It is this 100%. You cannot consistently win matches without a level of midfield control, shaped by players who understand the game and have a genuine vision of midfield craft. The midfielders are the equivalent of your 10 in rugby, the whole game goes through them, they are absolutely key in who wins.
Bingo. Numerous times I have seen fans on here claiming that our amazing ‘United way’ is holding us back, or that we cannot succeed because we are just too fond of our principles and traditions.
I agree that its a concept that no one knows what the fk it means but it does exist. Ten Haag said it himself. For this thread I just mean our traditional values and the way things are run based on the past and not being able to adapt to modern times. DOF being one, having to play a youth player like Rashford, transition football etc
Just because you want to be the best transition team doesn't mean you completely ignore possession.
Which isn't surprising when you look at the skills needed. Passing and automatisms have to be there for both to be excellent at it, the main difference is that possession teams usually utilize small movements of their players to open up spaces while in transition you use big movements.
You can and need to be good at both as a top team. But going by ingame impressions as well as tactical/transfer decisions (Mount besides Bruno, Garnacho as a starter) it seems as if the balance is leaning heavily towards transitioning. "Suspicious" doesn't mean definitive by the way, it is just my impression and I'm aware it could be wrong
He's trying to make the best team out of the tools he has, recognising that within his first 12 months of the job he can't sign 23 new players to replace every member of the squad including replacing our best players. There's also nothing wrong with being good in transitions, see Klopp's Liverpool, being good in transitions doesn't mean you have to be hopeless at retaining the ball.
There isn't one case of a team playing successfully (as in 'competing for major titles') this way. Not even the best transition teams around do that.
That's the same excuses we have heard for over 10 years. At the end of the day we are being run behind the scenes the same way we always have and we are trying to play the same type of football. Something is amiss. No matter the manager or the amount we spend it all goes the same way. It's a cultural issue that makes it impossible to shift.
That's an excellent question.
None of this is specific for United. Having a bunch of homegrown players is smart business as it allows to focus your spending on some key players, you don't need to spread your budget over a whole squad.
Pretty much and so is a lot of other teams mantra funnily enough. How I feel those teams who pride themselves on being boring as feck using old foreign guys to get the job done!
I think it has a place. It was definitely about youth and the use of home grown talent, though our youth system was horribly neglected and its only now catching up. Its also about attacking, exciting football, which Mou, LGV and others failed to deliver.Pretty much and so is a lot of other teams mantra funnily enough. How I feel those teams who pride themselves on being boring as feck using old foreign guys to get the job done!
I hate this ‘United Way’ thing that gets trotted out. It’s always from the old boys who were around United when we were successful. They don’t seem to realise that’s over a decade ago now and football has moved on. Gary Neville is a big offender of this and Meulensteen’s new book alludes to that too.
I think you confuse different things. The United way was never particularly about continuity, Busby played for City (we did try and sign him), and after the war a contact from the signing convinced him to join as manager over Liverpool. He later began the programme of promoting youth players over signings. His disastrous attempts to appoint his own successor and sit above them were not a part of the club culture, indeed we were once promised by Gill that United had learnt from this and they had a plan. In fact the board chose to do the same thing with Fergie. Keeping some ex players around has a role, but the key lesson from Busby is getting the best people available.
Pretty much this imo. From the Busby Babe’s onwards.
I would argue that United from 91-96 were that team and won the PL numerous times; of course this style of play was a big reason ( in addition to the European Cup domestic player rule) we kept bouncing out of the then European Cup and a major reason we bought Veron ( to teach us how to play in the European Cup).
I think you and I have a different definition of building as around a player. For example, SAF, until mid 2000s, preferred to play a 442 with two athletic wingers( with a right footed winger as RW and left footed winger for LW) supplying two elite strikers . However, due to CR7 strength as scorer, he switched to a 433. Furthermore, to form the team to the strengths of CR7, he played CR7 as a LW who would start on the left and finish in front of the net; Rooney would start as 9, but then fill in for CR7 defensively. To me, this is an example of building around a player, changing formations and making tactical decisions to cover for a player's weakness. We have very much not done this for Rashford.
Still find it mental that Fergie thought Moyes was the right guy to succeed him,come on there was so many better options that should have got the job. Don't think Guardiola was an option as by the time he decided to step down Bayern had already got agreement for Pep to take over
So if the Ajax team were so possession and control oriented how come we have yet to see much evidence of it at Utd
This. When the people at the top are incompetent trust fund 'kids' they haven't got the business savvy to get things done right and set a tone of success fort he club.
No offense, but that's what I meant. Many United want to see a way of playing style that's just not feasible in modern football anymore. There's a reason that primarily "control freaks" are signed for those high profile jobs. You can't afford to be so wasteful with the ball in modern football. When you can't play vertically, there's no point in forcing it. You'll only gift the opponent opportunities to transition and you'll be pinned back into your own half against a team that is good at keeping the ball and counter pressing. Which is why I don't think Ferguson would try this if he was still a coach today.
?
I don't think it is is many United fan; frankly, the way the club have been going, a lot of us ( including myself), at this stage, would happy with above average. Look at the love Bruno ( and to a lesser degree Rashford) get despite having plenty of flaws ( esp. when compared to the greats of United past).
As far as I headr, Ferguson was a rather pragmatic manager in his prime who reinvented himself regularly. He was no innovator, he was an adapter and quite brillant at that. So I heavily doubt he wouldn't have adapted to these new developments and instrad have continued with a idealistic-nostalgic apptoach.
Apparently he asked Ancelotti as well before Moyes and he had just agreed to go to Madrid, but you are right there surely was a better manager than Moyes.
