Lack of coaching or lack of quality in a key area. Once Matic took to the pitch he instantly was an upgrade on Fred. I can kinda see what Carrick and co are doing with the players, but we don't really have the players to implement it.
We are an awfully coached team
- Thread starter bond19821982
- Start date
McTominay constantly progressed the ball forward against West Ham. Overall our ball progression in that game improved massively, in the first half particularly we were constantly playing through the press.
Yeah I mentioned Lukaku but forget to include Herrera in the parenthesis. But again, my point is that I just don't believe he inherited some inept squad, particularly when many of those same players came in 2nd the season before Ole arrived and won multiple trophies the year before that (I think their collective talent, rather than Jose's coaching, is what led to that.)
I'll give Ole unqualified credit for Shaw, but Martial has had both his best and his worst season under Ole, as has Fred, so I don't think their form (or lack of it) is particularly done to Ole's management. Pogba certainly suffered under Jose, mostly because Jose's an insufferable clown, so I think he's now playing to the level of his talent - I'll give Ole credit for not antagonizing him, ala Jose, but I don't think he's really improved Pogba. As for Rashford, I'd say it's mostly been a case of a great talent starting to hit his peak and that coinciding with Ole's being the manager (although I do think it's fair to point out that Jose would likely have actively stifled him, so I suppose Ole gets credit for again not being a confrontational buffoon like Jose.) One valid grievance that Jose can point to is Woodward and co absolutely refusing to back him going into his 3rd season (Fred, Dalot, and Grant in a pre-Covid period is absolutely outrageous!)
Thanks for saying this, just because the manager was not able to get his team to play tiki taka does not mean he does not know a poorly coached team when he sees one. A few absurd responses to a professional manager's opinion on our football.
Lack of coaching.
nice that. Clever triangles moving up the pitch. Not coached though!
Oh feck me. Player's brilliance?
I’m laughing at the people who think we’re poorly coached.
I believe the line here would be "Pure coincidence that the players ended up in those positions. If that was coaching, we'd see that more often."
Counter attacking is easy! Honestly, it's the most difficult thing to execute.
McFred is not as bad as many on here make them out to be, but compared to our closest rivals, their quality with the ball is really lacking
We've been routinely excellent at breaking into space, at least since Bruno arrived. But this isn't what people are talking about when they worry about the coaching.
That is not your typical pass into space and hoping for the best. That was intricate passing with moderate speed of building up play.
People think Chelsea keep possession all the time during a game, no way. There is always phases of play where each team will try to score goals.
There are defending phases, attacking phases, you can't attack for full 90 minutes, there is no way a team can keep that intensity for 90 minutes.
Sometimes you have to defend to calm down a bit and reserve something in the tank to last the full 90 minutes.
I genuinely believe people overreact because they watch United for 90 minutes, compared to other teams which I think they only watched the highlights.
We're a very difficult team to understand. I don't buy the 'awfully coached' bit, it makes no sense and you can't go around 2 years unbeaten away and come 2nd if you are.
But there are areas that if we could just improve we would really go to next level. We still look too vulnerable at back. And while we dominate games (61% possession v west ham away, 17 shots, 38 crosses) i think we are a little too patient too often. Probably a symptom of being vulnerable at the back but a little more risk taking now and then would be great.
Counter attacking and punishing teams that leave space behind, we are excellent at
But there are areas that if we could just improve we would really go to next level. We still look too vulnerable at back. And while we dominate games (61% possession v west ham away, 17 shots, 38 crosses) i think we are a little too patient too often. Probably a symptom of being vulnerable at the back but a little more risk taking now and then would be great.
Counter attacking and punishing teams that leave space behind, we are excellent at
There’s far more to that than breaking into space. It’s the diminishing of what we actually do that waters down the argument of coaching
I'm not talking about kick and rush here. Space is more than just an open pitch ahead of you, it means the gaps between players or between lines. West Ham attacked in numbers because they were 2-1 down in the last minute, when the attack broke down their players were in all sorts of odd positions and suddenly there are gaps between them all for our lads to play into. We exploited that as we have done on many occasions. As we saw against Leeds a few weeks ago, when the natural ebb and flow of the game means there's space to work in, we're deadly. Our players at their best with that kind of one touch football.
But, compare that move to how we played at West Ham with 20 minutes to go. They were sat back defending their box, closing out the space, and we looked out of ideas until Matic and Lingard came on at the end. Our football was nothing like as effective because one-touch football into space wasn't an option then. We've routinely struggled in those situations because it's a different kind of challenge. You need to methodically test the opposition and pull them out of shape with overloads until you work enough space to make chances. That kind of controlled play is what I personally think we lack.
.
It’s inflating the fact that we are a good counterattacking side that leads to the idea we are well coached generally.
Against big sides we are excellent at counter attacking, fast in transition and carry a real threat. No one can argue with that.
last season, we were completely awful defending set pieces and making the most of our own set pieces. Ole brought in a set piece coach. He saw that deficiency too ie. we were poorly coached at set pieces and needed to get someone else in. No one can argue with that. So there’s one way in which we have been poorly coached.
Defensively, we are pretty solid and the new recruit will help. I had little concern last season about the quality of our defensive play aside from playing out from the back. Are we well coached in that sense? Have you seen any quality movement and options when our centre halves or full backs are being pressed high? So I would say we are not particularly well coached in that respect- watch the Wolves game 3 weeks ago. We can’t still be blaming quality. So another area we are poorly coached in.
Finally, and the crux for most fans...playing against deep sitting sides. We look shite. Unless we bang in an early goal and force the other team to come out, we struggled time and time again. 11 draws last season the majority of which we had more possession.
Even more concerning is the wins that very easily could have been draws -
Brighton (A) last minute VAR penalty, Newcastle (A) 86th minute Bruno counter attack opens the flood gates,
West Brom(H) we needed a retaken penalty to win one nil,
Southampton(A) last minute Edi 3-2, Wolves (H) 1-0 Rashford last kick of the game,
Villa (H) won by a penalty,
Burnley(A) Pogba long range deflection, Fulham (A) we were awful and what should have been a walk for title contenders was a desperate 2-1 having gone behind, Sheffield Utd(H) lost-
West Ham (H), own goal1-0,
Brighton(H) Greenwood with 5 minutes to go 1-0..
I’m just gonna stop there.
I love Utd but we played a dangerous game last season. 11 draws and another 12+ games where our inability to break teams down needed divine intervention, penalties (one missed penalty actually got retaken!), deflections,VAR. The quality of our squad is much better then riding our luck for half a season.
Our spirit, amazing, last minute wins -dna of the club. But the Premiership is so competitive. You can fire blanks and come upwith the goods for a few games a season, you can fail to find the net and have an off day once or twice (City v Southampton) butany more than that and you ain’t winning the league. That’s why I don’t understand how some fans can point to the league table and goals scores column last year and forget the actual performances...the slow, sideways passing with no movement and an inevitable cross into a packed area...and say we are a well coached team going forward.
Well coached counter attacking side definitely. Anyway, who knows what this season holds but nothing in our performances so far have indicated an improvement from last season - except for set pieces...
It’s inflating the fact that we are a good counterattacking side that leads to the idea we are well coached generally.
Against big sides we are excellent at counter attacking, fast in transition and carry a real threat. No one can argue with that.
last season, we were completely awful defending set pieces and making the most of our own set pieces. Ole brought in a set piece coach. He saw that deficiency too ie. we were poorly coached at set pieces and needed to get someone else in. No one can argue with that. So there’s one way in which we have been poorly coached.
Defensively, we are pretty solid and the new recruit will help. I had little concern last season about the quality of our defensive play aside from playing out from the back. Are we well coached in that sense? Have you seen any quality movement and options when our centre halves or full backs are being pressed high? So I would say we are not particularly well coached in that respect- watch the Wolves game 3 weeks ago. We can’t still be blaming quality. So another area we are poorly coached in.
Finally, and the crux for most fans...playing against deep sitting sides. We look shite. Unless we bang in an early goal and force the other team to come out, we struggled time and time again. 11 draws last season the majority of which we had more possession.
Even more concerning is the wins that very easily could have been draws -
Brighton (A) last minute VAR penalty, Newcastle (A) 86th minute Bruno counter attack opens the flood gates,
West Brom(H) we needed a retaken penalty to win one nil,
Southampton(A) last minute Edi 3-2, Wolves (H) 1-0 Rashford last kick of the game,
Villa (H) won by a penalty,
Burnley(A) Pogba long range deflection, Fulham (A) we were awful and what should have been a walk for title contenders was a desperate 2-1 having gone behind, Sheffield Utd(H) lost-
West Ham (H), own goal1-0,
Brighton(H) Greenwood with 5 minutes to go 1-0..
I’m just gonna stop there.
I love Utd but we played a dangerous game last season. 11 draws and another 12+ games where our inability to break teams down needed divine intervention, penalties (one missed penalty actually got retaken!), deflections,VAR. The quality of our squad is much better then riding our luck for half a season.
Our spirit, amazing, last minute wins -dna of the club. But the Premiership is so competitive. You can fire blanks and come upwith the goods for a few games a season, you can fail to find the net and have an off day once or twice (City v Southampton) butany more than that and you ain’t winning the league. That’s why I don’t understand how some fans can point to the league table and goals scores column last year and forget the actual performances...the slow, sideways passing with no movement and an inevitable cross into a packed area...and say we are a well coached team going forward.
Well coached counter attacking side definitely. Anyway, who knows what this season holds but nothing in our performances so far have indicated an improvement from last season - except for set pieces...
I understand your point but we come back too many times to win games for us to struggle v low blocks. Unless we are somehow saying teams score and then come at us but that doesn’t make any sense.
Utd struggling v low blocks has been a myth for a good 18 months now. We struggled when Cavani was out or Martial was in bad form but it’s not particularly against low blocks since we often score, and win, v lower sides. That was just our options at CF. Now Ronaldo is over here scoring tap ins because we can, and do, slice teams open. We just have a consistent threat at the end of it now.
I hope you’re right...I hope you’re right.
Eric Laurie, utdarena and Utd_Analytics are the 3 of great twitter accounts that I follow that have a great analytics on our games
What press? West Ham dont press.
Important to underline that when we talk about our coaching issues we don't just mean offensive ones. Going into this week we had conceded more counter attacks than any other team at 6 per game and it's not like anyone who has watched us over the last couple of years needs to be told that our defensive transition is a problem.
For this to hold any weight it needs to include games of McFred since that’s our first choice midfield. We don’t tend to struggle against counters with our first choice midfield, it’s why the opposition went wide and our CBS kept losing headers and that weakness was exposed.
This is so fascinating and I think it’s pretty obvious that so many times when we lose the ball we are absolutely clueless about what to do and so we are caught out . Opposition plays like 2-3 passes and they are 2 on 2 with our centre backs . It should not be that easy
The issues he's highlighting in that thread are to do with structure rather than personnel. Unless you think McTominay controls how many of his teammates get ahead of the ball in certain situations, the distance between defence and midfield, Fred's decision making in terms of when to press or drop off and the entire team's ability to commit tactical fouls.
And even if Pogba playing in midfield instead of McTominay is what caused all of that (which seems a very harsh charge to level at Pogba), that's a coaching issue in itself. The entire team's structure shouldn't go haywire just because one player is missing.
Because we aren’t constantly exposed to counter attacks when we have that double pivet of McFred. The answer lays in the results and the results are irrefutable. There was constant set piece goals and losing headers from crosses but very little goals came through the midfield being countered on.
If McFred weren’t defensively sound then there wouldn’t be a reason to play them. If it were true then I’m sure there’s tonnes of examples of this being pointed out due to how long we have played both of them
Yep, mcfred is key to how we play, not only do they stop counters they help to win the ball back higher up the pitch meaning we can keep teams penned in more have more possession of the ball in dangerous areas.
Funnily enough in recent season when Klopp and pep have had injury issues meaning they couldn't employ there best defensive midfielder in midfield they struggled for consistency.
No matter how well drilled your patterns of play are if you don't have the quality in the cdm positions to keep teams back and stop counters than you will struggle for consistency.
Fine, let's accept McTominay's return solves those problems single-handedly.
That's still a coaching problem, because McTominay's teammates shouldn't need him on the pitch to know what positions to take up in relation to each other. The distance between defence/midfield/attack, the number of players ahead/behind the ball while attacking and Fred's understanding of when to counter-press or drop off aren't supposed to be things Scott McTominay controls. And they're what we're talking about here.
Nobody is doubting that McFred make us more resistant. But that doesn't mean they magically make specific structural or coaching problems vanish, or that fixing those problems wouldn't make us better. Particularly given we presumably want to move away from having to rely on McFred.
''That's the great thing about Coaching/Patterns Of Play. It's so vague and no one really knows what it's about.''
This is not down to poor coaching, this is down to having to try and get Pogba, Greenwood, Sancho, Ronaldo and Fernandes into the same side. Run the stats again for the West Ham game, when we played the McFred midfield
It's also why I instantly disregard the opinion of any poster who calls our two-man midfield 'negative'. All of the top clubs play a minimum of a two-man midfield. It's just that our two happen to be largely inferior to the central midfield players at Chelsea, City and Liverpool
Yes, it's the lack of movements and ideas for the player on the ball when we're building from the back. I don't know a lot about coaching but it just seems that our buildup is done a lot on instinct rather than instruction. Especially when the CBs have the ball.
Something I've noticed this season is very peculiar, 4 of our players try to occupy the entire opposition back line almost like all 4 of them are playing on the shoulder of their corresponding defender, it's probably a way to create space for our CMs, I'm not sure, but it does look like we're trying something.
Edit - Defender, not CB.
Maybe we should hire a coach with a hip, new 1 man midfield system.
On the subject of United looking worse in attack against defensive opponents - everybody does. That's why they do it.
This is why it's such a difficult argument to overcome, it's like astrology or homeopathic medicine - it's psuedo science because it can't be tested and disproven
Case in my point, I can offer evidence that Solskjaer CAN coach, by pointing to our league positions and points totals relative to other teams. I can also take anecdotal evidence from our players, who seem to have absolutely no complaints about the training sessions or the coaching.
All the 'Ole can't coach' lot have is 'patterns of play' and 'we rely on individual brilliance' type vagueness. The statistics don't back it up.
It's not vague though.
I describe exactly what it is here to another poster:
And I'm an idiot. If even I can understand it, it's not all that difficult.
We're just talking about preparation and organisation, no more than that. Nobody in their right mind would say the concept of being organised at set-pieces is a vague pseudo-science, yet for some reason ye can't wrap their head around other systems within the team needing coaching.
It's not like it's some notion we've all made up. For example, I posted UEFA A Licence study support material earlier in the thread that discusses patterns of play. It makes it really hard to take arguments that we aren't undercoached seriously when people act like referencing now-standard coaching concepts and terminology are akin to believing in bigfoot.
Player quality has a lot to do with this. Shaw is an outstanding left back and we rarely have too many problems advancing down his side of the pitch. AWB has different qualities but even so we often manage to advance down the right side. The problem is AWB is too often isolated out there and doesn't have the instinct to try to beat players, so those advances don't lead to opportunities anywhere near as often. Neither of these are coaching issues, unless we follow that logic and conclude that our coaches are far more skilled at producing left sided attacking movements, which of course is nonsense. Its simply a by product of player quality and the balance of the team.
Central is more complex. We do need work here, but its too easy to just put this down to our coaches having no idea what to do. Its a balance thing again. Pogba and Matic are better at it, but McFred offer the best overall package and are better for the team. Having said that there is little doubt in my mind that, Haaland possibility aside, the majority of our funds are going to be invested centrally in the next two seasons. You can improve players by a certain percentage but you can't make them something they are not. If that were possible clubs would rarely sanction expensive transfers, but even so if people think we are going to be looking for a player to sit in front of the defence it won't happen. Ole wants two all-rounders in there, and I think our midfield options next season will look quite different. McTominay is the only one nailed on to still be here IMO.
It is not wierd at all. There were loads of people complaining after the YB game that Ole outers only come out when we lose or draw and don't comment when we win. There were literally ten pages of complaining on the "Is the United forum safe to go into yet?".
Based on that criticism, Ole outers came out after this match, to criticize Ole and talk about patterns of play and pot noodles. Now Ole inners are saying, Ole outers shouldn't complain when we win. There is literally ten pages of complaining on the "Is the United forum safe to go into yet?". There is no winning with Ole inners. I am at a loss to what they want.
You can check with Ole-Inners then.
On a whole I can see why he gets criticized but not sure why people moan about this game. There is a difference.
The weird thing about this thread is that since it was first posted we've had direct evidence that our coaching wasn't up to scratch.
We had set-piece problems many of us noted were down to coaching, Solskjaer recognised that, he appointed a coach to deal with it specifically. A coaching problem solved by better coaching.
Yet when we apply the exact same logic to other aspects of our game people get insanely defensive, as if it's an attack on the manager to say he should do more of a good thing he already did and keep improving our coaching.
It's also absolutely baffling to me that so many people here seem to think the concept of patterns of play are some sort of vague myth. When Barcelona were tiki-takaing us to death in CL finals over a decade ago, what the hell did ye think that was?
We had set-piece problems many of us noted were down to coaching, Solskjaer recognised that, he appointed a coach to deal with it specifically. A coaching problem solved by better coaching.
Yet when we apply the exact same logic to other aspects of our game people get insanely defensive, as if it's an attack on the manager to say he should do more of a good thing he already did and keep improving our coaching.
It's also absolutely baffling to me that so many people here seem to think the concept of patterns of play are some sort of vague myth. When Barcelona were tiki-takaing us to death in CL finals over a decade ago, what the hell did ye think that was?
This sounds like a plausible description but it describes an NFL play more than it describes football. Easy to put together in a set-piece situation or from a standing start like the NFL, but it doesn't take into account that there are 11 opponents on the pitch all moving around at the same time. If patterns of play can be learned, then they can also be studied and countered upon and that's where it all falls down. I'm not suggesting that patterns of play are not a thing, that would be stupid, but what I am saying is that its not the most important factor. Football is far too fluid a sport with far too many moving parts to rely on that alone, and if you go too far with it you end up with a team playing like we did under Van Gaal.