Agreed. Good post.We quite clearly have a number of patters of play across the pitch, IMO.
Maguire, Shaw and Fred/Matic work the ball out of defence and passed the opposition press in almost identical fashion several times a match, using a triangle and opposite movements. Whether it's Maguire dropping further back to create the angle to pass into Fred/Matic, or Shaw pushing up to receive it from the midfielders, we see it time and time again and after that new patterns start, such as Shaw carrying the ball and working with Rashford or Fred looking for the CF/Bruno through the lines.
Same happens on the right hand side although a slight variant, with AWB often opting to come inside as an escape route, looking for Pogba/Scott or sometimes Bruno if he's dropped deeper to help out. If AWB feels he cannot move forward with the ball, we see Lindelof tucking in behind to offer an alternative route out, usually a long pass down the line to Greenwood or whoever is filling the right flank.
Then we have patterns in the centre, where the centre forward drops deep, lays the ball back to a midfielder and the wide man runs into the space left behind and we counter. Again, something we do numerous times a match to differing affect depending on the opponent's defensive line.
If the opposition are parking the bus, we see more patterns of play around the penalty box, moving the ball side to side as quickly as we can, with the full backs trying to act as decoys for the wide forwards to cut in and create. Shaw/Rashford/Bruno are usually the most successful at this, with us either getting a traditional cross from Shaw, or a right footed one from Marcus or Bruno, whoever has been able to create the space. When Pogba is on the field, this varies to more intricate passing and through balls for runners rather than crosses, despite Pogba being a good crosser of the ball himself.
As with most things, these are all done best with speed. So if we are making one touch passes and staying on our toes, we look much better and it's much harder for the opponent to defend. Our problem is it is quite ponderous sometimes, but if anyone thinks that is from instructions then they are very wrong. Ole has always mentioned how much he wants us to play quickly.
I will say, though, that I think we focus less on patterns at the top end of the field. Our build up is the smear out times, but when we get to the forwards it often comes down to intuition. Whether that is by design or not, I'm not sure, but I suspect it is because our two most dangerous players have the individual ability to do that, and I think Ole likes to offer his players a fair amount of freedom. I like this approach because otherwise, you have LvG football again. It's just sometimes it makes it harder for us if the forwards are not particularly sharp on any given day.
So, I think he both need and have both patterns of play and individual brilliance, but to dismiss these patterns altogether either means you are not watching closely enough or you don't want to see it because you don't like the manager.
Individual Brilliance vs Pattern of play
- Thread starter meamth
- Start date
Agreed. Good post.
Turns out it wasn’t bollox eh?
Who would have thought…
The people who defended Ole for as long as they did are complicit in the mess the club is in.
How true is this now.
The most annoying thing is I would be surprised if anyone who watched us weekly and had a very basic knowledge of football couldn't see how random we looked in build up, so it's just a case of disagreeing for the sake of not being 'wrong' whilst, deep down, knowing there is a fundamental issue.
It's not one or the other.
I don't like the term pattern of play. Makes it sound like art. Makes it seem like just an aesthetic. I much prefer the term system. Not to be confused with formation, which people conflate time and time again.
The most succinct way I can summarise it is as follows:
I don't like the term pattern of play. Makes it sound like art. Makes it seem like just an aesthetic. I much prefer the term system. Not to be confused with formation, which people conflate time and time again.
The most succinct way I can summarise it is as follows:
We did have a system before. Counter attacks. Sat deep. Lots of whipped/hooked balls for greenwood to get behind and score down the right. Rashford and Shaw link ups down the left. Problems against low blocks because we werent good at possession based football. Problem is we have gone from a counter attacking style to trying possession based football and it obviously hasn't been coached well enough and we dont have the players for it, in the pivot.
Think Ole has lost the plot. Hes moved from his coaching strengths to try and play a brand of football he clearly cant coach very well and the players dont know what they are doing or trying to do, but the idea that they dribble round a couple of cones and practice a couple of shots in training every day and he just picks a team sheet on the weekends is a bit hyperbolic.
Obviously patterns of play.
For example Ole record after 100+ games was the same as Klopp, Klopp had a style then added better players and then lost like 2 games in 50Pl games because his style and tactics were spot on he just lacked the players.
Ole on the other hand also started improving the squad he recognised what areas we lacked but we don’t look better as he hasn’t implemented any style of play
For example Ole record after 100+ games was the same as Klopp, Klopp had a style then added better players and then lost like 2 games in 50Pl games because his style and tactics were spot on he just lacked the players.
Ole on the other hand also started improving the squad he recognised what areas we lacked but we don’t look better as he hasn’t implemented any style of play
Those first few pages, damn, next level shit.
Level of delusion of some Ole in guys is/was amazing.
Hey, my posts are there too
You know what i mean.Hey, my posts are there too
To be fair we did score some wonderful team goals last season. To say all our goals under Ole regime were individual brilliance is bs.
I know, i know...
what a load of rubbish
There's a difference between scoring team goals and having thoroughly coached pre-prepared patterns of play though.
Maybe a better term than "individual brilliance" would have been "reactive brilliance". We tend to rely on seemingly improvised play more than other teams do, not just in terms of scoring goals but in general play. Sometimes that reactive quality will involve players combining well with each other (because players can still do that sometimes) but those excellent team goals don't change the fact that there is a relative lack of structure and (to use another buzzword that will annoy people) automatism in our general play.
Nah, that's unfair.
They were (to varying degrees) wrong and in some cases (again to varying degrees) obnoxious but they have zero influence over the club's actions. Can't pin the blame on internet posters.
It's maybe instructive that over the opening pages some were using Liverpool (then in bad form) as an example of why the importance of concepts like patterns of play were overplayed, as their supposed greater influence on that type of coaching didn't appear to be helping them at that point.
Yet Liverpool still finished the season better than us in terms of the quality of chances they were creating as a team and have inevitably leapfrogged ahead of us again this season.
The lesson perhaps being that while that higher levels of coaching isn't a panacea for all ills or a guarantee of success, it does provide a better platform to rebound from problems and a more consistent baseline in terms of performances. Relatively bad though Liverpool were last season, they were still in the top two for measures like xG for the fourth year in a row and are already on course for a fifth this year. That's a good sign of how they function as a team.
Yet Liverpool still finished the season better than us in terms of the quality of chances they were creating as a team and have inevitably leapfrogged ahead of us again this season.
The lesson perhaps being that while that higher levels of coaching isn't a panacea for all ills or a guarantee of success, it does provide a better platform to rebound from problems and a more consistent baseline in terms of performances. Relatively bad though Liverpool were last season, they were still in the top two for measures like xG for the fourth year in a row and are already on course for a fifth this year. That's a good sign of how they function as a team.
But there were numerous counter attacking goals that we scored last season and before that which were similar, so maybe there was a plan in the way we scored our goals. You can't keep on scoring similar type of goals just based on being reactive brilliance. I feel this season has been a disaster on many levels and one biggest being we are also not doing things that we used to do last season.
We definitely had good team goals on the counter, no denying that but shouldn’t PL teams have a bit more to offer? How hard, really, is it to setup that way and then work on Rashford, Martial, Greenwood being played in by a direct balls. It’s also praise that shouldn’t go towards Ole but Carrick/McKenna. If the grand plan was to play 4231 counter attack and just buy better and better players, we’re probably about half way there I suppose, maybe another £400m and we’d win the Europa.
Biggest indictment for me on Ole isn’t the “patterns of play” in the final third, but the inability to set up any sort of structure to prevent counters while we are on the ball. Also the complete lack of plan in how we play out of the back when pressed high besides “move the ball around”. Those two things are far more damaging to the side than not being great at breaking down low blocks.
ha ha, no surprise to see Ruck and a bunch of the other usual suspects there.
The shite chatted about Liverpool/Klopp is utterly insane, I refuse to believe any sane person didn’t see Liverpool bouncing back this season in a big way and understanding that Klopp-ball is just a teeny bit better than Ole-no ball and long term was always going to be that way.
I don't dispute that. I never said we played consistently good football. But my point was we cannot just say all our play or goals were individual brilliance. We did score some good team goals.
As we did with the first versus Atalanta. Bizarrely enough top players can produce lovely bits of football regardless.
That aint, and never was the point though.
Don’t read into the extreme criticisms too much - we obviously do (I mean, we must right?) attacking work in training. Point is it’s fine margins at this level and it’s clear this coaching team are multiple levels below what we should aspire to have. The fact you can see the disconnect between the players when you watch us is what makes it so galling, it’s not like, for example, under LVG where you could see the plan but it was too strict and risk adverse, there just doesn’t really seem to be any consistent strategy at all.
But isn't that true for every top team then. If we are just going to say all the team goals we scored last year is down to individual brilliance then we should do with other teams as well.
If your point is we don't do that enough, then hell yes I agree with you. I am in no way defending Ole. But if your point is all our goals are down to individual brilliance and the coaching had little role to play then that just cannot be true. We can't be scoring similar counter attacking goals and then say all were by chance or just down to players.
I agree with your post. My main disappointment is at least last season we had some style but this season we look lost.
KdB just confirmed that Pep doesn’t see any system or defined way of playing at United.
But sure, if you see it Ash whilst the rest of us don’t. Maybe it’s all in the eye of the beholder.
Last season we were wank in an absolutely outrageous amount of games, went behind and threw caution to the wind.
So you could say our style was that.
I don't know what are you trying to argue here. This season we have looked shit so KDB can say what he wants. Last season we beat them with a system that we played on most occasion. Surely that can't be just down to individuals is my point. If you think every single goal was down to individual brilliance then let us just agree to disagree because that just cannot be possible especially when most of our goals (counter attacks) were similar.
Liverpool have pattern of play, and the individual brilliance of Mo Salah
City destroyed us with pattern of play.
Their second goal is a perfect goal for me as much as I hate them. 26 passes, every City players touch the ball including Ederson and our players never come close to getting the ball back. Every City player never stood still when their teammate got the ball (compare to our player movements which are just standing still like a statue) It is like seeing a high school team playing against a primary school team. Seeing that is very eye opening on how bad Ole coaching and tactics are (nonexistent). Every City player in that sequence already knew where their teammates are and gonna be before they even received the ball. It looks like a goal scored in FIFA games.
We play checkers, while the rest of the footballing world is playing chess.
You're right, it's a distinction that gets overlooked and I guess it is because the wording is a bit too vague.
I fully understand why Liverpool and Klopp would get ripped on this forum, but when the comments are framed as a sincere analysis and there takeaway is that Klopp's football amounts to kick and rush, that there is no system and only individual brilliance, it's pretty bad.
I'm amazed by this, what grounds are we talking about and what capacity were you there in? It's not that I don't believe you it's just pretty astonishing to me that if you were at these places on a regular basis you wouldn't have heard about patterns of play (or other phrases conveying the same meaning). It's like going to a garage and finding out the mechanics never talk about cars.
Every manager I've worked with has dedicated massive amounts of time to implementing their system, both in terms of how the team functions on and off the ball, what shape he wants the side in when defending and when shifting the ball, the actual patterns he wants to increase the passing options to players, off the ball movement to create space, when to go long when to go short, the amount of freedom the side has when it comes to countering during transitions. Which players will provide the width and who will provide a focal point. Honestly every function on the pitch will fall under this umbrella, and every single manager will have their own pattern of play and they will certainly be implementing it in training. How effective/entertaining/suitable/ambitious/complex/successful these systems will be and how well implemented is what the managers get judged on, not whether or not they have one, because every manager does. A reactive, pragmatic manager will have their own system, even if it's based around negating their opponents.
I'm not saying I'm an expert but I've worked with people who are, UEFA PRO and UEFA A licensed managers and coaches who have been successful both on and off the pitch, and I hold a FAW C certification myself. It's something that is ubiquitous on training pitches. The only thing I can think of is that you're referring solely to the phrase "patterns of play" and not what it implies, but when you mention not seeing it implemented on training grounds surely you must have seen coaches talking about how he wants his side to play? Things like how are they going to press, what will they do on transitions, creating triangles etc.
Surprises me how so many people still don't recognise what Ole and his staff was/is trying to achieve (too much Tifo, FMS, Sky Sports, Ornstein's, and Romanos, etc. Not enough Manchester United IMO but I digress), all tactics from GenGen to Positional Play come from an idea based on yesteryear - so I find it hilarious when people say "forget United DNA stuff, we need to move on - it's old" well so was Tiki Taka till Pep brought it back. Alternatively, Bartomeu talked about modernising Barca left them in ruins today old flame Xavi walks through the door.
Said it before on here the 4-2-4 we played with McTominay and Fred was clearly trying to replicate the 424 with Anderson and Cleverly (see United 8-2 season against arsenal Nani and Giggs were HIGH! Evra and Rafael pushed up). The very similar structure just inverted forwards this time, patterns of play then were immense. Read Rene Muelesteen's book to understand exactly what the principles are. Wiel Coerver to understand how to coach players to do it - the principles are to encourage players to take initiative within a framework, players are not babied and told where to stand, etc, as one of Sir Alex's instructions was to be unpredictable (this is why IMO Ole states we don't want specialist, we want players who know how to do it all) it's not restrictive - it's a multi-framework.
Sir Alex instructed Rene to teach the team to know how to be compact in a Low Block, Press high, Set traps and Press in certain areas, dominate possession, and quick transitions. It wasn't a one-trick Gegen Press or Positional Play or Tiki-Taka. It was all of it. Players were coached and trusted their own initiative qas a group what defensive strategy to implement based on the opponent, and in moments which one to use. United attacked with "Pace, Power, Penetration and Unpredictability". Unpredictability was SAF big marker, it's why we could switch up to 4-2-4, 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1. It didn't matter players were coached to have tactical initiative and ball mastery to understand how to trust your team mates initiative in situations and be creative in order to help our plays remain unpredictable.
I could sit here and write the whole thing but folks would just pile on the insults and negativity (probably use social media terms like "delusional"). To put it simply it's not a "One System philosophy": The team is supposed to recognise as a unit when to press high, when to press in areas transition to a low block etc within a game take initiative and integral to the philosophy "hurt" opposing teams.
Reasons IMO why it failed:
But don't take my word for it - if you love Manchester United there's plenty of videos, interviews, books and websites the information is out there. Research them watch the old games then watch the recent ones you will see it for yourself. It will make a change from the fan channels, ITDs, Sky Sports journalists and twitter. Do some Manchester United digging - I find it much better.
P.S. If you don't agree - fair enough, but I implore you if you're kind enough to quote me. Do not highlight certain part of my posts to take it out of context to make your argument stronger by pathetic framing, this trend is making the forum toxic and is quite a dimwitted trick and getting old. And if I had permission I would post links to the articles books and interviews that explain it better than me. Sadly you would have to Google the games and names yourself.
Said it before on here the 4-2-4 we played with McTominay and Fred was clearly trying to replicate the 424 with Anderson and Cleverly (see United 8-2 season against arsenal Nani and Giggs were HIGH! Evra and Rafael pushed up). The very similar structure just inverted forwards this time, patterns of play then were immense. Read Rene Muelesteen's book to understand exactly what the principles are. Wiel Coerver to understand how to coach players to do it - the principles are to encourage players to take initiative within a framework, players are not babied and told where to stand, etc, as one of Sir Alex's instructions was to be unpredictable (this is why IMO Ole states we don't want specialist, we want players who know how to do it all) it's not restrictive - it's a multi-framework.
Sir Alex instructed Rene to teach the team to know how to be compact in a Low Block, Press high, Set traps and Press in certain areas, dominate possession, and quick transitions. It wasn't a one-trick Gegen Press or Positional Play or Tiki-Taka. It was all of it. Players were coached and trusted their own initiative qas a group what defensive strategy to implement based on the opponent, and in moments which one to use. United attacked with "Pace, Power, Penetration and Unpredictability". Unpredictability was SAF big marker, it's why we could switch up to 4-2-4, 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1. It didn't matter players were coached to have tactical initiative and ball mastery to understand how to trust your team mates initiative in situations and be creative in order to help our plays remain unpredictable.
I could sit here and write the whole thing but folks would just pile on the insults and negativity (probably use social media terms like "delusional"). To put it simply it's not a "One System philosophy": The team is supposed to recognise as a unit when to press high, when to press in areas transition to a low block etc within a game take initiative and integral to the philosophy "hurt" opposing teams.
Reasons IMO why it failed:
- None of the coaches who were implementing have successfully implemented it, Rene was the coach - Phelan was SAF second pair of eyes and more for dressing room atmosphere, for the life of me I could never understand why they never brought Rene in or even a Ricardo Moniz who also good at coaching ball mastery.
- A lot of modern players lack initiative, and I'm beginning to think need to be told exactly where to be when, and when to implement the exact defensive structure - they hide behind systems etc.
- Ole picked the wrong captain, he isn't a leader and certainly isn't the man to command instructions to players.
- Mckenna is talented but unproven I do believe he will show his worth one day, somewhere - however, coaching world-class players came too soon for him.
- Martyn Pert, improved Fred but it wasn't enough - especially in the 4-2-4 the 2 have to have "HIGH energy and be good on the ball, Fred suffers extremely on the latter - for all of Andersons limitations he was better on the ball.
- The CBs couldn't carry the load - this is a big one! CBs have to be good enough to carry the load - especially when we chose 4-2-4 you would see full backs push up making it an almost 2-4-4 Rio and Vida could carry that load. Go back watch those old games/clips you will see it often they were last man and didn't need their hands held by Anderson and Cleverly. Yes they would shout and order them into positions but by and large they enabled their attacking players to take risks.
- It needs to be tweaked to deal with todays modern players and opposition - just like Pep modernised Cruyffs total football and then transformed from tiki taka to positional play. The philosphy needs to evolve (this is why I felt they probably felt Mckenna was perfect young talented and new ideas).
But don't take my word for it - if you love Manchester United there's plenty of videos, interviews, books and websites the information is out there. Research them watch the old games then watch the recent ones you will see it for yourself. It will make a change from the fan channels, ITDs, Sky Sports journalists and twitter. Do some Manchester United digging - I find it much better.
P.S. If you don't agree - fair enough, but I implore you if you're kind enough to quote me. Do not highlight certain part of my posts to take it out of context to make your argument stronger by pathetic framing, this trend is making the forum toxic and is quite a dimwitted trick and getting old. And if I had permission I would post links to the articles books and interviews that explain it better than me. Sadly you would have to Google the games and names yourself.
Last edited:
That’s absolute nonsense, and you know it.
No surprise the OP ends up with egg on his face. The whole "patterns of play lol" thing was always sheer ignorance of chaps who prefer who blindly follow results or a narrative rather than bother to focus at all on actual performances. Well done, you got it spectacularly wrong as you failed to see the bleeding obvious.
The point is that some style is fine for Burnley but not for a club thay wants to win big titles. This season has been coming as while we managed to get somewhat adequate results in the league, our football under Ole as a cohesive collective has always been lacking and never looked it was taking us to the top. That's what people have been saying which has been conveniently ignored by some. Not that every goal has been individual brilliance/it should all be the team..