Every time he talks about tactics is about ‘passion’, ‘who wants it more’, ‘winning the fifty fifties’. Bollocks that you would expect from a Sunday league manager.
So yup, I have the same impression.
The Athletic: "Man Utd coaches trying Jadon Sancho as RWB"
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
So yup, I have the same impression.
You see that's the problem that I have with people sometimes. The title of this thread isn't the story, the article is about Sancho current struggle at United and this is an extract of a longer article. You then put all your anger/dislike into righting something negative while not even sticking to the idea that it's not true and also not even realizing that your point about that extract is BS since it's not the story but one of the things a twitter aggregator chose to highlight.
It amazes me because even though I don't put much stock into it, the same way I didn't put much stock into the 433 stories, it's amazing how people can be extremely negative about an article while having seemingly no clue about it.
I stand corrected. I don't have a subscription so I'm assuming it's just one line pulled from the article and quoted in the tweet? In that case, yeah it doesn't seem click baitey.
Still sounds like nonsense but you just never know if it's filler content or Ole's true intentions
I used to watch tactical analysis videos for our matches but frankly they’re almost never very interesting. The analyses on City, Chelsea and the like are much more so, which is painful.
It's a small part of an article about Sancho first months and struggle at United. Truth be told, the only reason there is 13 pages is because we are collectively unhinged and need something to focus on.I stand corrected. I don't have a subscription so I'm assuming it's just one line pulled from the article and quoted in the tweet? In that case, yeah it doesn't seem click baitey.
Still sounds like nonsense but you just never know if it's filler content or Ole's true intentions
In theory yes, however there seems to be a real difficulty in combining the ideas of our defence working as a unit (including the midfield) and being comfortable on the ball in the 4-2-3-1.
When we play Pogba and Matic they are better on the ball but it has a horrendous lack of energy and ability to compete. When we play McFred...well, in seasons gone by its looked more secure but they clog it up. There hardly seems to be a good solution, at least under this current regime, I think we've tried everything under the sun except VDB but he can hardly be expected to improve the overall lack of cohesiveness through sheer ability.
The 4-2-3-1 does seem to have some structural problems. Sadly the 3 at the back isn't looking too hot either, though. What it's all pointing to is that they've run out of ideas.
Yeah, this is a general theme for United-specific journalism in general and something I've seen from all journalists from all outlets. On a related note, I see way more positive articles and content from The Athletic for teams like Chelsea and Liverpool. Basically, the journalists' biases will come through, and if they're negative, then the contents will be presented more negatively as a result. Adam Crafton is particularly notorious for this, but he used to work for the Daily Mail, so that makes sense.
The bolded part is what I would expect (without reading the article), but if that's what was specified in the article itself, then I see absolutely no issue with it.
Ole needs no help looking inept.
Nope, I did not. To be honest I rarely ever do.
Because the headline is usually enough to know that it is all clickbait, BBC gossip column stuff.
Was Whitwell there? Did he witness a conversation? Is he privy to all the goings on at training? Does he know exactly what Ole's plans are? Do the athletic get paid by the ragtops for using their articles as a source?
It's nothing more than speculation designed to generate clicks. Most Utd news stories are. Now if people want to pay for speculation from the athletic that's entirely up to them.
The headline of the piece in question is "Jadon Sancho is the collateral damage of Manchester United's problems". It's a pretty comprehensive deep dive into a lot of the circumstances surrounding his arrival, including his struggles with an ear infection, a minor calf injury, and difficulty adjusting to the pace of the PL.
The bit about him training as a RWB is literally in the second to last paragraph. If it was clickbait, the headline would be something along the lines of "SHOCK as 85m England STAR trains NEW POSITION at MANCHESTER UNITED".
And that's how it's being put by those who use the athletic as their source.
Let's consider that the athletic don't include that piece. Then this article is nothing more than a piece about a player struggling to adapt. That much obvious to anyone who has watched Utd this season. Nobody outside has a hook to catch clicks on.
It is click bait. By including nonsense like this as a fotonote to a bigger piece the athletic are knowingly putting speculative content in there that will be picked up by others who use it as a source. This drives clicks to them firstly and ultimately back to the athletic.
Tuchel did this with CHO and I hated it. He was fine (but not great) against shit sides I guess.
A massive symptom of the woeful mismanagement of the club.
We were chasing this guy for two years. We finally get him, and don't know how to use him.
Absolutely comical. Feel for the boy. Angry at the current state of affairs. Praying Joel has a five minute post-nut clarity and bins the management from Arnold down.
We were chasing this guy for two years. We finally get him, and don't know how to use him.
Absolutely comical. Feel for the boy. Angry at the current state of affairs. Praying Joel has a five minute post-nut clarity and bins the management from Arnold down.
The title of the thread is: 'The Athletic: Man Utd coaches trying Sancho as RWB'.
I then posted a reply about someone commenting on the Athletic being a reputable source. To which I disagreed.
So I'm not sure where you're coming from with this, I think your slightly off piste with your words here?
The article is pure crap, we know he hasn't been fully fit, he's getting up to speed with the league, the whole RWB positional swap is merely fodder for the sensationalist hunters, something to rile up the supporters, something the headline of the article does, 'Sancho is collateral damage', even that's sensationalist and pure crap in itself.
So please, next time you comment, make sure it's relevant to my point, cheers.
I see no real issue with the piece itself, it's just wholly negative and is quite a sensationalist piece.
The headline is wholly negative, the price about trying him at RWB didn't even need to be stated, players mix up where they are playing all the time in training.
Its a sensationalist piece designed to ruffle the feathers of sensitive fans, which it has done.
Its masquerading as a serious article, something the Athletic do well.
And 100% agree with the bolded part.
The thread wasn't written by the Athletic nor was the title. The article isn't about Sancho playing RWB, it's one isolated sentence in a relatively long article about Sancho first months at United. And Sancho absolutely a collateral damage of United collectively struggling.
Next time you comment, think just a little bit instead of being all emotional for no good reason.
Perfectly put.
How does anyone believe the other papers got the story so quick, and were able to use the story so flippantly?
Every single article had 'as written by the Athletic' or words of similar ilk, followed by a link to said story.
Its a click bait article masquerading as a serious journalistic piece.
Of course not
You misread, Sancho is wide on the right and there's a Walker type behind him.
But how on Earth does that benefit The Athletic? The whole point of clickbait is sensationalism driving clicks via OTT titles - this results in fewer clicks through to the actual source. And on top of that, The Athletic have a completely different business model that is subscriber-based - or do you really think that there is a significant portion of idiots reading one rag or another who will click on something, be curious about the source, and then subscribe for actual journalism?
What are you on about?!?
I am commenting on a post regarding The Athletic, the title of the thread paraphrases the Athletic article.
Its an article which is designed to create intrigue, interest and debate about it, why else would so many websites, media outlets pick up on it so quick, with all of them linking to the Athletic article.
I am so confused by what point you're trying to make here?
All he's doing is giving the rags a few words for a headline to drive through clicks. No different than when they create a headline sensationalising a few words out of a press conference.
Aye, it's all done to drive people towards their content.
Why else would they allow the rags to use their content as a source for articles otherwise?
The title of the thread does nothing of the sort. The title of The Athletic piece is "Jadon Sancho is the collateral damage of Manchester United's problems". The bit about him playing at RWB is literally in the second to last paragraph - this thread is focusing on one sentence from a broader piece.
What do you mean, "allow"?? Do you think that publishing something gives you editorial control over any/everyone who cites your article???
The twisting of logic in this thread to try to discredit an established source just because it's a message you don't like is staggering - might I suggest an alternative hypothesis called Occam's Razor?
I’m finding myself agreeing far too much with this Chelsea fan.
Am I missing something here?!
The title of THIS thread is about the Athletic writing that United have trialled Sancho as a RWB for use in games against defensive opposition.
The title of THIS thread is 'The Athletic: United coaches trialling Sancho as RWB'
So does the title of THIS thread paraphrase the Athletic article? As it's appears to do so to me?
How mortifying - hope you don't feel too gross!
The original piece in The Athletic details the different reasons Jadon Sancho has struggled to adapt and hit the ground running - it goes into things like the pace of play, being shifted around positions, an ear infection that affected his ability to train, and his (relatively minor) calf injury that was burdensome. It also talks about where he might fit in tactically into the (seemingly) favoured 3-5-2, a formation that has little room for wingers. The piece goes on to mention that he is training as a RWB to fit into this new formation, again in literally the second to last paragraph.
It's very reductive and (I would argue) incorrect to say that the title of this thread paraphrases the source. Reporting that Sancho is training as a potential RWB is categorically not the original intent of the piece - so for me at least that is not a fair interpretation of the takeaway message.
Exactly Lindelöf at CDM is unorthodox but you could see why someone might give it a go as he is decent in possession and reads the game well defensively to a degree but Sancho the guy who hates hugging the touchline and plays in a languid manner at right wing back? For 90 minutes... even if it works, how on earth can that be a justified long term solution for a player of that ability.
I want to laugh at this. I just can't. I'm fuming.
This happens at no other top European club other than United
Ok, that's fair enough, you definitely have a point, but why else would the article claim that Sancho has trained as a RWB, and let other media outlets have that very same information, if they didn't want it being picked up and ran away with.
Its a non entity of a point, yet it's the 'nugget' of information that everyone ran with.
Also the RWB trial is highlighted by Laurie Whitwell himself on twitter on a link to the article, suggesting that it's more than a mere footnote.
Oh, and the thread title has paraphrased what's in the article!
Sir ALex rarely talked about tactic on interview. But you could see how smart and insightful he's, and had a big personality.
That's a fair point that I wasn't aware of. Certainly I think much of what writers do on Twitter is clickbait-y by nature given the format and incentives and you are right to call it out as questionable behaviour.
I'll confess now that it's now my turn to be confused and ask a genuine question - why is The Athletic responsible for other outlets honing in on one small part of a longform article? Even if they had left the bit about RWB training out the tabloids would find some snippet to take out of context.
Because our current manager hasn’t been asked to justify any failings for 3 years. The truth is you don’t spend what we did on a player we tracked for 2 seasons to change to a formation that doesn’t have a natural position for said player.
People talk about other managers being short term but we’ve literally got a man working game to game trying to justify his position, he could care less what benefits the player long term.
It's quite simple.
He's using a high profile player at a high profile club and knowingly using a little bit of content that will be picked and sensationalized by others to drive clicks and ultimately drive traffic back to the original article in the hope that it generates more subs.
This is by far the most moronic shit I have ever seen at United.
He's literally a Man United correspondent? All he writes about is United and he's uniformly acknowledged to be very well sourced, like most everyone at The Athletic.
And if he was trying to get clicks then he'd put the juiciest bit in the headline surely? Or at least further forward than the second to last paragraph?
For a number of reasons, soccer cannot be nerdified in full as american football or basketball, with stats and patterns, therefore clickbaiting is needed to justify nerdy subscription models, and The Athletic sell themselves as sport rocket scientists where soccer is a dynamic, luck-oriented, non-closed game, then…
in this particular instance, training is just training, uh? Trial and error, finding a niche for young players, even to have a baseline benchmark, a lot of times. And Sancho is just a very expensive Mr Nobody at this stage, not fitting anywhere. Why the manager should not be allowed to see (in training!) how he gets on at a different position?
in this particular instance, training is just training, uh? Trial and error, finding a niche for young players, even to have a baseline benchmark, a lot of times. And Sancho is just a very expensive Mr Nobody at this stage, not fitting anywhere. Why the manager should not be allowed to see (in training!) how he gets on at a different position?
You just can't make that shite up. Why don't we try him as a centre-half? Trying a RW that you were so desperate to buy, because it was a position in dire need of improvement, then not playing him at all, and now trying him as a RWB is a sackable offence alone. Jesus, how such inept people like our current coaching team reach such incredible "heights" is beyond me.
Moose, you say?