We have only one centre back who understands the basic principle of taking man or ball when breaking rank?

Lindelof is a truly awful defender and gets off lightly because everyone wants to focus on Maguire.

Yep, Maguire's woeful year of form seems to have made everyone wrongly think Lindelof is a decent alternative.

I see a slightly lesser theme around Martial and Rashy after Ronaldo's summer and lack of form this year, despite everyone moaning about both of them for 2-3 years.
 
Lindelof is a liability even as a third choice. You don't ever want him in a United side. He's too soft. I'd rather have a third choice with some aggression to him. Maybe he makes more mistakes than Varane and Martinez but he confronts attackers and doesn't give the opposition all the confidence in the world.

It's right to say you're not going to have world class backup centre halves, but I think we need to rework what we have. Either get some younger bodies in that can improve or a more suitable style than Maguire and Lindelof. These two are never going to improve, they're as good as they're ever gonna be.
 
Totally at fault for the first goal. If you're going to follow your man out like that you either have to step back earlier, or make sure he doesn't play the pass into the space you've just vacated. It doesn't require a tackle.

Third goal is the fault of multiple players. Far from just Lindelof although a lot think a player should always take his man out in that situation, that's an English thing I think.
 
Lindelof played like he is Maldini and don't need to get into hard tackles.
Maldini can do that because of his excellent reading of play and anticipation. Lindelof should just keep it basic and do what an average premier league defender should do. That is only what we expect for a backup defender. Stop overthink and keep it simple. When you need to be ugly and stop an attacker, do whatever you can to stop the play.
 
Lindelof was pathetic for the third goal. Should have just cleaned out the Villa man 5-10 yards outside the box. Martinez is one of the few in the squad with the required aggression, full stop.

And sometimes yes, taking man and/or ball is required. There are good yellows. We only give away cheap yellows. We're still quite a navie team.

Lindelof and Maguire are so frustratingly passive that it makes me borderline hate them, because they come off as scared. I'd rather have Marcos Rojo or Eric Bailly back there flying into everything and playing borderline dangerously than some puss CB that never makes a challenge and defends like he just doesn't want to be put on a highlight reel instead of actually trying to win possession.
 
Lindelof and Maguire are atrocious when it comes to getting the basics right. Maguire gets the majority of the stick but Lindelof is just as bad!
 
If we were proactive in our squad building, we would be looking to get a transfer fee by shifting Lindelof (or Maguire) and convince Skriniar to join on a free in the summer.
 
If we are playing a low block, I would agree with you. You know you are outnumbered and there won't be enough legs moving back so let me take a foul and let others come back. That's the basic idea of defending from front. Whatever you explained is passive defending where you let the attacker make a call what to so next.
You make a good point about 'defending from the front' which is something which we've been lacking at, for a long time now. And defending from the front basically means the head coach wants you to play proactive attacking football with and without the ball.

The issue here imo is that certain players are not suited to playing that way due to a lack of physical, athletic and aggressive (controlled aggression) capabilities. Defending from the front requires the players to be aggressive and win your individual duels.
 
Maguire is a much better defender but because he wants to play left centre back he's competing with martinez whereas lindelof gets all the games Varane misses which is unfortunately a lot
 
Pretty sure this “fundamental code of conduct” isn’t a thing, at any level of football.

If central defenders deliberately wiped someone out every time they step out of their defensive line to harry an opposition player - but don’t end up winning the ball - we would literally never see a game end with 22 players still on the pitch.
It’s fundamental even amongst kids properly learning how to be centre-backs and should be honed to a point by the time they’re playing in a top league.

Taking a player out doesn’t have to mean pole-axing him; they are often seen as tactical fouls, little niggles that refs don’t pull up unless the CB hasn’t the finesse to play it off. If they pre-emptively disrupt the attacker before they’ve fully done them, it barely looks like a foul, and certainly not a play they’re going to get a red for, if even a card.
 
Realistically both maguire and lindelof aren’t what we need or good enough for united. Good players don’t get me wrong, just not what we need. If we could sell them both and replace them both we really should.
 
It’s fundamental even amongst kids properly learning how to be centre-backs and should be honed to a point by the time they’re playing in a top league.

Taking a player out doesn’t have to mean pole-axing him; they are often seen as tactical fouls, little niggles that refs don’t pull up unless the CB hasn’t the finesse to play it off. If they pre-emptively disrupt the attacker before they’ve fully done them, it barely looks like a foul, and certainly not a play they’re going to get a red for, if even a card.

Nah man, that’s bollox.

My son plays centre back for a decent team, for a coach who has his UEFA badges. He’s never been taught to win the ball or else foul whenever he steps out of the defensive line. Which is what you imply is some sort of golden rule in the OP.

Obviously, they’re coached to only step out when they’re confident of winning the ball. But if that doesn’t work they have plenty of options other than committing a foul. Which is an absolute last resort. At any level.
 
Nah man, that’s bollox.

My son plays centre back for a decent team, for a coach who has his UEFA badges. He’s never been taught to win the ball or else foul whenever he steps out of the defensive line. Which is what you imply is some sort of golden rule in the OP.

Obviously, they’re coached to only step out when they’re confident of winning the ball. But if that doesn’t work they have plenty of options other than committing a foul. Which is an absolute last resort. At any level.

ErFHT0zXYAMvHIf.jpg
 
Nah man, that’s bollox.

My son plays centre back for a decent team, for a coach who has his UEFA badges. He’s never been taught to win the ball or else foul whenever he steps out of the defensive line. Which is what you imply is some sort of golden rule in the OP.

Obviously, they’re coached to only step out when they’re confident of winning the ball. But if that doesn’t work they have plenty of options other than committing a foul. Which is an absolute last resort. At any level.
How old is your son? Are there any dark arts at his age group yet? Because they are all introduced as you make your way through the ranks, as they should be. You don’t just come out a pro knowing when to do the snide, cynical stuff, you learn and refine it and smooth it to a point (if you’re good at that stuff) over years of execution - and I think that goes for any physical sport.

What we have in our CB’s is a naïveté and innocence that has no place in professional football, which is why it looks so absurd and comical - Benny Hill stuff - when such runarounds happen. Ball or man is etched in stone tablet!
 
How old is your son? Are there any dark arts at his age group yet? Because they are all introduced as you make your way through the ranks, as they should be. You don’t just come out a pro knowing when to do the snide, cynical stuff, you learn and refine it and smooth it to a point (if you’re good at that stuff) over years of execution - and I think that goes for any physical sport.

What we have in our CB’s is a naïveté and innocence that has no place in professional football, which is why it looks so absurd and comical - Benny Hill stuff - when such runarounds happen. Ball or man is etched in stone tablet!

He plays U14. They’re taught about being aggressive and physical, getting their body between man and ball, how to nudge an attacker off balance before challenging for a high ball. That sort of thing. But I can’t imagine any coach teaching up and coming centre backs that every time they come out of the defensive line they either win the ball or clatter someone. Dunno about stone tablets but that seems like stone age football! You don’t see it in top flight football either. Very occasionally a CB who gets it badly wrong will wipe someone out as an absolute last resort but it’s an infrequent occurrence. Not unless Harry Maguire is having one of his increasingly frequent shockers anyway.
 
He plays U14. They’re taught about being aggressive and physical, getting their body between man and ball, how to nudge an attacker off balance before challenging for a high ball. That sort of thing. But I can’t imagine any coach teaching up and coming centre backs that every time they come out of the defensive line they either win the ball or clatter someone. Dunno about stone tablets but that seems like stone age football! You don’t see it in top flight football either. Very occasionally a CB who gets it badly wrong will wipe someone out as an absolute last resort but it’s an infrequent occurrence. Not unless Harry Maguire is having one of his increasingly frequent shockers anyway.
You're going off on a tangent I've already stated isn't the way I look at it with that clatter stuff. Play can be immediately disrupted and halted the moment the CB feels his man getting away from him, as this post exemplifies. Subtle taking out of the attacker is par for the course... until you have incompetent defenders who make a pig's ear of the process - the type that frequently get carded because they've turned the somewhat innocuous into a kerfuffle.

I really like that clip because it is the perfect way to take out the forward without anyone really batting an eye. Lindelof could have easily prevented the rolling and losing his bearing by committing a petty foul - it didn't even have to be card-worthy, and most likely wouldn't have been - instead of blindly chasing into no man's land - it's what everyone watching would have expected rather than the clusterfeck we got treated to instead.
 
You're going off on a tangent I've already stated isn't the way I look at it with that clatter stuff. Play can be immediately disrupted and halted the moment the CB feels his man getting away from him, as this post exemplifies. Subtle taking out of the attacker is par for the course... until you have incompetent defenders who make a pig's ear of the process - the type that frequently get carded because they've turned the somewhat innocuous into a kerfuffle.

I really like that clip because it is the perfect way to take out the forward without anyone really batting an eye. Lindelof could have easily prevented the rolling and losing his bearing by committing a petty foul - it didn't even have to be card-worthy, and most likely wouldn't have been - instead of blindly chasing into no man's land - it's what everyone watching would have expected rather than the clusterfeck we got treated to instead.

If you’d started a thread saying we need our centre backs to defend better I’d have agree with you. But you didn’t. And I disagree with the notion that if a centre back doesn’t win the ball he must take out his man. That’s just not true. And there’s loads of examples of top class centre backs who are well capable of dealing with situations like you describe without resorting to fouls or “taking out the attacker”. Watch some Rio Ferdinand highlight reels if you don’t believe me.
 
There is literally a clip of Lindelof ducking for a shot because he’s that scared of any physical contact. That shot was a goal by the way.

And he might have blocked it if he didn’t duck. It happened a while back and I can look it up if anyone’s interested.
 
Totally at fault for the first goal. If you're going to follow your man out like that you either have to step back earlier, or make sure he doesn't play the pass into the space you've just vacated. It doesn't require a tackle.

Third goal is the fault of multiple players. Far from just Lindelof although a lot think a player should always take his man out in that situation, that's an English thing I think.

To be fair, for the 1st goal Casemiro has to show more awareness and drop into the back four.

The 3rd goal is bad from both CBs at a horrible time in the game when we're pushing for the equaliser. Bad giveaway by Martinez and shocking from Lindelof, backpedalling into his own penalty area.

There was a game he did that last season and it cost us a goal, which one was it? There was a big debate on here about it....for me, I have played plenty at CB and I understand the need to buy time before you engage but you can't back off 35/40 yards that's ludicrous
 
It's not strictly a CB problem. We're fairly passive, fairly docile in general. Martinez and casemiro have added steel but there's a general reluctance among the others to employ tactical fouls. You can't have only two individuals taking every tactical foul or they'll be sent off every game. The collective have to share the burden and be willing to curb breakaways nice and early. The earlier the less likely of a card to show. City are pretty good at this. The amount of times teams run from their box to ours without even feeling so much as a nudge can be irritating.
 
If you’d started a thread saying we need our centre backs to defend better I’d have agree with you. But you didn’t. And I disagree with the notion that if a centre back doesn’t win the ball he must take out his man. That’s just not true. And there’s loads of examples of top class centre backs who are well capable of dealing with situations like you describe without resorting to fouls or “taking out the attacker”. Watch some Rio Ferdinand highlight reels if you don’t believe me.
If a centre back breaks rank he must win the ball or disrupt the play so that he is not bypassed leaving gaping holes to be exploited - the only time this isn't a 'rule' is in a 3-man backline where you have cover in place expected to sweep up behind the proactive CB, but even then, you don't expect to see CB's selling themselves so short they've missed both man and ball. It is amateurish in the extreme.

CB's capable of dealing with situations like this don't find themselves in no man's land so comically in the first place to make it a talking point and have fans asking just wtf are they playing at letting themselves be bypassed in such absurd ways.

Getting beat by your man in a normal run of play is not the same as voluntarily leaving your team in jeopardy because you've taken it upon yourself, of your own volition, to go miles out to meet a threat. In that instance you have to deal with the situation because you caused it! From subtle spoiling to outright clattering (as an absolute last resort) it's imperative you, as the blunderer, clean up your mess.
 
Lindelof is a truly awful defender and gets off lightly because everyone wants to focus on Maguire.
We have a lot of players that are not good enough + have been neglected with regards to coaching.
 
If you’d started a thread saying we need our centre backs to defend better I’d have agree with you. But you didn’t. And I disagree with the notion that if a centre back doesn’t win the ball he must take out his man. That’s just not true. And there’s loads of examples of top class centre backs who are well capable of dealing with situations like you describe without resorting to fouls or “taking out the attacker”. Watch some Rio Ferdinand highlight reels if you don’t believe me.

I think it's probably that if you're going to leave the backline AND you can't force the attacker backwards, you then have to foul. If you can keep him from turning and he just passes it back to a defender it's okay and the fullbacks or Casemiro should help cover the space, or the line moves up, but you can't leave the backline to go chase someone and then let them turn and face you or make a pass forward.
 
Yeah Lindelof made a couple of mistakes and Villa punished them ruthlessly, but he's fine as a 3rd choice CB. We conceded 3 goals from 0.6 xG for example. Our defence wasn't the issue today. They were clinical and it was one of those days from a defensive POV, where even if we were on it from an attacking POV that we'd have struggled to overcome an early 2-0 deficit. But Our issue was clearly the attack, which is easily explained by not being able to play with Martial, Sancho, Antony, Bruno, and it being only a few months into Ten Hag's tenure... and that we just aren't a club yet that can handle those absences or even without them, be able to be undefeated for a whole season.

Well, that I think is pushing it. All three Villa goals resulted from the sort of defensive errors you have to assume will be punished by an effective opponent. Also, they were far from unique occurences.
 
True, there is something missing in the OP: Is the CB covered by someone else? Most often we see this kind of CB going forward in back three formations, where he can be definitely covered and doesn’t have to worry about this.

Similar movements happen in back four formations that use a conservative fullback who can move inside to cover.

If a CB however does such a charge and knows that he isn't covered well, then he has to take the risk of having to commit a foul. And this kind of uncovered charge rarely happens in matches, that's why it rarely leeds to severe consequences.

It has been a notable, and I think significant, fact that it has often been Martinez having to move inside to cover for Lindelof or Maguire, rather than the other way around.
 
Lindelof is a truly awful defender and gets off lightly because everyone wants to focus on Maguire.
You haven´t visited his thread much? He gets absolutely roasted in there :lol:
 
The first goal is confusing because I expect him to be there with the attacker. It's halfway line and you would expect your midfield to cover that space. The only problem I had was that he ran with him for too long without doing anything. Casemiro should have been covering that space. Normally he does.
 
Well, that I think is pushing it. All three Villa goals resulted from the sort of defensive errors you have to assume will be punished by an effective opponent. Also, they were far from unique occurences.
A free kick and a counter attack and a clinical finish. Eh. It'll happen now and then. No team can keep everything out. We conceded 0.6 xG as I said. They finished clinically, we did feck all in attack mainly due to absences.
 
It is common knowledge that Lindelof is weak and Maguire is slow, and that they both face huge problems whenever they're asked to defend bigger spaces, either in front of them//behind or in the wide areas. There's no use beating a dead horse. The ultimate sign, the other day, which points toward Lindelof's lack of quality at this level, wasn't his decision-making as much as it was the simple fact that Ollie freaking Watkins made him his bitch in the entire game.

Other than that, there's no basic principle saying that the centre-half has to give away a foul, which will result in a crossing opportunity and will bring most of the outfield players inside your box. Not when there are defenders behind that can still cope with the situation. Really, none whatsoever. The professional fouling, that both Pep and Klopp love so much, occurs higher up the pitch, its purpose is to prevent a direct route to goal and it allows the players to get back to their pressing positions when the play resumes.

The thing is, we know the deficiencies of both Victor and Harry. We have to live with them, since it's impossible to assemble two world-class starting line-ups. What hurt us on Sunday is that the pressing fell apart with Ronaldo and Beek, leaving acres of space for AV to exploit, and that our game with the ball leaves so much to be desired that every mistake that happens at the back seems like a catastrophe of epic proportions. Well, the mistakes centre-halves and goalkeepers do are often scrutinized because they usually cost goals. But defending is something the whole team has to be involved in. You know what i see when i look at the first goal: A Rashford who's initially thinking about helping Lindelof (which would have forced them to stay wide or go backward) but then decides "nah, feck this shite, it's beneath me". An Eriksen who has absolutely no clue what's going on behind him and makes the wrong decision. A Dalot who falls for the decoy run and then never bothers to tuck inside. Lindelof assessed the situation correctly, he just couldn't cope with the attacker. But that's who he is as a player. The team and the manager have to make up for that whenever Varane isn't available.

As i said, both Lindelof and Maguire will eventually have to be replaced. There's no need for a witch-hunt. Our worst defender at Villa Park on Sunday was our best player in the season thus far. It was his brain fart that forced Shaw to concede a foul in a dangerous area that led to AV's second goal. It was also his hospital pass that forced Lindelof into a difficult situation in the first place for AV's third goal. Should we crucify him, too?

Even the best defence in the world would struggle to maintain a high line by enforcing a proactive game, week in and week out, for a team that struggles to score more than a goal per game.
 
A free kick and a counter attack and a clinical finish. Eh. It'll happen now and then. No team can keep everything out. We conceded 0.6 xG as I said. They finished clinically, we did feck all in attack mainly due to absences.

That's too simple. How did that free kick come about? What happened leading up to Bailey's run? And the third was not so much a clinical finish as a defence that allowed itself to collapse down to the five meter line, with no one picking up the follow-up further out in the box. All three were clear instances of poor defending, which United was guilty of throughout this game. Which is often how you end up conceding 3 goals from a low xG.

Not questioning that our attacking performance was also poor (actually our lowest xG recorded this season!). Along with our midfield game.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
That's too simple. How did that free kick come about? What happened leading up to Bailey's run? And the third was not so much a clinical finish as a defence that allowed itself to collapse down to the five meter line, with no one picking up the follow-up further out in the box. All three were clear instances of poor defending, which United was guilty of throughout this game. Which is often how you end up conceding 3 goals from a low xG.

Not questioning that our attacking performance was also poor (actually our lowest xG recorded this season!). Along with our midfield game.
Teams get chances. Teams will get free kicks in dangerous positions. No team is perfect. The xG point is that they scored 3 from roughly half a goals worth. I'm not saying we didn't make some mistakes, but mistakes happen in every game. Sometimes you get punished, sometimes you don't. Most times you don't concede 3 from half an xG. It's nothing about a trend to concede more from low xG. That's completely against what xG actually means.
 
Teams get chances. Teams will get free kicks in dangerous positions. No team is perfect. The xG point is that they scored 3 from roughly half a goals worth. I'm not saying we didn't make some mistakes, but mistakes happen in every game. Sometimes you get punished, sometimes you don't. Most times you don't concede 3 from half an xG. It's nothing about a trend to concede more from low xG. That's completely against what xG actually means.

I think I'll just recommend Kwesty'a analysis here.
 
I think I'll just recommend Kwesty'a analysis here.
Sure he analyzed a few moments in the game. My point is teams will let chances now and then, that's literally inevitable. I'm not saying Lindelof didn't make a couple of mistakes, I'm saying on the balance of the game, we didn't concede a crazy amount, and our xG conceded points to that. They took their chances well, but there wasn't a whole lot of chances. A free kick from 30-35 yards out that the wall would have stopped if it was in the right spot is nothing other than a good free kick and a mental feck up by the ref and our players for not protesting it more. The problem in the game was our inability to progress up the pitch and make sustained attacks. Defensively, yeah we conceded 3 but that's something that will happen now and then. I'd be more concerned with our defensive performance if we had conceded 2+ xG even if we kept a clean sheet - because that would point to us just being lucky. I don't see the use in picking apart every goal like crazy (backup CB got dragged out for goal 1 and didn't win his duel or foul like he was supposed to, or a random free kick resulted in a goal because of a refereeing mistake/our player not taking it seriously enough, and then a third on the counter as we were pushing up more). It's not a sign of things to come, it hasn't been coming, because none of our previous performances had problems with any of these points.

And I would be concerned more about our attack if we didn't have 4 attackers missing. But as it was, meh. We basically had a game that was 0.5 - 0.5 in xG but lost the result away from home to a new manager bounce team with us missing half of our starting 11 and our main attacking depth. It's not a big deal. It's a one off loss in understandable circumstances.
 
Sure he analyzed a few moments in the game. My point is teams will let chances now and then, that's literally inevitable. I'm not saying Lindelof didn't make a couple of mistakes, I'm saying on the balance of the game, we didn't concede a crazy amount, and our xG conceded points to that. They took their chances well, but there wasn't a whole lot of chances. A free kick from 30-35 yards out that the wall would have stopped if it was in the right spot is nothing other than a good free kick and a mental feck up by the ref and our players for not protesting it more. The problem in the game was our inability to progress up the pitch and make sustained attacks. Defensively, yeah we conceded 3 but that's something that will happen now and then. I'd be more concerned with our defensive performance if we had conceded 2+ xG even if we kept a clean sheet - because that would point to us just being lucky. I don't see the use in picking apart every goal like crazy (backup CB got dragged out for goal 1 and didn't win his duel or foul like he was supposed to, or a random free kick resulted in a goal because of a refereeing mistake/our player not taking it seriously enough, and then a third on the counter as we were pushing up more). It's not a sign of things to come, it hasn't been coming, because none of our previous performances had problems with any of these points.

And I would be concerned more about our attack if we didn't have 4 attackers missing. But as it was, meh. We basically had a game that was 0.5 - 0.5 in xG but lost the result away from home to a new manager bounce team with us missing half of our starting 11 and our main attacking depth. It's not a big deal. It's a one off loss in understandable circumstances.

Sorry mate, you can quote the xG as many times as you like, but I simply don't agree that this was a case just-the-sort-of-thing-that-happens-every-now-and-then. Villa exploited our weaknesses effectively, and it was a poor performance defensively, in my opinion.
 
Sorry mate, you can quote the xG as many times as you like, but I simply don't agree that this was a case just-the-sort-of-thing-that-happens-every-now-and-then. Villa exploited our weaknesses effectively, and it was a poor performance defensively, in my opinion.
I will continue to quote the xG because we shouldn't let a free kick from 30 yards out be some sort of "thing that needs to be fixed". It's just a thing that happens, and will occasionally happen. The only thing worth criticizing from the free kick is the distance of the wall. Other than that? Nah. You'll concede free kicks now and then. Inevitable.

I'm not saying it was a good defensive performance, it was normal but the mistakes (that happen pretty much every game) were punished when the past 7 games they haven't been punished. Because they are low percentage chances anyway. You can always criticize some aspect from every goal. Like a shot from 40 yards out you can usually criticize that you didn't go out to close them down well enough. Doesn't stop it from being a 0.01xG chance though.

I'm sure if you looked in detail from the past 7 games, there were plenty of moments that had openings for the opposition that just fell through. We didn't deal with the situations well but they were also just punished ruthlessly, and generally our biggest issue in the game was not creating anything.
 
Last edited:
It is common knowledge that Lindelof is weak and Maguire is slow, and that they both face huge problems whenever they're asked to defend bigger spaces, either in front of them//behind or in the wide areas. There's no use beating a dead horse. The ultimate sign, the other day, which points toward Lindelof's lack of quality at this level, wasn't his decision-making as much as it was the simple fact that Ollie freaking Watkins made him his bitch in the entire game.

Other than that, there's no basic principle saying that the centre-half has to give away a foul, which will result in a crossing opportunity and will bring most of the outfield players inside your box. Not when there are defenders behind that can still cope with the situation. Really, none whatsoever. The professional fouling, that both Pep and Klopp love so much, occurs higher up the pitch, its purpose is to prevent a direct route to goal and it allows the players to get back to their pressing positions when the play resumes.

The thing is, we know the deficiencies of both Victor and Harry. We have to live with them, since it's impossible to assemble two world-class starting line-ups. What hurt us on Sunday is that the pressing fell apart with Ronaldo and Beek, leaving acres of space for AV to exploit, and that our game with the ball leaves so much to be desired that every mistake that happens at the back seems like a catastrophe of epic proportions. Well, the mistakes centre-halves and goalkeepers do are often scrutinized because they usually cost goals. But defending is something the whole team has to be involved in. You know what i see when i look at the first goal: A Rashford who's initially thinking about helping Lindelof (which would have forced them to stay wide or go backward) but then decides "nah, feck this shite, it's beneath me". An Eriksen who has absolutely no clue what's going on behind him and makes the wrong decision. A Dalot who falls for the decoy run and then never bothers to tuck inside. Lindelof assessed the situation correctly, he just couldn't cope with the attacker. But that's who he is as a player. The team and the manager have to make up for that whenever Varane isn't available.

As i said, both Lindelof and Maguire will eventually have to be replaced. There's no need for a witch-hunt. Our worst defender at Villa Park on Sunday was our best player in the season thus far. It was his brain fart that forced Shaw to concede a foul in a dangerous area that led to AV's second goal. It was also his hospital pass that forced Lindelof into a difficult situation in the first place for AV's third goal. Should we crucify him, too?

Even the best defence in the world would struggle to maintain a high line by enforcing a proactive game, week in and week out, for a team that struggles to score more than a goal per game.

My intake is the same after watching it. Sure Lindelof should have done something if he was with him for such a long time. But he also passed Rashford who could have helped him, casemiro who didn't drop into the space and I thought DeGea could have saved it too. Most days he would.