“United don’t even fancy it” - Carragher

Siorac

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
19,713
Location
16th century
Most teams who are top scorers stat pad v a couple of sides. Nobody consistently scores 3 a game.
True but out of curiosity, I looked at our 2007/08 season. We failed to score in only two league games all season back then; it's already five now. Liverpool last season only failed to score in three games and the first one was at the end of February. We can only dream of such consistency from our forwards.

As I said, defending is obviously a far bigger issue right now but we shouldn't delude ourselves that our attack is complete and doesn't really need improvement. We haven't had a right winger for what, half a decade now?
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
22,993
True but out of curiosity, I looked at our 2007/08 season. We failed to score in only two league games all season back then; it's already five now. Liverpool last season only failed to score in three games and the first one was at the end of February. We can only dream of such consistency from our forwards.

As I said, defending is obviously a far bigger issue right now but we shouldn't delude ourselves that our attack is complete and doesn't really need improvement. We haven't had a right winger for what, half a decade now?
Nobody is saying our attack is complete, there just isnt a reason to downplay how many goals we've scored tjos season. We have one of the best attacks in the league this season and thats a massive jump from where we were
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
1,145
Much ado about nothing here. The simple fact is, unless City takes a nosedive, we have no practical chance of catching them. They're on pace for 86 points, and can drop another 11 points and still get to 87. For us to get to 87, we can only drop another 3 points this season. It's case closed, for now.

How bad is that? Well, given that City has now taken to not dropping points at all for a protracted period, it doesn't take much slip-up to lose contact. Not a cause for huge disappointment, in my view.

The focus should stay the same: Improve to 75-80 points. That remains realistic, though we are currently slightly behind that curve. That is a very good achievement, as well as obvious progress on last seasons 66 points.

Also, it's still a work in progress. We're building a new team, not only is it not fully constructed yet, there's also a learning process collectively. All indications are there's still work to do. If you're not patient, you'll be disappointed.

I don't see much relevance in comparisons with Mourinhos 81-point season. That was the peak point for a previous iteration of the team, most of which is now gone. It was a very good achievement, and that's what Mourinho as a manager can do for you. Unfortunately, what he also does for you is leave acrimoniously soon after, leaving the club in tatters and the squad disconsolate and bereft of confidence, and in need of building up a new squad and establishing some sort of playing style, as well as getting back to a decent emphasis on training and academy development. I want a team that goes beyond 81 points and does it year after year. There was never the slightest possibility of Mourinho delivering that, and doing so takes time. I'll wait.
 
Last edited:

Judge Red

Don't Call Me Douglas
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
4,495
We’re currently getting what we wanted from this season. At no point have we looked like a championship winning side. Arsenal could fancy winning the league but it’s not going to win them the league.

We don’t fancy it but that doesn’t excuse shitting ourselves against Sheffield Utd.
 

Hughes35

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
918
XI:
GK: Ederson
RB: Bissaka/Walker/Cancelo (50:50)
LB: Shaw
CB: Dias & Stones (Dias & Laporte/Maguire before the season started)
DM: Rodri
CM: Gundogan or Pogba (50:50)
AM: KDB or Bruno (50:50)
LW: Rashford/Sterling (50:50)
RW: Foden/Silva
ST: Cavani

Squad depth/Others:
Laporte/Ake > Bailly/Laporte
Walker/Mendy > Williams/Telles
Fernandinho/Silva/Mahrez/Torres/Aguero (ageing) > Matic/Donny/Martial/James/Mata

Only left back and striker we are currently better. The rest they are either better or some 50:50. Experiences, they are above us as well since they have bunch of squad from league title winner.
Agree with this..... Although I'd take KDB and Sterling all day long. Two of the best players in the prem.
 

Kostov

Full Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
6,595
Location
Skopje, Macedonia
Unreliable attack?

*Checks table*

Manchester United are the highest scorers in the league.

Why do people talk utter crap without even doing any research.

Our defence is the issue.
Checks table doesn't watch us play football it seems. Take away the 2 inflating results against Leeds and Southampton, and we have 5 games in which we failed to score a goal, barely scraped past Wolves with a deflected goal, struggled to break down WBA. Yeah our attack has been a problem this season as well even though it has improved.

This last game against Everton was a perfect example of a great attack and shit defense, but this was probably one of our better games attack wise this season and it's not the complete picture. This attack will not win as the title as long as this City or Liverpool are around, even if we improve our CB options.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
1,145
I sort of get his point. We have the 2nd best squad in the league and I think worse first 11s than ours have won titles yet everyone just accepts because we haven’t got the perfect team yet we can’t possibly challenge. We were all happy to get a point at Anfield when in reality if this team actually believed in itself we’d have won that game pretty comfortably I think. They didn’t have any CBs and had Shaqiri in central midfield...We also play Pogba wide because we don’t trust our own ability to dominate games and play on the front foot. In saying all that we are still a long way off City so just believing we can win it wouldn’t be enough.
That's a questionable assumption, to say the least. They dominated possession by a large margin, had roughly twice as many shots and we had almost identical xG. Why exactly should we have won that game comfortably? It's not like they become a bad team because they play Shaqiri in the midfield, and Fabinho and Henderson were excellent in CD, not a liability or a weak point. Also, I'd point out that the Everton game ought to give cause to think twice for those who imagine we should approach big games more adventurously.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
14,814
Location
Somewhere out there
That's a questionable assumption, to say the least. They dominated possession by a large margin, had roughly twice as many shots and we had almost identical xG. Why exactly should we have won that game comfortably? It's not like they become a bad team because they play Shaqiri in the midfield, and Fabinho and Henderson were excellent in CD, not a liability or a weak point.
Deluded.

Just look at what you wrote. Fabinho and Henderson are not a liability at CB, and Shaqiri in midfield. That's a shite Liverpool side, one that's been taken to the cleaners since. Sadly we made it very very easy for these guys.

If we had Matic and McTom at CB and James in midfield, Liverpool would consider us as having a weak as piss lineup and go for the throat. Rightfully.
 

Harry Harries

Full Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
5,721
Location
UK, hun?
That's a questionable assumption, to say the least. They dominated possession by a large margin, had roughly twice as many shots and we had almost identical xG. Why exactly should we have won that game comfortably? It's not like they become a bad team because they play Shaqiri in the midfield, and Fabinho and Henderson were excellent in CD, not a liability or a weak point. Also, I'd point out that the Everton game ought to give cause to think twice for those who imagine we should approach big games more adventurously.
:houllier: Yes, because the cautious, goal-shy approach has worked so well for us in big games this season. Our gameplan was spot on against Everton, we were sucker-punched in the last kick of the game after a few defensive brainfarts.

Liverpool were there for the taking. If anything, the past couple of game weeks have shown we have should have gone straight for the neck.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
14,814
Location
Somewhere out there
:houllier: Yes, because the cautious, goal-shy approach has worked so well for us in big games this season. Our gameplan was spot on against Everton, we were sucker-punched in the last kick of the game after a few defensive brainfarts.
I'm blown away by anyone who can watch our games v. Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Everton and decide the Everton approach is not the best one. :lol:

But hey, it's justsomebloke and his MO is basically to say the opposite of everyone else. He's in the DDG thread telling everyone they are wrong there too, standard jsb.
 

RedChisel

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 24, 2018
Messages
176
Carragher is just trying to deflect from the fact that Liverpool, the team who should have had all the expectations this season, have fallen flat.

Nobody had United down as champions this season and most would have been happy with another top 3 finish and closing the gap on the top two. Well we are looking on course to achieve that and then some and now the goalposts have changed.

The level of scrutiny United have to withstand compared to every other club in this league is a joke.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
1,145
:houllier: Yes, because the cautious, goal-shy approach has worked so well for us in big games this season. Our gameplan was spot on against Everton, we were sucker-punched in the last kick of the game after a few defensive brainfarts.

Liverpool were there for the taking. If anything, the past couple of game weeks have shown we have should have gone straight for the neck.
If our gameplan was spot on against Everton, then why did we allow three goals? What that shows is that our defence is vulnerable, and that that there are good reasons why you don't throw caution to the wind in big games. If we want results now, then the right balance has to be found. The question is whether, with this squad, there is a sweet point that gives us more offensively in these games, without giving us the trouble we had against Everton. That remains to be seen, but there is really no case as far as I can see to just assume that the answer is to play more daringly than we did against Liverpool.
 

Harry Harries

Full Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
5,721
Location
UK, hun?
I'm blown away by anyone who can watch our games v. Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Everton and decide the Everton approach is not the best one. :lol:

But hey, it's justsomebloke and his MO is basically to say the opposite of everyone else.
It's batshit mental. The ghost of Mourinho must be affecting justsomebloke's critical faculties.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
1,145
I'm blown away by anyone who can watch our games v. Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Everton and decide the Everton approach is not the best one. :lol:

But hey, it's justsomebloke and his MO is basically to say the opposite of everyone else. He's in the DDG thread telling everyone they are wrong there too, standard jsb.
Sorry to break this to you, but you're not "everyone else". Also, you're pretty easily blown away. In a number of senses.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
14,814
Location
Somewhere out there
If our gameplan was spot on against Everton, then why did we allow three goals? What that shows is that our defence is vulnerable, and that that there are good reasons why you don't throw caution to the wind in big games. If we want results now, then the right balance has to be found. The question is whether, with this squad, there is a sweet point that gives us more offensively in these games, without giving us the trouble we had against Everton. That remains to be seen, but there is really no case as far as I can see to just assume that the answer is to play more daringly than we did against Liverpool.
Did we really have trouble defensively v. Everton? feck me they had 3 shots on target man.

That's not wrong tactics, it's dogshit goalkeeping for the main.

We gave away 3 shots on target v Liverpool also, so a similar strike rate to Everton would have had us losing 0-3.
 

Harry Harries

Full Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
5,721
Location
UK, hun?
If our gameplan was spot on against Everton, then why did we allow three goals? What that shows is that our defence is vulnerable, and that that there are good reasons why you don't throw caution to the wind in big games. If we want results now, then the right balance has to be found. The question is whether, with this squad, there is a sweet point that gives us more offensively in these games, without giving us the trouble we had against Everton. That remains to be seen, but there is really no case as far as I can see to just assume that the answer is to play more daringly than we did against Liverpool.
Because our GK and defence made two absolute howlers..? The trouble we had against Everton?! What trouble! They had three shots on target and scored three goals. That should have been as comfortable a win as any this season, Everton were barely in it. I honestly cannot believe we've watched the same match. The idea that we'd reign in our attack which is the highest-scoring in the league and put more emphasis on the defence via a more cautious approach is astounding.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
14,814
Location
Somewhere out there
Because our GK and defence made two absolute howlers..? The trouble we had against Everton?! What trouble! They had three shots on target and scored three goals. That should have been as comfortable a win as any this season, Everton were barely in it. I honestly cannot believe we've watched the same match. The idea that we'd reign in our attack which is the highest-scoring in the league and put more emphasis on the defence via a more cautious approach is astounding.
It's also so fecking stupid to suggest giving away 3 shots on target shows we're better off playing more cautious, erm... if we concede 3 from 3 shots on targets, 2 of them utterly weak as piss goals, erm.... we're probably best making sure we scoring a bunch too. :houllier:

We absolutely battered Everton yet this bloke thinks it should be a warning to us. I swear we watched a completely different game of football.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
1,145
Deluded.

Just look at what you wrote. Fabinho and Henderson are not a liability at CB, and Shaqiri in midfield. That's a shite Liverpool side, one that's been taken to the cleaners since. Sadly we made it very very easy for these guys.

If we had Matic and McTom at CB and James in midfield, Liverpool would consider us as having a weak as piss lineup and go for the throat. Rightfully.
Right. You did watch the game? Did you notice a lot of griveous mistakes by Henderson and Fabinho? Anyway, not wasting my time with any further discussion with you.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
14,814
Location
Somewhere out there
Right. You did watch the game? Did you notice a lot of griveous mistakes by Henderson and Fabinho? Anyway, not wasting my time with any further discussion with you.
We put zero pressure on Henderson and Fabinho, we made it easy for them.

If you don't think a CB pairing of Henderson and Fabinho is a liability, well, just stop watching football mate, it's not the game for you.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
1,145
Because our GK and defence made two absolute howlers..? The trouble we had against Everton?! What trouble! They had three shots on target and scored three goals. That should have been as comfortable a win as any this season, Everton were barely in it. I honestly cannot believe we've watched the same match. The idea that we'd reign in our attack which is the highest-scoring in the league and put more emphasis on the defence via a more cautious approach is astounding.
That's right. They scored three goals. And our defence made a number of howlers. And that's what, some sort of Act of God? Natural disaster? Coincidence? Nothing to do with our defensive solidity when we play with a high risk? Obviously nothing to give further thought? Okay, suit yourself.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
14,814
Location
Somewhere out there
Nothing to do with our defensive solidity when we play with a high risk?

What the feck did that last goal have to do with us playing high risk? It was a free kick on the half way line.

What on Earth prevents that goal happening in our tactics vs. Liverpool a few weeks back and us instead losing 0-1 ?

I'd absolutely certain you don't even think before you type, but in the incredible scenario in which you've actually thought this through, do explain to me how high risk (Everton-tactics) causes that last minute goal but low risk (Liverpool) doesn't ....

My take, high risk with our problems, especially on set pieces, is playing with our Liverpool tactics, low risk is us actually going and battering a team, a la Everton. 9.9/10 we win that game.
 
Last edited:

Harry Harries

Full Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
5,721
Location
UK, hun?
That's right. They scored three goals. And our defence made a number of howlers. And that's what, some sort of Act of God? Natural disaster? Coincidence? Nothing to do with our defensive solidity when we play with a high risk? Obviously nothing to give further thought? Okay, suit yourself.
Those goals were nothing to do with us playing high-risk football. They happened because our defence and goalkeeper had meltdowns. Isn't that obvious?
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
1,145
Those goals were nothing to do with us playing high-risk football. They happened because our defence and goalkeeper had meltdowns. Isn't that obvious?
.....and when a defence has three meltdowns leading to goals in a game, that says what about the defence? That there's no problem?

Also, you don't think that has anything to do with how high we set the line, or how the full backs and central midifielders weigh offensive engagement and defensive security?

The xG in this game, by the way, was 1.72 (Utd) vs 1.56 (Everton). The result mirrored the balance of the game. It was not a fluke.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
14,814
Location
Somewhere out there
Those goals were nothing to do with us playing high-risk football. They happened because our defence and goalkeeper had meltdowns. Isn't that obvious?
It's as though they scored 3 great counter attacking goals or something.

He doesn't think, he just wants to say something different and he loves telling posters they are wrong. So those asking for higher risk, wrong, cause look. It's utter bullshit of cause because we win that Everton game 9.9 times out of 10. The Liverpool game and Arsenal games we're lucky if we win 3-4 times out of 10.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
14,814
Location
Somewhere out there
.....and when a defence has three meltdowns leading to goals in a game, that says what about the defence? That there's no problem?
There's clearly a problem but you've yet to tell us why we aren't at risk of conceding that last minute goal vs. Arsenal or Liverpool and actually LOSING those games.

We're waiting...

 
Last edited:

rotherham_red

Full Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
6,675
You don’t have to “ignore” anything, if we’d won those 2 easy home games we’d be on course to stay with City for a long time in the race, due to their shit start.
That’s why it’s been called an opportunity. If City go and blintz the league from now to May that’s a different thing entirely, but there’s every chance they do finish on 86 or so points.
Do you really believe that?

They literally haven't dropped a single point since November and from their impromptu mid-season break they have looked absolutely imperious, allying their attacking verve with a proper defensive solidity that up til now, they've never had under Pep. They aren't dropping many more points now IMO.

To expect a Utd side who have a) never achieved two consecutive Top 4 finishes since SAF left, and b) accrued 66 points in each of the last two seasons, to keep pace with them is, and I'll be diplomatic here, optimistic at best.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
14,814
Location
Somewhere out there
Do you really believe that?

They literally haven't dropped a single point since November and from their impromptu mid-season break they have looked absolutely imperious, allying their attacking verve with a proper defensive solidity that up til now, they've never had under Pep. They aren't dropping many more points now IMO.

To expect a Utd side who have a) never achieved two consecutive Top 4 finishes since SAF left, and b) accrued 66 points in each of the last two seasons, to keep pace with them is, and I'll be diplomatic here, optimistic at best.
I literally wrote in the post quoted "if City go and blitz the league from now to May that’s a different thing entirely".

Do I really believe this United side is capable of getting around 84 points? absolutely I do.
 

Harry Harries

Full Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
5,721
Location
UK, hun?
.....and when a defence has three meltdowns leading to goals in a game, that says what about the defence? That there's no problem?

Also, you don't think that has anything to do with how high we set the line, or how the full backs and central midifielders weigh offensive engagement and defensive security?

The xG in this game, by the way, was 1.72 (Utd) vs 1.56 (Everton). The result mirrored the balance of the game. It was not a fluke.
It says that we shouldn't play any sort of cautious style that relies on a resolute and reliable defence. We've conceded loads of goals this season and not because we've played 'high risk' football. In fact, we could play any type of football and this defence would still cock it up. Us playing more cautiously and by virtue having a lower xG is not the way to counteract that, as seen by our dismal showing in all of the big games this season.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
14,814
Location
Somewhere out there
It says that we shouldn't play any sort of cautious style that relies on a resolute and reliable defence. We've conceded loads of goals this season and not because we've played 'high risk' football. In fact, we could play any type of football and this defence would still cock it up. Us playing more cautiously and by virtue having a lower xG is not the way to counteract that, as seen by our dismal showing in all of the big games this season.
His arguments don't even make sense, of course they were expected to score that last goal when it fell to DCL and De Gea stayed rooted, just as their first was an empty net after a crap mistake.

It doesn't show the balance of the game at all as he said, I mean how stupid is that? it shows how utterly fecking stupid the defending and keeping was.

And I'm still awaiting his explanation as to why we wouldn't concede a similar last minute goal from a set-piece playing as we did against Liverpool?
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
1,145
It says that we shouldn't play any sort of cautious style that relies on a resolute and reliable defence. We've conceded loads of goals this season and not because we've played 'high risk' football. In fact, we could play any type of football and this defence would still cock it up. Us playing more cautiously and by virtue having a lower xG is not the way to counteract that, as seen by our dismal showing in all of the big games this season.
Well, the record is against you there. The general picture in big games is that we have neither scored, nor been scored on. Obviously, there is a connection between how carefully we play, and how many goals we are likely to concede or score. The more risk taken, the more situations where the defence is exposed, and the more goals against you get. The less the risks taken, the lower the likelihood of scoring.

I'm not arguing that the answer is to play cautiously. I'm just pointing out that there's a tradeoff, and that performances so far provide no clear answers regarding where the optimal balance is to be found. Continuing to draw every big game is obviously not what anyone wants, but the results from a more risk-oriented approach aren't great either, so far. It may be that we simply don't have the quality currently to secure both the necessary defensive stability and sufficient scoring, against very good opponents. I hope that's not the case. But I don't think we have the answer to that yet.
 

Harry Harries

Full Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
5,721
Location
UK, hun?
His arguments don't even make sense, of course they were expected to score that last goal when it fell to DCL and De Gea stayed rooted, just as their first was an empty net after a crap mistake.

It doesn't show the balance of the game at all as he said, I mean how stupid is that? it shows how utterly fecking stupid the defending and keeping was.

And I'm still awaiting his explanation as to why we wouldn't concede a similar last minute goal from a set-piece playing as we did against Liverpool?
Exactly. That anyone would want us to play more cautiously in big games after scoring a grand total of 1 goal against Spurs, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal (twice), and Liverpool and winning none of them this season is something I don't think I'll ever get my head around
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
1,145
Exactly. That anyone would want us to play more cautiously in big games after scoring a grand total of 1 goal against Spurs, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal (twice), and Liverpool and winning none of them this season is something I don't think I'll ever get my head around
Well, who's arguing that?
 

Harry Harries

Full Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
5,721
Location
UK, hun?
Well, the record is against you there. The general picture in big games is that we have neither scored, nor been scored on. Obviously, there is a connection between how carefully we play, and how many goals we are likely to concede or score. The more risk taken, the more situations where the defence is exposed, and the more goals against you get. The less the risks taken, the lower the likelihood of scoring.

I'm not arguing that the answer is to play cautiously. I'm just pointing out that there's a tradeoff, and that performances so far provide no clear answers regarding where the optimal balance is to be found. Continuing to draw every big game is obviously not what anyone wants, but the results from a more risk-oriented approach aren't great either, so far. It may be that we simply don't have the quality currently to secure both the necessary defensive stability and sufficient scoring, against very good opponents. I hope that's not the case. But I don't think we have the answer to that yet.
We scored more and won more last season against the big teams so we're obviously capable of doing it. We're a far better team than Arsenal, for example, and the fact we managed 1 point and score 0 goals against them in two games this season is shocking.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
1,145
You are.

Sorry, but I have written no such thing. Nor do I think so. For what I do think, see above post.

Playing less adventurously = more cautiously.

That's not my point. I am not even arguing that necessarily we should not play more adventurously. I am simply pointing out that the Everton game casts some doubt on our ability to do so successfully, and that this should give pause for thought for those who are convinced this is the way forward.
 
Last edited:

Nou_Camp99

what would Souness do?
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
5,970
Well, yeah, blaming Bruno or Rashford is indeed stupid. Blaming Martial or Greenwood (11 goals between them in all competitions), however... I don't think it's unreasonable to say that we'd be much better off if they got anywhere near the level they showed last season.
But not every team has all their forwards in form. It rarely ever happens. Bruno, Rashford and Cavani are doing the business.

Only Shaw out of our back 5 is playing well consistently..