What to do with Hannibal?

[m1tch]

1 game a week for now seems a reasonable approach, and see how it goes. Ideally the more senior players will take the responsibility of higher pressure games, as a red card in such a match could really set him back.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

We've been there under Solskjaer, having four players carrying the attacking burden and two defensive midfielders behind them mopping up. It's a road that leads to nowhere. If the collective is such a desperate need of track and field athletes instead of proper footballers right at the heart of the team, the collective needs to feck off. If the manager has backed himself into that same old corner again, after spending half a billion, then he should feck off, too.

What to do with Hannibal? He'll be the back-up option until further notice. We're discussing the same things over and over again. Why didn't he play Hannibal? Why did he sell Fred? Why did he make plans to play with two creative players in the midfield? Because the creativity has to come from the midfield. On the left, you have a forward occupying a midfielder's role, so the LB's job will always be to provide support and defensive cover for him. On the right, Antony can keep the ball by hugging the touchline, but your overlapping/underlapping FBs are AWB and Dalot. Bruno moves into spaces that suit his needs and not the ones of his teammates. Martial has only one move (from CF position to the left half-space) and Rasmus still looks a bit lost.

Good teams create room in their starting line-ups for players whose abilities open up more options and variables for the whole team and enable the collective to try the more "risky" things on the pitch. Not "servants" to attackers who need all the stars to be aligned to produce end-product. That football is dead and gone.

 

[philippexyz]

This season is a write off with all the injuries, on and off the pitch issues, plus the looming dark cloud of a possible sale or Glazers staying and basically killing the club, long term. Ten Hag will be in danger of getting sacked and it seriously might happen.

I would play young , talented midfielders(Hannibal and Mainoo) as much as possible for them to gain experience at this level and mature.

Think we should often play a midfield of Casemiro/Amrabat - Hannibal/Mainoo - Mount this season to see how it works. Casemiro - Amrabat - Mount in tougher away games so we don't get humiliated potentially with 5+ goals conceded again. Bruno needs to be phased out slowly(if not swiftly) and I think more and more people on this forum are going to wake up and understand that. There is already a good portion of thoughtful, intellectually sharp people who see beyond the "stats" and what is the problem with him. Eriksen has no legs/physicality necessary anymore. McT and VDB are useless. Dan Gore - I don't know.

Hannibal, Mainoo, Amrabat and Mount are likely the most technically gifted footballers(in terms of comfort with the ball at their feet), press resistant. And all of them have pretty good work rate as well.

Mount should be the most advanced(attacking midfielder) - at least he can somewhat carry the ball, and retain it + he has an eye for a goal(one of his strengths). Bruno and Eriksen backing him up, rotating sometimes in less important games, while they are still at the club, even though they shouldn't be, really.

But I know that's not possible, Ten Hag has made Bruno captain and undroppable, untouchable. Put all his eggs in his basket and "transitional football" with a hot potato midfield that gives the ball away for fun, like it's a toy or a hot lava. And we are where we are - lost 4 of the 7 PL games, two at home. Ten Hag likely gets sacked(especially if ambitious new owners come in, which is still a possibility) and we start all over again. He disappointed me, and I had hope for him.

 

[Fortitude]

To keep this simple, Amrabat isn't a left back, he only played good in the cup because he wasn't challenged for the first 45mins and effectively played as a midfielder. You will say the difference is Hannibal, I will say Crystal Palace was weakened and not interested in winning the game so let's agree to disagree as neither of us can prove the point.

Crystal Palace were interested in winning the game until they weren't. As outlined in the OP, we played our hand in dissuading them. I had reservations about the game beyond the point they stopped contesting it, but that doesn't and shouldn't negate how or why that came about.

Teams like Palace don't go into cup competitions to throw them outright, but they do make calculated assessments on whether a game is worth going for or not at key junctures and that is what we affected.

Point can be dropped, but it's still one worth making.

I agree with midfield being THE issue. However, I just don't see how Hannibal is the solution to it. For me he's just another 8/10 hybrid as we already have 3 of those. He played against Burnley and we were lucky to get anything more than a draw from this game. We actually looked better in possession and created more chances (based on xG) and limited CP to less chances than Burnley. So how did we come to a conclusion that Hannibal is the missing piece here?

Again, OP mentions that without Fred, the only player who can start from a high midfield position and press hard and effectively backwards is Hannibal.

It's pretty clear what the intention is with Mount and that he is an exceptional front-foot presser who can aggressively cordon whilst waiting assistance, but he is not the guy who can track ball carriers and breachers who beat the first phase of a press and are then on their way into the nitty gritty of an actual CM battle, absolutely neither is Bruno who himself is much better going towards the man higher up the pitch. Theoretically, you can see why a portion of this two #10 business might work. On the other hand, the immediate concern it leaves Casemiro with far too much ground to cover and shore up is the crux of this paragraph; it's because both of the players mention don't excel at tracking runners or going deep into midfield doggedly pursuing a man. More specifically, it's the role of a midfield runner, which neither of them are.

Hannibal ushers ball carriers into covering midfielders. Actually, better to say, the midfield runner does that by default. It's not a new role, we're just inherently dire at it as a squad to the point of: if not Hannibal who else can do it to the standard the league demands?

Anyway, back to midfield. Amrabat goes back to play alongside Casemiro. One of Mount/Bruno plays #10, the other one goes RW. We pray this works. I don't see any other way. And then, if we're winning, and opposition is trying to win midfield battle and is forced to attack, Hannibal makes sense.

I don't disagree with this, but in the here and now, we still have games to contest and holes in midfield to shore up.

He is not a solution for a game that we are forced to play in possession against low block.

What I feel your post is missing is appreciation of how you keep a low block a low block and actually hem your opponent in and kill their attempts to breach in bursts.

You make it sound like Palace faced an onslaught and we just couldn't break them down. The reality is, they scored and shelled up and then picked their moments to break out and caused us all sorts of problems leading to Casemiro walking a red card tightrope and Amrabat looking new and shocked by the pace of the league. Amrabat wasn't toasted just as a FB, he was struggling in midfield itself and was not accustomed to having so little time to sort himself out, that is exacerbated when the players breaching the lines have no concerted pressure on them to hurry their play along and make them think and act quicker than they'd like.

You don't just want high possession stats. By itself it means nothing as teams often cede possession to play a low block. What you want is that the pieces of possession the opposition manage to have are as disordely and unsettled as possible, disrupting their actual plan and genuinely heaping pressure on them, which often leads to lapses in concentration and eventual openings that are clear cut. We rarely reach that state and it's something we are behind a host of teams for this season, so the point is what we do in the here and now whilst we're losing games and playing really poor football on and off the ball.

 

[iHicksy]

Not much, he's young. Let him develop.

I'm curious how you think players develop if it isn't through being played consistently? I seem to recall a 17 year old Beckham, Giggs, Ronaldo etc playing pretty much every game.

Likewise, how do you develop players when there's no space in the squad? You send them out to a team who will...guess what? Play them every game.

Picking and choosing games so he gets 10 starts a season isn't going to cut it.

 

[stw2022]

I'm curious how you think players develop if it isn't through being played consistently? I seem to recall a 17 year old Beckham, Giggs, Ronaldo etc playing pretty much every game.

Likewise, how do you develop players when there's no space in the squad? You send them out to a team who will...guess what? Play them every game.

Picking and choosing games so he gets 10 starts a season isn't going to cut it.

Beckham didn't become a a regular until he was 20

 

[JB7]

Well look at the table mate. We're 7 points behind and play on a different level than the current top 4. (And top 6 which is 1 point behind top 4, so there's competition)

That can change, but not overnight, while the other top 4 teams continue. It's not far-fetched to say it's almost gone.

The bolded part is all you need. We are 7 points behind. There are 31 games left. It's nowhere near "almost gone".

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Didn’t he start two games in 4 days?

 

[Borys]

Crystal Palace were interested in winning the game until they weren't. As outlined in the OP, we played our hand in dissuading them. I had reservations about the game beyond the point they stopped contesting it, but that doesn't and shouldn't negate how or why that came about.

Teams like Palace don't go into cup competitions to throw them outright, but they do make calculated assessments on whether a game is worth going for or not at key junctures and that is what we affected.

Point can be dropped, but it's still one worth making.
Again, OP mentions that without Fred, the only player who can start from a high midfield position and press hard and effectively backwards is Hannibal.

We did play a role. Do I assume correctly you believe Hannibal played a key role there? Did he also play the same key role against Burnley?
The bolded part is interesting, because he was lucky not to get sent off how he dealt with runners in midfield. I'd definitely not say it's his strength.

It's pretty clear what the intention is with Mount and that he is an exceptional front-foot presser who can aggressively cordon whilst waiting assistance, but he is not the guy who can track ball carriers and breachers who beat the first phase of a press and are then on their way into the nitty gritty of an actual CM battle, absolutely neither is Bruno who himself is much better going towards the man higher up the pitch. Theoretically, you can see why a portion of this two #10 business might work. On the other hand, the immediate concern it leaves Casemiro with far too much ground to cover and shore up is the crux of this paragraph; it's because both of the players mention don't excel at tracking runners or going deep into midfield doggedly pursuing a man. More specifically, it's the role of a midfield runner, which neither of them are.

Hannibal ushers ball carriers into covering midfielders. Actually, better to say, the midfield runner does that by default. It's not a new role, we're just inherently dire at it as a squad to the point of: if not Hannibal who else can do it to the standard the league demands?

I don't disagree with this, but in the here and now, we still have games to contest and holes in midfield to shore up.

What I feel your post is missing is appreciation of how you keep a low block a low block and actually hem your opponent in and kill their attempts to breach in bursts.

You make it sound like Palace faced an onslaught and we just couldn't break them down. The reality is, they scored and shelled up and then picked their moments to break out and caused us all sorts of problems leading to Casemiro walking a red card tightrope and Amrabat looking new and shocked by the pace of the league. Amrabat wasn't toasted just as a FB, he was struggling in midfield itself and was not accustomed to having so little time to sort himself out, that is exacerbated when the players breaching the lines have no concerted pressure on them to hurry their play along and make them think and act quicker than they'd like.

You don't just want high possession stats. By itself it means nothing as teams often cede possession to play a low block. What you want is that the pieces of possession the opposition manage to have are as disordely and unsettled as possible, disrupting their actual plan and genuinely heaping pressure on them, which often leads to lapses in concentration and eventual openings that are clear cut. We rarely reach that state and it's something we are behind a host of teams for this season, so the point is what we do in the here and now whilst we're losing games and playing really poor football on and off the ball.

I agree about Mount/Bruno, but this problem is caused by them both being too high up the pitch. It's easy to get the ball between them and Casemiro, what means it's a highway to our goal. This is why I think this setup with #6 and two #10s/offensive #8s is always going to cause us more trouble than for the opposition. Going back to comment above, Hannibal is willing runner but definitely not a guy to cleanly get the ball back against a runner.

I generally agree with almost everything in your comment, with this one remark that you believe we are poor at chasing runners because neither Mount/Bruno are good at this and Hannibal is, while I believe the problem is their default position is too high. Mount is capable of tracking back, I don't think that's the problem (even if that's not his strength). Bruno should be nowhere near midfield though.

IMO the solution is Mount needs to be more of an 8 than a 10, both in offensive transition/buildup he needs to get more on the ball, and while defending he should not be pushing so high. In current setup we are simply man down in midfield.

Coming back to Hannibal, he can be the sub to keep the high intensity in midfield, but he is not a solution to any of our problems imo.

EDIT: regarding Amrabat, I believe it's very difficult to play in current United team in midfield and it boils down to the same reason, attacking players stay too high, not enough of them are dropping to receive the ball and lay off to somebody. Only Eriksen and Mainoo (in pre-season) seem capable of always finding a pass that will progress the play. Eriksen is done. Mainoo is too young and his form in preseason was too good to be true.

 

[11101]

I dont think he's going to make it here long term but he would be a helpful player to have in the side right now. His energy and just being a centre mid would make us a more balanced team. Having said that, if he got torn to bits in a Premier League game it could break him mentally at this stage in his career.

 

[Fortitude]

We did play a role. Do I assume correctly you believe Hannibal played a key role there? Did he also play the same key role against Burnley?
The bolded part is interesting, because he was lucky not to get sent off how he dealt with runners in midfield. I'd definitely not say it's his strength.

Hannibal has been rightly lauded for his off the ball work. His use of the ball is what has been scrutinised.

I think you’re conflating over eagerness in the actual tackle with the awareness and doggedness to be there to make those tackles in the first place. No-one else is in place to make those tackles; our squad is bereft of runners and we sold the only other one we had.

I agree about Mount/Bruno, but this problem is caused by them both being too high up the pitch. It's easy to get the ball between them and Casemiro, what means it's a highway to our goal. This is why I think this setup with #6 and two #10s/offensive #8s is always going to cause us more trouble than for the opposition. Going back to comment above, Hannibal is willing runner but definitely not a guy to cleanly get the ball back against a runner.

I generally agree with almost everything in your comment, with this one remark that you believe we are poor at chasing runners because neither Mount/Bruno are good at this and Hannibal is, while I believe the problem is their default position is too high. Mount is capable of tracking back, I don't think that's the problem (even if that's not his strength). Bruno should be nowhere near midfield though.

IMO the solution is Mount needs to be more of an 8 than a 10, both in offensive transition/buildup he needs to get more on the ball, and while defending he should not be pushing so high. In current setup we are simply man down in midfield.

Coming back to Hannibal, he can be the sub to keep the high intensity in midfield, but he is not a solution to any of our problems imo.

Nominal position on the pitch nearly always betrays itself as players immediately revert to type under duress. It’s actually a quality in itself for a player to remain steadfast in a position that isn’t what they were raised in. Funnily enough, we have a number of players who constantly betray the position they are being deployed in to do what’s natural to them, generally we call it putting squares in round holes because of how unnatural and forced it clearly becomes when X is being blamed for not tracking Y despite X not having tracking Y hardcoded into his footballing DNA because it’s not how he was raised how to play. Then X is accused of switching off when the reality is X simply cannot process the information as succinctly as a player raised in that nominal role can and doesn’t know what to do once the pace of the game reaches instinctual levels (which is usually when superficial coaching goes out the window in most instances). This is why teams work to the overload and attempt to cause as many breaches and overloads as possible. Collapse is generally sure to follow if you can turn those screws enough. The system we try to force falls victim of it, where best laid plans go belly up the moment the opposition really go for us.

Forcing players to do what isn’t natural to them comes with potential fallout and collapse - it doesn’t make Mount a CM plonking him there; it doesn’t make Hannibal a #10 pushing him further forward, which is why both of them are being accused of looking unnatural where they’re playing, but the difference seems to be that Hannibal remains effective for the duration of his time on the pitch in terms of still tracking runners, killing passing lanes and being an absolute nuisance for the opposition until subbed. Mount drifts in and out of games because he’s trying to figure out where he can be effective and that’s harder in a role that you’re not instinctual in. In case this is misconstrued, the two look like a complementary pairing with Mount ahead of Hannibal, not behind.

I think not chasing runners with that venom and aggression you see other sides hunt and destroy with is a huge issue for us. Really huge. Our passive midfield creates a myriad of problems on both sides of the ball. Casemiro is getting pelters for looking like an unfit defensive mess who is making all these wild tackles that could see him sent off at any given moment. Do you think that’ll be the case if he’s sweeping instead of having to make snap decisions as ball carriers breach pressing lines with nobody taking up the responsibility of chasing them down? We’re constantly under the cosh at times we should be controlling the game by way of a simple run straight at us by any good (let alone great) ball carrier. This is why the illusion possession stats can present need to be examined to the minutiae - 65% possession with 3 effective opposing ball carrying runs mixed in is suddenly a big cause for concern, extrapolated, we see the problem with incomplete data or data not supplemented with processing what the opposing teams‘ objectives are.

As an aside, I think Fred’s wildly erratic nature had the manager distrust him, but in big games he was a player likely to feature to stop good or great ball carriers, with his performance against the best deep ball carrier in the world being perhaps our most euphoric game of the season. Unfortunately, this season, it’s not about lofty heights or even big games, but overall control and ability to shape games in a way that the goals can take a bit of time to come because our every action isn’t some hurried play leading to a half chance, which didn’t come about from assured control.

 

[Judas]

Simply play him instead of Amrabat next to Casemiro. The notion that Amrabat should be this great defensive player we need, is a bit weird.

We're basically too far behind to win anything, and top 4 is almost gone, so it's not like we have a lot to lose with developing a player like him.

It’s October 2nd. This is nonsense. People already writing this season off are crazy.

 

[Borys]

Hannibal has been rightly lauded for his off the ball work. His use of the ball is what has been scrutinised.

I think you’re conflating over eagerness in the actual tackle with the awareness and doggedness to be there to make those tackles in the first place. No-one else is in place to make those tackles; our squad is bereft of runners and we sold the only other one we had.

Nominal position on the pitch nearly always betrays itself as players immediately revert to type under duress. It’s actually a quality in itself for a player to remain steadfast in a position that isn’t what they were raised in. Funnily enough, we have a number of players who constantly betray the position they are being deployed in to do what’s natural to them, generally we call it putting squares in round holes because of how unnatural and forced it clearly becomes when X is being blamed for not tracking Y despite X not having tracking Y hardcoded into his footballing DNA because it’s not how he was raised how to play. Then X is accused of switching off when the reality is X simply cannot process the information as succinctly as a player raised in that nominal role can and doesn’t know what to do once the pace of the game reaches instinctual levels (which is usually when superficial coaching goes out the window in most instances). This is why teams work to the overload and attempt to cause as many breaches and overloads as possible. Collapse is generally sure to follow if you can turn those screws enough. The system we try to force falls victim of it, where best laid plans go belly up the moment the opposition really go for us.

Forcing players to do what isn’t natural to them comes with potential fallout and collapse - it doesn’t make Mount a CM plonking him there; it doesn’t make Hannibal a #10 pushing him further forward, which is why both of them are being accused of looking unnatural where they’re playing, but the difference seems to be that Hannibal remains effective for the duration of his time on the pitch in terms of still tracking runners, killing passing lanes and being an absolute nuisance for the opposition until subbed. Mount drifts in and out of games because he’s trying to figure out where he can be effective and that’s harder in a role that you’re not instinctual in. In case this is misconstrued, the two look like a complementary pairing with Mount ahead of Hannibal, not behind.

I think not chasing runners with that venom and aggression you see other sides hunt and destroy with is a huge issue for us. Really huge. Our passive midfield creates a myriad of problems on both sides of the ball. Casemiro is getting pelters for looking like an unfit defensive mess who is making all these wild tackles that could see him sent off at any given moment. Do you think that’ll be the case if he’s sweeping instead of having to make snap decisions as ball carriers breach pressing lines with nobody taking up the responsibility of chasing them down? We’re constantly under the cosh at times we should be controlling the game by way of a simple run straight at us by any good (let alone great) ball carrier. This is why the illusion possession stats can present need to be examined to the minutiae - 65% possession with 3 effective opposing ball carrying runs mixed in is suddenly a big cause for concern, extrapolated, we see the problem with incomplete data or data not supplemented with processing what the opposing teams‘ objectives are.

As an aside, I think Fred’s wildly erratic nature had the manager distrust him, but in big games he was a player likely to feature to stop good or great ball carriers, with his performance against the best deep ball carrier in the world being perhaps our most euphoric game of the season. Unfortunately, this season, it’s not about lofty heights or even big games, but overall control and ability to shape games in a way that the goals can take a bit of time to come because our every action isn’t some hurried play leading to a half chance, which didn’t come about from assured control.

I agree with your view of our problems (defensively). But I don't see in Hannibal anything more than a willing runner. He is just much an asset and liability defensively.

There are question marks about his use of the ball, as you and many others admitted, therefore I don't understand why people think he would've been a good option against CP last Saturday.

 

[ROFLUTION]

It’s October 2nd. This is nonsense. People already writing this season off are crazy.

Is it really? We have an unseen amount of injuries, and our performances havent looked like picking up, and there’s an atmosphere of crisis around us which doesn’t benefit our performances. To me it’s way more than just meets the eye with 7 pts. Glass half empty and I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Rood]

I expected him to be sold in the summer, had a decent loan last season but nothing groundbreaking - even in preseason he didnt get much gametime with ETH prefering Mainoo and even Gore on some occasions

But injuries mean he got a shot and he has done better than expected - he's more about pure workrate than tekkers but maybe thats what we are lacking at the moment

I expect he'll start tomorrow - he had started the 2 before and unrealistic to expect a kid to play 3 in a row