"We've beat big teams in the past and we've won big games but we've always had to do it a different way to how we prefer to do it" -Rashford

OrcaFat said:
Yeah, it’s true, we’re playing good stuff and winning big games. Mostly.

The Liv defeat really was curious in that way but if you look at the line up and formation there are a few little red flags there, I think.

I doubt Rash was saying this directly but possibly we expected to play our normal game and win. When things went wrong the players lost their heads - we saw that.

He says they didn’t give up but stopped playing in a co-ordinated way. They were in shock at 3-0, I think. With Case carrying a knock and Bruno freaking out, there was nobody getting hold of the situation.

I think they had it in their heads that they should be winning because that is their recent experience. Still a few lessons to learn in that way but the fundamental state of our being a confident team, playing our way and expecting to win is very welcome and will lead to more improvement imo.
Click to expand...

I think this (plus a perfect storm of other factors) was a contributing aspect to the scoreline. Last season we all expected it. The players probably weren't even that shocked or surprised when we lost 4 and 5 nil then. But this season it just wasn't expected, we've been playing brilliantly, won a trophy and everything was looking good. That can cause you to lose your head a lot more than if you were in rubbish form, because it's just completely at odds with everything you've recently known.
 
united_99 said:
Yeah I don’t get it either. We just beat Newcastle in the final with less than 40% possession so if he is including this in “in the past” then fair enough.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be looking solely at possession. Barca away felt like a perfect illustration of it, less possession but a sense of calmness and organisation. Even without the ball, it can certainly feel like we're in control. It's not soak it up, soak it up, soak it up then rely on a manic break to snatch a winner, just a measured ebb and flow with pointed use of the ball when we got it. Even Newcastle felt like we were completely in control, no? I never felt we wouldn't win it.
 
Possession is king. Anything else is denial.
 
Rashford is talking rubbish if he is claiming that the team hadn't given up against Liverpool. It was obvious, the breakaways they had where they outnumbered us through determination and hunger for goals vs our apathy for defending, the lack of effort on our part, the half-arsed clearance from Shaw, Bruno's tantrums. They wanted the game to end and had clearly given up. To put it down to communication is laughable.

Regarding people saying we miss Eriksen - yes we do. But he was coming in for criticism in the last few weeks he played and we looked porous in midfield at times with him. He got destroyed against Arsenal, for example, and I thought he looked jaded anyway.

I'm actually wondering if it's tactical why we surrender the ball against even poorer teams so much. We seem to be looking to tap in to the old Ole-counter attack goals/ball over the top goals more and more these days.
 
Still ill said:
I wouldn't be looking solely at possession. Barca away felt like a perfect illustration of it, less possession but a sense of calmness and organisation. Even without the ball, it can certainly feel like we're in control. It's not soak it up, soak it up, soak it up then rely on a manic break to snatch a winner, just a measured ebb and flow with pointed use of the ball when we got it. Even Newcastle felt like we were completely in control, no? I never felt we wouldn't win it.
Click to expand...
Yes the Newcastle win was never in danger, we were in control. But it was also Newcastle and hardly Madrid or prime Barca or even Wenger’s prime Arsenal.

I don’t have an issue at all with adapting our approach or tactics for certain games, but the quote in the thread title confuses me as I am thinking calm down, we just gave an average Newcastle so much of the ball.
But maybe he indeed means that everything went according to plan in the big games so far which we have won and they knew exactly how to win the games as opposed to park the bus and when you get the ball hope for the best.
 
Bastian said:
That was the most interesting bit of the presser. Saying that we're able to play our own style and win. Nothing new here for the Caf, but it does show that the players obviously feel the same. In order to continue down this route of playing a progressive style and still win we are probably a few first XI players short still, but we've had a couple of good games like this, Barca away and Spurs.

When was the last time we played well against a big side and won, prior to this season?
Click to expand...

Spurs aren't a good team.

We've had a few good performances against City under Ole. Under LVG there were a few as well against Liverpool etc.

I don't think it matters how good your players are either. If you play the best sides and don't acknowledge their strengths in the way you play/set up, they'll pick you off.
 
pocco said:
Rashford is talking rubbish if he is claiming that the team hadn't given up against Liverpool. It was obvious, the breakaways they had where they outnumbered us through determination and hunger for goals vs our apathy for defending, the lack of effort on our part, the half-arsed clearance from Shaw, Bruno's tantrums. They wanted the game to end and had clearly given up. To put it down to communication is laughable.

Regarding people saying we miss Eriksen - yes we do. But he was coming in for criticism in the last few weeks he played and we looked porous in midfield at times with him. He got destroyed against Arsenal, for example, and I thought he looked jaded anyway.

I'm actually wondering if it's tactical why we surrender the ball against even poorer teams so much. We seem to be looking to tap in to the old Ole-counter attack goals/ball over the top goals more and more these days.
Click to expand...

One of their goals was literally a direct result of him moping about instead of getting out to block a cross.

That has nothing to do with tactics or the technical ability of the players at all.

The best thing any player can say after a performance like that is nothing. Eat your humble pie and make sure if anything close to it happens again its nothing to do with you.
 
ETH is not a coach over concerned by possession for possession sake. He says he likes quick football, he wants direct attacks from vertical passes. He is strong on transitions. Comparing him and say Pep, ETH is Bayern versus Pep's Barca.
So expect him to go for players that Bayern would buy ( he got one in a flash when offered on loan). Its actually much more like prime Fergie than anything else.
And surely this is what most United fans want?
 
NFM said:
ETH is not a coach over concerned by possession for possession sake. He says he likes quick football, he wants direct attacks from vertical passes. He is strong on transitions. Comparing him and say Pep, ETH is Bayern versus Pep's Barca.
So expect him to go for players that Bayern would buy ( he got one in a flash when offered on loan). Its actually much more like prime Fergie than anything else.
And surely this is what most United fans want?
Click to expand...
Nope. Football has evolved.
 
Asking a player if the team gave up is a bit meaningless. 9 times out of 10, any player that's not insane will reply to the contrary. What's he supposed to say, "yeah, we all kind of went way for a bit there, but we'll get them next time"?

The "effort" they were giving in the 2nd half was clear to see, but I wouldn't expect any other answer than what he said.
 
Last edited:
Away form against the big teams has definitely proved a huge hurdle this season,maybe need to be less gung-ho in these fixtures next season. Yes won't be easy on the eye but need to be more pragmatic in these games.
 
croadyman said:
Away form against the big teams has definitely proved a huge hurdle this season,maybe need to be less gung-ho in these fixtures next season. Yes won't be easy on the eye but need to be more pragmatic in these games.
Click to expand...
To hell with easy on the eye, lets just win the title.
Press article the other day, were Arsenal following the Wenger model? Nope , much more GG.
 
Every tactic has its weaknesses. We've moved the ball forward quickly with counters and scored goals, but against Liverpool we werent able to make those correct passes in the 2nd half and a lack of defensive covering led to far too many chances for Liverpool which they had a good conversion rate of, but it could have been more.

At the point where Liverpool were getting away from us, at 4 - 0 or whenever you want to call it, we needed a plan B where we get some control of the game. The best way would be to look to have lots of the ball and keep it even if we werent going to get back into the game with a goalscoring comeback. It would reduce the pressure on our defensive players who were exposed and leaking goals.

We dont have that plan B. We dont have those midfielders who are good at playing possession based football against opponents trying to nick the ball and break on us. We have midfielders who have legs and running instead. And that isnt whats needed to calm the game down and use the ball to reduce the opponent's threat.
 
Berbasbullet said:
Similar to the 6-1 v City, Fletcher scored an absolute wondergoal which actually killed us in the end.
Click to expand...
Went down to 10 men , but Evra tried to still keep going forward to get back into the game. And 8 shots on target to get 7 out of that is unheard of. Move on next game now
 
I think too many people are reading far too much into Sunday's game in terms of attitude.

People don't want to hear this, but a combination of our deficiencies in depth and ETH making poor tactical decisions led to what happened against Liverpool. He was also very slow to react and combined with our push to get back in the game, led to the scoreline in the second half.

Rashford alluded to parts of this during the press conference when he said the midfield, attack and defence were not communicating and connected. That was clear. However, for me it's the cost of a number of things.

1. Fred is hit or miss. When the team is flowing well, he can be a strong energetic presence. However is terrible at positioning and is not a naturally good defender. So when he feels obliged to press, he can be a headless chicken that produces exploitable gaps. We were chasing the game and were down by more than one goal, with Fred in the team, the midfield being open was always a possibility.

2. Bruno was pushed out to the left hand side. On the right, he can at least dribble with the ball and is not quite as isolated. On the left, he was completely discombobulated, all in an effort to get Antony into the team ( who was again quite ineffective). Bruno was frustrated and his inability to play and cover the left side effectively also affected Luke Shaw. These are two of our best players, yet they were both made uncomfortable in order to fit Antony and Weighorst into the xi.

3. Weighorst. The experiment with him as a no.10 at times has worked due to his pressing ability and his link up play. But Sunday showed that at the core of this, he's not really a midfielder and can't provide that element to the role. It's the reason the counter attack came so easily in the second half.

Too many out of position players, playing roles that they shouldn't be, combined with 2 or 3 inconsistent and positionally suspect players ( Fred and Dalot) against Liverpool ( a heavy pressing team) with momentum was always going to lead to disaster if our team wasn't 100%. They weren't
 
You must log in or register to reply here.