a different team, but we are only one impactful player different (parking Cavani et al. aside here). Because of that, I believe the first half of last season cannot be just ignored outright as irrelevant all together.

In any case, I entertained the debate of just using the period since Bruno came and it just helped my point further - that our big game record last season in the Premier League was better than it ever was. So lets just agree to disagree on the matter and move on.

 

[ColvaleGoa]

With regards to yesterday's game ,we also need to be mindful that Pep also changed his usual bravado to acknowledge that a draw at United is not bad. We should be able to come up with a plan to go and win this but it is also a point that Pep thinks we are not easy 3 points, where he can just tiki taka his way to 3 points. I might be completely wrong but this is also a step in the right direction . (Agreed we were gash against Arsenal and Spurs bit that might be because of fitness levels.)

 

[VP89]

A win means we don't struggle. And as far as I can see, since the switch was the Spurs game:

https://understat.com/team/Manchester_United/2020

Newcastle (A): 1:4 (xG 0.87 vs 2.22)
Chelsea (H): 0:0 (xG 0.65 vs 0.22)
Arsenal (H): 0:1 (0.39 vs 1)
Everton (A): 1:3 (0.38 vs 1.60)
WBA (H): 1:0 (2.43 vs 0.44)
Southampton (A): 2:3 (0.50 vs 2.48)
West Ham (A): 1:3 (2.53 vs 1.79)
Manchester City (H): 0:0 (0.59 vs 1.28)

I mean, Newcastle, Everton, WBA, Southampton, we didn't struggle in term of xG and we won the games.
West Ham is the only one where we "conceded" the xG battle.
So why this narrative?

Sorry, there is no "narrative" outside of your logic which claims we don't struggle if we win.

You can't just ignore the West Ham + Brighton and Palace . Also the XG is just one stat, the fact that we were 2-0 down vs Southampton proved that the fixture was a struggle to reverse and take 3 points from too. We often go behind against teams on top, and make the game more of a struggle than it should be. I'd buy into this thread title a lot more of we were dominating most of the games against smaller sides and weren't making it hard for ourselves, but that's outright wrong.

You would be the only person in the thread that would claim we don't struggle because we won a game. There are games where we tend to dominate and control it, like Newcastle (not the best of example here because they scored first and we put them away only after we had to make changes in a late flurry) or West Brom and games where we struggle. We might win in all of them, but that doesn't mean none of them are a struggle. Even ex-players who refuse to turn on Ole have been pointing it out, that we need to dominate games more and not struggle as much as we do. If you ask any neutral here, I don't know say Orc, or Glaston or Grinner, they will all probably agree that United tend to struggle against the smaller sides more than they should.

We don't just ignore West Ham, Brighton and Palace because you think something switched since the Spurs game. Our intent and approach was pretty much the same in all of them but the implementation was all wrong. The only one I can say, fair fecks we were likely tired - was Palace actually. But not really on the others.

 

[eire-red]

It clearly hasn't been our strategy against the top 6 since Ole arrived, his record was pretty great last season. Yesterday just had the feel of a game that was 5% off the pace due to the CL commitments of both teams over the last month or so.

It's important to be able to pick up wins against the top teams, and not lose any ground. What matters more is beating all of the rest. 10 games of the season are against the 'Top 6', 28 versus the rest. You need to pick up majority of your points against the rest, and ensure you don't lose ground on your rivals in the big games.

That's the very foundations SAF built his dominance on. Our home record against teams outside the Top 6, or Top 4 back then, was phenomenal. Often, against the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool, the games were cagey affairs, both home and away. But the likes of Palace, Spurs, Everton etc.. they were beat before kick off. That's what we need to reinstall. Consistently winning those games puts you in the mix, and from there the big games can give you an edge. But you're not going to even be in with a shout if you can't beat the smaller teams.

 

[Morpheus 7]

ok pal. A lot of things seem to anger you so like I said, might be a good thing for your mental health to avoid internet forums. No offense. It's just im interested in discussing opinions, not emotions.

Nah the red cafe use to be great for opinions and threads. People seem to create multiple threads after games now, all agenda driven at the moment to defend the manager. In this case, to justify poor performances by the team. Lack of energy, tempo and movement can be justified here. Your point is void, we made one sub yesterday. So if it was saving players for the long term, we would always rotate to save energy. You can keep poking with you have anger and mentioning mental health(anything to distract from your original post), this is the flat earth level of football threads. I'm always going to call people out for clogging up the caf with pure diarrhoea.

I have a question for you, have you said this flat earth theory to a Man United fan face to face? You be laughed out of a room, from every football fan I know.

 

[Borys]

Nah the red cafe use to be great for opinions and threads. People seem to create multiple threads after games now, all agenda driven at the moment to defend the manager. In this case, to justify poor performances by the team. Lack of energy, tempo and movement can be justified here. Your point is void, we made one sub yesterday. So if it was saving players for the long term, we would always rotate to save energy. You can keep poking with you have anger and mentioning mental health(anything to distract from your original post), this is the flat earth level of football threads. I'm always going to call people out for clogging up the caf with pure diarrhoea.

I have a question for you, have you said this flat earth theory to a Man United fan face to face? You be laughed out of a room, from every football fan I know.

Maybe your problem is that you see an agenda everywhere. Anyway, I'm not going to try to convince you because I don't care really, just trying to show some different perspective.

 

[Forevergiggs1]

I don't think playing the way we do against top teams has anything to do with saving energy or avoiding injuries but basically if a team doesn't have a go at us Ole has no idea how to counter it and we see the obvious shit shows that we're currently witnessing.

WBA is the perfect example to debunk this theory. One of the worst teams in the PL and we still found it hard to break them down whilst giving the same type of performance we've seen against the top teams. No energy is a coaching fault not a tactical plan.

 

[Borys]

I don't think playing the way we do against top teams has anything to do with saving energy or avoiding injuries but basically if a team doesn't have a go at us Ole has no idea how to counter it and we see the obvious shit shows that we're currently witnessing.

WBA is the perfect example to debunk this theory. One of the worst teams in the PL and we still found it hard to break them down whilst giving the same type of performance we've seen against the top teams. No energy is a coaching fault not a tactical plan.

WBA is a perfect example how we couldn't convert easy chances.
I definitely suits Ole more if the opposition is attacking, and clearly this season top teams approach at OT has changed.

 

[Forevergiggs1]

WBA is a perfect example how we couldn't convert easy chances.
I definitely suits Ole more if the opposition is attacking, and clearly this season top teams approach at OT has changed.

I can only really remember 2 clear chances against WBA. The Martial one where he should of buried it and the Rashford one near the end. In between WBA had their own chances, had a penalty decision overturned, hit the crossbar and should of had a foul called before we were given our penalty. In other words it was another laborious performance from us with very little energy on show so I don't think it is a tactic used only against the so called top teams and more to do with having very little idea on how to approach games where teams don't attack us giving the impression we're just going through the motions and saving energy when the reality is we don't have a clue on what we have to do.

 

[Borys]

I can only really remember 2 clear chances against WBA. The Martial one where he should of buried it and the Rashford one near the end. In between WBA had their own chances, had a penalty decision overturned, hit the crossbar and should of had a foul called before we were given our penalty. In other words it was another laborious performance from us with very little energy on show so I don't think it is a tactic used only against the so called top teams and more to do with having very little idea on how to approach games where teams don't attack us giving the impression we're just going through the motions and saving energy when the reality is we don't have a clue on what we have to do.

I disagree. You can say we were poor defensively (against WBA) , but all things considered we had xG 2,5 and xGA 0,6 which basically means we created a lot of good chances (like those two you mentioned) and conceded little.

Against Chelsea, Arsenal and City we were not poor, we never went for the win. That's different.

 

[Odin]

That's to you - to me I still see chronic issues that are consistent before Bruno arrived, lack of high press and urgency being one of them, lack of familiar attacking patterns being another, in ability to defend the back post being another, etc.
Bruno's individual brilliance will bail us out of many games, and to that end I can understand how we "look" a different team, but we are only one impactful player different (parking Cavani et al. aside here). Because of that, I believe the first half of last season cannot be just ignored outright as irrelevant all together.

In any case, I entertained the debate of just using the period since Bruno came and it just helped my point further - that our big game record last season in the Premier League was better than it ever was. So lets just agree to disagree on the matter and move on.

Sorry, I supported Borys's use of statistics, and didn't agree with your dismissal of his subsets.

My opinion on style of play and where we are heading is more nuanced:

• I think we are heading in the right direction.
• I take OGS public statements with a pinch of salt, bearing in mind some of his statements really are for the stakeholders, some for the general public, some to endear journalists, some for the upper management, some directed at opponents and a lot to get through in a different way to his own players.
• I feel some of the players have a long way to go, and some of them will make it...
• I think the agility and cohesion in defense is way below acceptable levels far too often.
• I get sickeningly frustrated at certain aspects of OGS in game management, but I understand I am no expert, whereas I still feel he has more to him than what he's shown so far.

Will we make it with OGS at the helm? I don't know. But it is a fascinating prospect.

So, saving energy against the biguns - maybe that's a challenge worthy of pursuing in its own right? A stepping stone towards consistency if you will? I don't know. I haven't given up on us entirely yet.

 

[KW2006]

In general it was a classic big game, we defended well, not being outplayed, had a couple of chances but missed. On the other hand, our defenders and gk also made a few last ditch saves. So it was a game either side could have won with a bit more luck.

 

[Forevergiggs1]

I disagree. You can say we were poor defensively (against WBA) , but all things considered we had xG 2,5 and xGA 0,6 which basically means we created a lot of good chances (like those two you mentioned) and conceded little.

Against Chelsea, Arsenal and City we were not poor, we never went for the win. That's different.

To be honest I've never followed xG or xGA and probably never will so I don't have a problem saying I'm ignorant on the subject so my question is how does it relate in the sense to show that we're saving energy during games?

On a side note. The first half of the Arsenal game we were absolutely atrocious. Probably one of the poorest halfs I've ever seen from us after more than 40 years of supporting and if xG xGA says different then there's no way I'm trusting it in the future.

 

[Borys]

To be honest I've never followed xG or xGA and probably never will so I don't have a problem saying I'm ignorant on the subject so my question is how does it relate in the sense to show that we're saving energy during games?

On a side note. The first half of the Arsenal game we were absolutely atrocious. Probably one of the poorest halfs I've ever seen from us after more than 40 years of supporting and if xG xGA says different then there's no way I'm trusting it in the future.

I think xG represents this approach quite well actually, as it oscillates 0,5 to 1 for both teams in games against Chelsea, Arsenal and City (so basically not a lot of good chances for both sides). The only game we were below -0,5 (xG-xGA) is the Arsenal game, while we usually get 1 to 2 in games against lesser teams: