Would You Be Unhappy If We Played Like Nottingham Forest?

[Pughnichi]

A top team can do both.

If Liverpool are playing NF for example and Forest are in possession, making up their 39.7% average possession stat. They’re attacking and the ball is turned over….Liverpool don’t just casually sit back and recycle the ball. They’re attacking, go for the jugular and counter at pace.

I would hope that we can generally dominate possession, and when the chance presents itself we also counter with intensity.

 

[Lentwood]

Playing like Forest is fine, if you're Forest.

The problems begin when you realise that at least half the league are happy to settle for a point against you as a so called "top club", and stop leaving space for you to counter into.

We saw it with OGS. Really good results away from home and decent results vs the likes of Manchester City...but really poor results at home vs bottom half clubs.

I personally have no problem with counter-attacking football since it's much easier to play and therefore much easier to implement - but I do believe it has it's limitations.

To consistently win games at the top level, you need to control possession, but more importantly, control territory.

 

[jem]

I’m happy with a manager coming in and setting a style of play. All of us agreed that it will take time for it to take shape. Of course now we’re losing, the notion of giving time, led by the media furore, is completely lost on many.

The only acceptable style of play is sustainable winning. Whether we achieve it through Nuno style or through Amorim, neither can be set up in an instant. Maybe with Forest like set up, we would’ve been 7th-9th instead of 15th. But is that what we would’ve accepted?

Exactly. And it'll be no surprise to see Forest revert sharply back to the mean next season, finishing mid-to-low table. Amorim must be given at least a summer of training and a proper transfer window before calls for his head should be made (in my opinion.) If all that happens, and by December we're still playing like this, then I'll be more than happy to concede that he might not be the right choice.

 

[Lj82]

I find it weird that people seemed to equate SAF's teams being good at counter-attacking to his successful teams being "counter-attacking teams". That is not true, we frequently dominate possession at around 55-65% during his era.

 

[tentan]

Yes. who cares about possession.

 

[DRJosh]

Problem in using this system is that we may run into a brick wall when faced with teams that are happy to sit and defend. Not surprising that we perform better as a counter-attacking unit if the opposition is keen enough to attack us first.

 

[Squeaky_Bum_Time]

Nothing will make the people on here happy

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

I find it weird that people seemed to equate SAF's teams being good at counter-attacking to his successful teams being "counter-attacking teams". That is not true, we frequently dominate possession at around 55-65% during his era.

Yeah it’s nonsense, we often played a centre midfield of Scholes and Carrick just passing between themselves for periods, we were very capable of possession. Keane was a smart passer too. Obviously compared to tika taka Barca it was like Forest but against most teams it was more possession.

 

[Wolfbot]

Real has always been extremely adaptable. They are fine sitting deep and shredding you on the counter if you want to hog the ball, but they also are very much capable of dominating on the ball and swamping a team with relentless attacks. It's why I think they've been the most enjoyable team to watch for the better part of a decade, because it's quite similar to our best SAF sides where they can switch styles and aren't at all married to a single "system" with strict rules and postional concepts.

This for me is the answer. This adaptability is the reason they can win inportant games, even with significant numbers of injuries or key players out.

There's no magic 'DNA' that's so often spoken about, they (and Ancelotti) just do what is needed at any given time to give themselves the best chance of winning a game of football.

I feel like they can do a bit of everything, play out from the back, transition quickly, pen the opposition back, they can even press really hard if they need to (it just doesn't seem to be their preferred choice). They get results because they are happy to fall back on whichever of these things is required at any given time.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

Anyone who believes that the way Ferguson set United to play had anything to do with how Forest currently play should give his/her head a wobble.

 

[Hester_manc]

As long as the results come I do not care anymore. I remember when Fellaini played for us, and fans thought he did not fit in a club like United. That seems a long time ago now. I actually do not like the formation Amorim uses now, but if...at some point...it leads to succes, then it would be fine with me also.

 

[Offside]

People won't be happy until we're winning the league 3 years in a row and the CL. Even them I remember lots of hyperbole during the struggles in 07/08, people wishing we were Arsenal and bashing Rooney etc.

 

[Ollie Derbyshire]

Shouldn't we be able to do both, counter attack at pace when the opportunity arises and dictate possession and break teams down when needed.

It's not an either or for me, the best teams do both. Liverpool are constantly breaking fast from every corner they have.

 

[Red Ten]

The problem with playing this counter-attacking system is that you need fast, direct players such as, say, Elanga. And where are we going to find players like him?????

 

[calypso]

yes and no. is the verdict from me in Nottingham.
obviously, we would love to play wave after. wave of attacking football, but were just very happy to be where we are.
just as we really liked Steve Cooper, but it wasn't working.

and, looking back, I think Liverpool played the way we do, when they. were doing very well
of course, then it was seen as you can never write Liverpool off

 

[The_Midfielder]

They are 3rd because of their strikers
We are 15th because of our strikers

 

[always_hoping]

How you play so cares so long as you are winning more games than you lose.

 

[calypso]

They are 3rd because of their strikers
We are 15th because of our strikers

well, our defence has improved immeasurably.
until this season, we couldn't get a decent performance from our goalkeepers to save our lives
we've got a very tough run in so I don't think well make Europe.
but its been a great season and it would be better if both we and bournemouth could make it
then the worries will. start about getting a good enough team to compete

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

This for me is the answer. This adaptability is the reason they can win inportant games, even with significant numbers of injuries or key players out.

There's no magic 'DNA' that's so often spoken about, they (and Ancelotti) just do what is needed at any given time to give themselves the best chance of winning a game of football.

I feel like they can do a bit of everything, play out from the back, transition quickly, pen the opposition back, they can even press really hard if they need to (it just doesn't seem to be their preferred choice). They get results because they are happy to fall back on whichever of these things is required at any given time.

Yeah, and sure it "requires great players" but every big club looking to succeed should target and develop great players anyways. But they encourage their players to solve situations and be willing to take advantage of opportunities themselves, which is my biggest gripe with any sort of strict positional "system" that many coaches prefer. I prefer not to watch some tactical "chess match" where instructions are king and the breakthrough comes from individual mistakes instead of actual moments of brilliance.

 

[Wolfbot]

They are 3rd because of their strikers
We are 15th because of our strikers

They have many things we don't, a striker who can play as a target man, actually scores goals, good in the air...a players who can actually carry the ball up the pitch with pace, and a wide man who can actually cross the ball at the right time (irony being he used to be our player).

 

[Wolfbot]

Yeah, and sure it "requires great players" but every big club looking to succeed should target and develop great players anyways. But they encourage their players to solve situations and be willing to take advantage of opportunities themselves, which is my biggest gripe with any sort of strict positional "system" that many coaches prefer. I prefer not to watch some tactical "chess match" where instructions are king and the breakthrough comes from individual mistakes instead of actual moments of brilliance.

100% mate. Yes they have some very players, but it's nowhere near as good a squad as the Real Madrid of years gone by and yet they still win things.

Always hated the 'moments FC' tag commonly used here. These creative moments are what football should be about and should be encouraged. The tactical aspects should be to create situations which allow for more creative play, not stifle it.

 

[The Mitcher]

Currently sitting in 3rd place, Nottingham Forest have been flying in the league this season. However, they rank third from bottom in terms of average possession per game (39.7%). Despite this, they’ve found success by prioritising efficiency over dominance—a style that, interestingly, aligns with some of United’s best football over the years.

Even under Sir Alex, we thrived as a counter-attacking team. Our most exciting sides were built on pace, flying wingers, and the ability to break with devastating speed. Even in recent years, our best performances have come in transition—so much so that Erik ten Hag openly stated his ambition for United to become the best transition side in the world. Pep Guardiola also identified us as the best transition team during Ole’s tenure.

Ten Hag's first season reinforced this reality. After early setbacks against Brentford and Brighton, he adjusted his approach, moving away from a high line, single pivot, and possession-based football—tactics that didn’t suit us. The result? A third-place finish and a Carabao Cup triumph.

I understand that, as a club of United’s stature, many believe we should dominate possession and dictate games. But history shows we’ve always been at our most dangerous when playing on the break. If we embraced that identity more consistently—just as we do when we play City and Liverpool—could we actually be better for it?

The real question is: would fans be satisfied watching that every week?

That's a myth. We dominated most teams under Sir Alex during our pomp. I'm sick of Sir Alex's football being reduced to counter attacking when it was so much more than that.

 

[calypso]

That's a myth. We dominated most teams under Sir Alex during our pomp. I'm sick of Sir Alex's football being reduced to counter attacking when it was so much more than that.

yes, Fergusons team was much more. of a complete team than the tactics used. by forest, my team, are at the moment.
and we rely on very fast players and will have to get new. ones as. they age or tire

 

[Oranges038]

That's a myth. We dominated most teams under Sir Alex during our pomp. I'm sick of Sir Alex's football being reduced to counter attacking when it was so much more than that.

Yeah, it's total rubbish.Utd had much more than just counter attacking. If you sat in, you were put under relentless pressure, if you tried to push up, they'd soak up the pressure and hit you on the break with devastating speed. If the game required it they'd slow it right down and take control of the ball and dictate the flow of the game.


I'd honestly say it's very close to how Liverpool have been playing the last few years.

 

[The_Midfielder]

well, our defence has improved immeasurably.
until this season, we couldn't get a decent performance from our goalkeepers to save our lives
we've got a very tough run in so I don't think well make Europe.
but its been a great season and it would be better if both we and bournemouth could make it
then the worries will. start about getting a good enough team to compete

Chris wood has 18 goals this season
Our team has scored 24 Pl goals
( is this stat even correct )

 

[CM]

No and I didn't have an issue when we played like that under Ole either until Ronaldo came back and messed it up.

Pretty much how I feel/felt. The Ole era was far from perfect but I'd still maintain that we played our best football post Ferguson during that time and had a clearer identity than we have with any other manager until the Ronaldo signing threw everything out of kilter, as you suggest.

I think everybody would prefer if we consistently played proactive football where we set the pace and play the game on our terms but we haven't come close to doing that under any manager in the last decade and the recruitment would need to be far better to enable us to play that way. We've wilfully neglected the midfield going back to Ferguson's time. The Matic, Herrera, Pogba combination is probably the only time it felt like we had a well balanced midfield three and even that was only for a fleeting time.

 

[fps]

Right now I'd accept playing like Forest Green.

 

[Walters_19_MuFc]

That's a myth. We dominated most teams under Sir Alex during our pomp. I'm sick of Sir Alex's football being reduced to counter attacking when it was so much more than that.

I didn’t mean United were solely a counter-attacking team—you don’t win multiple titles just by relying on that. But we were exceptional at it. Several managers who’ve come in since have talked about wanting to replicate that style by making us strong in transitions. Maybe I should have been clearer.

 

[antohan]

Currently sitting in 3rd place, Nottingham Forest have been flying in the league this season. However, they rank third from bottom in terms of average possession per game (39.7%). Despite this, they’ve found success by prioritising efficiency over dominance—a style that, interestingly, aligns with some of United’s best football over the years.

Even under Sir Alex, we thrived as a counter-attacking team. Our most exciting sides were built on pace, flying wingers, and the ability to break with devastating speed. Even in recent years, our best performances have come in transition—so much so that Erik ten Hag openly stated his ambition for United to become the best transition side in the world. Pep Guardiola also identified us as the best transition team during Ole’s tenure.

Ten Hag's first season reinforced this reality. After early setbacks against Brentford and Brighton, he adjusted his approach, moving away from a high line, single pivot, and possession-based football—tactics that didn’t suit us. The result? A third-place finish and a Carabao Cup triumph.

I understand that, as a club of United’s stature, many believe we should dominate possession and dictate games. But history shows we’ve always been at our most dangerous when playing on the break. If we embraced that identity more consistently—just as we do when we play City and Liverpool—could we actually be better for it?

The real question is: would fans be satisfied watching that every week?

Last time I enjoyed watching us consistently (i.e. not the odd game like 4-3 vs dippers) was under Ole before Cristiano shattered the vibes.

Do I think we would get anywhere playing that way? Nope. The main problem you face as a counter-attacking team is that, by definition, you need your rivals to attack. Once they played a low block and refused to come out we struggled to break them down.

It's great for a Forest because teams can't go out and park the bus against fecking Nottingham Forest, although some probably will at this stage. Same happened with Leicester when they won the league.

 

[The Mitcher]

yes, Fergusons team was much more. of a complete team than the tactics used. by forest, my team, are at the moment.
and we rely on very fast players and will have to get new. ones as. they age or tire

I'm not making any comment on Forest, just the notion that Sir Alex's teams were nothing more than counter-attacking sides.

 

[The Mitcher]

I didn’t mean United were solely a counter-attacking team—you don’t win multiple titles just by relying on that. But we were exceptional at it. Several managers who’ve come in since have talked about wanting to replicate that style by making us strong in transitions. Maybe I should have been clearer.

But you basically reduced his sides to just that, and it's something that has only gotten worse since ETH was manager.

 

[eire-red]

Just a reminder that Forest won 5 out of 21 games under Nuno last season after he joined on 20th of December.

What would the answer have been 6 months ago?