What is United's "game model" ?

Ultimately, Berrada, Ashworth and Wilcox need to build a model similar to RM, Barca, City, BM and even Liverpool. Managers can come and go, the team still play good football and win things.

To lesser extend, model similar to Brighton, Dortmund.

We can't keep giving excuses we can't find a "preferred" manager and hence keeping the disaster of a manager. These excuses have to end some time in future and the best in class football people need to do their job.

Maybe by 2028 as Berrada stated we would win PL by then.
 
No idea, but damn if I didn't loathe how LVG went on and on about his philosophy like he was Socrates incarnated. It's football for fecks sake. Management style, play style, whatever, just don't call it a philosophy. Game model is OK, but what is it about Dutch managers and the need to conceal turd in a nice wrapping?
 
Not much different to Oleball, but noticeably worse. Some pressing, but not too much. If you get the ball, don't try to keep possession. Instead, try some fancy quick forward passing that will rarely work against competent teams. Sometimes just try to lob the ball behind the opponent's line out of desperation. Wing play with no emphasis on possession and control, some pressing, and moving the ball forward quickly.

In other words, basic counter attacking with some window dressing and no midfield. Nothing really arcane or novel.
 
Goalie boots it to the wing. Then winger runs down and squares the ball to the pen box and hope for someone to get to the end of it.

Failing that, rinse and repeat.
 
To be fair to Ten Hag, he gets criticised alot for not having a game model / style of play, which is incorrect.

We have seen the same patterns of play in almost every game this season and over the last 3 years, so he clearly has a style and game mode, its just that its crap.

Pass around the back, act as if we are a possession team, then when no pass to CB due to press go back to Onana and his remit is to launch it upfield, more often than not, its to let the opponent have a throw in and we can press that. Then its about pressing them and making them play the ball to their keeper and we set up in a fake press where we act like we are pressing, once they move the ball a few times, one of our forwards will get bored and jump, leaving a space for one two. The forward then doesn't track back and they play around us, get the ball wide where wingers are not tracking, get underlapped or overlapped and wait and hope the cross or cut back is not good enough.

From Brighton day 1 to Spurs 3 years later, the same type of goals are being conceded, a cut back and tap in. The goals we concede are all the same patterns of play from teams.
 
romufc said:
To be fair to Ten Hag, he gets criticised alot for not having a game model / style of play, which is incorrect.

We have seen the same patterns of play in almost every game this season and over the last 3 years, so he clearly has a style and game mode, its just that its crap.

Pass around the back, act as if we are a possession team, then when no pass to CB due to press go back to Onana and his remit is to launch it upfield, more often than not, its to let the opponent have a throw in and we can press that. Then its about pressing them and making them play the ball to their keeper and we set up in a fake press where we act like we are pressing, once they move the ball a few times, one of our forwards will get bored and jump, leaving a space for one two. The forward then doesn't track back and they play around us, get the ball wide where wingers are not tracking, get underlapped or overlapped and wait and hope the cross or cut back is not good enough.

From Brighton day 1 to Spurs 3 years later, the same type of goals are being conceded, a cut back and tap in. The goals we concede are all the same patterns of play from teams.
Click to expand...
To me this "analysis" sums up our matchday performance, which we witness without fail. EtH's mumbo jumbo, or if you prefer, double Dutch, does not obscure reality, and that we serve up football that is so lacking in coordination and balance that his "game model" equates to "chaos theory". It is irrelevant what label he attaches his hypothesis with, be it "the process", "philosophy", "game plan", or any number of nonsense hot air statements, we are still left with a team/squad who appear so disjointed and adrift that IMO they fail to believe in the manager and his bluster. Perhaps a game changer we need not a game model, and to change the game is to surely change the man in charge. Who with, I've no idea.
 
Urescoredatanfield said:
To me this "analysis" sums up our matchday performance, which we witness without fail. EtH's mumbo jumbo, or if you prefer, double Dutch, does not obscure reality, and that we serve up football that is so lacking in coordination and balance that his "game model" equates to "chaos theory". It is irrelevant what label he attaches his hypothesis with, be it "the process", "philosophy", "game plan", or any number of nonsense hot air statements, we are still left with a team/squad who appear so disjointed and adrift that IMO they fail to believe in the manager and his bluster. Perhaps a game changer we need not a game model, and to change the game is to surely change the man in charge. Who with, I've no idea.
Click to expand...

This is why we are here and not in the sporting director role, its up to them to find the right man for the job that suits the style that is required. Talk is cheap, Ten Hag is finding that out, thinking that he can use words to bluff the fan base. Like you mention, we are sick and tired of hearing the same things for 2 years, just saying the word process doesn't mean things will change, the manager has to change it and it has to be evident on the pitch.

I feel that Ten Hag doesn't know what the words he is using mean.. he keeps using patience and process, a process means improvements need to be shown, have we seen any since Brighton in season 1? No. we concede the same goals and struggle to score goals.
 
It's a secret.
If nobody knows what it is, nobody can play against it.
 
I think the general idea is to confuse opponents by looking like a group who just met on the pitch when the match started.

Once we've lulled the opposition into a false sense of security and made them feel sorry for us with the likes of Rashford looking scared of their defenders, that's when we're supposed to POUNCE!

We've not mastered that last part yet, but the players have done great with part one, so the process is working.
 
I think Erik has shown that his vision is one thing at one time and another thing at another. Maybe now he is actually trying to implement his favoured style of play. However, I find the more interesting and relevant question to be what does the footballing hierarchy consider to be our game model. I've not seen anything beyond very vague descriptions that could mean almost anything.

And if there's a managerial change, isn't it good to actually know that alleged game model?
 
I think the game model is Wheel of Fortune.
Eric gets up on a Saturday morning, spins the wheel and just let's fate decide the starting eleven and tactics.
 
Rossa said:
No idea, but damn if I didn't loathe how LVG went on and on about his philosophy like he was Socrates incarnated. It's football for fecks sake. Management style, play style, whatever, just don't call it a philosophy. Game model is OK, but what is it about Dutch managers and the need to conceal turd in a nice wrapping?
Click to expand...

INEOS have used the term. Not ten Hag.
 
Take the field with 11 men...

Kick the ball around...

IF we maintain possession AND accidentally move the ball forward, THEN try to continue forward (maybe) UNLESS met by opposition, OTHERWISE send it back to the keeper and start over...

Look for the sideways pass first, the back pass second, and look to move the ball forward as a last resort...

But... at random times, just kick the ball back to the keeper and start over for no particular reason.

Play out from the back at all costs. (And the cost will be high.)

Finish the game with 10 men. Maybe they have the wrong color card, or too many cards, or they got hurt, or they just aren't interested, but we don't seem to plan on finishing with 11 men.
 
Simple: we keep the faith, trust the process and stick to the plan. That's our game model.
 
Davicho said:
United game model has always been "play the ball forward". Ferdinand, Carrick, Giggs, Scholes, Van Persie have openly talk about that. And thats what represent the United culture.
Click to expand...
Just fyi - thats not a real model because every team will find a way to describe their style as attacking or fast or penetrating. Thats what sells the tickets after all. Barca didn't describe their model as boring one touch football for 80 minutes with 10 minutes of Messi and a few great moves mixed into it. If anything, then United has a tradition of playing 4-4-2, making use of pacey, tricky wingers and always had quality forwards. But is that Uniteds thing or is it Sir Alex' thing? I can't tell, because I haven't been a fan long enough.

romufc said:
To be fair to Ten Hag, he gets criticised alot for not having a game model / style of play, which is incorrect.

We have seen the same patterns of play in almost every game this season and over the last 3 years, so he clearly has a style and game mode, its just that its crap.
Click to expand...
It isn't working for us at the moment. Most of the ideas are in place and working for other teams who do just fine with it. This still means the ball is in ETHs court, no question, but I think, it is an important differentiation to make.

romufc said:
Pass around the back, act as if we are a possession team, then when no pass to CB due to press go back to Onana and his remit is to launch it upfield, more often than not, its to let the opponent have a throw in and we can press that. Then its about pressing them and making them play the ball to their keeper and we set up in a fake press where we act like we are pressing, once they move the ball a few times, one of our forwards will get bored and jump, leaving a space for one two. The forward then doesn't track back and they play around us, get the ball wide where wingers are not tracking, get underlapped or overlapped and wait and hope the cross or cut back is not good enough.
Click to expand...

romufc said:
From Brighton day 1 to Spurs 3 years later, the same type of goals are being conceded, a cut back and tap in. The goals we concede are all the same patterns of play from teams.
Click to expand...
I think, this can be used to describe a lot of teams, it isn't United specific at all. And cutbacks are a great source of goals based on xG so obviously, many teams will adjust their game plans to create chances specifically like that. And what you describe here is the main issue - the level of workrate or intensity is too often not at the same level as the opponents and the level of organisation isn't there yet - leading to spaces that emerge from bad movement or players not taking positions from other players when they roam. All those are the result of trying to play modern tactics like positional fluidity or/and pressing. Worst thing we can do would be to say "ah naa, thats not for us, lets get back to 20 years and try to win with characters and passion". ETHs fault is not being able to instruct the players in a way they understand and not adjusting his plans (like intermediate steps between current status quo and his target status) to suit the players on their current level better.

This is why it looks as desastrous as it does right now, we are attempting something that we aren't really capable of and as that style has a different risk-reward-ratio than "keep it tight at the back and hit them on the break" we look as dysfunctional as we do, seeing opponents making use of the risk we take while rarely if ever having any reward for it.

Bastian said:
I think Erik has shown that his vision is one thing at one time and another thing at another.
Click to expand...
Which isn't a bad thing per se, we all adore SAF and adaptability was his one of his best traits.

Bastian said:
Maybe now he is actually trying to implement his favoured style of play. However, I find the more interesting and relevant question to be what does the footballing hierarchy consider to be our game model. I've not seen anything beyond very vague descriptions that could mean almost anything.

And if there's a managerial change, isn't it good to actually know that alleged game model?
Click to expand...
I think, the issue here is that this will be pretty difficult to see for an outside. Because a game model (or what I understand when I hear this term) will always be adapted to the players at your disposable at a certain point in time and the opponent. At the minute, the data set is very limited and speculation is needed.

I for one think that ETH really delayed his ideas for one year after he got two bad results in his first two games. Only in his 2nd year he played with pressing and a more aggressive team shape - only to run into big issues with injuries which made that even more of a challenge than it would have been without. This year is difficult to say, pre season I felt we played very similar to the season before and then in the first two games we've seen two very good halves of football each, before we reverted back though. Game at Villa was either a reaction to an in-form opponent or an indicator that ETH entered survival mode - another factor that will make it harder to distinguish what the "game model" would be.

I guess, we will see it over time especially in recruiting, when rather unknown players will be brought in who seem to function really well. In terms of the actual playing, my personal expectation is that it will take a while until such thing could be visible at all - I mean, lets look at our players, most of them are very different from each other, especially in midfield and in defense. I think, it is next to impossible to imagine finding a formula where Bruno is playing a role that Mount or Eriksen would play in another game - one game model would mean, that overall the outlook of the team at least stays comparable. Think that is close to impossible for our current squad (which shows how plan-less the recruiting has been). People love to talk about having options on the bench to "add a new impulse". Well that would be great but what also would be great would be to be able to play one game plan somewhat independently on who is available. As last season where the injuries to Martinez and Shaw made some ideas impossible. Only similarities are among most of the wingers and fullbacks. But apart from that, the different skillsets are obvious.
 
I think it is clear what the game model is. What is not clear is why we are struggling so hard with it.

The reason mentioned “players not fast enough, fit enough” doesn’t convince me because you see other teams with older players playing this system and making it work.
 
Our game model is described internally as “Double Ended”

Specifically, there are two goals on the pitch, one at each end. So the focus is on overloading these areas.

One analytical insight revealed there isn’t a goal in the middle of the pitch so it makes sense to evolve the formation accordingly, hence 4-1-5 and 2-0-8 formations

But “Game Model” per-se extends beyond just formations, it helps align tactics with culture.

Apparently we’re aiming to drive towards a culture akin to Fergusson’s “Play it forward” focus albeit tweaked for the modern game.

Our cultural focus is on “Pay it forward” whereby we overpay clubs and players to support the wider eco-system and enhance individual wellbeing. So far, so good.
 
NZT-One said:
I think, the issue here is that this will be pretty difficult to see for an outside. Because a game model (or what I understand when I hear this term) will always be adapted to the players at your disposable at a certain point in time and the opponent. At the minute, the data set is very limited and speculation is needed.

I for one think that ETH really delayed his ideas for one year after he got two bad results in his first two games. Only in his 2nd year he played with pressing and a more aggressive team shape - only to run into big issues with injuries which made that even more of a challenge than it would have been without. This year is difficult to say, pre season I felt we played very similar to the season before and then in the first two games we've seen two very good halves of football each, before we reverted back though. Game at Villa was either a reaction to an in-form opponent or an indicator that ETH entered survival mode - another factor that will make it harder to distinguish what the "game model" would be.

I guess, we will see it over time especially in recruiting, when rather unknown players will be brought in who seem to function really well. In terms of the actual playing, my personal expectation is that it will take a while until such thing could be visible at all - I mean, lets look at our players, most of them are very different from each other, especially in midfield and in defense. I think, it is next to impossible to imagine finding a formula where Bruno is playing a role that Mount or Eriksen would play in another game - one game model would mean, that overall the outlook of the team at least stays comparable. Think that is close to impossible for our current squad (which shows how plan-less the recruiting has been). People love to talk about having options on the bench to "add a new impulse". Well that would be great but what also would be great would be to be able to play one game plan somewhat independently on who is available. As last season where the injuries to Martinez and Shaw made some ideas impossible. Only similarities are among most of the wingers and fullbacks. But apart from that, the different skillsets are obvious.
Click to expand...

I see it the same way with regards to ETH. In hindsight, and at the time, it was strange to purchase Eriksen given Bruno was here and the two together in midfield is not really conducive to a high pressing team that's quick in transitions. To then add Casemiro to that and ask of him to do a Makelele in there (surrounded by less mobile players than Makelele was) is asking a lot, though Casemiro had a period of about 6 months where he was outstanding and our most important player bar none.

A lot of people said when ETH was appointed that there were quite a few players who were not tactically suitable to what was expected to his style of play, AWB, Maguire, de Gea, Bruno, Martial, McTominay, and Fred. Fred was probably the most suited of them to all function in that type of scenario but was the first out the door. I thought it was good to get him out at the time, but in hindsight I see it as a major mistake.

But in terms of wanting a head coach rather than a manager, so you can build the squad as you see fit according to the clear ideas you have of the style of play, philosophy or game model, choose your terminology, it would make sense to actually know what that is. I don't think it should be compromised on due to pragmatism, so favouring long-term ambitions over short-term loss-chasing. So if there actually is a game model that the higher ups have settled on that would be quite important to adhere to when hiring the next manager or when deciding on which players need moving out.

I still do not think Maguire or Bruno work in what I expected from ETH (or a manager with a similar expected style of play). And I don't think Rashford works either, as he needs space to run into, he hasn't developed enough to work in a more progressive brand of football. Sancho if he had the required mentality has the skill set, but without the right mentality you really have nothing.

So if Erik is still genuinely trying to implement what I expected at the start, a high pressing game, front foot defending with a high line, quick movement, quick passing, vertical football, he needs about 3-4 genuine athletes for that. Makes me surprised that we signed Zirkzee for instance.

Again, I am hoping that there'll be some substance from the hierarchy directly or indirectly about what their actual vision is. Being linked to a mishmash of managers makes no sense if there is actually a clear vision that is adhered to.
 
Bastian said:
I see it the same way with regards to ETH. In hindsight, and at the time, it was strange to purchase Eriksen given Bruno was here and the two together in midfield is not really conducive to a high pressing team that's quick in transitions. To then add Casemiro to that and ask of him to do a Makelele in there (surrounded by less mobile players than Makelele was) is asking a lot, though Casemiro had a period of about 6 months where he was outstanding and our most important player bar none.
Click to expand...
Yeah good point. And it goes to show how planless our recruitment has been even during ETHs time here. We could even prolong that list including Antony for that ridiculous amount of money, note the weirdness of jumping from pursuing FDJ to Casemiro to the whole Eriksen situation right now where he was freezed out last season to start every match in this season. In a role that didn't exist last season which was the downfall of Amrabat who burned due to attempting to combine Eriksens role of today and Casemiros as well. With a DM next to him, as Eriksen had this season, an Amrabat wouldn't have looked so out of place.
Bastian said:
A lot of people said when ETH was appointed that there were quite a few players who were not tactically suitable to what was expected to his style of play, AWB, Maguire, de Gea, Bruno, Martial, McTominay, and Fred. Fred was probably the most suited of them to all function in that type of scenario but was the first out the door. I thought it was good to get him out at the time, but in hindsight I see it as a major mistake.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. It was the right call to sell Fred but it was weird to let him go considering we were about to play a system where a lot indicates he might have flourished. To be perfectly honest, to a degree, the Donny-story is a bit similar. This free 8 position is what created Donnys reputation that got him the transfer, but when we finally played with a formation that had this role description, he wasn't even once tried there.

To me, that is criticism towards ETH, who seems stubborn in some aspects but not consequential enough in others.
Bastian said:
But in terms of wanting a head coach rather than a manager, so you can build the squad as you see fit according to the clear ideas you have of the style of play, philosophy or game model, choose your terminology, it would make sense to actually know what that is. I don't think it should be compromised on due to pragmatism, so favouring long-term ambitions over short-term loss-chasing. So if there actually is a game model that the higher ups have settled on that would be quite important to adhere to when hiring the next manager or when deciding on which players need moving out.
Click to expand...
I agree. Which is why I find it so alarming that a notion of "bring in anybody, it can't get worse" is spreading the way it is. Even though I obviously understand where it comes from.
Bastian said:
I still do not think Maguire or Bruno work in what I expected from ETH (or a manager with a similar expected style of play). And I don't think Rashford works either, as he needs space to run into, he hasn't developed enough to work in a more progressive brand of football. Sancho if he had the required mentality has the skill set, but without the right mentality you really have nothing.
Click to expand...
I agree. But I think, this is also down to some external factors. I mean, last season, with the injuries in defense, ETH had to make use of Maguire and he did do a good job. With Bruno and Rashford, I agree, it appears that ETH tried to have them as his saviours but we can also attest, that many attempts to change that unhealthy dependence on both Bruno and Rashford failed for multiple reasons. Greenwood gone, Antony not finding his feet and looking like a liability rather than an asset, Sancho flopping, Mount being injured for most of last season. Seeing all of it at once, this is a lot to deal with. And thats not me saying ETH is faultless in all of that, he isn't. But there is stuff happening (and going badly) outside of him as well.
Bastian said:
So if Erik is still genuinely trying to implement what I expected at the start, a high pressing game, front foot defending with a high line, quick movement, quick passing, vertical football, he needs about 3-4 genuine athletes for that. Makes me surprised that we signed Zirkzee for instance.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can only assume that the idea behind JZ is that he is a good striker in terms of setting up his team mates, which is something that might be a good fit having wingers like Rashford and Garnacho, who don't seem to work with the existing striker, Hojlund, given that they seem reluctant to create chances. But yes, ending up with two promising striker that shouldn't carry the burden of scoring for a club like United yet is a bit of weird squad planning move. In terms of athleticism, completely agree - we are missing quite a lot in that aspect. But you can see it around here, enough fans think, that we only have to bring in quality on the ball and then everything will settle...
Bastian said:
Again, I am hoping that there'll be some substance from the hierarchy directly or indirectly about what their actual vision is. Being linked to a mishmash of managers makes no sense if there is actually a clear vision that is adhered to.
Click to expand...
It is a grim outlook indeed. But at this point, I would be fine to tick a few boxes at least. The next manager has to continue the pressing aspect, a manager who is going to set us up deeper, even if that is very likely to improve results quickly, isn't going to help us longterm.
 
While I don't think ETH's style of play is the game model that the Ineos Team would like to implement here. It's still very worrying that this may be something close to the game model they envision because otherwise they wouldn't keep ETH in the summer and even now when we are at 14th.

I know ETH is not their preferred choice but he is still considered the best candidate out there that we could get to implement the system after rejection from the managers they interviewed.

I really hope the best in class Ineos Team see something that we normal fans can't see.
 
Rossa said:
No idea, but damn if I didn't loathe how LVG went on and on about his philosophy like he was Socrates incarnated. It's football for fecks sake. Management style, play style, whatever, just don't call it a philosophy. Game model is OK, but what is it about Dutch managers and the need to conceal turd in a nice wrapping?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Football fans nowadays have a fetish for overcomplicating the game. It's just 22 players kicking a ball on grass. Ain't rocket science.

Teams only need balance between attacking and defending. Playing Styles aren't that critical imo, especially in possession. Defensively, there should be structure and work ethic.

Mourinhos Chelsea and Fergies United were two of this leagues most dominant sides. I don't recall them having a specific game model or philosophy. Both stuck to the fundamental principles and would regularly adapt their systems.
 
NZT-One said:
Yeah good point. And it goes to show how planless our recruitment has been even during ETHs time here. We could even prolong that list including Antony for that ridiculous amount of money, note the weirdness of jumping from pursuing FDJ to Casemiro to the whole Eriksen situation right now where he was freezed out last season to start every match in this season. In a role that didn't exist last season which was the downfall of Amrabat who burned due to attempting to combine Eriksens role of today and Casemiros as well. With a DM next to him, as Eriksen had this season, an Amrabat wouldn't have looked so out of place.

Completely agree. It was the right call to sell Fred but it was weird to let him go considering we were about to play a system where a lot indicates he might have flourished. To be perfectly honest, to a degree, the Donny-story is a bit similar. This free 8 position is what created Donnys reputation that got him the transfer, but when we finally played with a formation that had this role description, he wasn't even once tried there.

To me, that is criticism towards ETH, who seems stubborn in some aspects but not consequential enough in others.

I agree. Which is why I find it so alarming that a notion of "bring in anybody, it can't get worse" is spreading the way it is. Even though I obviously understand where it comes from.

I agree. But I think, this is also down to some external factors. I mean, last season, with the injuries in defense, ETH had to make use of Maguire and he did do a good job. With Bruno and Rashford, I agree, it appears that ETH tried to have them as his saviours but we can also attest, that many attempts to change that unhealthy dependence on both Bruno and Rashford failed for multiple reasons. Greenwood gone, Antony not finding his feet and looking like a liability rather than an asset, Sancho flopping, Mount being injured for most of last season. Seeing all of it at once, this is a lot to deal with. And thats not me saying ETH is faultless in all of that, he isn't. But there is stuff happening (and going badly) outside of him as well.

Yeah, I can only assume that the idea behind JZ is that he is a good striker in terms of setting up his team mates, which is something that might be a good fit having wingers like Rashford and Garnacho, who don't seem to work with the existing striker, Hojlund, given that they seem reluctant to create chances. But yes, ending up with two promising striker that shouldn't carry the burden of scoring for a club like United yet is a bit of weird squad planning move. In terms of athleticism, completely agree - we are missing quite a lot in that aspect. But you can see it around here, enough fans think, that we only have to bring in quality on the ball and then everything will settle...

It is a grim outlook indeed. But at this point, I would be fine to tick a few boxes at least. The next manager has to continue the pressing aspect, a manager who is going to set us up deeper, even if that is very likely to improve results quickly, isn't going to help us longterm.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all accounts. I think where we differ is that I don't believe Erik can salvage things. He's got some players who don't work for what he wants and he perseveres with them because there aren't capable alternatives (or the alternatives cannot stay fit), last season counts against him so he's not managed to progress the team enough and most people's patience has been worn out. For it to work he'd really need to make major decisions on current players and bring in some athletes as soon as possible.

I hope the decision makers at the club actually do have a strong vision and that potential managerial candidates are only those that fit with that vision in the short and long term. But giving Bruno that contract makes me think there is no long-term vision. He was practically holding the club ransom by that saying that the club needed to show they wanted him, while he was earning 200K or North of that, with 3 years on his deal, captaining the side.

If we go for a manager that plays a deep line and we persist with Bruno and Rashford as untouchables it will cement that they don't know what they're doing. So I hope that Bruno contract was just a major feck up that they'll learn from immediately.
 
The 2nd half style of play should be the benchmark from now on. This is the minimum we must demand from the manager and players.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Ultimately, Berrada, Ashworth and Wilcox need to build a model similar to RM, Barca, City, BM and even Liverpool. Managers can come and go, the team still play good football and win things.

To lesser extend, model similar to Brighton, Dortmund.

We can't keep giving excuses we can't find a "preferred" manager and hence keeping the disaster of a manager. These excuses have to end some time in future and the best in class football people need to do their job.

Maybe by 2028 as Berrada stated we would win PL by then.
Click to expand...

You’re right, but it takes a while. It took City 8+ years and the GDP of a small country just to get this in place. You’d think it’d be harder at City because they had further to go, but I’d argue it’s easier because they were a blank slate and didn’t have decades of ingrained success and history to navigate like we do.
 
We play a different style every game. I'm yet to see a top side change tactics every week depending on who they are playing
 
El Zoido said:
You’re right, but it takes a while. It took City 8+ years and the GDP of a small country just to get this in place. You’d think it’d be harder at City because they had further to go, but I’d argue it’s easier because they were a blank slate and didn’t have decades of ingrained success and history to navigate like we do.
Click to expand...
I'm really not sure what you are talking about.
 
Defend well for 90% of the game. Give the ball to Rashford/Garnacho a couple of times a game to make something happen.

Pray.
 
JJ12 said:
Defend well for 90% of the game. Give the ball to Rashford/Garnacho a couple of times a game to make something happen.

Pray.
Click to expand...
They got the ball quite a few times, not sure where you get this "couple" from.
 
JJ12 said:
Defend well for 90% of the game. Give the ball to Rashford/Garnacho a couple of times a game to make something happen.

Pray.
Click to expand...
That's exactly it.

Be nice to see us keep ball for more then 5 mins. Patterns of play playing out from the back and in final 3rd, overloads on flanks, cut teams open, have some structure to our play.

I watched Chelsea last night and I know level of opponents weren't great but they made playing out from the back so easy and u can see they work on it. Patterns of their play and progressing up the pitch playing out from the back to create chances. They have a new coach and can see the work being done on the training ground.

Ten Hag in 3rd year and no improvement in our play or have a stamp on a playing style
 
JJ12 said:
Change the word couple to few then mate
Click to expand...
Quite a few means a pretty decent amount. They were the players we constantly pushed the ball to when possible. They had plenty of the ball imo, but obviously more is better.
 
Usually TH picks Onana and Bruno, then rolls a dice evens this players in, odds not, move to the next player on the list.
After last nights selections, starting and subs, its obvious he hasnt a clue. Protect Brunos position at all cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.