True but they had already scored 3, so all they really needed to do was kick it about. The point is that united put no effort in and city had it so easy.
City have had 92% possession in the 2nd half (in the last 20mins)
- Thread starter Fortitude
- Start date
Cheers for that
Right.
They beat us 4-1, and if the game would've extended, that tally would've only been worse. In their case, one stat is the reason for the other. They exasperated us... with possession.
We had 8% possession in a 15 minute period (probably longer considering we didn't exactly improve after that either). Regardless of how much it means, it's not good, which is what people are commenting on. I'm not one for throwing stats around as they're often genuinely meaningless, but 8% possession over a third of a half is worth commenting on.
Why doesn't it matter when we win then, as per the two games I've mentioned previously?
Seems like this stat was cherry picked because we lost.
It's a meaningless stat, Spurs beat them with less than 30% possession, Southampton drew with 25% possession, and again I am sure you could take a 15 minute period in either of those games and highlight a similar stat to ours.
Yet because they got points it doesn't matter.
He has to be on the wind up?
Are you at some point going to factor into your arguments that United were chasing the game when they had 8% possession? Cause that's pretty key here. This happened in the second part of the second half. United were two goals down and time started running out. Still uninteresting?
Sure, upsets happen and you just need one chance for a goal; but how likely is that chance to happen if you're barely seeing touching the ball? That sort of situation really very much stacks the odds against you - while you're actually trying to score two goals! It also doesn't speak to much fight or determination towards scoring those goals.
Again, when we won you could have picked the exact same stat, but no one did.
Whether it was the first ten minutes or the last makes no difference whatsoever.
Takes one pass to score a goal, and yes the chance of winning a game is improved the more possession you have, however the more passes you make the less chance you have of scoring.
Cherry picking stats like this means nothing. We had more possession overall than a few seasons ago when we beat them 2-0!!
Because it wasn't 8% and we won. It couldn't be more different?
Are you suggesting we should never criticise the way United play because there's actually always a chance they could score?
You’re taking this contrarian stance a tad far now.
Of course the moment matters. If you play counter-attacking football against a team like City, you can obviously expect to have a low possession percentage - but not anymore in the final phase of the game when you're behind. At this point in the game, you would expect United to be fighting their hardest to get those two goals in, and to be trying to break through City's lines. Of course that can happen in theory even with 1% possession; but in practice, 8% posession means that United were either with their backs to the wall or were completely allowing the opponent to play their game - neither of which makes any sense in the situation.
Yes, it's a cherry-picked stat, and not necessarily indicative of much overall. But that you are arguing that it cannot mean anything in any kind of way is quite astonishing.
No, I am saying you cannot criticise a whole game based on a cherry picked 15 minutes of it, which is what some on here are doing.
KDB actually made a good observation regarding the last 15 minutes in his interview. Basically insinuated we were a bit tired and they wanted to keep the ball and exploit that.
If you want a stat that explains why they won, have a look at the passing accuracy over the whole game for example.
If Ten Hag comes after one year he'd be Eleven Hag due to stress that causes him to develop a split personality (10 of him + 1 evil clone).
Not the first time we've dropped hands in a big game this season.
So we can judge a game by a cherry picked stat, as long as it's the stat you've cherry picked ?
I think 15mins in a whole game is a significant amount of time and never should a team only have 8% of possession in that interval.
In off the top rope with an apt point. At no point, in no game should a team have 8% possession. I’ve put it into perspective this morning & it means on average we keep the ball for less than 5 seconds per minute, it’s a damning stat. Have United ever dominated a lower league side in such a way.
You’re not getting it mate
if you’re in the lead, scores equal, it’s ok to park the bus. If the game has just kicked off or there is a significant amount of time left it’s ok to park the bus and try to nick a goal
when you are losing by 2 and their is not much time left, you need the ball or in other words “possession” in order to get back into the game, so having 8% of it makes that almost impossible
The only time I remember anything close to it was that game against Blackburn (I think) but I bet they even had the ball for more than a minute and 12 seconds in those last 15 mins
That's the craziest thing when you see it like that. To do that for 15mins is unfathomable.
No, but judging a game on a stat over the whole game makes more sense than picking on a 15 minute period would you not agree?
We didn't lose the game because we let them have majority of possession for the last 15 minutes, we lost it due to countless other reasons.
No, I get it, I'm just sure you get my point.
It's harder to score without the ball for sure, but again we have scored goals by not dominating the ball against City (probably where they have had 90% possession in a ten min period also), so it can be done and has been done repeatedly against City this season.
Statistically it's harder to score with less possession, counteracting that however is the statistic which states you are less likely to score the more passes you make.
It only takes one pass to gain a scoring chance, Kanes goal last night is a good example of that, and that was all we needed, unfortunately we had neither the personnel nor tactical nous to really do that!
The teams managed by SAF were great at counterattacks. They were even better at forcing the issue and taking the game to the opposition through strangling possession and having wave after wave of attacks until the game was won.
We've never shown this skill consistently or at all since the great man left.8% possession while we should be chasing a result is abysmal. At that point you're relying on being extremely precise in the counter AND extremely clinical in the finish. Very low odds of success.
We've never shown this skill consistently or at all since the great man left.8% possession while we should be chasing a result is abysmal. At that point you're relying on being extremely precise in the counter AND extremely clinical in the finish. Very low odds of success.
Exactly. Burnley were playing 'modern football', and successfully, in the 1950s.
Fergie time probably helped a lot psychologically. Now we have what Van Gaal called with twitching my ass time.
Because more often than not with less possession more luck is needed and luck is not something that's trained but keeping the ball is. That's why our fortunes are in contrast, City are trying to defend the PL title with their possession game and you are still holding on to exceptions to their methods.
You’re over complicating this mate
Our players made next to no effort to win the ball or rescue the game
That’s awful and unforgivable
No one is judging the game
We are judging the players attitude in the last 15 which was absolutely shocking
I wish I could say yesterday was a possession fallacy but we saw what happened. We didn't set up to willingly surrender possession, we were forced into submission. This is one instance the out of context numbers didn't lie.
As for the general discussion it's also true that more often than not control superiority has a positive correlation with success. Don't know the actual statistic but it's got to be the vast majority of teams who control games that end up winning.
As for the general discussion it's also true that more often than not control superiority has a positive correlation with success. Don't know the actual statistic but it's got to be the vast majority of teams who control games that end up winning.