I know the OP wants in-depth posts, and has got a lot of them, but in this instance, brevity is the best avenue, and simply put: Ole is just in over his head on every level.
It's no more complex than that.
It's no more complex than that.
On this, we're such a funny club. Two years back we had Martial, Rashford and Greenwood looking like such a promising front three. You'd think that adding Sancho, Ronaldo and Cavani to that would put us right up there but instead our pressing is worse than ever, Martial has gone to pieces, Sancho hasn't settled and Ronaldo-Greenwood have feck all chemistry.Ronaldo's signing is a problem I believe, because I think it messed up Ole's planning. I am quite sure that he would have liked to play a front three of Rashford, Greenwood and Sancho this season, due to Rashfords injury maybe Pogba on the left for the first games.
But now Ronaldo blocks the CF position, Greenwood is stuck on the right were he does feck all except sometimes scoring a great goal, Sancho is stuck on the left and does not understand how that happened, Bruno and Ronaldo don't work well for the national team and are just replicating that.
This is the correct answer. With the new signings and added pressure, Ole has had higher expectations and a need to show his tactical excellence, which he obviously simple does not have. Basically what many have been saying about him has gotten exposed. He is comfy playing safe-ball which will never take us past being a top 4 team. Asking for anything of someone of his level will give you the results we've seen.I know the OP wants in-depth posts, and has got a lot of them, but in this instance, brevity is the best avenue, and simply put: Ole is just in over his head on every level.
It's no more complex than that.
The reason the Ronaldo transfer is an issue is that it raised the expectations to a level which was far above the squad and staffs capabilities. If everyone on here was picking the three or four most significant weaknesses in the team at the end of last season I’d be very surprised if a cf would have got more than 10% of the votes.The amount of “Ronaldo” answers in here tell me an enormous portion of fans had their heads so firmly buried in the sand last season and versus Southampton and Wolves at the start of this.
I’m not too worried about Sancho not having settled yet. It’s pretty normal for players from the Bundesliga to settle quickly into the Premiership. Look at Werner & Havertz if you need examplesOn this, we're such a funny club. Two years back we had Martial, Rashford and Greenwood looking like such a promising front three. You'd think that adding Sancho, Ronaldo and Cavani to that would put us right up there but instead our pressing is worse than ever, Martial has gone to pieces, Sancho hasn't settled and Ronaldo-Greenwood have feck all chemistry.
We were shocking last season for virtually 45 minutes of every game.Yeah because the Ronaldo transfer is nothing to do with it. Sorry.
I agree we were lucky so often it was only a matter of time before it ran out. I agree with the other guy too, Ronaldos arrival has taken it up a notch and exposed everything that most of us could see. I am not blaming Ronaldo. I think we should be at his level. I don't think we needed him and other positions were a priority. The club and board were happy as a top 4 team though. This is where the friction is for me. Bringing in world class players and expecting them to have top 4 management as has been said. Ronaldos arrival has definitely rocked the boat but this is a good thing I think.We were shocking last season for virtually 45 minutes of every game.
Going behind and winning every game wasn't sustainable. We've had a slight drop of defensively so instead of going behind 1 we now go behind 2, and Bruno isn't playing like the best player in the world anymore so we just aren't able to rely on his brilliance to force a come back.
I really don't think the levels are that much different to last year as a whole.
I think the main thing is that Liverpool haven't had an injury crisis and Chelsea don't have Frank Lampard in charge. Probably could throw in the fact that the fixture list isn't quite as congested and plans are a bit more clear in terms of COVID (no last minute decimating of squads due to positive results).
Good post but "We need a top striker" was actually one of the most common posts here last season. It was one of five positions these people said we needed to strengthen (CB, RW, ST, DM and FB). Even Neville was moaning about not signing Kane a few weeks ago. If anything it just confirms these people were just winging it or thought we could spend our way into making Ole look like a United manager. I still can't believe he found a way to be a worse manager after getting better players. That is legendary incompetence. I think many warned that lot buying galacticos across the pitch wasn't going to improve our play. Can't believe this shitehouse has deteriorated into scapegoating Ronaldo. The manager cult always want someone to go down for their man's failings.The reason the Ronaldo transfer is an issue is that it raised the expectations to a level which was far above the squad and staffs capabilities. If everyone on here was picking the three or four most significant weaknesses in the team at the end of last season I’d be very surprised if a cf would have got more than 10% of the votes.
Signing Ronaldo was great for creating media interest and shareholder value and for fans like me who saw his first debut and watched him grow up in those early years it gave a warm, fuzzy feeling but apart from some lazy pundits who seem to get paid by the drunken word, I doubt there were many people who sat down and thought ‘that’s exactly what this team needed’.
So, while Ronaldo has raised expectations, and pressure, to a new high he’s not the main reason for the poor start. That can be attributed more to the lack of identity and a cohesive plan. If you watch Liverpool or City you know what to expect from them when they recover the ball. With united you often don’t know what will happen next, although you could argue that you do know that whatever it is it won’t happen quickly.
thevother thing that seems to have happened is that Ole has listened to the critics and tried to play more expansive football in the bigger games. Such a significant change of style requires a lot of coaching and practice but both seem conspicuous by their absence.
I don't really see much evidence of this being the case though. What tactical changes has he made that suggests he's trying a more attacking or controlled approach?
We've had periods where we're much more attacking but it's because we've been behind or trying for the last minute winner.
Good post but "We need a top striker" was actually one of the most common posts here last season. It was one of five positions these people said we needed to strengthen (CB, RW, ST, DM and FB). Even Neville was moaning about not signing Kane a few weeks ago. If anything it just confirms these people were just winging it or thought we could spend our way into making Ole look like a United manager. I still can't believe he found a way to be a worse manager after getting better players. That is legendary incompetence. I think many warned that lot buying galacticos across the pitch wasn't going to improve our play. Can't believe this shitehouse has deteriorated into scapegoating Ronaldo. The manager cult always want someone to go down for their man's failings.
I believe we are looking at numerous issues all coming to a head at the same time.
1. COACHING
We brought in the best CL player ever and defender that has won it all. We also added a youngster who has been coached by Man City and Dortmund. These three are used to elite level coaching and preparation. It is not unthinkable that these three showed up to practice, saw the stark contrast between earlier coaching and what they get today, and told their teammates what they are used to. It is also entirely possible that the coaching is really good, but that they lack the experience to adapt and change the system, or a lack of ability and experience to get players on board.
2. ELITE MENTALITY
Ronaldo changed the squad. A lot of players who were happy churning a long with half-good team performances suddenly started to ask questions - why aren't we playing more attacking, why aren't we pressing, why aren't we more prepared. This is where managerial experience and coaching experience comes into play. Unfortunately the managerial staff couldn't manage the situation and you wind up with players frustrated and annoyed. They probably looked around the dressing room and realised that the team is far too good to rely on defensive counter-attacking tactics.
3. TEAM SELECTIONS
Van de Beek has never had a chance to prove himself. Maguire plays despite not training. Ronaldo, 5 goals in 5, is benched. Fred plays despite performing badly. Telles is barely getting a look in despite the fact that our tactical analysis sheets show that Shaw loses the ball the most out of all of our players (Howson flipped through one on his stream). Sancho, a very expensive player with bags of talent, isn't playing. There are a bunch of players in the squad who basically never play, regardless of how shit certain players perform. Lingard went from being mint at West Ham to a liability for us and rarely plays.
When the team doesn't get results, players are ignored and bad performances are accepted, things are going to blow up in your face. This is compounded by the change in mentality that elite players such as Ronaldo and Varane bring to a squad.
4. GAME MANAGEMENT
Ole and his staff have always been slow to react during matches. It seems like they need to analyse and talk things through excessively before they intervene, which leads to unnecessary mistakes. Players can see this, they understand what is wrong - and they get impatient - which is only natural. When you win games these things don't matter, they are minor annoyances, but when you start losing they become glaring issues.
5. BALANCE
The balance of our team is all wrong. Our left flank is exposed 90% of the game. Our midfield is disconnected from the forward line, defenders are having to cover 2- 3 positions at once. It is a mess. Meanwhile we have the players to do something about it, but the management team just doesn't want to, stubbornly sticking to the same formation and the same player combinations. We need forward momentum in midfield, but we don't even try playing Garner or Van de Beek there. We need work-rate on the left, but we don't even try to play Lingard or any of the youngsters there.
6. VAN DE BEEK and LINGARD
If anything would convince a player that the manager isn't being fair it would have to be Ole's treatment of Van De Beek. Blocked a move for him, promised him game time and then continues to flat out ignore the boy, it is mental. Then you have Lingard, who was really good for West Ham, come back and barely play, he was also blocked from a move.
7. MEDIA
Regardless of what any professional says, players and staff read what the media writes about them. The players have seen numerous articles about how shit Ole's tactics are, how bad the coaching is, pundits tearing into performances and preparation. Players don't live in a vaccum, and neither does the staff. These things play a part too, causing people to doubt, second guess themselves and drive people utterly mad. Against the onslaught of the press you need a ton of experience to handle the pressure, navigate the media room, divert attention and keep players and staff from becoming distracted. Which again is where we fail - there's not enough experience among the staff to deal with this. Ole's job is also to navigate the media landscape and protect his players, but not at the expense of his ability to lead the team. The shitshow of articles after the Liverpool defeat shows how incapable we are of controlling the media narrative. Very few clubs in the world will have more media attention than Man Utd, and you need an experienced head to deal with it all.
8. HIRING POLICY
We seem to forget that we are an elite club, and have to deal with the expectations that come with that. There is a real problem when an elite club is accused of having too little experience and too many staff learning on the job - and it actually rings true. That speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of what a viable appointment in an elite club is. If we hire people who can have that accusation levied against them, they are most likely not the right people to hire. They could be fantastic talents with bags of ability, but you need to portray competence outwards, for that you need experience and established names and you can't so that with everyone "learning on the job". That is not an accusation the media should be able to make. The fact that they can, and we think that's fair, is a sign that we've made mistakes in who to hire.
We need to accept that as an elite club we will be held to a different standard than most clubs and media coverage will affect our club, and therefore we actually have to keep that in mind when we make appointments. We should hire like a fortune 500 company, head hunt, scout out potential future directors, poach talented coaches from other clubs, and pay to get the best - and those widely acknowledged to be the best.
Okay, here we go again. "Defensive counterattacking tactics"? Really? That's simply not a viable basic description of how United has been playing for at least a season and half. Otherwise many interesting points here though.
I believe we are looking at numerous issues all coming to a head at the same time.
1. COACHING
We brought in the best CL player ever and defender that has won it all. We also added a youngster who has been coached by Man City and Dortmund. These three are used to elite level coaching and preparation. It is not unthinkable that these three showed up to practice, saw the stark contrast between earlier coaching and what they get today, and told their teammates what they are used to. It is also entirely possible that the coaching is really good, but that they lack the experience to adapt and change the system, or a lack of ability and experience to get players on board.
2. ELITE MENTALITY
Ronaldo changed the squad. A lot of players who were happy churning a long with half-good team performances suddenly started to ask questions - why aren't we playing more attacking, why aren't we pressing, why aren't we more prepared. This is where managerial experience and coaching experience comes into play. Unfortunately the managerial staff couldn't manage the situation and you wind up with players frustrated and annoyed. They probably looked around the dressing room and realised that the team is far too good to rely on defensive counter-attacking tactics.
3. TEAM SELECTIONS
Van de Beek has never had a chance to prove himself. Maguire plays despite not training. Ronaldo, 5 goals in 5, is benched. Fred plays despite performing badly. Telles is barely getting a look in despite the fact that our tactical analysis sheets show that Shaw loses the ball the most out of all of our players (Howson flipped through one on his stream). Sancho, a very expensive player with bags of talent, isn't playing. There are a bunch of players in the squad who basically never play, regardless of how shit certain players perform. Lingard went from being mint at West Ham to a liability for us and rarely plays.
When the team doesn't get results, players are ignored and bad performances are accepted, things are going to blow up in your face. This is compounded by the change in mentality that elite players such as Ronaldo and Varane bring to a squad.
4. GAME MANAGEMENT
Ole and his staff have always been slow to react during matches. It seems like they need to analyse and talk things through excessively before they intervene, which leads to unnecessary mistakes. Players can see this, they understand what is wrong - and they get impatient - which is only natural. When you win games these things don't matter, they are minor annoyances, but when you start losing they become glaring issues.
5. BALANCE
The balance of our team is all wrong. Our left flank is exposed 90% of the game. Our midfield is disconnected from the forward line, defenders are having to cover 2- 3 positions at once. It is a mess. Meanwhile we have the players to do something about it, but the management team just doesn't want to, stubbornly sticking to the same formation and the same player combinations. We need forward momentum in midfield, but we don't even try playing Garner or Van de Beek there. We need work-rate on the left, but we don't even try to play Lingard or any of the youngsters there.
6. VAN DE BEEK and LINGARD
If anything would convince a player that the manager isn't being fair it would have to be Ole's treatment of Van De Beek. Blocked a move for him, promised him game time and then continues to flat out ignore the boy, it is mental. Then you have Lingard, who was really good for West Ham, come back and barely play, he was also blocked from a move.
7. MEDIA
Regardless of what any professional says, players and staff read what the media writes about them. The players have seen numerous articles about how shit Ole's tactics are, how bad the coaching is, pundits tearing into performances and preparation. Players don't live in a vaccum, and neither does the staff. These things play a part too, causing people to doubt, second guess themselves and drive people utterly mad. Against the onslaught of the press you need a ton of experience to handle the pressure, navigate the media room, divert attention and keep players and staff from becoming distracted. Which again is where we fail - there's not enough experience among the staff to deal with this. Ole's job is also to navigate the media landscape and protect his players, but not at the expense of his ability to lead the team. The shitshow of articles after the Liverpool defeat shows how incapable we are of controlling the media narrative. Very few clubs in the world will have more media attention than Man Utd, and you need an experienced head to deal with it all.
8. HIRING POLICY
We seem to forget that we are an elite club, and have to deal with the expectations that come with that. There is a real problem when an elite club is accused of having too little experience and too many staff learning on the job - and it actually rings true. That speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of what a viable appointment in an elite club is. If we hire people who can have that accusation levied against them, they are most likely not the right people to hire. They could be fantastic talents with bags of ability, but you need to portray competence outwards, for that you need experience and established names and you can't so that with everyone "learning on the job". That is not an accusation the media should be able to make. The fact that they can, and we think that's fair, is a sign that we've made mistakes in who to hire.
We need to accept that as an elite club we will be held to a different standard than most clubs and media coverage will affect our club, and therefore we actually have to keep that in mind when we make appointments. We should hire like a fortune 500 company, head hunt, scout out potential future directors, poach talented coaches from other clubs, and pay to get the best - and those widely acknowledged to be the best.
The defensive line is generally about 20y higher and the wide forwards + Bruno are also about 20y higher
While I can appreciate the nuance this is still just a lot of "maybe is/maybe not". You could replace all the instances of Ronaldo with any random name in the first team and much of it will read the same. There's not enough to separate from any other specialist player.I think that's an incredibly simplistic argument, like most of the debate around here on that question.
This is not a binary issue - it's not the case that either it's all Ronaldos fault, or it's totally due to other things. To the extent that apportioning "fault" is even a meaningful or worthwhile question. Reading discussion around that as "scapegoating" or "excuses" certainly is not.
The question is what are our problems and challenges, and how does Ronaldo factor into those? Does he represent an answer to them? Or is he a part of them? The answer can perfectly well be "both", for different issues.
I'm not going to embark here on an attempt at a full attempt to answer that, but it seems fairly reasonable to me to argue that aside from his brilliant goal contributions we have lots of problems and challenges that have nothing to do with Ronaldo, but that on the other hand, having him doesn't make it easier for us to solve many of them, and on some points having him makes it more difficult to do so. Then it comes down to the sum total of pluses and minuses, and where it leaves us as a team to play with him in the lineup versus where it would leave us if he wasn't here. And regardless of how you answer that question, that doesn't exonerate the manager, especially not one who enthusiastically brought Ronaldo to the club. For my part I did not think the signing was wise and made sense when it was made, and I think so even less today, but that is legitimately debatable.
But please, fobbing off concerns about Ronaldos impact on the situation as "scapegoating" is just silly.
Let's not get bogged down in tactical definitions, that is not really the point. I do believe however that some players are looking at their team mates and wondering why we can't play a more entertaining style of football - regardless of how you want to label the current style of football.
I made some edits to the post just so you know so you aren't hitting reply on an older version.I'd label the current style of football as dysfunctional (and entertaining mainly for the opposition fans). Relative to the question the OP asks, it is rather a key point to understand how the way we played has changed, and you can't even begin to do that if you have a fundamentally wrong description of how we played before.
Now this is where the lights start flashing for me in an otherwise solid argument. We've played counterattack football for the past two years? I don't think that's right, and hasn't been right at least since Bruno's arrival. Fairly direct, yes, to an extent. Emphasising breaks, yes, but so do a lot of teams whom no one would describe as CA teams. Liverpool for example. And we have demonstrably not struggled particularly to break down low block teams. Our record against bottom half teams last season was second only to Citys. Our record for wins from losing positions tell the same story. As does the fact that the great majority of our pl goals last season were not CA goals. Whatever the problem is, it's not that we've transitioned away from a CA style to something different.
While I can appreciate the nuance this is still just a lot of "maybe is/maybe not". You could replace all the instances of Ronaldo with any random name in the first team and much of it will read the same. There's not enough to separate from any other specialist player.
However if we're talking Ronaldo he's a goal poacher, the advantages and disadvantages of having one are nothing new. It's a sacrifice in buildup play to guarantee a higher goal production. Unfortunately our buildup is shite and it has allowed symptom to get mistaken for cause. Did these problems not exist without Ronaldo? Was that not why people insisted on buying a new striker throughout last season? The attack isn't poor because of the individuals, it's poor because it's devoid of structure and chance creation is more individual than systemic. That's why a player like Greenwood can break off to do his own thing while the others are doing something different. A poacher like Hernandez who flourished with Fergie would have struggled to look half the player in Ole's disjointed united.
Excellent post. I do really feel that we have a toxic fanbase in some regards such as this - we're very quick to vilify the hard working players. This doesn't just go for now. In the past decade or two, we've seen the likes of James, Fred, Fletcher, O'Shea, Lingard, Herrera and many more deemed "not good enough, we need a galactico in that position" and I disagree, I feel these players were/are insanely important to 'enable' the famous names such as Pogba, Rashford, Fernandes, Berbatov, Van Persie, Ronaldo etc. to do what they do best. Now, this doesn't go for every fan at all, there are a lot of great fans who appreciate what the grafters do for us. But for every great team we've had the overlooked hard workers who a huge amount of the fanbase said weren't good enough and often drove them out. The fact that Fletcher and O'Shea never got testimonials still annoys me.I think the only time we had a system and balanced selection of players was when Lingard, Pereirra and James were starting every week. We've gradually moved away from being a hard working, high pressing, quick team step by step by bringing Pogba back in after his injury. Bringing Matic in when McTominay was injured. Rashford and Martial looking increasingly fatigued and doing less work off the ball week after week. Greenwood coming through and pushing James out of the team.
Cavani came in and readdressed the balance a bit but then we swapped him out for Ronaldo and wound up even further away than when we started and we hit a crisis point.
We still play in much the same manner but we have about 5 passengers who aren't hard working or especially quick or defensively sound.
Passengers is a really harsh term but its been tolerated each step of the way. Players see that Rashford isn't running because hes tired and overplayed but its hard to expect them to be enthusiastic about running when its so ineffective without everyone else doing the same. Like we have a ridiculous situation where bruno being willing to press is becoming a liability because of how ineffective it is with the 3 ahead of him and how it makes it easier to pass through our midfield. Which should be fine with 2 exclusively defensive players behind him but they're all over the place, their positioning is terrible, so aren't. When your talking about protecting your 2 defensive midfielders your team is borked.
I'd label the current style of football as dysfunctional (and entertaining mainly for the opposition fans). Relative to the question the OP asks, it is rather a key point to understand how the way we played has changed, and you can't even begin to do that if you have a fundamentally wrong description of how we played before.
We're certainly playing with a higher line which yes is part of playing a more front footed and controlling game but I'd say thats about it.
Bruno since Greenwood stopped playing striker is now a bit deeper again and i wouldn't say our wide forwards positioning has changed.
If you want to control a game you don't tend to be as expansive as our setup is right now. You pack the midfield to always give passing options and your wide forwards get involved in play generally and not just when it's narrow up the pitch.
Maybe he is trying it as you say but then if that's the case he really is only implementing parts of it.
Alright, I disagree with that, but sure. Here's why I call our style defensive counter-attacking.
1. We play with a deep double pivot most of the time, prefering to surrender the midfield in favour of having (rather trying to have) enough men behind the ball and maintain our shape. An attacking side generally prefers to control midfield, we don't seem to want to do that very often, instead prefering to use the flanks in our build up.
2. A defensive tactic is generally reactionary, prefering to assess the opposition and take opportunities as they present themselves. For us this often leads to us conceding goals first, before we reply - mostly because we're not very good at it. This is in contrast to an attacking tactic which generally looks to keep the ball and control the game, most commonly through the use of system oriented football in the modern game.
An example of that is our pressing. We rarely press as a unit, preferring to go man to man instead. This is in line with reactionary football where the player is expected to adapt to the situation at all times. Usually you assign players specific roles and duties to ensure that this doesn't cause defensive issues, but as you said, we play dysfunctional football right now.
3. Counter-attacking is not a slight, nor does it mean that we only counter-attack. We're not talking Sam Allerdyce or Tony Pulis here. It does mean that we play a style of football that looks to exploit player's abilities to get behind the defense or a players ability to break the defense open with a pass through. Prefering to go quickly forwards rather than slowly building up. This stands in contrast to a controlled system oriented build up. Which looks to break down a defense through systemic movements and passing. What you would more commonly see from Guardiola. Keep the shape and build the attack.
Liverpool destroyed us with system oriented counter attacking build up, dragging us out of position, exploiting our lack of specific roles, and our inability to control midfield. They also play a counter-attacking system, but they do so using an attacking tactical style.
---
What we see from United before and now is reactionary, defensive minded and counter-attacking oriented. We were even more cautious in our approach before, but a lack of caution doesn't make a tactic attacking IMO.
Edited for clarity.
I'm not really worried (not in the same vein as I am about our manager). It's just strange how we manage feck up things we think are heading in the right direction.I’m not too worried about Sancho not having settled yet. It’s pretty normal for players from the Bundesliga to settle quickly into the Premiership. Look at Werner & Havertz if you need examples
Alright, I disagree with that, but sure. Here's why I call our style defensive counter-attacking.
1. We play with a deep double pivot most of the time, prefering to surrender the midfield in favour of having (rather trying to have) enough men behind the ball and maintain our shape. An attacking side generally prefers to control midfield, we don't seem to want to do that very often, instead prefering to use the flanks in our build up.
2. A defensive tactic is generally reactionary, prefering to assess the opposition and take opportunities as they present themselves. For us this often leads to us conceding goals first, before we reply - mostly because we're not very good at it. This is in contrast to an attacking tactic which generally looks to keep the ball and control the game, most commonly through the use of system oriented football in the modern game.
An example of that is our pressing. We rarely press as a unit, preferring to go man to man instead. This is in line with reactionary football where the player is expected to adapt to the situation at all times. Usually you assign players specific roles and duties to ensure that this doesn't cause defensive issues, but as you said, we play dysfunctional football right now.
3. Counter-attacking is not a slight, nor does it mean that we only counter-attack. We're not talking Sam Allerdyce or Tony Pulis here. It does mean that we play a style of football that looks to exploit player's abilities to get behind the defense or a players ability to break the defense open with a pass through. This stands in contrast to a controlled system oriented build up. Which looks to break down a defense through systemic movements and passing. What you would more commonly see from Guardioala. Keep the shape and build the attack.
Liverpool destroyed us with system oriented build up, dragging us out of position, exploiting our lack of specific roles, and our inability to control midfield. They also play a counter-attacking system, but they do so using an attacking tactical style.
---
What we see from United before and now is reactionary, defensive minded and counter-attacking oriented. We were even more cautious in our approach before, but a lack of caution doesn't make a tactic attacking IMO.