What are we good at?

[NoPace]

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.

Eh, I'm as much of a Gerrard hater as the rest of them, but the main reason they never won the league because their wide talent was terrible throughout most of his tenure there.

I just looked up their team of the 2000s and the first result I found (too lazy to look for more) had Luis Garcia and Kuyt on the wings and Finnan and Riise at fullback. I thought Finnan was good and the others were useful enough players but also highly flawed, and not the sort of players who should be making a best of the decade list if you're trying to win a league. Arguably not even good enough to win a single league. It's like if Scholes best 4 wide players over a decade were say Ashley Young, Poborsky, Heinze and Rafael.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

We were bad at everything under Ralf

We were great on the counter under ole

Maybe you can take umbridge with the word epic if you have the time. We have been one of the best in the world at it for five years or so, ignoring the period under Ralf because it is the strangest period that's ever occured at a large club

Again, no, we weren't. In his two full seasons we scored the great amount of 5 more counter-attacking goals than City, a team that loathes transitions. That's not great in any sense of the word. We may have been just good at several things under any of our managers in the post-SAF era, but, great? No, We haven't been great at absolutely anything.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

Eh, I'm as much of a Gerrard hater as the rest of them, but the main reason they never won the league because their wide talent was terrible throughout most of his tenure there.

I just looked up their team of the 2000s and the first result I found (too lazy to look for more) had Luis Garcia and Kuyt on the wings and Finnan and Riise at fullback. I thought Finnan was good and the others were useful enough players but also highly flawed, and not the sort of players who should be making a best of the decade list if you're trying to win a league. Arguably not even good enough to win a single league. It's like if Scholes best 4 wide players over a decade were say Ashley Young, Poborsky, Heinze and Rafael.

The whole purpose of these Liverpool sides was to accommodate Gerrard and allow him to be the superstar, the player everything went through. Play him as a central midfielder, as an attacking midfielder, then move him to the right wing. A whole club was living and breathing to keep Gerrard happy. Perhaps, this played its part in designing and assembling said sides, don't you think? Plus, from the mid 00s onward, they could field decent sides. It's their obsessions they couldn't shed. It's also quite ironic that they came so close in 2014, when Rodgers came up with the deep-lying play-maker role in front of the defence, only for Gerrard's complete lack of defensive awareness (which was masked by Suarez being the best forward on the planet and Sturridge/Sterling having out of this world seasons) to bite them in the arse in the end. I also remember that a geriatric Scholes won two PL titles with the likes of Nani, Young, Valencia, Park, Kagawa, Rafael and Butner on the wings, plus an Evra who wouldn't track back as well as he used to and an ageing Rooney (or Welbeck) playing in front of him.

 

[RuudTom83]

Q: What are we good at?

A: Moaning

*apologies thought the question was about the Cafe

 

[Alex99]

The whole purpose of these Liverpool sides was to accommodate Gerrard and allow him to be the superstar, the player everything went through. Play him as a central midfielder, as an attacking midfielder, then move him to the right wing. A whole club was living and breathing to keep Gerrard happy. Perhaps, this played its part in designing and assembling said sides, don't you think? Plus, from the mid 00s onward, they could field decent sides. It's their obsessions they couldn't shed. It's also quite ironic that they came so close in 2014, when Rodgers came up with the deep-lying play-maker role in front of the defence, only for Gerrard's complete lack of defensive awareness (which was masked by Suarez being the best forward on the planet and Sturridge/Sterling having out of this world seasons) to bite them in the arse in the end. I also remember that a geriatric Scholes won two PL titles with the likes of Nani, Young, Valencia, Park, Kagawa, Rafael and Butner on the wings, plus an Evra who wouldn't track back as well as he used to and an ageing Rooney (or Welbeck) playing in front of him.

Gerrard almost single-handedly bombed their chase for CL in 2014-15 too.

Rodgers barely used him in the first half of the season and they were going farely well, then the Stevie Me Final Farewell Tour began and there was pressure to play him more, and literally almost every time he featured they had a shit result.

 

[Lentwood]

The reason is quite simple really...as much as we lament our players and highlight their flaws, the vast majority of them are still better players overall than you find in most rival Premer League teams.

Likewise, you often see players talked up when they play for midtable clubs but when they get their move, and fall under the spotlight fixed on top clubs, their flaws are exposed.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

If facing the truth is moaning and the alternative is to pat ourselves on the back with our own versions of what actually occurred (or is occurring), i'd take moaning. Just like the scousers believing that Sir Alex had the referees in his pocket when no team has won more penalties than them in the PL era. There's being content with a few good things and looking to improve, and there's also rewriting history to make a dark period more palatable.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Things we're good at (when everyone's fit):
a) Our midfield was actually (contrary to caf opinion) very good for a large part of last season. Casemiro is an extremely good midfielder, Eriksen is a very good midfielder who the caf randomly decided can't play in midfield, based presumably on him playing in midfield for Man Utd and doing well there (this sort of logic regularly happens on here, see point 2 below).
b) We counter attack well
c) We actually have some very good players. Varane, Martinez, Shaw, Bissaka, Casemiro, Eriksen, Fernandes, Rashford are all better than what most teams have in comparable positions. Some are past their best but none are finished as top level players (see below, point 4).
d) We definitely do have patterns of play. Its gone backwards somewhat at the start of this season due to our manger changing the system, but last season we were generally quite organised and consistent in how we played.
e) We have a wide player who can get 30 goals in a season. Most teams struggle to find one who can get 10.
f) Most of last season we were very hard working and consistent performing compared to at least half the teams in the PL.
g) We are one of the countries leading clubs at mistreating women.


Things the caf is bad at:
1) The caf often gets our best players confused with our worst players. E.g. Casemiro, Fernandes and Rashford often highlighted as problem players on the basis that they are frequently incapable of being superhuman.
2) Sometimes a mysterious unknown force will inhabit the forum, swaying vast amounts of the populous to adopt a certain opinion on a player or our team, based on no actual insight or evidence, or backed up by applying ridiculously out of place parameters. For example the ongoing theme of Bissaka being a useless fullback because he doesn't have 10x the assists of every other fullback in the world, the idea Eriksen can't play in midfield because he plays in midfield, etc.
3) Some people on the caf like to claim we have no patterns of play or that we're not "press resistant" as a means of pretending they know what they are talking about, and little more. The other day someone posted a video on here where a guy used the term "resting defence" and implied we aren't very good at it. Since then I have seen this terms used several times. I don't understand what it means and neither do the people using it.
4) The caf confuses players not being at their best for about 2 games, with them being "past it". A recent example being Casemiro who's "legs have gone". Ignoring that you can clearly see them still attached to his body, and that when we signed him this time last season it took him a good 4-5 games to get fully up to speed and match sharp.
5) The caf regularly bemoans our transfer activity yet if it were up to this place our squad would currently be about half of Paul Pogba and a bunch of U21 players.
6) The caf often compares our own players (well, mainly Rashford) unfavorably with players in similar positions at other teams who are obviously worse than them, then when it becomes obvious how stupid this was, sometimes doubles down or develops an agenda against said player, instead of admitting it was wrong.

I feel like I've been waiting for this post my entire life. I agree with every single point here.

To add one more (because I'm a team player):

h) We have a number of players who are clearly very good at doing what Ten Hag wants the to do, but not what the Caf wants them to do.

Antony is a case in point. He is positionally close to perfect, both when we're on and off the ball. His work rate and defensive contribution are unimpeachable. The Caf doesn't think he can beat his man but clearly opposition teams do, because he always draws two/three defenders, which is half the battle. He is almost impossible to dispossess, even high up the pitch, and very rarely misplaces a pass.
Of course ETH wants Antony to score and assist more. But clearly he wants all of the above more, because all of these things in combination are incredibly valuable. That is why Antony always plays when fit, and did so on his debut season in a team which finished third.

Wan Bissaka is another who this notably applies to.

I think there's a lot of truth to a variety of points and it can for the most part be summarized "the Caf is impatient and can't really see a lot of the intricacies", but I think you're both wide of the mark on AWB - and this is coming from someone who has defended him a lot, but I've started to focus a lot more on him, notably after listening to a couple of podcasts by some guys who do more granular, in depth reviews of our games, and he's a massive hindrance and is often targeted by opposition teams. He's playing because we have other areas to prioritize, but he's a big issue to the collective (and his defensive contribution, when you peel everything away, isn't actually that good, but he has impressive moments which make up for it in the viewer's eye).

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I feel like I've been waiting for this post my entire life. I agree with every single point here.

To add one more (because I'm a team player):

h) We have a number of players who are clearly very good at doing what Ten Hag wants the to do, but not what the Caf wants them to do.

Antony is a case in point. He is positionally close to perfect, both when we're on and off the ball. His work rate and defensive contribution are unimpeachable. The Caf doesn't think he can beat his man but clearly opposition teams do, because he always draws two/three defenders, which is half the battle. He is almost impossible to dispossess, even high up the pitch, and very rarely misplaces a pass.
Of course ETH wants Antony to score and assist more. But clearly he wants all of the above more, because all of these things in combination are incredibly valuable. That is why Antony always plays when fit, and did so on his debut season in a team which finished third.

Wan Bissaka is another who this notably applies to.

The way that so many people can’t/won’t see this is the caf’s biggest blind spot in a very long time.

 

[FootballHQ]

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?

Rashford innit.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

Rashford innit.

True, we worked very hard last season to squeeze whatever we could from Marcus and Bruno and the good connection between them. I saw somewhere that it was the most prolific attacking partnership in the PL, in terms of produced chances. It looked like we were overthinking it sometimes with their roles on the pitch, but it was an overall success.

 

[Rossa]

No, we weren't. We were average to good, with 6 counter-attacking goals in each of his two full seasons. Nothing to write home about, which is why i mentioned it. I don't know what the link you posted is supposed to prove. Did you expect Pep to deride his opponent before an FA Cup final? Or did you forget that, in more casual moments, KdB has said on camera that City weren't even bothering to go through Solskjaer's tactics before facing United or that, very recently, Pep described United under ETH as "just another transition team".

No, but when Pep, and others have discussed our counter attacking as our biggest threat, then that's a fairly valid point, and perhaps moreso than an armchair critic?
https://theathletic.com/4218080/2023/02/17/manchester-united-rashford-barcelona-transitions/

So the article explains how we used the tactic against Barcelona, and again Pep talks about how United are great at it. The article also shows how many big chances were created, but poor finishing and great goalkeeping prevented a few more goals.

Another article from how Solskjær used this tactic to good effect against City:
https://m.allfootballapp.com/news/E...the-counter-attack-tactic-vs-Man-City/2114146

Another article explaining how Solskjær did well in counter-attacking football:
https://www.skysports.com/football/...er-attack-thriving-under-ole-gunnar-solskjaer

" No team has had as many since [Solskjær] took over. They have gone from the worst counter-attacking side in the Premier League to the best."

A difference from before is how high up the pitch the breaks now come. Previously as we sat deeper, the breaks came from lower down the pitch causing longer transitions - we were still pretty darn good at them.

So yeah, we regressed as a transitional team under Mourinho, and LVG, but we improved considerably under Solskjær, and have progressed and evolved that part of our play under ETH.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

No, but when Pep, and others have discussed our counter attacking as our biggest threat, then that's a fairly valid point, and perhaps moreso than an armchair critic?
https://theathletic.com/4218080/2023/02/17/manchester-united-rashford-barcelona-transitions/

So the article explains how we used the tactic against Barcelona, and again Pep talks about how United are great at it. The article also shows how many big chances were created, but poor finishing and great goalkeeping prevented a few more goals.

Another article from how Solskjær used this tactic to good effect against City:
https://m.allfootballapp.com/news/E...the-counter-attack-tactic-vs-Man-City/2114146

Another article explaining how Solskjær did well in counter-attacking football:
https://www.skysports.com/football/...er-attack-thriving-under-ole-gunnar-solskjaer

" No team has had as many since [Solskjær] took over. They have gone from the worst counter-attacking side in the Premier League to the best."

A difference from before is how high up the pitch the breaks now come. Previously as we sat deeper, the breaks came from lower down the pitch causing longer transitions - we were still pretty darn good at them.

So yeah, we regressed as a transitional team under Mourinho, and LVG, but we improved considerably under Solskjær, and have progressed and evolved that part of our play under ETH.

A quote from his interim period, really? And a single game against City? Surely, you can do better than that... I repeat, in his two full seasons (the good ones), United scored 12 counter-attacking goals (6+6). That's 5 more than City during the same period. As i mentioned, it's good, but it's nothing to write home about. Especially, when you build your whole attacking plan on them to get over the line. Last season alone, for example, we had 10.

 

[Rossa]

A quote from his interim period, really? And a single game against City? Surely, you can do better than that... I repeat, in his two full seasons (the good ones), United scored 12 counter-attacking goals (6+6). That's 5 more than City during the same period. As i mentioned, it's good, but it's nothing to write home about. Especially, when you build your whole attacking plan on them to get over the line. Last season alone, for example, we had 10.

You can't just quote goals. We were good at transitions, and as one of the articles showed, we should have scored multiple goals alone against Barcelona from those transitions but for poor finishing and good goalkeeping. You can be very good at counter attacking without being brilliant at finishing.

And unless the "surely you can do better" is a Star Wars quote, please stop the condescending. If it is a SW quote, then good work

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

You can't just quote goals. We were good at transitions, and as one of the articles showed, we should have scored multiple goals alone against Barcelona from those transitions but for poor finishing and good goalkeeping. You can be very good at counter attacking without being brilliant at finishing.

And unless the "surely you can do better" is a Star Wars quote, please stop the condescending. If it is a SW quote, then good work

Try reading it in Obi-Wan's voice talking to Anakin. Sorry, if it sounded a bit aggressive. It's just that i never read too much into what managers/players say in front of the cameras. To them, it's just a game and not one they enjoy much. I also think that you can point to single matches to make a case about what we're striving to be good at. What we're actually good at needs a bigger sample size. That's what i meant (i think you can tell that from my previous response).

I am not saying we weren't good at certain things under any of the post-SAF managers. I'm just saying that "being great", at least for me, must have some context. For example, you talk about finishing, but one of the factors that exacerbates "how good we were" in the two legs against Barcelona is that we managed to finish very low probability chances in both games. For the most part, it was good defending that did the job for us.

Great implies that you can do something and get constant results from it, no matter the opponent. We were a great transition team under Sir Alex. At several points in time, probably the best in the world. Under Solskjaer (or Mourinho, or ETH thus far)... not so much.

 

[Hammondo]

Greenwood completed more dribbles per 90 mins than Antony at Manutd.

I think it's a combination of both. Rashford is not the same Rashford, he used to take on defenders a lot more under Ole. Martial as a CF used to dribble a lot than any other CF we had, also Rashford as a CF doesn't attempt many dribbles.

Antony and Greenwood is close, Greenwood was more direct.
McTominay and Fred were good dribblers for midfielders, Casemiro doesn't attempt to dribble, same with Eriksen.

I think overall we have poor-average ball carriers compared to past teams. I think that's the profile of player we lack now, someone who takes on player and creates space by drawing players.

We played counter attacking football under Ole, when you have that much more space it's a lot easier to get past people, you just need speed a lot of the time.

 

[noodlehair]

I feel like I've been waiting for this post my entire life. I agree with every single point here.

To add one more (because I'm a team player):

h) We have a number of players who are clearly very good at doing what Ten Hag wants the to do, but not what the Caf wants them to do.

Antony is a case in point. He is positionally close to perfect, both when we're on and off the ball. His work rate and defensive contribution are unimpeachable. The Caf doesn't think he can beat his man but clearly opposition teams do, because he always draws two/three defenders, which is half the battle. He is almost impossible to dispossess, even high up the pitch, and very rarely misplaces a pass.
Of course ETH wants Antony to score and assist more. But clearly he wants all of the above more, because all of these things in combination are incredibly valuable. That is why Antony always plays when fit, and did so on his debut season in a team which finished third.

Wan Bissaka is another who this notably applies to.

I can understand Antony being a target because he's a very frustrating player. It's like he's in the film Speed, except the bus can go any speed it wants but will explode if Antony uses his right foot (So instead of being called Speed it would be called "choice of which foot usage in a football match" or something...It'd probably be a shite film)

I think short term memories are an issue with that though. I don't think Antony is perfect but I do remember that before we signed him Daniel James would sometimes play there, and sometimes it would be a wasted Rashford, and sometimes it would be someone who wouldn't actually play there at all...and Antony is definitely a whole lot better than any of those options.

Also people get caught up on fees for some reason. He cost £80m so he should play like £80m, even though this is clearly dumb as based on this logic anyone over £70m should be better than Haaland. I tried to make the point last year that it isn't whether he's worth £80m, it's whether we need a right sided player enough to pay it, and we did. Signing Antony freed up Rashford to play on the left and he got 30 goals, and it allowed us to play with a balanced attack/defensive set up on the right, which is part of the reason we finished 3rd instead of about 9th.

I think there's a lot of truth to a variety of points and it can for the most part be summarized "the Caf is impatient and can't really see a lot of the intricacies", but I think you're both wide of the mark on AWB - and this is coming from someone who has defended him a lot, but I've started to focus a lot more on him, notably after listening to a couple of podcasts by some guys who do more granular, in depth reviews of our games, and he's a massive hindrance and is often targeted by opposition teams. He's playing because we have other areas to prioritize, but he's a big issue to the collective (and his defensive contribution, when you peel everything away, isn't actually that good, but he has impressive moments which make up for it in the viewer's eye).

What is it he doesn't do though that causes us so many problems? All I've seen or heard is the same tiring stuff about him not being "progressive" or not being good enough going forwards. I've yet to see anyone explain something that even had any substance to it,never mind make me think "maybe they have a point"

I think he has areas where hes not great,but nearly every player has weaknesses or bits of their game that are less strong than others. Except there's this weird thing with Bissaka where people will be insanely focused on these areas and pick him to pieces over it, as if he's been portalled here from 1998 when fullbacks were apparently all still neanderthals who didn't understand tactics or how to do anything other than tackle.

The problem i find (just personal opinion) with people on the internet and their in depth analysis is that they just over complicate and over analyse everything to try and prove they are smart, when actually they're just some person who watches football and talks bollocks about it like the rest of us. I doubt qny of these people taught Pep or ETH how to set up their team, or have any actual clue what instructions individual managers give to individual players, beyond what is visibly obvious to everyone. Statman Dave isn't senior tactical development and analysis technician at Man City. He's some guy who watches football games and pretends he's called Dave for some reason (no one that age is actually called Dave). He gets a 2 minute slot on MUTV which is less time than they used to give Michael Owen to talk about owning horses.

 

[el3mel]

Being consistently shit every year.