Quite a few have noted this, but there still seems to be discussion about wether we have seen steady improvement or just glimpses of good or bad form, or have been transformed over night by Bruno. I wanted to look back at that, reviewing the actual results.
Was there anything to take from last season? Well, we saw two halves, the first we were brilliant and lucky, the decond we were horrible and unlucky. The most obvious reasons (apart from the luck) were transitional ones: Honeymoon, Solskjær vs Mourinho joy, confidence boost and more aggressive play for the good part - injuries, low confidence, low fitness levels, and bad morale were factors in the bad part. If Solskjær could get rid of some bad apples, get a few good signings and have a good preseason, I’d expected us to get somewere in between those ups and downs. We got only half the necessary signings, and Ole showed he would rely heavily on youth, so it became clear this was a season for development rather than end results. Has it been?
I split up this season in four parts (51 games, split into 13-13-13-12). An up-down-up-down-pattern emerged in points per game: 1.4 - 2.1 - 1.5 - 2.5. As a rule of thumb, 2 points pr game and more will normally put you in contention for trophees, lower will not. So are we just up and down, with Bruno adding a level?
There was one other discernible tendency last season that held for both the good and bad period: We looked better playing counterattack than being forced on the forefoot. There was a notion early this season that this bore out in the PL, but not so much against European or lower league opposition. So I parted the season in three subgroups: A) Games against PL teams set up for being able to play us on the forefoot (I included City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham, Arsenal and Leicester in this, based on profile of player quality and style of play). B) Games against PL teams set up to play us on the counter (the rest). C) European and lower league teams.
First confirmation: We have done well against group C throughout. 9 wins in 13 gave 2,3 per game, and an even level of above 2 pts pr game for all of the four parts of the season. Looking behind the points, wins from December onwards against AZ 4-0, Tranmere 6-0, Brügge 5-0 and Linz 5-0 points towards progress in what has not been a problem area.
Then what we thought we knew: We have been better against the Expected best (A) than against the rest (B). 1.9 ppg against the top end teams is a very high return, and much better than any counterattacking team normally can dream of. In comparison, 1,6 ppg against the other 13 teams clearly shows our perceived weakness is not a myth: Picking off teams through established forefoot play has been a weakness.
What was interesting, was the development of the season in four parts: Our games against Group A teams showed consistent high numbers, above 2 ppg, for all parts of the season, with exception to the third 13-game part, which contained three straight, clear defeats against Arsenal, City and Liverpool. That means we have been as good against the likes of City and Liverpool as against the likes of Astana and Rotherham (albeit with different atarting 11s) if you look outside of that period in January. It makes you wonder of something happened in January for us to suddenly lose three of those in a row. Were we working on a different focus in our game in that period, prioritising preparedness to play on the forefoot? Who knows. Or was it just a slumo of bad form?
The reults against group B teams points to the former: There was a steady improvement between each of the four parts of the season: 0.4 - 1.5 - 1.8 - 2.6. Meaning that the period when we collapsed against the better attacking sides, we still improved against the cautious or defensive sides, even as this included two games against perhaps the best defensive team in group B (Wolves). It also means that the blip against the better teams concealed the fact that we have in fact been gradually improved all season in playing established attacking play, ‘on the forefoot’.
Now, many coaches have previously pointed out that it takes shorter time to set up a team for counterattacking than for dominance, and you need technically more talented players to succeed with dominating football. Did our results on the forefoot change with the availability of more technically accomplished players, successful coaching of forefoot play, or both? Looking at the availability of our best individual players in that regard: Pogba, Rashford, Martial and Bruno, we had on average two in the first part (Pogba and Martial out after four/five games), one in the secound (Pogba and Martial out), one and a half in the third (Pogba out, Martial for half the games), roughly two and a half in the fourth part (Bruno in, Martial in, Rashford out, Pogba and Rashford in for the latter games). This means we had three of our most proficient players available only in our first stint against the ‘backfoot’ teams, taking 0.67 ppg against Wolves, Palace and Southampton, and the last two games with two wins against Sheffield Utd and Brighton). So its not that simple. Is it even simpler, a pure Bruno effect? No. We did have a jump of 0.8 pppg after he came, which points to there being a Bruno effect indeed. Yet we jumped with 1.4 ppg from the first to the third part of the season against the weaker teams, an even bigger jump, and 0.4 pog between second and third. So the Bruno effect only accounts for some of the improvement in these games. The general steady improvement points to mainly being an effect of gradually improved team play in dominating games and getting results all throughout the season, and that this is not an up-down fluctuating effect, but can be expected to continue into the future.
Opinions?
Was there anything to take from last season? Well, we saw two halves, the first we were brilliant and lucky, the decond we were horrible and unlucky. The most obvious reasons (apart from the luck) were transitional ones: Honeymoon, Solskjær vs Mourinho joy, confidence boost and more aggressive play for the good part - injuries, low confidence, low fitness levels, and bad morale were factors in the bad part. If Solskjær could get rid of some bad apples, get a few good signings and have a good preseason, I’d expected us to get somewere in between those ups and downs. We got only half the necessary signings, and Ole showed he would rely heavily on youth, so it became clear this was a season for development rather than end results. Has it been?
I split up this season in four parts (51 games, split into 13-13-13-12). An up-down-up-down-pattern emerged in points per game: 1.4 - 2.1 - 1.5 - 2.5. As a rule of thumb, 2 points pr game and more will normally put you in contention for trophees, lower will not. So are we just up and down, with Bruno adding a level?
There was one other discernible tendency last season that held for both the good and bad period: We looked better playing counterattack than being forced on the forefoot. There was a notion early this season that this bore out in the PL, but not so much against European or lower league opposition. So I parted the season in three subgroups: A) Games against PL teams set up for being able to play us on the forefoot (I included City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham, Arsenal and Leicester in this, based on profile of player quality and style of play). B) Games against PL teams set up to play us on the counter (the rest). C) European and lower league teams.
First confirmation: We have done well against group C throughout. 9 wins in 13 gave 2,3 per game, and an even level of above 2 pts pr game for all of the four parts of the season. Looking behind the points, wins from December onwards against AZ 4-0, Tranmere 6-0, Brügge 5-0 and Linz 5-0 points towards progress in what has not been a problem area.
Then what we thought we knew: We have been better against the Expected best (A) than against the rest (B). 1.9 ppg against the top end teams is a very high return, and much better than any counterattacking team normally can dream of. In comparison, 1,6 ppg against the other 13 teams clearly shows our perceived weakness is not a myth: Picking off teams through established forefoot play has been a weakness.
What was interesting, was the development of the season in four parts: Our games against Group A teams showed consistent high numbers, above 2 ppg, for all parts of the season, with exception to the third 13-game part, which contained three straight, clear defeats against Arsenal, City and Liverpool. That means we have been as good against the likes of City and Liverpool as against the likes of Astana and Rotherham (albeit with different atarting 11s) if you look outside of that period in January. It makes you wonder of something happened in January for us to suddenly lose three of those in a row. Were we working on a different focus in our game in that period, prioritising preparedness to play on the forefoot? Who knows. Or was it just a slumo of bad form?
The reults against group B teams points to the former: There was a steady improvement between each of the four parts of the season: 0.4 - 1.5 - 1.8 - 2.6. Meaning that the period when we collapsed against the better attacking sides, we still improved against the cautious or defensive sides, even as this included two games against perhaps the best defensive team in group B (Wolves). It also means that the blip against the better teams concealed the fact that we have in fact been gradually improved all season in playing established attacking play, ‘on the forefoot’.
Now, many coaches have previously pointed out that it takes shorter time to set up a team for counterattacking than for dominance, and you need technically more talented players to succeed with dominating football. Did our results on the forefoot change with the availability of more technically accomplished players, successful coaching of forefoot play, or both? Looking at the availability of our best individual players in that regard: Pogba, Rashford, Martial and Bruno, we had on average two in the first part (Pogba and Martial out after four/five games), one in the secound (Pogba and Martial out), one and a half in the third (Pogba out, Martial for half the games), roughly two and a half in the fourth part (Bruno in, Martial in, Rashford out, Pogba and Rashford in for the latter games). This means we had three of our most proficient players available only in our first stint against the ‘backfoot’ teams, taking 0.67 ppg against Wolves, Palace and Southampton, and the last two games with two wins against Sheffield Utd and Brighton). So its not that simple. Is it even simpler, a pure Bruno effect? No. We did have a jump of 0.8 pppg after he came, which points to there being a Bruno effect indeed. Yet we jumped with 1.4 ppg from the first to the third part of the season against the weaker teams, an even bigger jump, and 0.4 pog between second and third. So the Bruno effect only accounts for some of the improvement in these games. The general steady improvement points to mainly being an effect of gradually improved team play in dominating games and getting results all throughout the season, and that this is not an up-down fluctuating effect, but can be expected to continue into the future.
Opinions?
