What are we good at?

Pogue Mahone

Closet Gooner.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
138,342
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
This thread got me thinking…

For a while now the caf has lamented our lack of technical ability (“not press resistant” are the buzzwords of choice). We don’t have “patterns of play” so can’t create enough chances to score. We don’t press effectively and can’t keep hold off the ball when we do win it back, because our passing is garbage.

Our last keeper was crap and the new guy not much better yesterday. Our defence is flawed because one of our first choice centre backs can’t play more than once a week and the options in reserve are widely slated. Our fullbacks vary from sublime to shite on a game by game basis. And don’t get me started on the long running saga of trying to win football matches without a proper number 9. Or, indeed, the quest to find the missing piece(s) to our midfield jigsaw.

So we lack technical ability, are shit at passing and have a squad with gaping, obvious holes in it, in basically every area. And now we’re apparently not as fit, strong, aggressive or athletic as any of the other teams in the league.

Soooooooooo… How the feck did this team of frail, technically inadequate, lazy cowards finish third in the league and go deep in every cup competition? Seriously? What do we do well? In what way are we better than all but two teams in the league?

Post your theories here please. The answers might help inject some much needed positivity into the caf.
 
Last edited:
Apparently we're unbeatable at home. That's half the season right there.
 
I think the issue is that we can be good at all of these things, but it all falls apart with a couple of players missing/when we aren't fully match fit/go a goal down etc.

Usually, even when things are not optimal, you can see teams doing certain things consistently, to the point where you associate that intent/pattern with the team.

For us, it seems like we revert to doing who knows what very easily.
 
We hit a purple patch last season that went on until around the time we drew with Palace, lost to Arsenal / Seville as we have some very good players.

We will do the same at some point this season.

If we could somehow start matches quicker abd tighten up away then it would be for more rewarding.

Still think Arsenal will dish out a hammering on Sunday though.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Why?
Click to expand...
My memory isn't the best but off the top of my head, the Martinez signing gave our defense a much needed lift, Dalot played with passion before the WC, and we actually looked pretty solid at the back. Erikson pulled the strings in midfield taking the load off Brunos back, Casemiro put in superman performances.
 
RaddyRed said:
We hit a purple patch last season that went on until around the time we drew with Palace, lost to Arsenal / Seville as we have some very good players.

We will do the same at some point this season.

If we could somehow start matches quicker abd tighten up away then it would be for more rewarding.

Still think Arsenal will dish out a hammering on Sunday though.
Click to expand...

I’d say most teams have purple patches at some point in a season. The teams that finish in the top half of the table definitely do.

You’ve still skirted over why our purple patch was enough to finish so high up the table? What are we doing so much better than so many other teams?
 
We grow stronger into a season under EtH after poor starts? This time, with no world club slotted in between to break momentum, I look forward to more dominant performances and sharper finishing.
 
A few of our players had very good individual seasons. We also showed good fight and spirit to always bounce back after bad defeats.

I don't think we had any obvious strengths in terms of areas of the pitch or how we played as a team though. Which is why it's likely we overperformed and will see some regression this season.
 
kps88 said:
A few of our players had very good individual seasons. We also showed good fight and spirit to always bounce back after bad defeats.

I don't think we had any obvious strengths in terms of areas of the pitch or how we played as a team though. Which is why it's likely we overperformed and will see some regression this season.
Click to expand...

What does this mean?
 
When people lament our lack of technical ability or substandard passing, it has to be taken in context: it is significantly below the standards of the very elite, well short of the level we, theoretically, aspire to reach. Obviously, we're still better than the majority of the Premier League at those things we're 'weak' at. But we discuss our strengths and weaknesses in the context of our ambitions. And in that context, getting 75 points with a goal difference of +15 is very far from where we want to be, because of those oft-discussed weaknesses.

And those who say we're the worst in the league at X or Y almost invariably use hyperbole for emphasis. Unless it's about offensive set pieces because there is an argument to be made that we are indeed the worst at those.
 
once hojlund gets going and hopefully we add in another cm we will be much better. We are creating many chances but fail to score. Against spurs we should have been 2-0 up and game would have been over!
 
We're a mish-mash of wildly differing profiles and philosophies due to the amount of influence on transfers we've given each manager post-Fergie. We can't play a concerted style of football with certainty because one way or another a bunch of our players are better/less suited to it than their peers. On the surface everything can look OK, but it is in periods of distress and panic that players will revert to type and any newly constructed system or philosophy will go awry until the panic is over.

Only LVG instilled a philosophy that the players adhered to even when distressed. It wasn't to everyone's tastes, but it was collectively rock-solid.

The mish-mash makes us unpredictable and inconsistent as different players will step up at different times in the season whilst others have a wobble. By this, it means at some points in the season we'll switch from attempts at cohesive play to hero ball, and with that, cohesive types take a back seat and the more individualistic shine. It goes vice-versa, too. We rarely truly fly as a whole team. In fact, over a season you can count those games on your hands.

We have better individuals than the majority of the league, that in itself ensures a certain advantage and game-winning opportunities, but what also scuppers us in this respect is an awful squad composition that really has us suffer if key players go down. One thing Fergie always made sure of is contingency; the cover obviously won't be as good as the starters, but there'd be a very competent player, respective to the job asked of him. We don't have that anymore, so we lose momentum quickly if certain players are injured, fatigued or out of form.

What all top teams have is a sum greater than its parts. We haven't had that since 2013, which is why CL qualification is about the best we can hope for out of the league. Our cup runs most likely determined by the aforementioned injury, fatigue, form or suspensions rather than a collective that can overcome obstacles because they're all of the same hive mindset and synergy.

For a genuine title challenge we need a complementary squad and the vast majority of the deadwood at the club gone and all their places taken by competent contributors who can maintain the momentum other teams are accustomed to.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I’d say most teams have purple patches at some point in a season. The teams that finish in the top half of the table definitely do.

You’ve still skirted over why our purple patch was enough to finish so high up the table? What are we doing so much better than so many other teams?
Click to expand...

It's because we genuinely do have better players than around 15/16 teams in the league.

Even during the stale parts of JM, Ole and RR you will still manage to win games when you have better players, even with tactical mistakes, in fighting, wrong starting xi etc.
 
We pass it around nicely at the back. The players, on the whole, do have a good attitude, the majority do really try. We have a couple of players who produce goals snd assists even when they're not playing well.

Also we're called Manchester United and play at Old Trafford. For home games the history/intimidation of the place helps.
 
We lack the aforementioned things as a collective, which is the main reason why the team rarely seems to be more than the sum of its parts. On an individual level, there's enough quality in the team to scrape a top-four finish one way or the other. When the manager caters to the needs and wants of our best individuals, we have what you would call a good season (top-four finish and, maybe, a minor trophy as a bonus). Nothing more, nothing less. Until we try to push for greater things and it all falls apart again. But if you don't mind breaking this cycle, there are more than enough good individual performances to enjoy as a fan. It's definitely better than most football fans get to watch every week.
 
It depends who you compare us to. Compare us to City or even Arsenal/Liverpool etc then we are fkn miles off technically, patterns of play etc. Compare us to the other 15 or so teams and we have the better players so yes we can get 3rd if a few top teams have a bad season.
 
To get 75 points after only getting 1 point away to any of the top 9 (I think) shows what a machine we are in about 75 percent of games. All without a striker as well. People lament our attack but to work around that was something special.
 
We have some experienced, excellent players who occasionally showcase moments of brilliance/class and that's how we score goals/avoid conceding. That's how we usually scrape by wins - perfect example is Casemiro's crafty goal(after Eriksen's brilliant, creative idea i think) vs Bournemouth away near the end of last season which really helped us secure UCL football. Or Garnacho's last minute goal vs Fulham away where he really showcased his talent and "announced" himself to the world. We weren't really dominating those matches, but got the win somehow.

John McKenzie from Tifo said that we mostly looked like a schizophrenic("Jekyll and Hyde", for those who understand the reference), gegenpressing(counter-pressing) side last season and that there was clearly a disparity in how our manager wants to play and how we actually play with the players that we do have - so ETH was compromising, a little bit struggling to find a solution, middle ground. He expressed mostly problems with build-up/ball progression which are/were mostly related to De Gea and the midfield. So we had to rely a lot on pressing the opposition and winning the ball high up the pitch in order to create chances.

There is obviously the "Old Trafford" factor which scares away the opposition to some extent and gives our players more confidence - it sort a became a fortress again under ETH, even when we play badly. Pressing high then works better, opposition players are more nervous, and we create more chances at home. Away from home, that confidence, "Old Trafford" factor disappears. Opposition is not intimidated at all and we get battered occasionally(City, Liverpool, Newcastle, Villa...), partially due to strategic naivety and arrogance/stubbornness from ETH.

In conclusion, the only thing that we can maybe be called "good at" is pressing the opposition high up the pitch, winning the ball back and creating chances that way. Especially when we get a proper CF(Hojlund) and Mount returns with his high work rate. Also, Bruno - Rashford connection is still pretty dangerous on the counter-attack when opponents leave a lot of space behind and they're all aware, careful because of it(Arsenal got burned at OT last season by it because of naivety from Arteta).

We are a flawed team that struggles to control games because of lack of press resistance, physicality in midfield and it's overall structure with a 6 and two 10's. We lack a center-forward(at the moment) and the right side of our attack is relatively impotent, anemic(cough, cough Antony...) - so, we also struggle to score goals. Still have some deadwood that we can't seem to be able to shift(Maguire, McTominay, Van de Beek, Martial, Bailly...), and Sancho and Antony are dangerously heading into that direction, unfortunately.
 
Pushing for players to be brought to the club and then turning on them once they realise how good they actually are.
 
Last year we were pretty good defensively taking away the absolute maulings at City and Liverpool and our mentality was also pretty good most of the time. We never gave up even after going down in most games. There was usually a belief in our ability to get back into the game.

This season so far, I don't know what we are good at. We don't look defensively solid, we look anemic going forward and we have no midfield.
 
cyberman said:
To get 75 points after only getting 1 point away to any of the top 9 (I think) shows what a machine we are in about 75 percent of games. All without a striker as well. People lament our attack but to work around that was something special.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. We haven't had an actual strike force in an age.

So the answer to the question is: accumulating lots of points whilst being hamstrung without an actual striker.
 
Good

(1) Great in attacking transition phases.

(2) Using Bruno as our ultimate playmaker - just look at how he bent his run to stay on side to provide the assist for our second goal from the freekick.

Not so good

(1) Horrendous in defensive transitions when we lose the ball in said attack.

(2) The latter is made worse by us only having Casemiro to rely on for defensive cover in midfield.
 
Fortitude said:
This is a good point. We haven't had an actual strike force in an age.

So the answer to the question is: accumulating lots of points whilst being hamstrung without an actual striker.
Click to expand...

Is it, really? There was a season when we had Martial on 23 goals, Rashford on 22, Greenwood on 17 and Bruno on 12. We ended up with the same points as LvG's 15/16 season when we had scored 49 goals. One less trophy, too.
 
TheRedDevil'sAdvocate said:
Is it, really? There was a season when we had Martial on 23 goals, Rashford on 22, Greenwood on 17 and Bruno on 12. We ended up with the same points as LvG's 15/16 season when we had scored 49 goals. One less trophy, too.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but we should be mostly referencing EtH’s tenure in regard to what we are currently good/bad at.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Yeah, comebacks were the Ole specialty. Which coincided with another specialty, starting games with our heads up our holes and conceding stupid early goals. Both of which made a comeback this weekend. I think that’s ironic?
Click to expand...

There's no pattern of performance this season at all yet.

Good first half v Spurs, great middle v Forest, total shit show of a 90 v Wolves.
 
Fortitude said:
Only LVG instilled a philosophy that the players adhered to even when distressed. It wasn't to everyone's tastes, but it was collectively rock-solid.
Click to expand...
Well he tried to instill it, at any rate. But I'll never forget the game at Chelsea when Lingard gave us the lead: in the last ten minutes we had 7% possession. Even with Van Gaal we were prone to the occasional collapse of our ball retention ability.
 
We're good at Brunoing.

Last season we were kind of good defensively no? I see no reason for why this can't continue this year. We're not off to a good start though and the LB injuries hurt.
 
Because we have a sizeable handful of players who are actually pretty good at football.

The profiles might be misaligned and some of the tactical setups showcase their weaknesses rather than shining their strengths, but when they’re actually in decent form, there are few players in the league that are better than the likes of Rashford, Fernandes, Casemiro, Varane, Martinez, and Luke Shaw.

EDIT: basically @Fortitude ‘s post without all the verbiage.
 
Bruno is amazing. I don’t care what you modern boring stat-robots say, he’s a throwback to when footballers did what the feck they wanted just in case it came off.

I love watching him play football. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, doom-mongers
 
Fortitude said:
Yeah, but we should be mostly referencing EtH’s tenure in regard to what we are currently good/bad at.
Click to expand...

But that's a good thing only if you can improve on it and, eventually, make it go away. It's not something to write home about because it's only a stop-gap solution. History tells us that when the chickens come home to roost, the grafters get left behind. A bit like Moyes receiving plaudits for getting Everton into the CL qualifiers with 45 goals and a -1 GD. Now, here's what we're good at in the post-SAF era. Stop-gap solutions and papering over the cracks. Solskajer was a cat with nine lives when it came to that.
 
DWelbz19 said:
Because we have a sizeable handful of players who are actually pretty good at football.

The profiles might be misaligned and some of the tactical setups showcase their weaknesses rather than shining their strengths, but when they’re actually in decent form, there are few players in the league that are better than the likes of Rashford, Fernandes, Casemiro, Varane, Martinez, and Luke Shaw.

EDIT: basically @Fortitude ‘s post without all the verbiage.
Click to expand...

Six players. Can barely get to half a team before you run out of names. Two of those six have a pretty terrible injury record and it’s not as though Bruno and Rashford get unanimous acclaim on here.

I kind of subscribe to the better players argument too but we still finished ahead of teams who could easily come up with a list of good players that would match ours. So there has to be more to it than that.
 
T00lsh3d said:
Bruno is amazing. I don’t care what you modern boring stat-robots say, he’s a throwback to when footballers did what the feck they wanted just in case it came off.

I love watching him play football. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, doom-mongers
Click to expand...

You are free to enjoy him, my friend. On his day, he can produce moments of absolute magic. No one can take it that away from him. I will just say that the end of your post is the typical answer my Liverpool supporting mates used to give me when i was telling them that the only way they would win the league by trying to make everything revolve around Gerrard was by playing with two balls. One for him, one for the rest of the team.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I kind of subscribe to the better players argument too but we still finished ahead of teams who could easily come up with a list of good players that would match ours. So there has to be more to it than that.
Click to expand...

If you look at the sum of the parts, City are kind of in a league of their own. But the difference between the next 4-5 teams is not that big to be honest. Yes, I include Arsenal in that. They are not that much better than us player for player, but they are way more balanced. Arteta has also had more time with the team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.