Oh yeah I recall that early 433. I meant we now stick with a 4231 because of Bruno and our lack of a good single pivot DM. Back then the makeup of the midfield was different too. We had a fresher Matic, and Herrera who did a ton of dirty work and cynical fouling to cover for Pogba. Rashford was in stunning form at CF too, Martial was alright and Lingard was the defensive winger. We can’t do that now because Matic no longer has the legs, we could try to fill the Herrera role with Fred but I think Herrera was a smarter player, we need to fit both Bruno and Pogba in somehow, and our forwards now are pure goalscorers until Sancho gets up to speed, and even then none of them do any defensive work.
We are an awfully coached team
- Thread starter bond19821982
- Start date
Oh yeah I recall that early 433. I meant we now stick with a 4231 because of Bruno and our lack of a good single pivot DM. Back then the makeup of the midfield was different too. We had a fresher Matic, and Herrera who did a ton of dirty work and cynical fouling to cover for Pogba. Rashford was in stunning form at CF too, Martial was alright and Lingard was the defensive winger. We can’t do that now because Matic no longer has the legs, we could try to fill the Herrera role with Fred but I think Herrera was a smarter player, we need to fit both Bruno and Pogba in somehow, and our forwards now are pure goalscorers until Sancho gets up to speed, and even then none of them do any defensive work.
For some reason Ole thought switch to 4-2-3-1 was better and also Pogba in deeper role is better as he gives more control to the game.
I think with better coaches, we can play 4-3-3 with minor adjustments. If we see few of the top teams, they squeeze the game and the players are so close to each other. They attack and defend as a team, also pressing is packs and closing the passing lanes is how they win the ball back. We are so far from that level.
For that, Ole could have done himself a favor by firing Carrick and McKenna. I just do not understand what Ole sees in those two, but the fact that a manager does not have a strong and more experienced figure around him as an assistant (don't count Mike Phelan with the likes of Brian Kidd, Carlos Queiroz, and Walter Smith) is often the hallmark of a weak manager. Seriously, would Fergie have done as well without the various assistants he had? Would Sir Matt Busby have done this well without Jimmy Murphy as his wingman? Would Brian Clough have been so successful without Peter Taylor as his right-hand man? All top managers have assistants who are willing to bring a solid second opinion, even if that sometimes goes against what the manager thinks is best at first.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: being a coach at Manchester United is no job for a coaching newbie.
edit: We are coached by rookies (see below) and that is fecking pathetic.
We're coached by rookies unfortunately
Maybe! I feel very annoyed every time I watch us play and there’s a player struggling on the ball because no one else is there to give him an easy passing option. Which happens very often. It makes our players look poorer than they actually are.
How can someone defend Ole and his "system" while watching City, Chelsea and Liverpool every week? Those 3 dominate every team, you can clearly see system and patterns in their play. Meanwhile with us it is all about player's inspiration. We relly on counter attacks and on individual magic.
Besides Leeds game who was wide open in defence, how many clear chances we created this year?
As @PoTMS said; how come every rival fan is happy that we have him as a manager? How come you will rarely find a random football fan (so fans who are objective) who rates Solskjaer? Even many pundits (except his former teammates) who are generaly reserved in trashing managers, say that only reason why we are not among PL favorites is a manager.
How come 1,2 or 3 seasons were enough to some of you to see that James, Lingard, Darmian, Ighalo etc...are not good enough for Man Utd but you accept average manager on the bench?
But what the hell rest of football world knows, eh?
Besides Leeds game who was wide open in defence, how many clear chances we created this year?
As @PoTMS said; how come every rival fan is happy that we have him as a manager? How come you will rarely find a random football fan (so fans who are objective) who rates Solskjaer? Even many pundits (except his former teammates) who are generaly reserved in trashing managers, say that only reason why we are not among PL favorites is a manager.
How come 1,2 or 3 seasons were enough to some of you to see that James, Lingard, Darmian, Ighalo etc...are not good enough for Man Utd but you accept average manager on the bench?
But what the hell rest of football world knows, eh?
What does he do?
It's not stick to beat them with but I think a lot of posters only watch United and the caf and there is nothing really wrong with that per se.
Why are we blaming Carrick and McKenna now? Players have mentioned how much Carrick has helped them in picking up small details and we have (well most have) seen how McKenna team plays when he coached our U18 team.
People said Klopp will struggle when Buvac left, saying he was the brain behind the achievements, they won PL and CL when he left. Pep with and without Arteta won PL.
Coaching staff helps but they implement or try to implement the manager's vision. Replace Pep with Ole and all of a sudden we look like a team playing like a team.
I don’t trust Luckhurst but if that’s true, shouldn’t Eric Ramsay be more involved? I mean he’s the one who came with a reputation for coaching pressing and buildup play under pressure. But all I’ve seen so far only suggests that he works on set pieces. A waste if that’s true.
Brings good mood and picks players. For buying players like Varane, Sancho, Bruno, Cavani or Ronaldo you need to be excellent scout apparently.
Are you talking about Solksjaer, Phelan or both?
Bruno and Cavani were excellent and sharp buys I must say. Not many of the top top clubs were seriously after them, more understandable for Cavani if they already had a striker.
We’re a nothing team tactically. As someone else pointed out, whilst nobody is guaranteed to win or even play well, with truly top sides you know how they’re going to try and play; they have an identity, an ethos.
I don’t see that we have that. The tactics seem to be to name an 11 and hope Bruno (and now Ronaldo, I guess) pulls something out of the hat. We rely more on individual talent than anyone else because the tactical foundations are yet unproven IMO. It feeds into the suggestion Ole is a good motivator and little else. That’s not always a problem if such a manager surrounds himself with top coaches. But that box isn’t ticked.
It’s some what myopic this outlook that “used to play here” automatically qualifies people for these positions
I don’t see that we have that. The tactics seem to be to name an 11 and hope Bruno (and now Ronaldo, I guess) pulls something out of the hat. We rely more on individual talent than anyone else because the tactical foundations are yet unproven IMO. It feeds into the suggestion Ole is a good motivator and little else. That’s not always a problem if such a manager surrounds himself with top coaches. But that box isn’t ticked.
It’s some what myopic this outlook that “used to play here” automatically qualifies people for these positions
I watch City, Liverpool and Chelsea as often as I can, and I don't agree with your assessment. Rather, there are both benefits and disadvantages to the different approaches.
Liverpool is as dependent as we are on their top players delivering the goods. When they don't, or aren't available, they struggle - arguably more than we do. They dropped 22 points to bottom half teams last year, we dropped 12. Klopp may have a more clearly recognisable system than we have, but it is also more dependent on specific qualities in specific positions. This brings vulnerabilities as well as advantages, which the past two seasons wonderfully demonstrate.
Chelsea under Tuchel have a marvellous ability to control games, which is really the backbone of that team, and one that has already brought them a CL title. It was evident already in his first game, and is a very, very impressive achievement by Tuchel. But that too comes at a cost to offensive dynamism, and it is not self-evidently an approach that is superior in terms of delivering consistent results in the PL. Chelsea dropped 9 points to lower half teams in 19 games under Tuchel last season - hence struggling considerably more than we did against teams that generally did not attempt to dominate games, which is the sort of team against which a control approach has the fewest relative benefits.
City of course is a machine, and the kind of football Pep can deliver when he's got the necessary parts available is a sight to behold. But City these days also have their vulnerabilities. They are no longer the sort of team who racks up 25 shots and blow opponents away. The shots are fewer, the score margins more often narrower. It's not that rare these days to see them produce only a small handful of big scoring chances through a game, though that is usually enough. But it's two seasons now where they haven't really approached the levels they achieved in the preceding two seasons. And for once, they now look like they have a couple of significant holes in the squad (left back, striker).
I think it's fair to claim that of the top 4 teams, ours is the style that provides the most leeway for some exceptionally talented attacking players to make full use of their talents, and this may be more of a strength than a weakness. It's not a choice between structure and anarchy, every team and every system has to strike a balance between freedom of expression and structure. More structure isn't necessarily the same thing as a better system. Bruno seems to me to be a good example - given licence to roam at United, he's an exceptional player. Being shovelled into a much more defined and limited role in the portuguese national team, he doesn't accomplish very much.
Every side relies on their top players to a degree but that’s not ALL they are. I’ve had a nagging doubt for a long time that we’re a team coached by the unqualified at doing so at the top level, managed by someone whose biggest achievement in the job has been to benefit from Liverpool’s collapse last season who have rarely looked like the same side for consecutive matches because there’s nothing there apart from crossing our fingers and hope Bruno’s individual talent is enough.
Ole might prove me wrong and I hope he does but I’m sorry but I can’t help wanting to see this team managed by a young, ambitious, tactically astute manager whose qualifications for the job goes beyond ‘used to play for Sir Alex’.
This isn’t knee jerk, losing opening group game of CL really doesn’t bother me in the slightest, especially this group. We’ll still qualify from it no worries.
Ole might prove me wrong and I hope he does but I’m sorry but I can’t help wanting to see this team managed by a young, ambitious, tactically astute manager whose qualifications for the job goes beyond ‘used to play for Sir Alex’.
This isn’t knee jerk, losing opening group game of CL really doesn’t bother me in the slightest, especially this group. We’ll still qualify from it no worries.
Actually, I beg to differ. I believe systems in general - and Liverpool's in particular - allow you to use weaker players but still maintain a structure that the team can operate on.
Obviously it's not perfect and there's still dependency on the quality of players... Like when you lose all your centerhalves - which explains what happened to them last season and would have happen to anyone in such a situation.
He's the bad cop.
Well, then why were the results so awful when they were in exactly that position? On the evidence of last season, Liverpool's results hugely deteriorate when they are missing a significant number of key players, or key players are used out of positions, or just have off days. Surely this shows clearly exactly that their system don't provide a structure that the team can operate on effectively, even when they are missing several of their best players.
An explanation that is much more consistent with the results would be that they have a system that works a treat as long as you have players with the skills to execute it well (and since they've recruited players with an emphasis on exactly those skills, they do). But in the nature of things, when you custom-build a team to deliver a specific system and base everything around that, you will be vulnerable, as long you can't afford double coverage. City can, Liverpool can't. If you lose the players the system depends on, the system doesn't help you to get by, because Oxlade-Chamberlain simply cannot deliver the things that Mohammed Salah can. And if he doesn't, the overall effectiveness of the system suffers. And the very fact that you have clear patterns and structure that everyone stick to becomes a hindrance more than a benefit, because you end up with a team where too many players are trying to do things they can't, but have to.
With a less systems-based approach, this is not the case in the same way, because you have a more adaptive team. You can play in different ways, adjusted to the players you have available.
But again it's a sliding scale not an absolute difference, and there are both advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.
We have the matchday thread for hyperbolic nonsense and emotional outbursts. And of course we are going to interprit it as litteral, figurative language really does poorly as written communication. Brushing it of as a figure of speech was the same nonsense defense right wingers gave Trump when he suggested people drink bleach
Also, i fully understand that people can write heat of the moment stuff, being a supporter is emotional, but this endless cycle of meltdowns each time we drop points is extremely tiresome. If its spesific criticism about team selections, subs or tactics its completely fine, but its usually not that. Usually its right back to "shit coahcing" or something of that ilk and when things are looking good, the same people wont mention coaching at all or just write it of as "indvidual brilliance"
Obviously there's always some dependency on your top players being fit and in form, no matter what system you use or how much you depend on it. But I believe it's worse for a non-systematic team.
Anyway, I wouldn't take Liverpool's last season as evidence to the weakness of the system. They lost all their centerhalves, had to compensate for a weaker backline and also moved midfielders to the defence. This affected the entire team. No one can survive that without some damage. Finishing third despite all that is actually quite good.
Yeah but on the other hand, we also some to have some posters that watch a bunch of games every week and think they are experts. Every time we don't dominate a game, we get compared to Pep and Klopp. Every week without fail, even when we win. The armchair coaching is getting tiresome, and this week it's the Harry Hindsight special.
In all fairness isn't the purpose of this forum to discuss our thoughts on United. This place wouldn't exist without the 'armchair managers'.
Personally I think it’s entirely laughable that people think the people who back Ole care more about him (or any manager) being here for 10+ years than they do about the club and it’s success.
Absolute nonsense, I doubt there is a single fan (even in this strange place!) that feels that way.
This is one of the narratives that need to be quashed because it’s one of the biggest that make the topic unbearable and it will do so no matter who the manager is, even after Ole.
The problem is there are actually people who think they can do better than Ole
Agreed but that wasn't the point I wanted to make. Let me rephrase - You mentioned that the outcry after Tuesday wouldn't have been as loud had we managed to keep it at 1:1. I meant, that I am pretty sure that this doesn't seem to be plausible for me. Because we didn't do anything of note in 2nd half and we were not awesome before the red card as well. A performance like this would have been criticised in any case or result. I agree with you - going defensive wasn't an obvious mistake, but to go full defensive for 45min with only a 1-goal-lead is easily just as risky than trying to play a bit more balanced and at least remain dangerous on a counter, something we excel at, which makes it even more absurd.
And about LVG and Mourinho, you used the word "we were all told their resumes speak volumes..." - who do you mean with that, who told us that? I wasn't on redcafe back then but on a German fan forum but I am pretty sure, the majority of fans weren't celebrating these managers for their status but mostly because they meant the end of the unfortunate Moyes reign and the dreading LVG period a while after.
And thats what I mean, we were more happy, that bad managers were gone than we were happy that great managers arrived. And that makes the argument, that because LVG and Mourinho failed as supposedly top coaches we should stick to Ole in any case because at least he isn't as bad as these two, so weak in my eyes.
I agree that is a little idiotic. That being said, I'm pretty sure I could sound less clueless in interviews. Always feel Ole comes across poor when speaking pre and post match.
No they don't think they're experts and yeah Pep and Klopp are who we are up against. Thank God Ole wasnt compared to the likes of Flick or Ten Hag. Even when we win, the performance can be poor you know.
You can win with poor performances, you can lose with better performances. However unkess you have a keeper that kets everything in or your attackers can't finish etc, over a long run, the results follow the performances and that's why we have won nothing under Ole and havent challenged for the bigger trophies either. We have a great set of players, players who don't need many to score and we are tough to beat, and credit to Ole and the players for that, but it is going to take more than that.
Name and shame them.
I rather think people that criticise Ole and his tactics, the performances of his team are accused of being armchair managers and that they "think" they are better coaches than Ole which is far from the truth.
Under this reasoning, criticism should be banned as I'm sure all our players are better than the posters too.
If there are people saying/insinuating that they are better coaches than Ole and the staff, it is an incredible minority and they're daft. That doesnt mean you can point out there shortcomings. This is basic to almost all professions there are.
Nah that's pointless and counter productive. I'm just pointing out the other extreme end of the spectrum in a reply to your post. Criticism, debate and opinions are fine, I also talk abut how I would do things differently when I watch other teams etc. I just think that with Ole it's different and there's a much more apparent lack of respect, to the point where there seems to be people who genuinely think he is not a real coach and not too different than some random bloke at the pub.
You wrote two sentences, lad. And I showed you how one of them was categorically wrong.
The Ole Out lot refuse to acknowledge the progress the club has made since the dark days of moyes/van gaal/mourinho.
If we win the league this year they'll say it was nothing to do with Ole.
Agreed this is absurd.
It's a shame more football grounds aren't filled with silence on match day, broken only by fans piping up to sing 'Who are we to judge' and serenade the referee with the chant 'I'm sure you're trying your best and we've never officiated a game in our lives so who are we to question your decisions.'
I'm not your lad.
No, you had an opinion. You don't type and that makes it fact.
Let's leave it as arguments online just aren't worth our time.
Last edited:
I think, I read an article when Phelan came in with Ole, that Phelan is the one who knows the players best and is best in evaluating what they can do and can't do. Not just in terms of technical or tactical abilities, but also on a personal level.
Interesting read. I would like to mention that dropped points may not be the best metric to use for comparisons here. They are certainly not wrongly used, but our match against Young Boys for example shows, how many things can effect the final outcome of a match. Too many factors outside of the control of a manager.
When thinking about systems and structures, I think, there are many factors to consider. But for me personally, one stands out (even though I know, it also has its flaws): xG and respectively xGA. For all its issues, analyzed over multiple teams and over a season, it gives you a pretty good outlook about how well a team is doing creating chances wise and how well they do to stop the opposition to create chances. And that is where we see, that our forwards did very very well last season, making the absolute very best out of the "little chances" we provided them with.
Having that in mind, I think, the outcome of your comparison changes quite significantly: Liverpool for all their woes and issues was able to create the 2nd highest amount of xG, Chelsea the 3rd highest (even though not much between them and us). Our xG was closer to the likes of Leicester than it was to City and Liverpool. I am not trying to depict ManUtd as a worse team because of it - but our competition is more effective in most aspects, thats evident. I am not trying to pretend I would know what the reason is for that, there may be many, but having a more structured approach (in the way you described it in your post) most certainly would be a plausible explanation.
From F365 - "This was the seventh time a player had been sent off during the Norwegian’s reign. Manchester United have now played 196 minutes with ten men under Solskjaer, scoring no goals and conceding eight."
We are really bad with 10 men.
We are really bad with 10 men.
Exactly.
I refuse to believe that from the footage of showing Ole and Mckenna close together discussing things is pure nonsense or incompetent.
Like us, they will always speculate things on the pitch, what they can change, what is viable, how well we're playing, etc.
Obviously they went with the wrong tactics yesterday after the red card, those things happens.
Except they aren’t rookies are they? They’ve coached a team that finished 3rd, 2nd, reached countless semi-finals and a European final. For anyone else that’s experience. We’ve also lost 6 PL games (4 of which have slightly mitigating circumstances due to having zero pre-season and having to play 4 games in a week) out of the last 52 or so. It’s obviously not fecking awful. And no amount of armchair expert nonsense will convince me otherwise. Some of you need to realise the aim of coaching is to get the best out of your squad and maximise your chances of winning football matches - not to weave pretty fecking patterns.
