We are an awfully coached team

EtH

Full Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2021
Messages
2,712
I am a longtime fan but a newcomer here with serious reservations about OGS as a manager. But even so I have to say I have steered clear of any Ole threads for the most part since joining because it is just hysterics which makes discussion difficult.

Some of the posts are indeed downright disrespectful. And then it becomes polarized because I think those with even reasoned reservations would rather not voice them because they want to take up for Olly Legend. And so forth an so on. Toxic.

We all want what’s best for the club. But he’s bloody Ole Gunnar Solskjær and so does he. And we are a damn sight better off now than we were under his predecessors. So whatever anyone thinks they should have some respect.

Just a newb’s take and obviously I’m in agreement with the mods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wibble

Eddy_JukeZ

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
16,977
Apparently, it's clear to everyone except a select portion of United fans that the coaching at Manchester United is not up to scratch. I mean pretty much every neutral (who would otherwise have no agenda) and rival fans can see it is our weakness. 3 years on and we play exactly the same way we did before, just with better players. You're not gonna find a single rival fan that wants Ole out.

And yet you're seen to be moaning or an awful supporter if you point that out. Feck me. When people used to say our club is different, I thought it was just pretentious "mes que en club" bullshit but now I finally see it. We truly have some "amazing" supporters who will bury their head in the sand and just about accept anything. I don't think there's a club out there where the support would be so divided with such mediocre results. Nearly £500m spent and 3 years under Ole's reign and the "achievements" are we finished third and second in the league, conveniently forgetting all the numerous setbacks and failures on the way. Building a good squad is now the standard for being Manchester United manager apparently, never mind winning trophies.
A lot of people on here took Fergie's speech at OT to heart and will back the manager all the way.

And they pin for someone to be at the helm 10 + years.

It is what it is.
 

Widow

Full Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
6,966
Location
Can't spell Mkhitaryan
Formation is not a system.
I know

Wolves played 3 at the back in a most boring way possible while Atalanta plays 3 at the back with very good attacking game.
I also get that

The best team in Europe is debatable (I'm assuming you're talking about BM?) . The Champions league winning Chelsea must be in with a shout, right? PSG & Liverpool too both playing different formations/systems.

Our double pivot is still a weak point three years into Oles stewardship, is this because of personal? If so, do we not try to fit the best formation/system around the players we currently have? Is a 4231 base the best formation for the players we have? Maybe.

I'd like to see us try something else though as we are struggling to impose our style and command games. It's already been pointed out but how often to we look in total control of a game? We can get results but we head into games not knowing how we're going to look.

We have such a strong squad, the best for many years, pre and post SAF retirement, yet we are still struggling for an identity. If you watch City, Chelsea, Liverpool, West Ham, Spurs and Leicester, you know what they want to do on and off the ball. How they will attack ect.. But we still look like we wing it on a prayer most games.

I'm just a simple man and I'm sure someone with point out how wrong my post is ect.. Ect..
 

largelyworried

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Messages
2,101
Maybe i'm blinded by subjectivity, but i honestly have never seen anyone take issue with the former. They might disagree, but i dont think anyone with any sense would lump the two together.

Regarding the bolded part though (if this is related to the YB game) i do kinda disagree, because getting a man sent off after a brainless challenge and then having one of your own players putting the opposition 1on1 with you GK are freak mistakes that cant really be pinned on anyone else than the plauyers themselves.

Ole did make a bit of a mess of it though
Both parties are guilty. When people argue that Ole is “hopeless” or whatever, most often it’s hyperbolic, usually made in frustration. But then other posters will respond in bad faith to the claim by suggesting it’s literal, making out that the other poster is the one being totally unreasonable and having an extreme position when it was clearly taking the post out of context. Then the first poster feels attacked, positions become entrenched and both sides end up arguing opposing points that they don’t even fully subscribe to.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,515
I know


I also get that

The best team in Europe is debatable (I'm assuming you're talking about BM?) . The Champions league winning Chelsea must be in with a shout, right? PSG & Liverpool too both playing different formations/systems.

Our double pivot is still a weak point three years into Oles stewardship, is this because of personal? If so, do we not try to fit the best formation/system around the players we currently have? Is a 4231 base the best formation for the players we have? Maybe.

I'd like to see us try something else though as we are struggling to impose our style and command games. It's already been pointed out but how often to we look in total control of a game? We can get results but we head into games not knowing how we're going to look.

We have such a strong squad, the best for many years, pre and post SAF retirement, yet we are still struggling for an identity. If you watch City, Chelsea, Liverpool, West Ham, Spurs and Leicester, you know what they want to do on and off the ball. How they will attack ect.. But we still look like we wing it on a prayer most games.

I'm just a simple man and I'm sure someone with point out how wrong my post is ect.. Ect..
4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 3-5-2 won't change anything. We will play in more or less same playing style as that's what Ole wants to implement.

We don't dominate the game using possession as Ole isn't the manager for that, its not about players. It's about manager and what his playing philosophy is. Ole is more direct manager and that's why we are inconsistent team.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
5,861
Apparently, it's clear to everyone except a select portion of United fans that the coaching at Manchester United is not up to scratch. I mean pretty much every neutral (who would otherwise have no agenda) and rival fans can see it is our weakness. 3 years on and we play exactly the same way we did before, just with better players. You're not gonna find a single rival fan that wants Ole out.

And yet you're seen to be moaning or an awful supporter if you point that out. Feck me. When people used to say our club is different, I thought it was just pretentious "mes que en club" bullshit but now I finally see it. We truly have some "amazing" supporters who will bury their head in the sand and just about accept anything. I don't think there's a club out there where the support would be so divided with such mediocre results. Nearly £500m spent and 3 years under Ole's reign and the "achievements" are we finished third and second in the league, conveniently forgetting all the numerous setbacks and failures on the way. Building a good squad is now the standard for being Manchester United manager apparently, never mind winning trophies.
You conveniently seem to forget that both the club and the manager made it very very clear in the summer of 2019 that this is exactly what they intended should happen - that the squad would be rebuilt, there would not be a quick fix, and the aim was to be back as a truly competitive top club in 2-3 seasons. And that is where we are. The big investments (which is the practical expression of "squad rebuild") have been made, the team has progressed, and we now have a squad that should be competitive. No one promised trophies, or consistent success, during that process, and no one had reason to expect them either. That doesn't mean this is "the standard", it means that was something we needed to go through in order to get back where we want to be. And, being now where we are, it is time to expect results. But it shouldn't be that difficult to get your head around the notion that sometimes you actually need to go through a period like that, and that expectations of results can't always be the same.

3rd and 2nd are very good achievements, given that starting points. And if you expected there to not be numerous setbacks and failures on the way, you were being wildly unrealistic in the first place. Also, the "xxx m spent, where are my trophies?" line is just about the stupidest, laziest line of reasoning around. The investment got us what it was supposed to get: A competitive team.

Is OGS the man to take us over the line? Well, we won't know will we, until he's tried with a squad that actually is good enough for that. That's what we'll find out this season. But while I think the argument you make concerning results and performance under OGS is inaccurate and fundamentally not fair, I can't say the same for the view that he's not up to it as a coach. I hope you're wrong though.
 

Rash Decision

not to use the cream
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
1,525
Location
In your closet, in your head!
I know


I also get that

The best team in Europe is debatable (I'm assuming you're talking about BM?) . The Champions league winning Chelsea must be in with a shout, right? PSG & Liverpool too both playing different formations/systems.

Our double pivot is still a weak point three years into Oles stewardship, is this because of personal? If so, do we not try to fit the best formation/system around the players we currently have? Is a 4231 base the best formation for the players we have? Maybe.

I'd like to see us try something else though as we are struggling to impose our style and command games. It's already been pointed out but how often to we look in total control of a game? We can get results but we head into games not knowing how we're going to look.

We have such a strong squad, the best for many years, pre and post SAF retirement, yet we are still struggling for an identity. If you watch City, Chelsea, Liverpool, West Ham, Spurs and Leicester, you know what they want to do on and off the ball. How they will attack ect.. But we still look like we wing it on a prayer most games.

I'm just a simple man and I'm sure someone with point out how wrong my post is ect.. Ect..
I’m no expert either but I think we go with a 4231 primarily because of Bruno, and our lack of a sitting DM with Matic being the only one capable of playing that role on his own. As for why we can’t impose our game on opponents, there are probably many factors to consider. What is Ole’s ideal game plan in the first place? For example, does he want us to press high? If so, why are our players half-hearted in their pressing, and why do we still leave large gaps all over the field? Is this a coaching issue, a player ability issue, or a player motivation issue? Then, how does Ole plan for us to keep possession? Is there much focus on it in training? Do we have the players who are naturally good at retaining possession, and are we using them? Do we have a robust passing structure in possession or do we largely leave it to the players themselves? Do our players fight for every second ball, and if not, why not? We have superb attackers on paper, but what is the attacking plan? Do we have rehearsed movements that our players can fall back on when needed? Do our attackers complement each other well, or do they all share similar strengths and weaknesses?

I think these are probably more pertinent to consider than a formation change. Sorry that I don’t have answers though.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,515
I’m no expert either but I think we go with a 4231 primarily because of Bruno, and our lack of a sitting DM with Matic being the only one capable of playing that role on his own. As for why we can’t impose our game on opponents, there are probably many factors to consider. What is Ole’s ideal game plan in the first place? For example, does he want us to press high? If so, why are our players half-hearted in their pressing, and why do we still leave large gaps all over the field? Is this a coaching issue, a player ability issue, or a player motivation issue? Then, how does Ole plan for us to keep possession? Is there much focus on it in training? Do we have the players who are naturally good at retaining possession, and are we using them? Do we have a robust passing structure in possession or do we largely leave it to the players themselves? Do our players fight for every second ball, and if not, why not? We have superb attackers on paper, but what is the attacking plan? Do we have rehearsed movements that our players can fall back on when needed? Do our attackers complement each other well, or do they all share similar strengths and weaknesses?

I think these are probably more pertinent to consider than a formation change. Sorry that I don’t have answers though.
We played 4-2-3-1 even before Bruno was signed. Ole started with 4-3-3 when he was caretaker manager, Pogba played more attacking role and we played some of the best football at that time. Then he dropped Pogba deeper saying we need more control of the game, that coincided with our players completely exhausted, we entered one of the worst run of results.

Next season (start of 2019-20), there were at least 2 surprising decisions. First one was switching to 4-2-3-1 which meant Pogba playing deeper role and also playing at least one of Lingard, Pereira all the time (few games both played too). Second surprising and right decision was moving Martial to CF position and Rashford to LW position. Previous season he played Rashford as CF and Martial as LW but all of a sudden he switched the positions which worked really well.

On to the main point, we played 4-2-3-1 before Bruno was signed, we played Lingard/Pereira as attacking midfielder.
 

Rash Decision

not to use the cream
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
1,525
Location
In your closet, in your head!
We played 4-2-3-1 even before Bruno was signed. Ole started with 4-3-3 when he was caretaker manager, Pogba played more attacking role and we played some of the best football at that time. Then he dropped Pogba deeper saying we need more control of the game, that coincided with our players completely exhausted, we entered one of the worst run of results.

Next season (start of 2019-20), there were at least 2 surprising decisions. First one was switching to 4-2-3-1 which meant Pogba playing deeper role and also playing at least one of Lingard, Pereira all the time (few games both played too). Second surprising and right decision was moving Martial to CF position and Rashford to LW position. Previous season he played Rashford as CF and Martial as LW but all of a sudden he switched the positions which worked really well.

On to the main point, we played 4-2-3-1 before Bruno was signed, we played Lingard/Pereira as attacking midfielder.
Oh yeah I recall that early 433. I meant we now stick with a 4231 because of Bruno and our lack of a good single pivot DM. Back then the makeup of the midfield was different too. We had a fresher Matic, and Herrera who did a ton of dirty work and cynical fouling to cover for Pogba. Rashford was in stunning form at CF too, Martial was alright and Lingard was the defensive winger. We can’t do that now because Matic no longer has the legs, we could try to fill the Herrera role with Fred but I think Herrera was a smarter player, we need to fit both Bruno and Pogba in somehow, and our forwards now are pure goalscorers until Sancho gets up to speed, and even then none of them do any defensive work.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,515
Oh yeah I recall that early 433. I meant we now stick with a 4231 because of Bruno and our lack of a good single pivot DM. Back then the makeup of the midfield was different too. We had a fresher Matic, and Herrera who did a ton of dirty work and cynical fouling to cover for Pogba. Rashford was in stunning form at CF too, Martial was alright and Lingard was the defensive winger. We can’t do that now because Matic no longer has the legs, we could try to fill the Herrera role with Fred but I think Herrera was a smarter player, we need to fit both Bruno and Pogba in somehow, and our forwards now are pure goalscorers until Sancho gets up to speed, and even then none of them do any defensive work.
For some reason Ole thought switch to 4-2-3-1 was better and also Pogba in deeper role is better as he gives more control to the game.

I think with better coaches, we can play 4-3-3 with minor adjustments. If we see few of the top teams, they squeeze the game and the players are so close to each other. They attack and defend as a team, also pressing is packs and closing the passing lanes is how they win the ball back. We are so far from that level.
 

RedDevilQuebecois

Full Member
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
7,787
For some reason Ole thought switch to 4-2-3-1 was better and also Pogba in deeper role is better as he gives more control to the game.

I think with better coaches, we can play 4-3-3 with minor adjustments. If we see few of the top teams, they squeeze the game and the players are so close to each other. They attack and defend as a team, also pressing is packs and closing the passing lanes is how they win the ball back. We are so far from that level.
For that, Ole could have done himself a favor by firing Carrick and McKenna. I just do not understand what Ole sees in those two, but the fact that a manager does not have a strong and more experienced figure around him as an assistant (don't count Mike Phelan with the likes of Brian Kidd, Carlos Queiroz, and Walter Smith) is often the hallmark of a weak manager. Seriously, would Fergie have done as well without the various assistants he had? Would Sir Matt Busby have done this well without Jimmy Murphy as his wingman? Would Brian Clough have been so successful without Peter Taylor as his right-hand man? All top managers have assistants who are willing to bring a solid second opinion, even if that sometimes goes against what the manager thinks is best at first.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: being a coach at Manchester United is no job for a coaching newbie.

edit: We are coached by rookies (see below) and that is fecking pathetic.
 

Rash Decision

not to use the cream
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
1,525
Location
In your closet, in your head!
For some reason Ole thought switch to 4-2-3-1 was better and also Pogba in deeper role is better as he gives more control to the game.

I think with better coaches, we can play 4-3-3 with minor adjustments. If we see few of the top teams, they squeeze the game and the players are so close to each other. They attack and defend as a team, also pressing is packs and closing the passing lanes is how they win the ball back. We are so far from that level.
Maybe! I feel very annoyed every time I watch us play and there’s a player struggling on the ball because no one else is there to give him an easy passing option. Which happens very often. It makes our players look poorer than they actually are.
 

Andycoleno9

matchday malcontent
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
28,576
Location
Croatia
How can someone defend Ole and his "system" while watching City, Chelsea and Liverpool every week? Those 3 dominate every team, you can clearly see system and patterns in their play. Meanwhile with us it is all about player's inspiration. We relly on counter attacks and on individual magic.
Besides Leeds game who was wide open in defence, how many clear chances we created this year?

As @PoTMS said; how come every rival fan is happy that we have him as a manager? How come you will rarely find a random football fan (so fans who are objective) who rates Solskjaer? Even many pundits (except his former teammates) who are generaly reserved in trashing managers, say that only reason why we are not among PL favorites is a manager.
How come 1,2 or 3 seasons were enough to some of you to see that James, Lingard, Darmian, Ighalo etc...are not good enough for Man Utd but you accept average manager on the bench?

But what the hell rest of football world knows, eh?
 

AjaxCunian

vexingwijsneus
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
4,230
Supports
Ajax & United
How can someone defend Ole and his "system" while watching City, Chelsea and Liverpool every week? Those 3 dominate every team, you can clearly see system and patterns in their play. Meanwhile with us it is all about player's inspiration. We relly on counter attacks and on individual magic.
Besides Leeds game who was wide open in defence, how many clear chances we created this year?

As @PoTMS said; how come every rival fan is happy that we have him as a manager? How come you will rarely find a random football fan (so fans who are objective) who rates Solskjaer? Even many pundits (except his former teammates) who are generaly reserved in trashing managers, say that only reason why we are not among PL favorites is a manager.
How come 1,2 or 3 seasons were enough to some of you to see that James, Lingard, Darmian, Ighalo etc...are not good enough for Man Utd but you accept average manager on the bench?

But what the hell rest of football world knows, eh?
It's not stick to beat them with but I think a lot of posters only watch United and the caf and there is nothing really wrong with that per se.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,515
For that, Ole could have done himself a favor by firing Carrick and McKenna. I just do not understand what Ole sees in those two, but the fact that a manager does not have a strong and more experienced figure around him as an assistant (don't count Mike Phelan with the likes of Brian Kidd, Carlos Queiroz, and Walter Smith) is often the hallmark of a weak manager. Seriously, would Fergie have done as well without the various assistants he had? Would Sir Matt Busby have done this well without Jimmy Murphy as his wingman? Would Brian Clough have been so successful without Peter Taylor as his right-hand man? All top managers have assistants who are willing to bring a solid second opinion, even if that sometimes goes against what the manager thinks is best at first.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: being a coach at Manchester United is no job for a coaching newbie.
Why are we blaming Carrick and McKenna now? Players have mentioned how much Carrick has helped them in picking up small details and we have (well most have) seen how McKenna team plays when he coached our U18 team.

People said Klopp will struggle when Buvac left, saying he was the brain behind the achievements, they won PL and CL when he left. Pep with and without Arteta won PL.

Coaching staff helps but they implement or try to implement the manager's vision. Replace Pep with Ole and all of a sudden we look like a team playing like a team.
 

Rash Decision

not to use the cream
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
1,525
Location
In your closet, in your head!
We're coached by rookies unfortunately

I don’t trust Luckhurst but if that’s true, shouldn’t Eric Ramsay be more involved? I mean he’s the one who came with a reputation for coaching pressing and buildup play under pressure. But all I’ve seen so far only suggests that he works on set pieces. A waste if that’s true.
 

AjaxCunian

vexingwijsneus
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
4,230
Supports
Ajax & United
Brings good mood and picks players. For buying players like Varane, Sancho, Bruno, Cavani or Ronaldo you need to be excellent scout apparently.
Are you talking about Solksjaer, Phelan or both?

Bruno and Cavani were excellent and sharp buys I must say. Not many of the top top clubs were seriously after them, more understandable for Cavani if they already had a striker.
 

stw2022

New Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
3,687
We’re a nothing team tactically. As someone else pointed out, whilst nobody is guaranteed to win or even play well, with truly top sides you know how they’re going to try and play; they have an identity, an ethos.

I don’t see that we have that. The tactics seem to be to name an 11 and hope Bruno (and now Ronaldo, I guess) pulls something out of the hat. We rely more on individual talent than anyone else because the tactical foundations are yet unproven IMO. It feeds into the suggestion Ole is a good motivator and little else. That’s not always a problem if such a manager surrounds himself with top coaches. But that box isn’t ticked.

It’s some what myopic this outlook that “used to play here” automatically qualifies people for these positions
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
5,861
How can someone defend Ole and his "system" while watching City, Chelsea and Liverpool every week? Those 3 dominate every team, you can clearly see system and patterns in their play. Meanwhile with us it is all about player's inspiration. We relly on counter attacks and on individual magic.
Besides Leeds game who was wide open in defence, how many clear chances we created this year?


As @PoTMS said; how come every rival fan is happy that we have him as a manager? How come you will rarely find a random football fan (so fans who are objective) who rates Solskjaer? Even many pundits (except his former teammates) who are generaly reserved in trashing managers, say that only reason why we are not among PL favorites is a manager.
How come 1,2 or 3 seasons were enough to some of you to see that James, Lingard, Darmian, Ighalo etc...are not good enough for Man Utd but you accept average manager on the bench?

But what the hell rest of football world knows, eh?
I watch City, Liverpool and Chelsea as often as I can, and I don't agree with your assessment. Rather, there are both benefits and disadvantages to the different approaches.

Liverpool is as dependent as we are on their top players delivering the goods. When they don't, or aren't available, they struggle - arguably more than we do. They dropped 22 points to bottom half teams last year, we dropped 12. Klopp may have a more clearly recognisable system than we have, but it is also more dependent on specific qualities in specific positions. This brings vulnerabilities as well as advantages, which the past two seasons wonderfully demonstrate.

Chelsea under Tuchel have a marvellous ability to control games, which is really the backbone of that team, and one that has already brought them a CL title. It was evident already in his first game, and is a very, very impressive achievement by Tuchel. But that too comes at a cost to offensive dynamism, and it is not self-evidently an approach that is superior in terms of delivering consistent results in the PL. Chelsea dropped 9 points to lower half teams in 19 games under Tuchel last season - hence struggling considerably more than we did against teams that generally did not attempt to dominate games, which is the sort of team against which a control approach has the fewest relative benefits.

City of course is a machine, and the kind of football Pep can deliver when he's got the necessary parts available is a sight to behold. But City these days also have their vulnerabilities. They are no longer the sort of team who racks up 25 shots and blow opponents away. The shots are fewer, the score margins more often narrower. It's not that rare these days to see them produce only a small handful of big scoring chances through a game, though that is usually enough. But it's two seasons now where they haven't really approached the levels they achieved in the preceding two seasons. And for once, they now look like they have a couple of significant holes in the squad (left back, striker).

I think it's fair to claim that of the top 4 teams, ours is the style that provides the most leeway for some exceptionally talented attacking players to make full use of their talents, and this may be more of a strength than a weakness. It's not a choice between structure and anarchy, every team and every system has to strike a balance between freedom of expression and structure. More structure isn't necessarily the same thing as a better system. Bruno seems to me to be a good example - given licence to roam at United, he's an exceptional player. Being shovelled into a much more defined and limited role in the portuguese national team, he doesn't accomplish very much.
 

stw2022

New Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
3,687
Every side relies on their top players to a degree but that’s not ALL they are. I’ve had a nagging doubt for a long time that we’re a team coached by the unqualified at doing so at the top level, managed by someone whose biggest achievement in the job has been to benefit from Liverpool’s collapse last season who have rarely looked like the same side for consecutive matches because there’s nothing there apart from crossing our fingers and hope Bruno’s individual talent is enough.

Ole might prove me wrong and I hope he does but I’m sorry but I can’t help wanting to see this team managed by a young, ambitious, tactically astute manager whose qualifications for the job goes beyond ‘used to play for Sir Alex’.

This isn’t knee jerk, losing opening group game of CL really doesn’t bother me in the slightest, especially this group. We’ll still qualify from it no worries.
 

Amir

Full Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2000
Messages
24,831
Location
Rehovot, Israel
Liverpool is as dependent as we are on their top players delivering the goods. When they don't, or aren't available, they struggle - arguably more than we do. They dropped 22 points to bottom half teams last year, we dropped 12. Klopp may have a more clearly recognisable system than we have, but it is also more dependent on specific qualities in specific positions. This brings vulnerabilities as well as advantages, which the past two seasons wonderfully demonstrate.
Actually, I beg to differ. I believe systems in general - and Liverpool's in particular - allow you to use weaker players but still maintain a structure that the team can operate on.

Obviously it's not perfect and there's still dependency on the quality of players... Like when you lose all your centerhalves - which explains what happened to them last season and would have happen to anyone in such a situation.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
5,861
Actually, I beg to differ. I believe systems in general - and Liverpool's in particular - allow you to use weaker players but still maintain a structure that the team can operate on.

Obviously it's not perfect and there's still dependency on the quality of players... Like when you lose all your centerhalves - which explains what happened to them last season and would have happen to anyone in such a situation.
Well, then why were the results so awful when they were in exactly that position? On the evidence of last season, Liverpool's results hugely deteriorate when they are missing a significant number of key players, or key players are used out of positions, or just have off days. Surely this shows clearly exactly that their system don't provide a structure that the team can operate on effectively, even when they are missing several of their best players.

An explanation that is much more consistent with the results would be that they have a system that works a treat as long as you have players with the skills to execute it well (and since they've recruited players with an emphasis on exactly those skills, they do). But in the nature of things, when you custom-build a team to deliver a specific system and base everything around that, you will be vulnerable, as long you can't afford double coverage. City can, Liverpool can't. If you lose the players the system depends on, the system doesn't help you to get by, because Oxlade-Chamberlain simply cannot deliver the things that Mohammed Salah can. And if he doesn't, the overall effectiveness of the system suffers. And the very fact that you have clear patterns and structure that everyone stick to becomes a hindrance more than a benefit, because you end up with a team where too many players are trying to do things they can't, but have to.

With a less systems-based approach, this is not the case in the same way, because you have a more adaptive team. You can play in different ways, adjusted to the players you have available.

But again it's a sliding scale not an absolute difference, and there are both advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.
 

Bobcat

Full Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
6,365
Location
Behind the curtains, leering at the neighbors
Both parties are guilty. When people argue that Ole is “hopeless” or whatever, most often it’s hyperbolic, usually made in frustration. But then other posters will respond in bad faith to the claim by suggesting it’s literal, making out that the other poster is the one being totally unreasonable and having an extreme position when it was clearly taking the post out of context. Then the first poster feels attacked, positions become entrenched and both sides end up arguing opposing points that they don’t even fully subscribe to.
We have the matchday thread for hyperbolic nonsense and emotional outbursts. And of course we are going to interprit it as litteral, figurative language really does poorly as written communication. Brushing it of as a figure of speech was the same nonsense defense right wingers gave Trump when he suggested people drink bleach

Also, i fully understand that people can write heat of the moment stuff, being a supporter is emotional, but this endless cycle of meltdowns each time we drop points is extremely tiresome. If its spesific criticism about team selections, subs or tactics its completely fine, but its usually not that. Usually its right back to "shit coahcing" or something of that ilk and when things are looking good, the same people wont mention coaching at all or just write it of as "indvidual brilliance"
 

Amir

Full Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2000
Messages
24,831
Location
Rehovot, Israel
Well, then why were the results so awful when they were in exactly that position? On the evidence of last season, Liverpool's results hugely deteriorate when they are missing a significant number of key players, or key players are used out of positions, or just have off days. Surely this shows clearly exactly that their system don't provide a structure that the team can operate on effectively, even when they are missing several of their best players.
Obviously there's always some dependency on your top players being fit and in form, no matter what system you use or how much you depend on it. But I believe it's worse for a non-systematic team.

Anyway, I wouldn't take Liverpool's last season as evidence to the weakness of the system. They lost all their centerhalves, had to compensate for a weaker backline and also moved midfielders to the defence. This affected the entire team. No one can survive that without some damage. Finishing third despite all that is actually quite good.
 

mu4c_20le

Full Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
42,729
It's not stick to beat them with but I think a lot of posters only watch United and the caf and there is nothing really wrong with that per se.
Yeah but on the other hand, we also some to have some posters that watch a bunch of games every week and think they are experts. Every time we don't dominate a game, we get compared to Pep and Klopp. Every week without fail, even when we win. The armchair coaching is getting tiresome, and this week it's the Harry Hindsight special.
 

lilcurt

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
3,536
Location
Birmingham
Yeah but on the other hand, we also some to have some posters that watch a bunch of games every week and think they are experts. Every time we don't dominate a game, we get compared to Pep and Klopp. Every week without fail, even when we win. The armchair coaching is getting tiresome, and this week it's the Harry Hindsight special.
In all fairness isn't the purpose of this forum to discuss our thoughts on United. This place wouldn't exist without the 'armchair managers'.
 

RUCK4444

New Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
9,553
Location
$¥$¥$¥$¥$
A lot of people on here took Fergie's speech at OT to heart and will back the manager all the way.

And they pin for someone to be at the helm 10 + years.

It is what it is.
Personally I think it’s entirely laughable that people think the people who back Ole care more about him (or any manager) being here for 10+ years than they do about the club and it’s success.

Absolute nonsense, I doubt there is a single fan (even in this strange place!) that feels that way.

This is one of the narratives that need to be quashed because it’s one of the biggest that make the topic unbearable and it will do so no matter who the manager is, even after Ole.
 

mu4c_20le

Full Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
42,729
In all fairness isn't the purpose of this forum to discuss our thoughts on United. This place wouldn't exist without the 'armchair managers'.
The problem is there are actually people who think they can do better than Ole
 

NZT-One

Full Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
2,342
Location
Berlin
Please don’t misunderstand me. I never liked the idea of Van Gaal or Mourinho managing United. But we were all told their resumes spoke volumes about the glory they would bring back to United. Despite their resumes, both were a disaster.

Once we went down to 10 men, Ole decided to go entirely defensive to hang on to the lead. We see this all the time. It doesn’t always work out, but we do see this all the time. Had Ole gone for the second goal we might have put Young Boys away, but we might have also exposed our back line to numbers.

A manager who goes down 10 men and a 1-0 lead has a decision to make. It’s not daft to go defensive in that situation.
Agreed but that wasn't the point I wanted to make. Let me rephrase - You mentioned that the outcry after Tuesday wouldn't have been as loud had we managed to keep it at 1:1. I meant, that I am pretty sure that this doesn't seem to be plausible for me. Because we didn't do anything of note in 2nd half and we were not awesome before the red card as well. A performance like this would have been criticised in any case or result. I agree with you - going defensive wasn't an obvious mistake, but to go full defensive for 45min with only a 1-goal-lead is easily just as risky than trying to play a bit more balanced and at least remain dangerous on a counter, something we excel at, which makes it even more absurd.

And about LVG and Mourinho, you used the word "we were all told their resumes speak volumes..." - who do you mean with that, who told us that? I wasn't on redcafe back then but on a German fan forum but I am pretty sure, the majority of fans weren't celebrating these managers for their status but mostly because they meant the end of the unfortunate Moyes reign and the dreading LVG period a while after.
And thats what I mean, we were more happy, that bad managers were gone than we were happy that great managers arrived. And that makes the argument, that because LVG and Mourinho failed as supposedly top coaches we should stick to Ole in any case because at least he isn't as bad as these two, so weak in my eyes.
 

lilcurt

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
3,536
Location
Birmingham
The problem is there are actually people who think they can do better than Ole
I agree that is a little idiotic. That being said, I'm pretty sure I could sound less clueless in interviews. Always feel Ole comes across poor when speaking pre and post match.
 

AjaxCunian

vexingwijsneus
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
4,230
Supports
Ajax & United
Yeah but on the other hand, we also some to have some posters that watch a bunch of games every week and think they are experts. Every time we don't dominate a game, we get compared to Pep and Klopp. Every week without fail, even when we win. The armchair coaching is getting tiresome, and this week it's the Harry Hindsight special.
No they don't think they're experts and yeah Pep and Klopp are who we are up against. Thank God Ole wasnt compared to the likes of Flick or Ten Hag. Even when we win, the performance can be poor you know.

You can win with poor performances, you can lose with better performances. However unkess you have a keeper that kets everything in or your attackers can't finish etc, over a long run, the results follow the performances and that's why we have won nothing under Ole and havent challenged for the bigger trophies either. We have a great set of players, players who don't need many to score and we are tough to beat, and credit to Ole and the players for that, but it is going to take more than that.
 

AjaxCunian

vexingwijsneus
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
4,230
Supports
Ajax & United
The problem is there are actually people who think they can do better than Ole
Name and shame them.

I rather think people that criticise Ole and his tactics, the performances of his team are accused of being armchair managers and that they "think" they are better coaches than Ole which is far from the truth.

Under this reasoning, criticism should be banned as I'm sure all our players are better than the posters too.

If there are people saying/insinuating that they are better coaches than Ole and the staff, it is an incredible minority and they're daft. That doesnt mean you can point out there shortcomings. This is basic to almost all professions there are.
 

mu4c_20le

Full Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
42,729
Name and shame them.

I rather think people that criticise Ole and his tactics, the performances of his team are accused of being armchair managers and that they "think" they are better coaches than Ole which is far from the truth.

Under this reasoning, criticism should be banned as I'm sure all our players are better than the posters too.

If there are people saying/insinuating that they are better coaches than Ole and the staff, it is an incredible minority and they're daft. That doesnt mean you can point out there shortcomings. This is basic to almost all professions there are.
Nah that's pointless and counter productive. I'm just pointing out the other extreme end of the spectrum in a reply to your post. Criticism, debate and opinions are fine, I also talk abut how I would do things differently when I watch other teams etc. I just think that with Ole it's different and there's a much more apparent lack of respect, to the point where there seems to be people who genuinely think he is not a real coach and not too different than some random bloke at the pub.