While the style in big games isn't a big deal as long as you win, I really do hope though, to see United one day absolutely annihilating a big team and embarrassing them. Feels like we have been a successful underdog in pretty much every single big game these last several years. I wish we become the opposite at one point.
We are an awfully coached team
- Thread starter bond19821982
- Start date
While the style in big games isn't a big deal as long as you win, I really do hope though, to see United one day absolutely annihilating a big team and embarrassing them. Feels like we have been a successful underdog in pretty much every single big game these last several years. I wish we become the opposite at one point.
Yeah but even when we do well against poor teams, people come up with "it's because we have much better team". So Ole-In comes up with "it's because of Ole" when we win and then point out weakness in the squad when we lose. Exact opposite with Ole-Out , "Its because we have awesome team" when we win and when we lose it's because of Ole.
I have said it few times, I don't think he is good enough to win league titles but since Bruno was signed, we have improved a lot and have good record.
Why don't you think he's good enough to win the league with us?
I'm just curious to know your thoughts on that if you don't mind me asking?
I don't think we are consistent in beating poor teams, we need to gain around or more than 90 points which I think is bit out of reach for Ole.
Does that mean he isn't doing good job? No. IMO he has done very good job till date, just that I feel he lacks that final bit to win league titles.
Credit to Ole though, since Feb we have done really well.
That's fair enough..
Regarding this imo we can refer to the playing against low block thread I think:
Both Liverpool and City have many quality dribblers, crossers and passers. While us, prior to Bruno signing basically had none. Tbh I can't wait to see us play with that mother fecking RW hole fixed with a good dribbler and crosser. And if possible, a good DM to replace the current Fred McT unified saiyan.
You are falling into the trap here of thinking that small club = shite players and big club = good players. Of course we have a better squad than Soton and Leeds, but its not like they are fielding a bunch of pub players and we both know the amount of money we have spent the last 8 years or so is not reflected in the quality of the squad. Soton especially have an excellent academy and scouting network and in the last decade or so have had players like Shaw, Bale, VVD and Mane. Thats some pretty big names
I dont know why are so hung up on that corner. Ward Prowse might be bang average, but hes one of the best set piece takers in the league and that corner was as good as they come and almost impossible to defend against unless the keeper comes of his line and deals with it
This! It's as if a player plying his trade for a club outside the top 6 has just been picked up from a Sunday league according to some posters on here. Just because they don't cost £60 million doesn't make then rubbish.
Also worth remembering that there isn't really much difference between a 50-60 million pound player vs. a 20-30 million pound player. The eventual transfer fee has a lot to do with buying power and the length of the contract, not necessarily his quality (for example: Maguire).
As a consequence, Southampton can buy a player for 15 million pounds and the same player's fees will jump up to 30 million pounds if we were after him. So if you look at the cost of players on both squads, it can give you a false impression that one manager is working with miles better talent when really the difference is marginal.
As a consequence, Southampton can buy a player for 15 million pounds and the same player's fees will jump up to 30 million pounds if we were after him. So if you look at the cost of players on both squads, it can give you a false impression that one manager is working with miles better talent when really the difference is marginal.
How are we not inconsistent this season?
We're 9th in shots on target and 9th in goals scored, in a good few games we've only had 2 or 3 on target where the opponent has setup defensive.
We've also got the most goals from counter attacks in the league.
Stats aren't everything but they certainly don't support your opinion.
Actually, we have more shots and more shots on goal this season per PL game when playing 4231 than we had during our unbeaten run from 1 February onwards last season - 16.1/5.9 this year, versus 13.5/5.5 then. There's actually been just one game with that formation where we had fewer than 4 shots on goal (Tottenham, 2), plus the Arsenal game when we played 442 diamond (also 2).
Goals in CL/PL games are pretty evenly spread between penalty/set pieces, counterattack goals and established play goals.
Stats aren't everything, but they certainly don't support your opinion either.
Sorry, what? That's just laughable. Liverpool has a world class squad. And what is more, the system they play requires a world class squad to implement. They play with extreme risk - high pressure, high defensive line, and total attacking commitment by the full backs. A normal team plays like that, they get hammered 4 times out of 5. It's not a system that makes poor players good, it's a system that allows very good players to have maximum effect.
Leeds/Southampton: I would point out that a fair few of the players in top clubs have at some point played for a smaller club in England. Virgil van Dijk didn't suddenly become a world class centre back the moment he signed his transfer papers. There are certainly quite a few players in smaller clubs who would have merited playing time in United or other big clubz. St. Maximin, Kalvin Phillips, about half the Everton starting XI, Tarkowski, Grealish, Watkins, Mings, Douglas Luiz, Declan Rice, Lamptey....
Last edited:
Yeah no, they dont. Their fans will say the same. They have 3 maybe 4 world class players. Their squad most definitely isn't world class.Actually, we have more shots and more shots on goal this season per PL game when playing 4231 than we had during our unbeaten run from 1 February onwards last season - 16.1/5.9 this year, versus 13.5/5.5 then. There's actually been just one game with that formation where we had fewer than 4 shots on goal (Tottenham, 2), plus the Arsenal game when we played 442 diamond (also 2).
Goals in CL/PL games are pretty evenly spread between penalty/set pieces, counterattack goals and established play goals.
Stats aren't everything, but they certainly don't support your opinion either.
Sorry, what? That's just laughable. Liverpool has a world class squad. And what is more, the system they play requires a world class squad to implement. They play with extreme risk - high pressure, high defensive line, and total attacking commitment by the full backs. A normal team plays like that, they get hammered 4 times out of 5. It's not a system that makes poor players good, it's a system that allows very good players to have maximum effect.
Klopp has the Fergie effect in which he can get the utter most out of his players and then some.
Actually, we have more shots and more shots on goal this season per PL game when playing 4231 than we had during our unbeaten run from 1 February onwards last season - 16.1/5.9 this year, versus 13.5/5.5 then. There's actually been just one game with that formation where we had fewer than 4 shots on goal (Tottenham, 2), plus the Arsenal game when we played 442 diamond (also 2).
Goals in CL/PL games are pretty evenly spread between penalty/set pieces, counterattack goals and established play goals.
Stats aren't everything, but they certainly don't support your opinion either.
Sorry, what? That's just laughable. Liverpool has a world class squad. And what is more, the system they play requires a world class squad to implement. They play with extreme risk - high pressure, high defensive line, and total attacking commitment by the full backs. A normal team plays like that, they get hammered 4 times out of 5. It's not a system that makes poor players good, it's a system that allows very good players to have maximum effect.
Sorry why are we taking a random selection of games only? Your stats aren't even correct, the Brighton game we had only 3 on target playing 4231. None of your random selection changes the overall figure anyway.
Out of 9 league games we had 4 shots or fewer in 5 of them, 2 games only having 2 on target. 9th in the league.
Not making any particular argument over those figures other than they don't support the posters claim.
Not even touching that Liverpool comment, absolute nonsense.
How many teams in the world have more than 4 world class players in their team, though?
If you have that many world class players and the team isn't insanely unbalanced, then you have a world class team, imo.
Basic common sense dictates that you don't win the Champion's League and then the PL by 19 points if you have anything other than a world class squad (and "world class squad" doesn't mean you have world class players in every position, although Liverpool certainly has more than 3-4). I also strongly doubt that "their fans will say the same", except for the minority of fans who are excessively trustful of what happens inside their own heads when they watch football and insufficiently prepared to do some basic reality checks on the judgments they form as a result. I suppose Liverpool have those just like we do. The notion that there are managers who somehow turn an average or just fairly good squad into dominance at that level is just fantasy - it's got nothing to do with reality. No one does that. You can maybe transform Atalanta from also-rans to a CL club, or Leeds from a good Championship side to a middling PL side, but you don't do what Liverpool does.
Last edited:
This is true but you look at the teams man for man and I think Liverpool come up short for teams considered world class today.
I'd honestly argue their team from 09 was better man for man than this Liverpool team. This Liverpool team is a better team though.
Jordan Henderson is the embodiment of that Liverpool team. He's literally an average player who's become dominant under klopp.
We saw it for years at United. Would the O'Shea's, the parks, the Sylvestres etc all have won as much as they did elsewhere? They were all solid players and that was down to saf getting the most out of them.
That's just not true though, is it? Watch the first half against City at the Etihad in the league last season. We outplayed them for big periods of that half before we ran out of steam. There was very little sitting back and hoping for a counter there, we went blow for blow. That too, was accomplished with the likes of Lingard and a highly doubted Fred and McTominay at the time.
What Ole needs and what we need are better players. We have a good squad, but it can be improved. And how it should be improved, is by improving the first XI and demoting the likes of McTominay, Fred, etc to squad player status.
Lets take our latest game vs Southampton on Sunday. Two nil down at half time. Ole makes a good personnel change (Cavani for Greenwood) which is good game/player management (not coaching). Cavani's individual impact on the game is huge with his wealth of talent as arguably, still a world class centre forward. This brings out the best in Fernandes and between them, they effectively win us the game with individual brilliance and instinctive finishing. Nothing to do with a cutting edge, modern coached system, just out and out brilliant individualism which without, we go down to another miserable defeat to a mid table club. Nothing against Ole, that's what I would have done in his position at half time but I'm not a world class football coach.
My view is if Ole took over at Leeds, Wolves or Southampton for example, at the time their current managers did 2-3 years ago, could he have them so well drilled and coached that they would be contending as mid to top half PL Clubs today? Who knows, but I would have serious doubts. That's my point. This isn't an Ole out brigade point, its a football observation.
I can't remember us sacrificing defensive stability for goals against City under Solskjaer. We just haven't played front foot football against the the likes of City and Liverpool. We play compact where the CBs, the two mids and fullbacks occupy designated spaces deep in our own half. A team that plays front football plays a high risk game whereby the CBs for periods of the game are defending in 1v1 situations something we did try against Spurs at OT this season but it ended up badly with a thrashing hence Solskjaer reverting to type soon after.
At this rate, Klopp will get a Knighthood. Reading posts on here makes me feel like he has reached the same level as Sir Alex Ferguson already, and at such a young age too.
I'm with you on this. However if the manager makes a change that changes the game I wouldn't totally discredit him.
You are correct - I personally think Ole's best win was that 2-0 versus City when we actually turned up and pressed them for 90mins. Let's not pretend that was front football though, we had lass than 30% possession but, in truth, that is the best way to beat City. Versus Liverpool last season we were competitive but I think we definitely went for the draw over the win - as I recall we played 5 at the back in the 1-1 & the 2-0 loss.
It riled people up when LVG said Ole is a defensive coach but it is true & there's no shame in taking a cautious approach in the games against 'attacking' teams.
- This is not a random selection of games. It's every PL game we've played since 1 February using a 4231 formation, which is every PL game but three. I think it's reasonable to assume the choice of formation affects shots output, but there are only two PL games in that span not accounted for (since I do mention the Arsenal result). One was the win over City last season, when we played 352. The other the game last round against Southampton. In the former we had, as expected, few shots (though we won 2-0), against Southampton we did have a fairly average number of shots (15/6, if I remember correctly)
- Sorry, you are right about Brighton - I was overly hasty and looked at the wrong column. The stats come from PL website.
- What you wrote was that we had 2 or 3 shots in a bunch of games. Which is not true.
- In any case, it's not as if 3 or 4 shots on goal is an extreme stat clearly signifying a spectacularly bad performance. Our average is after all 5-6, and quite a few PL games are won with that number of shots on goal.
- Your views on Liverpool's squad defy basic common sense. You put far too much trust in your own subjective judgment.
@rotherham_red
But the last post in response to you doesn't mean I can't change my mind on Ole. Because if I see things I like and feel he can get us to challenge for the title then I'll be the first to praise him.
We're on the same side bro..
But the last post in response to you doesn't mean I can't change my mind on Ole. Because if I see things I like and feel he can get us to challenge for the title then I'll be the first to praise him.
We're on the same side bro..
Agree with you here. A good solution in my view is to just drop the whole futile debate over what's due to Ole and what's due to other factors. Firstly because it's not really possible to tell what's due to what, certainly not for general fans, and secondly because what matters is in any case how the team develops and performs. If things develop really badly then sooner or later the club will have to ask difficult questions over whether there's reason to assume current management can turn that around. But discussing things like whether it's Bruno or the coaching that has brought improvement is just pointless.
We'll only know if Ole is able to win titles when we have a squad that is good enough to do that. I don't think we're there yet.
It's weird when evaluating coaching. There are times where I agree we don't look coached at all. But then there are times like PSG, Leipzig and Southampton where he's proven to drill the team extremely well for a difficult opponent. I think his ability to deal with Leipzig and Southampton specifically marks a tangible improvement from last season, because a gripe we all had was an inability to deal with a press. He's addressed that and arguably found a successful formula against such teams too, so that suggests he is coaching us toward a positive path.
It points to signs of an inexperienced yet growing manager, so you'd hope his trajectory does not stagnate or else yes, it might be another man required to lead us to titles.
It points to signs of an inexperienced yet growing manager, so you'd hope his trajectory does not stagnate or else yes, it might be another man required to lead us to titles.
If shots statistics tell anything that actually confirms contex, it must be what we all know - that we had a down period at the beginning of the season due to no preseason. We lost the shots stats against CP, BAHA and TH, the latter two by landslides, and after that, we have not lost the shots statistic once in the league, rather, we’ve generally had the same level of dominance on shots that we had in the summer and in late Winter. This points to the firsr three games as an anomaly, while what comes after and precedes it is more representative of our current level. This is confirmed also in our running stats and xG stats. First three games, we were lucky to get 3 of 9 points. After that, we’ve had 4-1-1 in the league, in addition to some very good wins in the CL.
I’m not quite on board with your claim that game management is not part of coaching. Quite the contrary, in my view it’s the core part of the coaching. We also know many if not most managers/entrenadores/head coaches leave the running of training ground practices in a large degree to their assistant staff, so when you talk about coaching in the way you do,It seema to me you are talking about how much of the attacking moves of the team has been pre-planned. Where a coach like Guardiola prefers a tightly structured ship, where only a few players have creative freedom, Solskjær is more a believer in demanding and allowing attacking players to express themselves and find solution by way of creativity. Rigid structure has proved efficient in getting lesser players to overachieve as a team, while Guardiola have used it to get good players to consistently beat lesser players. Solskjærs method is dependent on getting young players to mature and getting crative players to come in and to gel, so it takes more time. In the end, it’s a good shout that team will be more robust against different strategies of other teams though, which is a weakness with Guardiola as well as with most over-achieving underdogs. We’ll have to wait and see how far Solskjær can take it.
It’s ironic LVG said that, as his possession focus has been criticized since the last millenium for being too cautious. Under him, we stopped outside the box for fear of losing the ball. Possession football is more of a defensive strategy as an attacking one. Solskjærs call for fast direct attacking football (which his players manage sometimes, sometimes not, as of yet) is much more risky. It’s much more go for the throat as opposed to Van Gaals Python chokehold tactics.
I wonder why people keep saying that. Below a picture of all games since after-lockdown when we faced "poor" teams.
Doesn't seem much of an issue. One lost game against CP, one should-be-lost against Brighton but that was in the good ol' Pogba-Matic days this season.
Not only that. In last 10 games (since dropping Pogba-Matic), we've conceded 9 goals: 2x own goal, 2x freekick, 1x corner header, 1x long ball (header duel lost), 1x penalty, 2x counter. Our main focus should be dealing with headers (McTominay could prove useful), and freekicks (not sure what's the problem here). Or maybe just not conceding fouls around the box. The positive is we're really good at defending in open play. One worry that really is an issue is De Gea form this season.
I don't know if you can blame it on coaching. Maguire seems to be attempting headers from corner every game, he just isn't very good at striking the ball. You also can't learn Lindelof to win headers, those are our weak spots but IMO very exaggerated (and down to personnel raher coaching IMO). I think we've lost same number own-goals as we've conceded by losing an aerial duel.
This is very important point IMO. People tend to see result and based on that say it was a good or a bad game for us. For example, we played better against WBA than against Everton (more good chances created, just couldn't finish). We also were unlycky with the score against Southampton (zero big chances converted in first half). We had similar chances against RB Lipsk (where we really didn't play that great, it's just in Champions League teams tend to leave us much more space in behind), just somehow we scored 5 goals from 6 shots (Rashford lucky day). We had the same number of shots on goal vs Soton but yeah, people tend to remember the results, not how well we played.
I'd say we're playing rather consistently, especially considering there is no "first XI" (apart from back 5) these days.
A lot of you are missing the point. Coaches like Klopp, Biesla, Hassenhuttl make the team play better. As a team. Forget about Klopp for now because he is the best coach in town.
Give the Southampton squad or Leeds squad to Ole and he is not going to make them play any better than what they are doing now.
People are talking about Bale, Van Dijk etc. They were good players but became better players after they moved from Southampton.
Keane was a good player at Forest. He became a great player at United.
Would anyone of us want Bamford as our CF?
Or Walcott instead of Rashford or Martial. Or any of the other Southampton players over our best 11?
The credit for bringing on Cavani goes to Ole. What I say is that a top class coach would get us to play better as a team rather than as brilliant individual players.
Give the Southampton squad or Leeds squad to Ole and he is not going to make them play any better than what they are doing now.
People are talking about Bale, Van Dijk etc. They were good players but became better players after they moved from Southampton.
Keane was a good player at Forest. He became a great player at United.
Would anyone of us want Bamford as our CF?
Or Walcott instead of Rashford or Martial. Or any of the other Southampton players over our best 11?
The credit for bringing on Cavani goes to Ole. What I say is that a top class coach would get us to play better as a team rather than as brilliant individual players.
That's the problem, you took after lockdown stats. We have done very well since Bruno signing too, wonder how we will do if he misses few games against deeper defensive teams. Going by last season, it's not good enough,
Lost only 1 game vs Top 6 team but 5 games vs bottom 6-7 teams.
If Bruno is fit then we should be good enough.
Well that's not the problem you defined in previous post. I took 18 games for the most representative period, which is after lockdow.
If you said "I worry what happens if Bruno is out" I'd agree, but you clearly said you were worried about us being inconsistent in beating poor teams, which is clearly not the case as the results show.
Yes, I said we are not consistent, so we won't be getting 90+ points which is needed to win the league. Do you disagree with that?
"Give the Southampton squad or Leeds squad to Ole and he is not going to make them play any better than what they are doing now."
This is based on nothing. Ole has a wealth of experience managing a small club in Norway and making them overachieve on top of a good spell as reserve team coach at United even before being hired as interim manager at United. His CV was certainly equal if not more impressive than Zidane before being given the Madrid job or Pep before the Barca job. I think Ole's time at United shows that he's very capable of getting any team organized effectively and good on the transitions. He may not physically destroy his players like a Bielsa (who BTW while a great coach is never one who'll win you a lot of trophies) or be ideological about his playing style like most modern managers these days doesn't mean he could not or would not be successful. Its really not that uncommon for top clubs to hire from within or get managers who haven't managed at top clubs before doesn't mean they are hiring PE teachers.
I will admit though that part of the reason I am so hesitant to even consider replacing managers is because within our structure of Woodward, Glazers and the manager, Ole is the only one whom I can trust knows what United should be, aspires to emulate it, and isn't overawed in the face of the challenge. You'll never hear him putting down the club's "heritage" in a press conference to big up his own stature, nor would you ever expect the kind of defeatist attitude I saw from the likes of Poch or LvG regarding recruitment and ambitions. I know if Ole's our manager he cares about United's success than what the United job can do for his managerial legacy.
Which ones of Alisson, VVD, TAA, Robertson, Mane, Salah, Fabinho, Thiago and Firmino is not top 10 in their position in the world? Their squad players isn't half bad either with NT players for top nations all over the place: Henderson, Oxlade, Milner and Gomes (England), Shaqiri (Switzerland), Wijnaldum (Netherland), Origi (Belgium), Jota (Portugal), Keita, Matip etc.
If that is not a world class squad, I don't know what qualifies. There is maybe just 1 or 2 squads out there with similar quality at the moment (City and Bayern)
Not ironic at all, it's accurate. This isn't a positive or negative for Ole FYI, it's just an observation. LVG tried to play attacking football - occasionally it worked really well but it was usually a slog, although much of that was down the ADM, Falcao, Depay transfers. If even one of them had worked out as we hoped we might think very differently about his time here, although he did bring us Martial. he tried something very different and sadly it didn't work.
Ole is more pragmatic. He's not as passive as someone like Mourinho but he is definitely a cautious coach - hence the trend of a defensively minded double pivot and our super direct style. We don't try to play football in dangerous areas, we release a striker, try a high risk ball or go back to our CBs. Our best games with him have come when we've almost surrendered possession and just wait to break (2-0 City, 2-0 Chelsea away, 2-1 City away). Essentially I think Ole's approach to most games is that he believes we'll always create opportunities with the quality we have in the team but his first priority has been to stop us conceding/make us compact. It has made for some uncomfortable moments this season like Brighton, WBA and Soton where I do think we've started too cautiously and then have a race against time to save ourselves but it undeniably makes us hard to beat.
Top 10 in the world is classed as WC?
DDG is probably still top 10 - is he WC?
Telles is pron in the top 10 - is he WC?
Bruno is top 10
Poba is top 10 - if you take NT players on top nations, world cup final scorer.
Rashford is top 10 winger
Martial is top 10 forward
Firminho is not WC. The reason these players look WC is because they are playing in a very good system. Trent has done 0 in the England set up.
If you are then talking about top nations then Cavani, Donny are all there too.
How many were world class before they joined Liverpool? That's the imporant part.
I am sort of on the fence. What we are doing is relying on individual brilliance to open up teams rather than collective brilliance.
When we come up against teams that sit back we kind of struggle to break them down.
The lack of consistency is so frustrating.
When we come up against teams that sit back we kind of struggle to break them down.
The lack of consistency is so frustrating.
You said:
Gaining 48 out of 54 (calculated) points in 18 games against poor teams, with goal difference of +32 means it's we're on the level of 2,66 points per game for lesser opponents. So if we assume we have 13 of those clubs, we make 13x2x2,6=69 points, and we'd need to get 21 points from 12 games against Liverpool/ManCity/Chelsea/Tottenham/Arsenal/Leicester which seems doable to me basing on last season, not so this season.
So yeah, I disagree that we might not be able to get 90 points because we are "inconsistent" at beating poor teams. Our problem is we got 1 point out of 9 against those top teams this season, rather than not winning against lesser sides.
EDIT:
Last season we got 1,71 pts/game against top teams, so we'd be targetting 20,6 points for those 12 games which is exactly 90points in summary.
Last edited:
Do people really think the title winner will be on 90 points this season? I know this is slightly offtopic, but seems remarkable people assume this.