Yes but that's more a case of us underperforming. The point the poster was making was if the team perform to the capabilities we all believe this current squad can, then there isn't many team we can't beat deservedly.
That would be the logical conclusion to make from their premise, yes. Watch them try to turn it around...This basically means that Ole has a good enough squad to challenge for the title, which eventually means that if we under perform than there is something wrong with our coaching, right?
Spurs - City:
Possession 33-66
Shots 4-22
Spurs - Chelsea:
Possession 40-60
Shots 6-12
Spurs - Arsenal:
Possession 30-70
Shots 5-11
Us - Chelsea:
Possession 51-49
Shots 14-6
Us - City:
Possession 46-54
Shots 11-9
Please explain to me how our bus parking can be compared to Spurs?
We didn't go all in on the breaks, but we did not just sit back and absorb.
Does no one else think Pep changed his tactics to play us because Ole has spanked him the past few times we have met? Can no one remember the McTominay goal and the titanic music? Short memories lads.
We are two games off top. Everyone has patchy form. We'd be absolutely flying if we had more than 20 minutes for a pre-season.
Does no one else think Pep changed his tactics to play us because Ole has spanked him the past few times we have met? Can no one remember the McTominay goal and the titanic music? Short memories lads.
It would be great if Greenwood turned out to be a world class right winger, but I still think competition for the 3 spots up top i healthy for the squad. Greenwood at 19 should be happy with being a rotation player untill he really has shown that he deserves to be #1 choice. Our team also screams for more creativity, which Sancho brings.Why don't we wait till the end of the season to see if Greenwood can be better on the right and not relegate Greenwood to the bench?
Tuanzebe already gives us that depth in quality.
Why don't we aim high enough for a managerial appointment? There is no guarantee but Managers are really cheap compared to players.
Applies to us too though.It’s not just us though, Pep bottles the CL every season, at Bayern and City by overthinking and deviating from his normal plan.
My guess vs. us is that he knows, take away our counter and we have almost nothing, which was exactly the case.
If KdB has his shooting boots on they go away with a win without breaking a sweat.
When was the last time the 4th best team got more than 80 points - if we accept that we have the 4th best squad?There you go then.
That’s why he has many doubters, he has a squad that can challenge. A squad that is better than all bar 2 (or maybe 3 if you’re generous), and hell looking at City this year, saying 2 might also be generous.
He has a squad that is absolutely able to go past the 80 point mark.
In terms of overall play, yes, evenly matched, but City missed 3 easy sitters, let's not kid ourselves.Applies to us too though.
He missed one chance didn’t he? Might as well say that if Rashford had kept his foot onside before Walker kicked him that we’d have comfortably won without breaking a sweat.It’s not just us though, Pep bottles the CL every season, at Bayern and City by overthinking and deviating from his normal plan.
My guess vs. us is that he knows, take away our counter and we have almost nothing, which was exactly the case.
If KdB has his shooting boots on they go away with a win without breaking a sweat.
And if he does, of course he should get the sack.
But the premise he brought up was building the best side in the world and winning a trophy. I don't get how that's supposed to be a negative? Isn't that what we're all hoping for?!
But of course it was a fake argument countered with "but it won't happen", and that was the intention all along.
"Haha, Ole-inners hoping we build the best side in the world and lift a trophy".
Turn it around, then.
"Haha, Ole-outers hoping we sack Ole, bring in a world class manager, build the best side in the world and lift a trophy. Like that would ever happen."
It’s not just us though, Pep bottles the CL every season, at Bayern and City by overthinking and deviating from his normal plan.
My guess vs. us is that he knows, take away our counter and we have almost nothing, which was exactly the case.
If KdB has his shooting boots on they go away with a win without breaking a sweat.
To me it’s night and day. Buy Dan James or Buy Eden Hazard. Right now we have Dan James as a manager. I don’t care if he promised to work harder than Eden Hazard. He’s just not cutting it.
So it does really matter a lot whether we buy "Dan James or Eden Hazard".
There you go then.
That’s why he has many doubters, he has a squad that can challenge. A squad that is better than all bar 2 (or maybe 3 if you’re generous), and hell looking at City this year, saying 2 might also be generous.
He has a squad that is absolutely able to go past the 80 point mark.
He's a big reason why this squad is seen in that light though. You can't just say that this squad is great and ignore his role in said squad's development, or that Ole doesn't deserve to have a job or manage a group of players like this, when he's a big part of why they are seen in this light.There you go then.
That’s why he has many doubters, he has a squad that can challenge. A squad that is better than all bar 2 (or maybe 3 if you’re generous), and hell looking at City this year, saying 2 might also be generous.
He has a squad that is absolutely able to go past the 80 point mark.
We bought Bruno Fernandes, you know. World class. And he's performing like the world class player he is. Before him we had the choice between Jesse Lingard and Andreas Pereira (or an injured/inconsistent Paul Pogba). The results have improved since Bruno's arrival, as they should. A) Because he is world class, and B) Because he is used right/ the team is built around him.
So it does really matter a lot whether we buy "Dan James or Eden Hazard".
Don't you know for some fans, you are meant to coach Dan James into a Hazard?
Applies to us too though.
Does it? What big chance did we miss?
I recall KDB missing 2 pretty much open goals.
Honestly don't remember the chances in the match that much. What I mean is that our players also didn't have their shooting boots on. In the end the missed chances don't matter. What matters is the performance and the result and I'd say they were evenDoes it? What big chance did we miss?
I recall KDB missing 2 pretty much open goals.
Yep that's the underdogWinning after going behind in all five away matches in the PL so for shows the opposite if you ask me...
All these matches were matches against sides where we were favourites to win....To come back and win all these matches after conceding first shows strong mentality, not an underdog mentality.Yep that's the underdog
Why arent we giving him the chance to do so? The manager of the 3rd best squad finished 3rd last year, is above one of those sides who has a better squad and within touching distance of the other.There you go then.
That’s why he has many doubters, he has a squad that can challenge. A squad that is better than all bar 2 (or maybe 3 if you’re generous), and hell looking at City this year, saying 2 might also be generous.
He has a squad that is absolutely able to go past the 80 point mark.
One was offside - assuming you are thinking of the one where Maguire blocked and I’m not totally forgetting one. They had the Mahrez/De Bruyne chance, which was the best opportunity of the match but, in my recollection, basically nothing else. If Pogba had let the ball run to Greenwood or Bruno had got the weight of his pass right after the flowing move down the right, we would also have had two one on ones. They won’t count as chances but they were just as good situations as any City had.Does it? What big chance did we miss?
I recall KDB missing 2 pretty much open goals.
So another 300 mill at least will see the squad sorted then we judge him on the most ever spent by one manager in 3 years?He's a big reason why this squad is seen in that light though. You can't just say that this squad is great and ignore his role in said squad's development, or that Ole doesn't deserve to have a job or manage a group of players like this, when he's a big part of why they are seen in this light.
Cast your mind back when Ole let go of Lukaku, Sanchez, and Smalling et al (and was forced to let go of Herrera) without getting replacements in for at least half of them. The risk that he took in putting his faith in to some of the players I mention below was massive, and the fact that it paid off is something Ole and the players have never really got their due credit for.
Fred and McTominay were seen as jokes, Martial and Rashford were talented but far from being guaranteed sure things, Shaw was a write off. He brought in Maguire and AWB to improve the defence which was midtable quality the season before, and above all else, he brought Bruno in to the team. He brought through Greenwood and Williams from the academy, and will continue to bring through the best possible kids in to the team - not just paying lip service to it like Jose did before him, or like Lampard did the moment he was able to spend some money.
Just look at the improvements made by some of those I listed. Martial and Rashford almost doubled their previous best goals returns that season. Greenwood equalled Best, Rooney and Kidd as a teenage Utd striker in his first season. Fred went from a joke figure, to actually being one of our most important players (a far cry from when I made a thread proposing exactly that at the start of last season and being lambasted for it). These things don't happen in a vacuum, and Ole has played a big role in them happening.
Now, I'm more than open to the idea that Ole in the long-term might very well not be up to it and might not be the man who wins us #21 or #4, but for me, I want him to at least be given a chance to succeed or fail on that metric (as long as he attains the base level of a top 4 finish). That means bringing in the players he wants on time, rather than either a) getting them 6/12 months late and almost fecking up our season in the process (Bruno, the long hoped for Lukaku replacement), or b) not bringing any of them in at all (Grealish, Sancho et al). Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case during Ole's time at the club (while Jose and LvG were able to squander the vast sums they were given).
Give him a full squad (i.e. bring in a starting calibre RW, DM, CB, and ST) and see where we land is all I ask. If we're still in a dog fight for top 4 after those incomings, then we will have to accept that it hasn't worked out and wish him all the best, but right now, I do think he did a fantastic job last season, and decent job this season, all things considered. And irrespective of what happens next, the next man in (if Ole doesn't work out) will have a far, far better and coherent playing squad to deploy than what the previous managers had been left with, Ole included.
Looking at the media as well as this board, I think realistically Solskjær is going to have to deliver very, very strong results to overcome doubters.
There is now a smothering narrative about amateurishness and naivety from which people won't easily step back. Just look at the coverage in The Guardian for example, with Barney Ronay's arrogant rubbish leading the way. That's going to matter no matter how unreasonable and badly founded it is.
It's like everyone held their breath for a little bit and reminded themselves that patience was needed, and now they've run out of breath and have forgotten all about that and suddenly United has to not only contend for and win titles, they have to do so by obliterating the opposition consistently and in an entertaining fashion. If they don't, Solskjær is obviously an idiot.
It's enough to make you despair of mankind when you look, for instance, at what is written about Chelsea compared to what is written about United. United is spoken about as if they have performed way below expectation, and are standing at the foot of the precipice. Sky Sports wrote after the City game that the result at least "arrested the slide". "Slide"? They had four straight PL victories ahead of that game. What "slide" would that be?
Chelsea on the other hand is being talked about in glowing terms as a title contender. Fixed their defensive issues, made great signings - and above all, being guided towards dominance by an exciting, promising English manager whose previous experience is, er, Derby County. Whereas United is being guided by some nonentity who, apart from a previous stint in the PL, has only worked in some yobbo league on the outskirts of Europe.
How is that, though? They finished behind United last season. So far this season, they have yet to string together more than three consecutive wins in the PL, compared to United's four. Their average points taken is 1.8, same as United. Their record against top teams (Liverpool, City, United, Chelsea, Tottenham, Leicester) is 0-2-1, same as United. And unlike United, they lost their last PL game. All this with a better and deeper squad than we have. So what exactly has Frank Lampard achieved that OGS hasn't? How has his team been more consistent, or better? Why is OGS on the brink, while the issue isn't even remotely on the horizon for Lampard?
And another thing. The 0-0 Manchester derby was a shameful and awful performance indicative of grave issues with both teams, while the 0-0 Tottenham-Chelsea game wasn't?
Here's what the BBC wrote about that game:
Tottenham returned to the top of the Premier League despite being held by Chelsea in a highly-competitive yet goalless London stalemate.
The eagerly-anticipated fixture between two teams in excellent form failed to produce a goal as both sides cancelled each other out at Stamford Bridge.
And this is what the BBC wrote about the Manchester derby, under the heading "Absence of fans felt in soulless, dismal Manchester derby":
Any fans who wished they could be here might have been swiftly put off by the over-cautious, cat-and-mouse approach from Manchester United manager Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and Manchester City counterpart Pep Guardiola.
This was a game that started, finished and nothing much happened in between. Local honour was satisfied in a very unsatisfactory match.
There were 20 shots (4 on goal) in the Manchester derby. There were 18 shots (4 on goal) in the London derby. Obviously "Highly competetive yet goalless stalemate....as both teams cancelled each other out" is as applicable to one game as to the other. So is "over-cautious, cat and mouse approach", and "This was a game that started, finished and nothing much happened in between. Local honour was satisfied in a very unsatisfactory match."
Watching football being discussed and analysed is at times like watching some weird collective entity responding to people's emotions rather than to reality. As if we're in a Terry Pratchett novel. And the journos are as bad as anybody.
Looking at the media as well as this board, I think realistically Solskjær is going to have to deliver very, very strong results to overcome doubters.
There is now a smothering narrative about amateurishness and naivety from which people won't easily step back. Just look at the coverage in The Guardian for example, with Barney Ronay's arrogant rubbish leading the way. That's going to matter no matter how unreasonable and badly founded it is.
It's like everyone held their breath for a little bit and reminded themselves that patience was needed, and now they've run out of breath and have forgotten all about that and suddenly United has to not only contend for and win titles, they have to do so by obliterating the opposition consistently and in an entertaining fashion. If they don't, Solskjær is obviously an idiot.
It's enough to make you despair of mankind when you look, for instance, at what is written about Chelsea compared to what is written about United. United is spoken about as if they have performed way below expectation, and are standing at the foot of the precipice. Sky Sports wrote after the City game that the result at least "arrested the slide". "Slide"? They had four straight PL victories ahead of that game. What "slide" would that be?
Chelsea on the other hand is being talked about in glowing terms as a title contender. Fixed their defensive issues, made great signings - and above all, being guided towards dominance by an exciting, promising English manager whose previous experience is, er, Derby County. Whereas United is being guided by some nonentity who, apart from a previous stint in the PL, has only worked in some yobbo league on the outskirts of Europe.
How is that, though? They finished behind United last season. So far this season, they have yet to string together more than three consecutive wins in the PL, compared to United's four. Their average points taken is 1.8, same as United. Their record against top teams (Liverpool, City, United, Chelsea, Tottenham, Leicester) is 0-2-1, same as United. And unlike United, they lost their last PL game. All this with a better and deeper squad than we have. So what exactly has Frank Lampard achieved that OGS hasn't? How has his team been more consistent, or better? Why is OGS on the brink, while the issue isn't even remotely on the horizon for Lampard?
And another thing. The 0-0 Manchester derby was a shameful and awful performance indicative of grave issues with both teams, while the 0-0 Tottenham-Chelsea game wasn't?
Here's what the BBC wrote about that game:
Tottenham returned to the top of the Premier League despite being held by Chelsea in a highly-competitive yet goalless London stalemate.
The eagerly-anticipated fixture between two teams in excellent form failed to produce a goal as both sides cancelled each other out at Stamford Bridge.
And this is what the BBC wrote about the Manchester derby, under the heading "Absence of fans felt in soulless, dismal Manchester derby":
Any fans who wished they could be here might have been swiftly put off by the over-cautious, cat-and-mouse approach from Manchester United manager Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and Manchester City counterpart Pep Guardiola.
This was a game that started, finished and nothing much happened in between. Local honour was satisfied in a very unsatisfactory match.
There were 20 shots (4 on goal) in the Manchester derby. There were 18 shots (4 on goal) in the London derby. Obviously "Highly competetive yet goalless stalemate....as both teams cancelled each other out" is as applicable to one game as to the other. So is "over-cautious, cat and mouse approach", and "This was a game that started, finished and nothing much happened in between. Local honour was satisfied in a very unsatisfactory match."
Watching football being discussed and analysed is at times like watching some weird collective entity responding to people's emotions rather than to reality. As if we're in a Terry Pratchett novel. And the journos are as bad as anybody.
I'd say it's more of an underdog mentality. Which we've had for a few years now.
Back in the day we wouldn't have played 7 defensive minded players and still bottled a game we needed at least a draw in. We give our all when the odds are on us to lose and when the team is under scrutiny. But when the pressure is on us to succeed we've bottled it more times than not.Back in the day, our ability to come back was a sign of our strong mentality now it’s being labelled an underdog mentality. More instances of selective memory. It seems you’ve forgotten how rare comebacks were under Moyes and LVG. Once we went down it was as over. Jose had his moments re: the 3-2 city result but our team has shown more resilience under Ole. It takes time to build a winner especially when there was such a huge mess to clean up from previous managers.
City’s instant success under Pep has skewed our view of things. We can’t expect our owners to spend like city. It took Klopp 4 years to win a trophy and 5 to win the league. Ole is in his second full season. If he fails to win a trophy and/or fails to close the gap with the dippers and city then by all means let him go.
Looking at the media as well as this board, I think realistically Solskjær is going to have to deliver very, very strong results to overcome doubters.
There is now a smothering narrative about amateurishness and naivety from which people won't easily step back. Just look at the coverage in The Guardian for example, with Barney Ronay's arrogant rubbish leading the way. That's going to matter no matter how unreasonable and badly founded it is.
It's like everyone held their breath for a little bit and reminded themselves that patience was needed, and now they've run out of breath and have forgotten all about that and suddenly United has to not only contend for and win titles, they have to do so by obliterating the opposition consistently and in an entertaining fashion. If they don't, Solskjær is obviously an idiot.
It's enough to make you despair of mankind when you look, for instance, at what is written about Chelsea compared to what is written about United. United is spoken about as if they have performed way below expectation, and are standing at the foot of the precipice. Sky Sports wrote after the City game that the result at least "arrested the slide". "Slide"? They had four straight PL victories ahead of that game. What "slide" would that be?
Chelsea on the other hand is being talked about in glowing terms as a title contender. Fixed their defensive issues, made great signings - and above all, being guided towards dominance by an exciting, promising English manager whose previous experience is, er, Derby County. Whereas United is being guided by some nonentity who, apart from a previous stint in the PL, has only worked in some yobbo league on the outskirts of Europe.
How is that, though? They finished behind United last season. So far this season, they have yet to string together more than three consecutive wins in the PL, compared to United's four. Their average points taken is 1.8, same as United. Their record against top teams (Liverpool, City, United, Chelsea, Tottenham, Leicester) is 0-2-1, same as United. And unlike United, they lost their last PL game. All this with a better and deeper squad than we have. So what exactly has Frank Lampard achieved that OGS hasn't? How has his team been more consistent, or better? Why is OGS on the brink, while the issue isn't even remotely on the horizon for Lampard?
And another thing. The 0-0 Manchester derby was a shameful and awful performance indicative of grave issues with both teams, while the 0-0 Tottenham-Chelsea game wasn't?
Here's what the BBC wrote about that game:
Tottenham returned to the top of the Premier League despite being held by Chelsea in a highly-competitive yet goalless London stalemate.
The eagerly-anticipated fixture between two teams in excellent form failed to produce a goal as both sides cancelled each other out at Stamford Bridge.
And this is what the BBC wrote about the Manchester derby, under the heading "Absence of fans felt in soulless, dismal Manchester derby":
Any fans who wished they could be here might have been swiftly put off by the over-cautious, cat-and-mouse approach from Manchester United manager Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and Manchester City counterpart Pep Guardiola.
This was a game that started, finished and nothing much happened in between. Local honour was satisfied in a very unsatisfactory match.
There were 20 shots (4 on goal) in the Manchester derby. There were 18 shots (4 on goal) in the London derby. Obviously "Highly competetive yet goalless stalemate....as both teams cancelled each other out" is as applicable to one game as to the other. So is "over-cautious, cat and mouse approach", and "This was a game that started, finished and nothing much happened in between. Local honour was satisfied in a very unsatisfactory match."
Watching football being discussed and analysed is at times like watching some weird collective entity responding to people's emotions rather than to reality. As if we're in a Terry Pratchett novel. And the journos are as bad as anybody.
Back in the day we wouldn't have played 7 defensive minded players and still bottled a game we needed at least a draw in. We give our all when the odds are on us to lose and when the team is under scrutiny. But when the pressure is on us to succeed we've bottled it more times than not.
By the way having an underdog mentality isn't saying we are mentally weak. It still means we have a strong mentality but it's still not strong enough to take us to where we want to be.
Back in the day, our ability to come back was a sign of our strong mentality now it’s being labelled an underdog mentality. More instances of selective memory. It seems you’ve forgotten how rare comebacks were under Moyes and LVG. Once we went down it was as over. Jose had his moments re: the 3-2 city result but our team has shown more resilience under Ole. It takes time to build a winner especially when there was such a huge mess to clean up from previous managers.
City’s instant success under Pep has skewed our view of things. We can’t expect our owners to spend like city. It took Klopp 4 years to win a trophy and 5 to win the league. Ole is in his second full season. If he fails to win a trophy and/or fails to close the gap with the dippers and city then by all means let him go.
If the other managers before him hadn't screwed the pooch as much as they did, he most likely wouldn't have needed to spend as much. Also, such a view also disregards the fact that unlike LvG and Jose, Ole has had to sell almost as much as he has bought. Lukaku paid for Maguire. Telles was paid for by Smalling. It's genuinely not the same situation as Jose and LvG, or even Moyes.So another 300 mill at least will see the squad sorted then we judge him on the most ever spent by one manager in 3 years?
1. Bruno is not world class. Let’s get that clear.
2. The judgement of a manager is not what he does with the best players he gets but how he actually manages what he has and quite frankly I don’t see anything special that we couldn’t have got if we just gave Alan Pardew the job and have him £200m.
Don't you know for some fans, you are meant to coach Dan James into a Hazard?
1. Bruno is not world class. Let’s get that clear.
2. The judgement of a manager is not what he does with the best players he gets but how he actually manages what he has and quite frankly I don’t see anything special that we couldn’t have got if we just gave Alan Pardew the job and have him £200m.
