We are an awfully coached team

I'm not happy currently, no. In addition to a central midfield that at best looks marginalised, we haven't found the structure and rhytm and coherence to our game in the attacking third. Which we have had in the past. I'm guessing that has to do with integrating Ronaldo and Sancho, and not having Rashford, which is a huge change. But whatever it is, I hope it can be solved quickly.

It is what it is. But what it is isn't something anywhere near as bad as you're painting it.
It's not about integrating Ronaldo and Sancho. Sancho cant even start for us, and wasn't to blame for rhe shitness weve seen of late. Its the fact that we are just coached terribly.

If you get a good bunch of squirrels eventually theyl find a decent haul of nuts, even if the manager sits back and has a cigar. Finishing second last year means feck all when youre still a long way off city and had the benefit of Tuchel playing just half a season with Klopps entire defence decimated for half a season.
 
I do agree it isnt as easy as hiring an elite manager because we have tried with Jose and LVG.
Obviously, I want Ole to win us something but in my opinion, I cannot see it happening. He has done a very good job building the team and getting it here but im afraid it looks like his ceiling.

When teams go to Chelsea, Liverpool, City they are scared, they are starved of the ball, they struggle to get a foot hold in the game.

I take this weekend as an example, do you think Villa deserved the win? I would say so
To be clear, we are a managerial appointment away from greatness. Theres a dozen more examples where it works out compared to the LVG one where it didnt. We need to hire a top manager consistent with how we want to play, thats all. Jose didnt work because his style would never suit us among other reasons.
 
Not awfully coached but averagely that is for sure. And when you are coached with average quality along with some better quality players, you get to second place like last season and that was barely, with so so much luck.
 
To be clear, we are a managerial appointment away from greatness. Theres a dozen more examples where it works out compared to the LVG one where it didnt. We need to hire a top manager consistent with how we want to play, thats all. Jose didnt work because his style would never suit us among other reasons.

I agree, but it also has to be the right managerial appointment. I am almost sure a top coach could get more out of every one of the players in the team, we wont even make the CDM a big issue like we have done.

A top manager finds a way mitigate that weakness. Pep played a season with Delph as LB, has no ST.
Tuchel won CL with no striker

Liverpool are top of the league without a striker.

Ole is fooling us all. Lets think about this for one second. We have cried about no winger for years on years, chased Sancho for 2 years and got him.

We start the season with Greenwood, Pogba as our wingers... So even if we do sign a CDM, who's to say Ole will actually play him?

We need a goal on the weekend, he made an attacking change in the 81st minute we had 2 forwards on the pitch, he brings on Cavani who is a striker when we need balance. When we go down, he just puts players on and hopes for the best rather than having a plan.
 
I do agree it isnt as easy as hiring an elite manager because we have tried with Jose and LVG.
Obviously, I want Ole to win us something but in my opinion, I cannot see it happening. He has done a very good job building the team and getting it here but im afraid it looks like his ceiling.

When teams go to Chelsea, Liverpool, City they are scared, they are starved of the ball, they struggle to get a foot hold in the game.

I take this weekend as an example, do you think Villa deserved the win? I would say so

I wouldn't. A draw would arguably have been a fair reflection of the match. But if any team deserved to win it, we did. We clearly dominated the first half, with at least three large scoring chances, the second was more or less even.

I don't see in which sense AVL was supposed to have dominated that game. They didn't have the ball much, and didn't create many chances either. Just like last time we played them, Villa did an excellent job closing things down in their own box - blocking shots, winning crosses, cutting off passes. Only this time they had three CBs doing that job rather than two. And with us missing a bit of coherence in our attacking, we were also less effective dealing with that.

"When teams go to Chelsea, Liverpool, City they are scared, they are starved of the ball, they struggle to get a foot hold in the game."

That's not really entirely true though, is it. At least it's not as straightforward as that - they struggle sometimes, just like we do (and after all, these were actually the first points we dropped on home turf this season). One problem with these discussions is that the view a lot of people take of the other top teams is more a function of a point they're making about United than anything else. If the issue is tactics, then they're absolute machines. If the issue is squad quality, then they're no better than we are. What I see when I watch them, which I do as frequently as I can, is not 3 teams who always roll over weaker opponents, or always rack up many more or better scoring chances than United does. Its pluses and minuses, for all of them.

Chelsea play a strong control game and are very coherent and have the ball a lot - pluses - but as a matter of fact, generate less in the way of scoring chances than we do. That was true last season under Tuchel, and it's true this season as well. Minuses. Spurs gave them one very difficult half, Villa did too. That game was much closer than the scoreline suggests. Palace and Arsenal didn't have a chance, but this doesn't happen every game.

How often don't you see City passing the ball around for 60-70% of 90 minutes, but only create 1 or 2 real scoring chances? Usually that's enough, but not always (as in the 0-0 home draw against Southampton). Or in the 0-1 away loss away to Tottenham. The Leicester game I didn't watch, but that was a narrow win - and the only goal City scored in those three matches. Norwich and Arsenal they blew away, of course. But as with Chelsea that doesn't happen every game, and it happens for us pretty frequently too.

Liverpool have generally looked deadly efficient against weaker opponents so far (both from what I've seen and on the basis of the scores), but that came to an end this weekend, with the 3-3 draw against Brentford.

They're all great teams of course, and on the whole they've looked a good deal more solid than we have so far this year. My point is just that people talk as if they're all absolute machines, and we're all shite, and that's just not how it is. They all have their weak points. And when we drop points to weaker opponents, people talk as if this was some unheard of travesty that can only be due to the incompetence of the coaching. They point to drawing against West Brom and Fulham, or losing against Villa, as if it was something that doesn't happen to (implied better-coached) top teams, and wouldn't happen to us if we had a more renowned coach. But it does. Tuchel last season lost to Villa too, in their last game. He also drew against Brighton , Leeds and Southampton and lost to West Brom and Arsenal. In fact, he dropped points against lower half sides (not all of the aforementioned fall into that category) more frequently than OGS did. To say nothing of Liverpool, who dropped nearly twice as many points to such sides as we did. True, they were ravaged by injuries, but that was a side coming off a campaign in which they amassed 33 more points than United, so it's not like they were fielding a much weaker side than we were, on the whole.
 
Last edited:
It's not about integrating Ronaldo and Sancho. Sancho cant even start for us, and wasn't to blame for rhe shitness weve seen of late. Its the fact that we are just coached terribly.

If you get a good bunch of squirrels eventually theyl find a decent haul of nuts, even if the manager sits back and has a cigar. Finishing second last year means feck all when youre still a long way off city and had the benefit of Tuchel playing just half a season with Klopps entire defence decimated for half a season.

Sorry, but that just looks like mouthing off to me. You have no basis for considering it a fact that we are coached terribly.
 
I agree, but it also has to be the right managerial appointment. I am almost sure a top coach could get more out of every one of the players in the team, we wont even make the CDM a big issue like we have done.

A top manager finds a way mitigate that weakness. Pep played a season with Delph as LB, has no ST.
Tuchel won CL with no striker

Liverpool are top of the league without a striker.

Ole is fooling us all. Lets think about this for one second. We have cried about no winger for years on years, chased Sancho for 2 years and got him.

We start the season with Greenwood, Pogba as our wingers... So even if we do sign a CDM, who's to say Ole will actually play him?

We need a goal on the weekend, he made an attacking change in the 81st minute we had 2 forwards on the pitch, he brings on Cavani who is a striker when we need balance. When we go down, he just puts players on and hopes for the best rather than having a plan.

Come on, you can do better than that. "He just puts players on and hopes for the best rather than having a plan", do you really believe this stuff?
 


That's a point but tbh the actual formation we play isn't the most relevant thing. Even within a 4-2-3-1 there are details of our performance that should be better. Switching formation won't put those details right or suddenly make us play with the cohesion of other sides.
 
Come on, you can do better than that. "He just puts players on and hopes for the best rather than having a plan", do you really believe this stuff?

I don't mean at the start of games, obviously there is a plan but this weekend when we were 0-0 it looked like that. We had 3 players who just want to shoot, Greenwood, Ronaldo, Cavani, who is supplying the ball to them?

Just throwing another striker isn't going to help.
 
That's a point but tbh the actual formation we play isn't the most relevant thing. Even within a 4-2-3-1 there are details of our performance that should be better. Switching formation won't put those details right or suddenly make us play with the cohesion of other sides.

Yeah, I don't think there's a formation around that will make a major difference if the same players are in it playing int he same way. You do wonder how Pep or Tuchel might approach it though. Neither would accept the lack of control in midfield that we frequently exhibit.
 
That's a point but tbh the actual formation we play isn't the most relevant thing. Even within a 4-2-3-1 there are details of our performance that should be better. Switching formation won't put those details right or suddenly make us play with the cohesion of other sides.

Agree with this.

I struggle to understand the obsession with formations. I get that it conditions how you try to attack and defend, to some extent. However, very few teams (including ours) stick rigidly to the same shape in all phases of play.

4-2-3-1 is not the reason why we lost to Villa at the weekend. Bayern Munich play 4-2-3-1 every weekend and they would've beaten Villa 4-0.
 
Sorry, but that just looks like mouthing off to me. You have no basis for considering it a fact that we are coached terribly.
Yes I do. I watch all of our games, and hear our manager play down the importance of tactics. He doesn't believe in granular tactics and by his own admission prefers to focus on mentality.

Its not mouthing off. Its facts.
 
I don't mean at the start of games, obviously there is a plan but this weekend when we were 0-0 it looked like that. We had 3 players who just want to shoot, Greenwood, Ronaldo, Cavani, who is supplying the ball to them?

Just throwing another striker isn't going to help.

No, I tend to agree with that, and had also hoped to see Sancho out there - either in place of Greenwood (who was playing way too much like a striker, and one who thought he was the only one with finishing ability), or Fred or McTominay (with Pogba then moved back to the midfield pivot). But I think it's important to remember that there's always a possibility the manager has factors to take into account that aren't visible to us, and that disagreement with a subbing decision doesn't necessarily mean the manager made a mistake. Or has no plan.
 
Yes I do. I watch all of our games, and hear our manager play down the importance of tactics. He doesn't believe in granular tactics and by his own admission prefers to focus on mentality.

Its not mouthing off. Its facts.

Sorry, but then you do not understand what "a fact" is.
 
Sorry, but then you do not understand what "a fact" is.
You dont understand what "basis" is. Just like we dont need to go to N Pole to know its cold, we dont need to sit in on training sessions to know the coaching is shite.

Oles own words on his methods, his own interpretation of how he wants to manage, and the output on the pitch gives the basis beyond reasonable doubt.
 
You dont understand what "basis" is. Just like we dont need to go to N Pole to know its cold, we dont need to sit in on training sessions to know the coaching is shite.

Oles own words on his methods, his own interpretation of how he wants to manage, and the output on the pitch gives the basis beyond reasonable doubt.

And arguing that our coaching is shite, or great, or mediocre, is a judgment, not a fact. Also, it's a judgment that requires WAY more basis than a single statement by OGS in a press conference, that might have been made for any number of reasons.
 
No it shouldn't - and it isn't. I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks that's where Man Utds ambition should end.

By and large, I agree we need to be better than we currently are. There are issues that need to be resolved, and clearly the team we have this season hasn't hit its full potential yet. But we'll see. And I think it's simplistic to argue we need "an elite manager", as if it was a positional upgrade we were talking about. It's not as straightforward as that with managers, and we've just had two of those, which you'd think made that point. But still lots of United fans have talked themselves into that corner.
I think we need to be elite everywhere. In the scouting, on the pitch, director of football, the coaching staff by and large, medical staff... we need to create a culture of excellence (hard to do with glazers at the top).
But the coaching dept is a place we can improve easily and visibly.
But I agree its too easy to think the only thing we need is to fire Ole. But Ole is part of the mediocrity at this club.
 
I think we need to be elite everywhere. In the scouting, on the pitch, director of football, the coaching staff by and large, medical staff... we need to create a culture of excellence (hard to do with glazers at the top).
But the coaching dept is a place we can improve easily and visibly.
But I agree its too easy to think the only thing we need is to fire Ole. But Ole is part of the mediocrity at this club.

Well, that's the thing. He's brought a steady and major improvement of the club, in all areas. I don't see how that adds up to mediocrity. And I think far too many people are way too quick to conclude he's not up to the required level, more in the face of the evidence than because of it.

But he does need to take the team one step further this season.
 
Watching the AV game I have to say I agree with this but even though he's got a great shot on him I can't see how it's advantageous to the team when he's ignoring one of the greatest scorers of all time on one side and a prestigious scorer in Bruno on the other. Greenwood is 19 hears of age. Putting that amount of pressure on the lad isn't going to help his development and is detrimental to the team. It was pretty easy to see the frustration from both Ronaldo and Bruno which will do Greenwoods confidence no good at all.

In the last couple of games the instructions seem to have been shoot on sight and it doesn't matter how many pairs of legs are in the way or how far from the goal a player is, which is pure Sunday league stuff when with the players we have we should be cutting teams open but as that would require coaching of the highest level I can see why it isn't being implemented.
I can understand this, however the old adage comes to mind of 'if you don't shoot, you don't score'.

When you factor in the amount of goals we have scored so far this season I'd say that the policy seems to be working more often than not.

But I can get how it can be frustrating, and yes it may highlight some limitations in our play, but I don't feel it demonstrates lack of coaching ability.
 
I wouldn't. A draw would arguably have been a fair reflection of the match. But if any team deserved to win it, we did. We clearly dominated the first half, with at least three large scoring chances, the second was more or less even.

I don't see in which sense AVL was supposed to have dominated that game. They didn't have the ball much, and didn't create many chances either. Just like last time we played them, Villa did an excellent job closing things down in their own box - blocking shots, winning crosses, cutting off passes. Only this time they had three CBs doing that job rather than two. And with us missing a bit of coherence in our attacking, we were also less effective dealing with that.

"When teams go to Chelsea, Liverpool, City they are scared, they are starved of the ball, they struggle to get a foot hold in the game."

That's not really entirely true though, is it. At least it's not as straightforward as that - they struggle sometimes, just like we do (and after all, these were actually the first points we dropped on home turf this season). One problem with these discussions is that the view a lot of people take of the other top teams is more a function of a point they're making about United than anything else. If the issue is tactics, then they're absolute machines. If the issue is squad quality, then they're no better than we are. What I see when I watch them, which I do as frequently as I can, is not 3 teams who always roll over weaker opponents, or always rack up many more or better scoring chances than United does. Its pluses and minuses, for all of them.

Chelsea play a strong control game and are very coherent and have the ball a lot - pluses - but as a matter of fact, generate less in the way of scoring chances than we do. That was true last season under Tuchel, and it's true this season as well. Minuses. Spurs gave them one very difficult half, Villa did too. That game was much closer than the scoreline suggests. Palace and Arsenal didn't have a chance, but this doesn't happen every game.

How often don't you see City passing the ball around for 60-70% of 90 minutes, but only create 1 or 2 real scoring chances? Usually that's enough, but not always (as in the 0-0 home draw against Southampton). Or in the 0-1 away loss away to Tottenham. The Leicester game I didn't watch, but that was a narrow win - and the only goal City scored in those three matches. Norwich and Arsenal they blew away, of course. But as with Chelsea that doesn't happen every game, and it happens for us pretty frequently too.

Liverpool have generally looked deadly efficient against weaker opponents so far (both from what I've seen and on the basis of the scores), but that came to an end this weekend, with the 3-3 draw against Brentford.

They're all great teams of course, and on the whole they've looked a good deal more solid than we have so far this year. My point is just that people talk as if they're all absolute machines, and we're all shite, and that's just not how it is. They all have their weak points. And when we drop points to weaker opponents, people talk as if this was some unheard of travesty that can only be due to the incompetence of the coaching. They point to drawing against West Brom and Fulham, or losing against Villa, as if it was something that doesn't happen to (implied better-coached) top teams, and wouldn't happen to us if we had a more renowned coach. But it does. Tuchel last season lost to Villa too, in their last game. He also drew against Brighton , Leeds and Southampton and lost to West Brom and Arsenal. In fact, he dropped points against lower half sides (not all of the aforementioned fall into that category) more frequently than OGS did. To say nothing of Liverpool, who dropped nearly twice as many points to such sides as we did. True, they were ravaged by injuries, but that was a side coming off a campaign in which they amassed 33 more points than United, so it's not like they were fielding a much weaker side than we were, on the whole.

To be fair, Villa probably had the best chances in the first half. Better quality chances, anway
 
For context, I've been an Ole advocate ever since he signed on a temp basis. I've subsequently been put down by the way his teams have played in average. Obviously I'm grateful for the joy laden moments he has brought and that's why I refused to be on the Ole out camp.

Until now.

I'm fed up with the lack of tactical display our team shows every match. And here's what I find most disturbing in watchinh united's "style of play":
  • Low defensive line: this is clearly an issue since we're creating a massive gap between the base defensive line and the attacking outlets that is, off course, not properly linked up by the midfield player
  • Double pivot: not saying this is a mistake in itself, but is clear our double pivot is set up to do a one man job and poorly. McFred does not add anything in terms of possesion, forward passing, cross-field passing, putting off the preassure from defenders on difficult positions, and frankly defensively they don't add anything to the team.
  • String of passes: this is the key as to why I'm so disturbed by unted's football lately. So many times we find ourselves linking defenders with fullbacks, back to midfielders, back to defenders and then loosing the ball. So how many times we see Fred, Matic, Maguire, AWB ending up with the ball and killing any kind of momentum with a weak-ass pass or a long ball to nowhere? Shooting positions are being taken by McFred and sometimes we really do struggle to give the ball to the creative players on the pitch and most of the times it is when said players come out of position briefly, leaving gaping holes for the overall link up play.
  • Lack of aggresiveness from the coaching team on set: we've seen it time and time again, late subs, no reaction to on-match scenarios, rigidness in tactics and team selection. In the modern world there's no such thing as sticking to a recipe for any job, we must all adapt and being adaptable is a huge thing. Our coaching team hase none of this.
Ole might be a good manager and the right person to glue things together, but football-wise we should be looking to get a real football coach, a mastermind, someone that can really take us to another level. Otherwise we will remain to be a star-studden squad with no football direction, and we will not win any trophy this way.
 
We were fourth-best in the league in expected goals last season, sixth after removing penalties. We failed to score in 8 out of 38 games. 15 of our 73 goals came in 2 games. We won just over half our games, or three more games than the previous season (or two more than Moyes+Giggs, for reference). None of that suggests we dominated most games by any metric.

Like I said, these have all been discussed over and over in this thread by multiple people. Your last few posts tell me you've likely seen all this discussion but are choosing not to engage so you can just place every person criticizing the coaching in this thread in the same bucket of people "set in their ways" that aren't worth your time.
I engage when I feel posters can interpret both sides of the coin, as it seems like some on here like to pick up on certain negative aspects (like individual brilliance bailing us out) and use that to display how ineffective our coaching is, yet cannot understand how this conversely can be used to demonstrate good coaching also, similar thing with the expected goals.

People use the expected goals as a stick to beat the coaching with. Has anyone not thought that maybe the fact that the strikers are ruthless and can score when not fully expected too come from quality coaching? Its a possibility, without doubt.
Get the strikers shooting earlier gives the GK less time to set himself for example.

So you can see when people are constantly using the same things to beat the coaching with, yet cannot see the flip side then I don't feel there's any debate to be had.

And to conclude my stance, I feel the coaching could be improved at United without doubt, but I don't believe the coaching is anywhere near 'awful' as the thread suggests. In fact I feel it's pretty good right now, we still need a plan B however.
 
Well, that's the thing. He's brought a steady and major improvement of the club, in all areas. I don't see how that adds up to mediocrity. And I think far too many people are way too quick to conclude he's not up to the required level, more in the face of the evidence than because of it.

But he does need to take the team one step further this season.
I agree, he did a good job to steady the ship and create a team that I am excited about.
I think its ok to let him work while there is no better alternative
But he really needs to achieve: semis in the CL and really challenging for the title as in 5/6 points or closer to the winner. If he does not achieve that...

While Ole is here we need to be opportunistic and be active whenever a great coach is available and be in talks with the likes of Conte etc.
Actually we can try Rúben Amorim from Sporting.
Ole and United are not married, we are dating and its clear that Ole is the one dating up. When Ms Perfect turns up, we have to be ruthless. Doesnt have to be a separation with tears. "Happy memories, lets stay friends, goodbye."
 
1. We do have a method of playing. Obviously.
2. It's hard to tell what we "look like " to you, but at least we are not by most measures particularly vulnerable at the back. That of course is by measures such as how many goals we actually allow and xGA.
3. We create more good scoring chances than almost all other teams. Again on the basis of real things like goals scored, xG etc.
4. We can obviously play football, given that we were the second best team in the PL last season and is currently 4th.
5. All of this would suggest that we have a certain ability to "impose ourselves".
6. All of this would also heavily suggest that it's self-evidently absurd to state that "more often than not teams outplay us".
7. As you have apparently also seen "Wolves, Southampton, Aston Villa, West Ham outplay us", this all leads towards the same conclusion, which is that the problem here is probably your vision.

I think the stats you quote are flattering for United to be honest. In comparison to the other top teams, you played rather weak teams this season so the sample size for xG and xGA isn't really comparable as of now. If you look at the same stats last season, then you're fourth in xG, xPTs and xGA in the EPL behind City, Chelsea and Liverpool - despite Liverpool going through a rough patch of form and Chelsea having to sack their coach halfway through the season. That doesn't shed the best of light on you from a statistical perspective.

Of course the post you quoted was exaggerated since being the fourth best team of the EPL (based on xG stats) is still elite but the question remains if you should be doing better than you are with so much individual quality. And if you ask me, the players carry the coaching in case of United when it really should be the other way round.
 
People use the expected goals as a stick to beat the coaching with. Has anyone not thought that maybe the fact that the strikers are ruthless and can score when not fully expected too come from quality coaching? Its a possibility, without doubt.
Get the strikers shooting earlier gives the GK less time to set himself for example.

It's a possibility, but one that bears a lot more weight if we're consistently scoring a lot of goals that aren't reflected in the expected metrics - and when I say a lot, I mean the kind of tallies we put up the last time this team was a genuine title challenger: 80+, or an average of over two a game. That's the sort of argument you can make when a team like 2019 Liverpool scores 80-odd goals and the xG numbers have them at mid-70s: a good team overperforming the metrics because they have ruthless finishers.

We're not doing that. So we're not scoring a lot of goals, we're failing to score in a lot of games, and the underlying numbers suggest we're not creating a lot of chances either. Hard to make any real argument that the coaching is quality.
 
It's a possibility, but one that bears a lot more weight if we're consistently scoring a lot of goals that aren't reflected in the expected metrics - and when I say a lot, I mean the kind of tallies we put up the last time this team was a genuine title challenger: 80+, or an average of over two a game. That's the sort of argument you can make when a team like 2019 Liverpool scores 80-odd goals and the xG numbers have them at mid-70s: a good team overperforming the metrics because they have ruthless finishers.

We're not doing that. So we're not scoring a lot of goals, we're failing to score in a lot of games, and the underlying numbers suggest we're not creating a lot of chances either. Hard to make any real argument that the coaching is quality.

Except we actually have the third best xG, so in fact we are creating quite a lot of chances, and then overperforming on converting them. Second most goals too.
 
It's a possibility, but one that bears a lot more weight if we're consistently scoring a lot of goals that aren't reflected in the expected metrics - and when I say a lot, I mean the kind of tallies we put up the last time this team was a genuine title challenger: 80+, or an average of over two a game. That's the sort of argument you can make when a team like 2019 Liverpool scores 80-odd goals and the xG numbers have them at mid-70s: a good team overperforming the metrics because they have ruthless finishers.

We're not doing that. So we're not scoring a lot of goals, we're failing to score in a lot of games, and the underlying numbers suggest we're not creating a lot of chances either. Hard to make any real argument that the coaching is quality.
We've failed to score in two games so far, same as City.

We are the second highest scorers in the league, averaging two a game.

We are 4th in big chances missed in the league.

We are third for big chances creates this season.

I get stats without context are fairly meaningless, but realistically near enough every metric points towards counteracting your beliefs that we don't score alot, and we don't create chances.
 
But I'm talking about last season, not the first six games of this season against fairly middling opposition.

Which I thought was pretty clear, since we just had a back-and-forth about it (: . Happy to come back to this season's stats once we've played a few more games and can properly assess whether things have improved from last season.

We've looked very good in 2 out of 6 games so far, quite good in 1, and a bit awful in 3 if I'm being honest, so I'm not sure we're going to stay as high in the table as we are playing the same way we have been.

Except we actually have the third best xG, so in fact we are creating quite a lot of chances, and then overperforming on converting them. Second most goals too.

Again, talking about last season, when as I said we were 4th and 6th (non-penalties) in XG. Much more representative to use a full season vs. a small sample when everyone's played different opponents.
 
Last edited:
And arguing that our coaching is shite, or great, or mediocre, is a judgment, not a fact. Also, it's a judgment that requires WAY more basis than a single statement by OGS in a press conference, that might have been made for any number of reasons.
Its not a single statement, its a range of statements. And its also based on watching him for over 3 seasons.

Im happy to change my wording from fact to sound judgement if you want to be pedantic.
 
No it shouldn't - and it isn't. I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks that's where Man Utds ambition should end.

By and large, I agree we need to be better than we currently are. There are issues that need to be resolved, and clearly the team we have this season hasn't hit its full potential yet. But we'll see. And I think it's simplistic to argue we need "an elite manager", as if it was a positional upgrade we were talking about. It's not as straightforward as that with managers, and we've just had two of those, which you'd think made that point. But still lots of United fans have talked themselves into that corner.

The two managers we had were no longer elite when we got them. That is clear.
 
I can understand this, however the old adage comes to mind of 'if you don't shoot, you don't score'.

When you factor in the amount of goals we have scored so far this season I'd say that the policy seems to be working more often than not.

But I can get how it can be frustrating, and yes it may highlight some limitations in our play, but I don't feel it demonstrates lack of coaching ability.
My main gripe with Ole is we're way too predictable in our play. If the opposing team is out of position we can tear any team apart which I suppose is coaching in itself but teams have known for the last couple of seasons if they sit back it's very hard for us to break through. Whats more worrying is particularly against Villa and even Wolves they didn't sit back, came at us and we still looked lost in attack reverting to shooting at the slightest sight of goal. I think we've had 54 shots at goal in the last 2 matches with something like 8 on target which to me shows it isn't working.

We have way too good a squad to revert to these tactics. A couple of seasons ago if we had Lingard and Pereira playing I could understand to a certain extent but with the calibre of player we have now we should be cutting teams apart which would probably be made easier if we got away from the 4-2-3-1 Ole seems to favour but somehow I don't think that's an option.
 
1. We do have a method of playing. Obviously.
2. It's hard to tell what we "look like " to you, but at least we are not by most measures particularly vulnerable at the back. That of course is by measures such as how many goals we actually allow and xGA.
3. We create more good scoring chances than almost all other teams. Again on the basis of real things like goals scored, xG etc.
4. We can obviously play football, given that we were the second best team in the PL last season and is currently 4th.
5. All of this would suggest that we have a certain ability to "impose ourselves".
6. All of this would also heavily suggest that it's self-evidently absurd to state that "more often than not teams outplay us".
7. As you have apparently also seen "Wolves, Southampton, Aston Villa, West Ham outplay us", this all leads towards the same conclusion, which is that the problem here is probably your vision.

All of this post would 'suggest' is you have no clue what you are talking about, with the upmost respect.

It isn't obvious what our method of play is. We still play with no virtually no style.
Throwing things like xGA and XG around is just meaningless, when the eye test shows we are overall poorly coached, rely on individual brilliance to win games, look pretty shaky at the back and can be beaten by anyone. Aside from Leeds (which was more of an anomaly) we have never imposed ourselves and truly dominated 2-3 games in a row for years now, so saying things like 'suggest' is just a load of rubbish backed up with absolutely no proof.
 
Solskjaer has proven that he has the ability when the pressure is at it's highest to get great wins. Last losses are not down to him. Club didn't get him def mid. You can buy all the talent in the world, but if Fred and McTominay kick 5 meter easy passes to the public you cant win games. those are free possessions given to opposition team.
Sadly Matic cannot play 55 games anymore. and either Fred or McTominay aren't good enough to defend on their own. So we are basically playing 10 vs 11 every game.
Biggest mistakes that Solskjaer makes.
Is too sensitive of players feelings. Varane should have played in the first game against Southampton, but he gave start to Lindelof, although everybody and their mom knew that Varane will kick Lindelof out of the team.
Started rotating in Champions League. Took out Greenwood who was probably best player at that time and moved Pogba back to left winger. Just go with the team that smashed Newcastle. Or make 1 change. But CL is not the place to rotate. secure advantage and then rotate in the last game if u want.
In cup game vs West Ham, i understand rotating, but Mata is not the player for the first team anymore. Again, we played 1 player less than opposition. Those were the minutes you could have given to someone who needs minutes.
vs Aston Villa he goes with Pogba LW, MCFred in the middle kicking balls to opposition
I started out defending Solskjaer, but God damn, he is braindead isn't he?
 
All of this post would 'suggest' is you have no clue what you are talking about, with the upmost respect.

It isn't obvious what our method of play is. We still play with no virtually no style.
Throwing things like xGA and XG around is just meaningless, when the eye test shows we are overall poorly coached, rely on individual brilliance to win games, look pretty shaky at the back and can be beaten by anyone. Aside from Leeds (which was more of an anomaly) we have never imposed ourselves and truly dominated 2-3 games in a row for years now, so saying things like 'suggest' is just a load of rubbish backed up with absolutely no proof.

With the utmost respect, read the post I was responding to.

And while you're at it, look up our actual record to check the accuracy of your statement that "we can be beaten by anybody". And also whether that record corresponds to the sort of team being described in that post. Basic reality check. That is, if someone who thinks his own eye test is knowledge while xGA and xG are meaningless is really interested in that sort of thing,
 


Important context in a six game comparison like that are the fixtures.

Us: Leeds, Southampton, Wolves, Newcastle, West Ham, Villa.

Chelsea: Palace, Arsenal, Liverpool, Villa, Spurs, City.

And they were down to 10 men for a large chunk of the Liverpool game.
 
I don't know about that. Under SAF lesser teams played the entire game in their box at Old trafford. The one exception was the final season or two where he employed some really defensive tactics in the league but asided that many younger fans didn't even know what it was like to have a worse team have a go at us till Moyes came along and wrecked the fear factor. Having a go at us became a common phrase that season. The norm before that among lower to midtable teams was to park the bus when playing us.

I don't think this was always true though. I distinctly remember getting pissy about us having less possession than Southampton at OT under Fergie in a game that we won because I was complaining to a mate about our centre midfield options (what I'd give for Cleverley and Anderson now) and how lucky we were to win the game.

Then LVG came, with his talk on possession and controlling it and man did I have a rude awakening once I saw how pointless it was to have possession without actually doing anything with it.