Louis van Gaal isn't possession obsessed, check out the stats.

[Empire]

How on earth does a team that is so focused on possession churn out those lacklustre performances whenever in the lead?

Leicester last year, Chelsea and Liverpool this season.

What has van Gaal been teaching the players?

I was going to reply to @Di Maria's angel in his thread but I figured this would be worth a thread of its own so i've put the reply here.

We're not so focused on possession football, as Louis van Gaal has said many times his philosophy is defending and attacking space on the pitch.

He rates both possession and counter attacking football, he wants us to be lethal at both, this is one of the reasons for his struggles because it would probably be more sensible to perform one well and then move on to the other however he is a very optimistic guy and believes the players can learn both (even when the evidence suggests we can't!).

On Liverpool

In two legged games he likes to play counter in the away leg because he knows the opponents must attack to take advantage of the home leg.

We were awful against Liverpool, it's a learning experience for the players and I'm sure they will be better in two legged games in the future.

In the return leg for some weird reason he tried to make it into two 45 minute games, we scored and so he expected Liverpool to then attack us therefore he was happy for us to drop off in the expectation we get counter chances.

Obviously it backfired in the end.

Killing teams off on the counter

We haven't done this much but we have trained it and the players will show it next season I think hopefully under a new and more sensible manager who can build on this work.

Louis loves killing teams off by getting the second goal on the counter so today against City that was his plan, it's part of his philosophy and it's also why Heynckes' Bayern were effective at counter attacking football in addition to possession because they trained both simultaneously from when he started therefore by 2013 those players were well drilled (not crediting LvG with Heynckes' success, just saying Bayern had started work on becoming effective at both under him also).

I wouldn't say he is possession obsessed, I'd say he uses possession to get the first goal but when he has the lead he plays on the counter with the intention of developing a team that is lethal at killing games off as opposed to protecting the lead by keeping the ball.

Stats

Our possession stats for every premier league game in which we've taken the lead in descending order (you can check this on whoscored):

Noisy Neighbours 0 - 1 Manchester

Before the lead - 54.9%
After the lead - 47.1%

Manchester 1 - 0 Watford

Before the lead - 57.8%
After the lead - 48.9%

Manchester 3 - 2 Arsenal

Before the lead - 50.2%
After the lead - 35.5%

Chelsea 1 - 1 Manchester

Before the lead - 57.8%
From the lead to their equaliser - 29.6%

Manchester 3 - 0 Stoke

Before the lead - 52.2%
After the lead - 44.4%

Liverpool 0 - 1 Manchester

Before the lead - 48.4%
After the lead - 38.5%

Newcastle 3 - 3 Manchester

Before the lead - 42.3%
After the lead but until the equaliser - 46.2%

From the equaliser until we took the lead again - 55.7%
From the lead until the second equaliser - 55.9%

Manchester 2 - 1 Swansea

Before the lead - 56.4%
After the lead until the equaliser - 62.2%

From the equaliser to the lead again - 65.4%
After the lead - 30.7%

Watford 1 - 2 Manchester

Before the lead - 54.4%
After the lead until the equaliser - 51.6%

After the equaliser until our lead again - 96.0%
After the lead - 47.6%

Manchester 2 - 0 WBA

Before the lead - 70.9%
After the lead - 53.0%

Everton 0 - 3 Manchester

Before the lead - 55.0%
After the lead - 46.8%

Manchester 3 - 0 Sunderland

Before the lead - 61.6%
After the lead - 66.1%

Southampton 2 - 3 Manchester

Before the lead - 57.4%
After the lead - 43.9%

Manchester 3 - 1 Liverpool

Before the lead - 62.1%
After the lead - 42.4%

Swansea 2 - 1 Manchester

Before the lead - 60.7%
After the lead until the equaliser - 57.9%
From the equaliser until the end - 70.8%

Villa 0 - 1 Manchester

Before the lead - 59.1%
After the lead - 52.9%

Manchester 1 - 0 Spurs

Before the lead - 43.7%
After the lead - 47.6%

--

Obviously not every game will fit the pattern, for example Newcastle was just bizarre, perhaps the fact we scored so early in that game and we were so heavily criticised for lack of goals contributed to those stats, another example in the sunderland match we scored our second goal soon after the first therefore it's possible 2 - 0 down sunderland had no fight or belief left.

But most of the games do fit the pattern, I'd say we don't suddenly become poor in possession after scoring, we simply move toward counter attacking football.

--

Louis van Gaal has tried to train the team to be effective at possession football to get that first goal but also effective at counter attacking football so when we invite pressure as we drop deep, the intention is to kill the game off, that's the quality he is trying to develop in us even if in the short term it means a lot of dropped points.

He also looks to buy players that can play both counter and possession for this reason.

 

[Crashoutcassius]

Interesting stats. My personal opinion is that this is correct, and that we do attempt to take a shape and counter when we have a lead, but too often the players just aren't doing it well enough, and too often we look spineless defensively.

I think most people would agree tho when we score first we are doing okay. The issue arises where teams can just park the bus and hit us on the break over a very long period and we go a goal down, then respond very very poorly. I think we have looked exciting on the break a lot of times but not too often do we actually get to go 1-0 up as the possession football we simply don't look good enough

 

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

The Chelsea game was shocking.

 

[Lennon7]

Any reason why on earth you're calling us just 'Manchester'?

 

[Cheesy]

Any reason why on earth you're calling us just 'Manchester'?

Because he is Ed Woodward, and has decided that it is commercially beneficial for the two Manchester clubs to be merged.

 

[RK]

You'll find every team across the world has (on average) less possession when they've taken the lead.
Unless you can compare the stats to this baseline change then we can't draw conclusions from them alone.
I don't necessarily disagree with the theory but I do disagree with the tactic itself, particularly against weaker teams. I believe front-footed aggression is a better form of defence.

 

[VeevaVee]

I don't necessarily disagree with the theory but I do disagree with the tactic itself, particularly against weaker teams. I believe front-footed aggression is a better form of defence.

Yeah, I agree with this. Specially when we don't have the required quality/intelligence for it to comfortably work.

 

[Empire]

Interesting stats. My personal opinion is that this is correct, and that we do attempt to take a shape and counter when we have a lead, but too often the players just aren't doing it well enough, and too often we look spineless defensively.

I think most people would agree tho when we score first we are doing okay. The issue arises where teams can just park the bus and hit us on the break over a very long period and we go a goal down, then respond very very poorly. I think we have looked exciting on the break a lot of times but not too often do we actually get to go 1-0 up as the possession football we simply don't look good enough

The problem is we're not effective at possession football yet therefore we lose the ball too often especially when pressed exposing the high defensive line. And we're not effective at counter attacking football so despite the fact we play some good stuff and create some chances we don't always kill the game off since we have to take the chances too.

We are training both those areas so it's good for the players, even if the manager hasn't quite got us effectively performing both under pressure it is being drilled and as the players mature we could potentially be a very effective team at taking the lead and then killing the game off, that's the idea anyway.

The Chelsea game was shocking.

The Chelsea game was a learning experience, the best way to improve is in a competitive match, that's what I think anyway. Obviously we are going to make mistakes and execute it poorly sometimes but soon enough we will be consistently effective at killing a game off.

I recall we actually had our chances on the counter but didn't take them in that game but I could be wrong.

You'll find every team across the world has (on average) less possession when they've taken the lead.
Unless you can compare the stats to this baseline change then we can't draw conclusions from them alone.
I don't necessarily disagree with the theory but I do disagree with the tactic itself, particularly against weaker teams. I believe front-footed aggression is a better form of defence.

Well the statistics are just to emphasise the point but of course it only takes observing us in the actual game to see us after we take the lead to drop deeper, invite pressure and look to break with pace.

Louis van Gaal would probably argue against weaker teams it is the perfect opportunity to practice the tactic so you are so well prepared and drilled for the big matches.

We've actually had possession in good positions on the field only for our players to lack the confidence, creativity and effectiveness to do anything with it, players like Figo, Rivaldo, Robben, Litmanen etc. would make that possession count and ultimately Martial will be like that too as he matures, Memphis still has it to prove, others in our team might too and i'm sure we're scouting another Martial like attacking player to add.

I think with that quality it will be enough to break the small teams down and get the points with this tactic, obviously your suggestion is more effective against smaller sides but by practicing the big game tactic against smaller teams we will probably be better prepared for those big matches.

Since the 1999 treble I think we've won the FA Cup once and champions league once, so there is the room for improvement there, obviously we want to win the league and cup in the same season therefore we need a tactic that prepares us for the big matches but still allows us to effectively break down the smaller sides.

The error Louis van Gaal made in my opinion was to still drill this tactic without that consistently effective attacker who can help break the deadlock with a moment of individual brilliance, the tactic needs it, without such a player he'd have been better doing what you suggested, Louis however gambled on Rooney and got it wrong, he wasn't the guy.

 

[Di Maria's angel]

Very interesting, actually. Still worrying that we drop off so much when in the lead.

 

[Massive Spanner]

It's hardly a surprise. LvG goes into ultra defensive mode as soon as we go ahead against teams and then we look incredibly shaky after that for the rest of the game.

I miss the days under Fergie when we used to kill teams, not try hold out against them.

 

[Amar__]

I think pretty much every team is usually less dominant in possession once they take a
the lead, mostly because the opposition realise they must attack more, which will make them press higher and actually dominate the game in order to score a goal. We didn't give the ball intentionally to City yesterday in the second half whenever we could, it was because they pressed us higher and lots of our players were losing the ball quite easily due the tiredness of our forwards and midfield.

 

[Scarecrow]

Yeah, that's not really surprising. I believe most teams would have less possession after they take a lead.

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

I think pretty much every team is usually less dominant in possession once they take a
the lead, mostly because the opposition realise they must attack more, which will make them press higher and actually dominate the game in order to score a goal. We didn't give the ball intentionally to City yesterday in the second half whenever we could, it was because they pressed us higher and lots of our players were losing the ball quite easily due the tiredness of our forwards and midfield.

It has also to do with trying to cut through with the sharpest counter ever, score and get it over with. There's a nervousness about keeping possession and be patient. Of course they have to counter attack when they can, but if the opponent has to score, there's nothing more demoralizing than keeping the ball and have them run after it without getting it. They just have to be smarter and keep possession when it hurts most and counter with a bit less risk. If a counter is defended well, just wait for players getting forward and start surrounding their box.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I take issue with the idea we played on the counter in that Europa first leg at Anfield...

We played with zero attacking intent of any kind.

 

[golden_blunder]

Meh.. Leicester have shown us the way forward for the PL

And guess what it's fergies old tactics. Width, pace, movement

The opposite of lvgs tactics

 

[dcullivanio]

Interesting stats. That said I don't see why we have to revert to a defensive/possible counter attack mentality when we go up by a singular goal. In times gone by (and how it could still be) we used to try and ensure teams were killed off but nowadays we invite pressure from the opposition. Yesterday was a prime example. If City had found a cutting edge alongside the overall pressure they had in the last 20 minutes we would've been screwed. Yes we defended well but I'd rather we went on the front foot against teams where possible. I get that we have to contain things in the games against better teams and yesterday was a case of that in fairness, but we could show control in games by attacking against 'lesser' teams rather than sitting back. This current approach just feels very negative and rigid and has brought very little fun/excitement for us fans in quite a while.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

I believe LvG's failure to implement his philosophy into the first team has kind of demonized possession football in general in the eyes of many fans. And we should also keep in mind that possession and counter attacking football are just two big categories which are there to give us a hint of the general way a manager wants his team to play on the pitch. There are varying degrees of what is called possession or counter attacking football. It's like beer, you have two big categories, lager and ale, but each one of them is divided to numerous sub categories which sometimes have little to no similarities between them.

LvG teaches possession football, there's no doubt about that. He believes that the lion's share of possession increases his team's chances of winning a football match. Remember when we won at St Mary's with Van Persie's two goals? The Saints had us pinned down to our third but LvG pointed out, after the game, that we managed to "win" the possession battle. It was his way of saying that we decreased their chances of winning, although they were the better side, by keeping the ball. We defended through possession. Against the teams lying at the bottom half of the table and mostly at OT, we see that we aim to have possession despite of the fact that we lack the necessary quality to open up tight defenses. We don't fall back in order to draw the opposition out of their third, we aim to dominate the areas in the middle third of the pitch and suffocate the opponent there.

The problem is we're not very good at it, we don't have midfielders who can protect the ball and then turn around under pressure to face the goal and create and we don't have many attacking/creative players who are good with the ball at their feet in tight spaces. Most of the games mentioned here are against opponents who are either better possession sides or far more physical teams than us. We didn't have >50% possession against Watford, Leicester and Stoke because we couldn't match them physically in 1v1 situations and we didn't possess enough quality on the ball to outplay them. We didn't have the lion's share of possession against Arsenal and City because they are much better on the ball than us.

In all those matches, dropping back into our third was an instinctive choice more than anything else. It's not the main plan and it probably never will be. The focus will always be on maintaining a high defensive line, on slow and deliberate build up play with heavy reliance on passing the ball to the feet of teammates instead into space in the attacking half. That's all possession football orientated decisions. If that wasn't the case, we would have kept the same tactics after scoring two wonderful counter attacking goals against Stoke City. We didn't, next week was typical United under LvG. Yesterday we didn't rely on the counter, we were just desperate. The goal came when Carrick was allowed time on the ball to dictate play. Once Yaya was moved in the hole, we just couldn't keep the ball.

Generally speaking, LvG isn't a possession freak manager in the way Pep was during his time at Barcelona which i believe is the epitome of possession football for many fans on this forum. He doesn't apply high pressing but chooses to start pressing just above the halfway line. He also prefers circulation of the ball just a bit deeper than the final third of the pitch in order to get the most creative players in between the lines and facing the goal. In that sense, his football eventually becomes more dynamic and the passing more direct.

But that's his way of playing possession football. Something similar happened with Klopp at Dortmund. Many people consider him a purely counter attacking manager because of the intensity and the directness of his tactics. The truth is that he rarely sat back to absorb pressure in the way Mourinho does. He didn't even try it in the last 30 minutes of the CL final in 2013 when his team had run out of gas and Bayern were all over them.

 

[Empire]

Very interesting, actually. Still worrying that we drop off so much when in the lead.

In the short term perhaps but it is something that's been practiced a lot, soon enough it will pay dividends because if we can drop off and still remain defensively solid then you have a lot of space for players like Martial, Rashford and Lingard to move into when we press and win the ball back to launch our counter, it'll be a thing of beauty.

In fact somebody like Mourinho would probably keep this element of our play. In the short term it's risky because we worry our defence will give in or even if we launch counter attacks somebody will mess it up (memphis!).

But I think it won't be long until we show we can remain defensively solid, win the ball back deep in our own half and get it to our attacking players who have acres of space and convert their chances.

It's hardly a surprise. LvG goes into ultra defensive mode as soon as we go ahead against teams and then we look incredibly shaky after that for the rest of the game.

I miss the days under Fergie when we used to kill teams, not try hold out against them.

Counter attacking football isn't ultra defensive, when you win the ball back deep in your half then your pace players have acres of space to attack.

I think pretty much every team is usually less dominant in possession once they take a
the lead, mostly because the opposition realise they must attack more, which will make them press higher and actually dominate the game in order to score a goal. We didn't give the ball intentionally to City yesterday in the second half whenever we could, it was because they pressed us higher and lots of our players were losing the ball quite easily due the tiredness of our forwards and midfield.

Consistently in our matches we drop deeper when we've taken the lead and look to play on the counter to get the goal that kills the game, it's not just City, it's most of our matches and it's what Louis has said in his interviews.

In 20 matches this season where we have taken the lead our average possession is something like 56.8% before we take the lead and 45.1% after the lead, even against smaller sides we're happy to concede possession, if we wanted to dominate the ball we could do say against those teams.

Yeah, that's not really surprising. I believe most teams would have less possession after they take a lead.

We go from something like an average of 56.8% to 45.1%, the point is if the manager was possession obsessed he'd look to keep the ball even after the lead but instead he drops the defensive line, invites pressure and attempts to kill off the game using counters.

I take issue with the idea we played on the counter in that Europa first leg at Anfield...

We played with zero attacking intent of any kind.

It was a poor performance and very poorly executed.

Meh.. Leicester have shown us the way forward for the PL

And guess what it's fergies old tactics. Width, pace, movement

The opposite of lvgs tactics

Width, pace and movement is exactly what Louis van Gaal wants, obviously as a team we haven't executed this effectively but it's the intention and as the players develop a better understanding that's what you will see however pretty much every manager wants what you have described.

I'm just answering the question I keep seeing on here about why we drop off so much after taking the lead, the confusion stems from the false notion Louis van Gaal is possession obsessed, when he has the lead he looks to drop off and launch counters, it's straightforward.

Interesting stats. That said I don't see why we have to revert to a defensive/possible counter attack mentality when we go up by a singular goal. In times gone by (and how it could still be) we used to try and ensure teams were killed off but nowadays we invite pressure from the opposition. Yesterday was a prime example. If City had found a cutting edge alongside the overall pressure they had in the last 20 minutes we would've been screwed. Yes we defended well but I'd rather we went on the front foot against teams where possible. I get that we have to contain things in the games against better teams and yesterday was a case of that in fairness, but we could show control in games by attacking against 'lesser' teams rather than sitting back. This current approach just feels very negative and rigid and has brought very little fun/excitement for us fans in quite a while.

It's not defensive, inviting pressure into your own half to create more space in the opposition's half and then looking to press to win the ball back and launching effective counters to exploit that space is also an attacking mentality, it's just a tactical tweak to adapt to the changing dynamics of the game when you take the lead.

This is an effective way to kill the team off but also risky because if you don't do it then by inviting pressure it increases your chances of conceding. As the manager says though it's a process, as with anything you develop the quality over time and with practice and that's what is happening with us.

In the short term it is frustrating and nervy for us fans but soon when the players are well drilled at this in my opinion they'll be highly effective at killing the game, even now we have created chances this way but we haven't consistently taken them.

I'm excited for the run in since we'll have more of our senior players back and I think killing the game off this way is something we'll show, we've been practicing for a while now.

When our midfield two and defenders press the opposition deep in our half, win the ball back, get it to someone with pace, Martial, Rashford or Lingard and they have tons of space in front of them to move into, when this happens consistently you won't be saying it isn't exciting!

 

[golden_blunder]

Oh I get it, it's another apologist lvg thread

Well I ain't buying

Our biggest problem is not tactics, it's lvg himself. He's too cautious for this league, he doesn't get it

 

[Amar__]

In the short term perhaps but it is something that's been practiced a lot, soon enough it will pay dividends because if we can drop off and still remain defensively solid then you have a lot of space for players like Martial, Rashford and Lingard to move into when we press and win the ball back to launch our counter, it'll be a thing of beauty.

In fact somebody like Mourinho would probably keep this element of our play. In the short term it's risky because we worry our defence will give in or even if we launch counter attacks somebody will mess it up (memphis!).

But I think it won't be long until we show we can remain defensively solid, win the ball back deep in our own half and get it to our attacking players who have acres of space and convert their chances.



Counter attacking football isn't ultra defensive, when you win the ball back deep in your half then your pace players have acres of space to attack.



Consistently in our matches we drop deeper when we've taken the lead and look to play on the counter to get the goal that kills the game, it's not just City, it's most of our matches and it's what Louis has said in his interviews.

In 20 matches this season where we have taken the lead our average possession is something like 56.8% before we take the lead and 45.1% after the lead, even against smaller sides we're happy to concede possession, if we wanted to dominate the ball we could do say against those teams.



We go from something like an average of 56.8% to 45.1%, the point is if the manager was possession obsessed he'd look to keep the ball even after the lead but instead he drops the defensive line, invites pressure and attempts to kill off the game using counters.



It was a poor performance and very poorly executed.



Width, pace and movement is exactly what Louis van Gaal wants, obviously as a team we haven't executed this effectively but it's the intention and as the players develop a better understanding that's what you will see however pretty much every manager wants what you have described.

I'm just answering the question I keep seeing on here about why we drop off so much after taking the lead, the confusion stems from the false notion Louis van Gaal is possession obsessed, when he has the lead he looks to drop off and launch counters, it's straightforward.



It's not defensive, inviting pressure into your own half to create more space in the opposition's half and then looking to press to win the ball back and launching effective counters to exploit that space is also an attacking mentality, it's just a tactical tweak to adapt to the changing dynamics of the game when you take the lead.

This is an effective way to kill the team off but also risky because if you don't do it then by inviting pressure it increases your chances of conceding. As the manager says though it's a process, as with anything you develop the quality over time and with practice and that's what is happening with us.

In the short term it is frustrating and nervy for us fans but soon when the players are well drilled at this in my opinion they'll be highly effective at killing the game, even now we have created chances this way but we haven't consistently taken them.

I'm excited for the run in since we'll have more of our senior players back and I think killing the game off this way is something we'll show, we've been practicing for a while now.

When our midfield two and defenders press the opposition deep in our half, win the ball back, get it to someone with pace, Martial, Rashford or Lingard and they have tons of space in front of them to move into, when this happens consistently you won't be saying it isn't exciting!

So long story short, we need to give him three years so he can learn the team to counterattack?

 

[Chesterlestreet]

The question isn't whether he's obsessed with it, but whether his brand of it works or not.

The evidence points to it not working. His apologists, however, will no doubt consider it a process - no joke intended, they actually seem to think it is a process, one that takes several years to reach the stage where we look half decent on a regular basis.

What would normally count as fecking up your tactics, or insisting on the wrong brand of tactics, never counts as such for Van Gaalists.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

So long story short, we need to give him three years so he can learn the team to counterattack?

Sounds fair enough. Given that he seemingly isn't working with footballers (nevermind professional footballers he has largely brought in himself), but something more akin to blank canvases. They need years of lessons before they're ready. It isn't easy.

 

[Physiocrat]

Has anyone the stats on the average (all top 6 teams for example) percentage drop off of the possession after taking the lead? We could then more meaningfully compare Utd with them.

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

The stats look more like we take the lead and then absolutely shit it, and the performances suggest that to be the case too.

I think there's a difference between playing on the counter to protect a lead, and just losing all composure and control of the game. Because we don't play on the counter a lot of the time. We scramble away a chance and punt it long to no one, and they come back at us again. It kept happening yesterday. It happened at Chelsea. It happened at Anfield (except the shitting it happened before we took the lead). We're just not very good at commanding and controlling a game when we are in the driver's seat. I don't remember seeing the teams above us park the bus after taking a 1 goal lead too often, and just scrambling the last half an hour.

 

[Roboc7]

We just play a really bad version of possession football with no pace or movement, it's too pedestrian and structured. Teams let us have the ball because we aren't that effective with it, when we take the lead they stop letting us have it and we don't seem to have an answer to that.

We also struggle to counter attack because of our lack of pace and playing the likes of fellaini in midfield. In short LVG has failed to move with the times and not recognised the importance of speed, skill and athleticism in football now, even teams who play possession football have these qualities as well now.

 

[Walters_19_MuFc]

I don't know. I don't think, like yesterday, he would have wanted us to sit back. Ideally, I think he would have wanted to keep the ball and possibly get the second. As it was, we got pegged back, as we so often seem to do when we go a goal ahead, which makes like a lot more difficult.

 

[rpitchfo]

I think you need to have a quick read through the difference between correlation and causation.

 

[Crashoutcassius]

The question isn't whether he's obsessed with it, but whether his brand of it works or not.

The evidence points to it not working.

Depends over what sample size you consider. Exactly 21 months, no it isn't working. 25 years - working. 10 years - working. etc etc.

It's a hard league, a tough challenge and it's hard to tell whether his hearts in it even. But I don't think saying that his style doesn't work based on evidence makes much sense. Likely other factors rather than his tactics, which seem to change quite often, just suddenly 'not working'

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Depends over what sample size you consider. Exactly 21 months, no it isn't working. 25 years - working. 10 years - working. etc etc.

It's a hard league, a tough challenge and it's hard to tell whether his hearts in it even. But I don't think saying that his style doesn't work based on evidence makes much sense. Likely other factors rather than his tactics, which seem to change quite often, just suddenly 'not working'

For us, obviously. The evidence points to it not working for this team, the one he happens to be managing and setting up tactically here and now.

What worked for him elsewhere is nice for him and his overall achievements, but it isn't relevant in this context after nearly two seasons of blundering along.

 

[Crashoutcassius]

For us, obviously. The evidence points to it not working for this team, the one he happens to be managing and setting up tactically here and now.

What worked for him elsewhere is nice for him and his overall achievements, but it isn't relevant in this context after nearly two seasons of blundering along.

I disagree, his decades of success probably are relevant. Mourinho had a bad season at chelsea and it didn't work undeniably, but I think his success before was still relevant. Only difference with LVG was probably success spread out a bit more

 

[Rossa]

So, a process?

 

[golden_blunder]

I disagree, his decades of success probably are relevant. Mourinho had a bad season at chelsea and it didn't work undeniably, but I think his success before was still relevant. Only difference with LVG was probably success spread out a bit more

So you want to keep him for a 3rd year?

 

[Crashoutcassius]

So you want to keep him for a 3rd year?

I just support the team rather than getting upset over these things, can't affect decisions. Sometimes I want a player to sign but I don't throw all the toys out of the pram when we don't get him... With the possible exception of ronaldinho back in the day

 

[berbatrick]

That Leicester defeat is the root of all ills.

We started that (and QPR) game with this front 6:

-------Blind-------
--Herrera--AdM--
------Rooney-----
---RvP---Falcao--

or
------Mata-----
---RvP---Rooney--


If he hadn't lost his guts after that, we would surely have seen this (theoretically) orgasmic lineup at some point:

Rafael--Smalling-Blind--Shaw
------------Carrick-------------
------Herrera----AdM----------
-------------Mata---------------
------Rooney----RvP-----------



I was waiting for that the moment we got those players



Actually I remember an equally fruitless wait in 2012/13 for this lineup:


-----Carrick-Cleverley-----
Nani---Kagawa---Welbeck
-----------RvP-------------

 

[golden_blunder]

I just support the team rather than getting upset over these things, can't affect decisions. Sometimes I want a player to sign but I don't throw all the toys out of the pram when we don't get him... With the possible exception of ronaldinho back in the day

so that's a yes then

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I was going to reply to @Di Maria's angel in his thread but I figured this would be worth a thread of its own so i've put the reply here.

We're not so focused on possession football, as Louis van Gaal has said many times his philosophy is defending and attacking space on the pitch.

He rates both possession and counter attacking football, he wants us to be lethal at both, this is one of the reasons for his struggles because it would probably be more sensible to perform one well and then move on to the other however he is a very optimistic guy and believes the players can learn both (even when the evidence suggests we can't!).

On Liverpool

In two legged games he likes to play counter in the away leg because he knows the opponents must attack to take advantage of the home leg.

We were awful against Liverpool, it's a learning experience for the players and I'm sure they will be better in two legged games in the future.

In the return leg for some weird reason he tried to make it into two 45 minute games, we scored and so he expected Liverpool to then attack us therefore he was happy for us to drop off in the expectation we get counter chances.

Obviously it backfired in the end.

Killing teams off on the counter

We haven't done this much but we have trained it and the players will show it next season I think hopefully under a new and more sensible manager who can build on this work.

Louis loves killing teams off by getting the second goal on the counter so today against City that was his plan, it's part of his philosophy and it's also why Heynckes' Bayern were effective at counter attacking football in addition to possession because they trained both simultaneously from when he started therefore by 2013 those players were well drilled (not crediting LvG with Heynckes' success, just saying Bayern had started work on becoming effective at both under him also).

I wouldn't say he is possession obsessed, I'd say he uses possession to get the first goal but when he has the lead he plays on the counter with the intention of developing a team that is lethal at killing games off as opposed to protecting the lead by keeping the ball.

Stats

Our possession stats for every premier league game in which we've taken the lead in descending order (you can check this on whoscored):

Noisy Neighbours 0 - 1 Manchester

Before the lead - 54.9%
After the lead - 47.1%

Manchester 1 - 0 Watford

Before the lead - 57.8%
After the lead - 48.9%

Manchester 3 - 2 Arsenal

Before the lead - 50.2%
After the lead - 35.5%

Chelsea 1 - 1 Manchester

Before the lead - 57.8%
From the lead to their equaliser - 29.6%

Manchester 3 - 0 Stoke

Before the lead - 52.2%
After the lead - 44.4%

Liverpool 0 - 1 Manchester

Before the lead - 48.4%
After the lead - 38.5%

Newcastle 3 - 3 Manchester

Before the lead - 42.3%
After the lead but until the equaliser - 46.2%

From the equaliser until we took the lead again - 55.7%
From the lead until the second equaliser - 55.9%

Manchester 2 - 1 Swansea

Before the lead - 56.4%
After the lead until the equaliser - 62.2%

From the equaliser to the lead again - 65.4%
After the lead - 30.7%

Watford 1 - 2 Manchester

Before the lead - 54.4%
After the lead until the equaliser - 51.6%

After the equaliser until our lead again - 96.0%
After the lead - 47.6%

Manchester 2 - 0 WBA

Before the lead - 70.9%
After the lead - 53.0%

Everton 0 - 3 Manchester

Before the lead - 55.0%
After the lead - 46.8%

Manchester 3 - 0 Sunderland

Before the lead - 61.6%
After the lead - 66.1%

Southampton 2 - 3 Manchester

Before the lead - 57.4%
After the lead - 43.9%

Manchester 3 - 1 Liverpool

Before the lead - 62.1%
After the lead - 42.4%

Swansea 2 - 1 Manchester

Before the lead - 60.7%
After the lead until the equaliser - 57.9%
From the equaliser until the end - 70.8%

Villa 0 - 1 Manchester

Before the lead - 59.1%
After the lead - 52.9%

Manchester 1 - 0 Spurs

Before the lead - 43.7%
After the lead - 47.6%

--

Obviously not every game will fit the pattern, for example Newcastle was just bizarre, perhaps the fact we scored so early in that game and we were so heavily criticised for lack of goals contributed to those stats, another example in the sunderland match we scored our second goal soon after the first therefore it's possible 2 - 0 down sunderland had no fight or belief left.

But most of the games do fit the pattern, I'd say we don't suddenly become poor in possession after scoring, we simply move toward counter attacking football.

--

Louis van Gaal has tried to train the team to be effective at possession football to get that first goal but also effective at counter attacking football so when we invite pressure as we drop deep, the intention is to kill the game off, that's the quality he is trying to develop in us even if in the short term it means a lot of dropped points.

He also looks to buy players that can play both counter and possession for this reason.

Cotrect

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I disagree, his decades of success probably are relevant.

You disagree with what exactly? Here's what I claimed: The evidence points to LVG's methods not working for us. And you disagree with this? Bear the context in mind: He's attempting to make us play football in a certain way, that's the task at hand. Does the evidence point to him being up to that task?

Bear in mind that generally respecting his guru status isn't an argument. Insisting nobly on not throwing your toys out the pram isn't an argument either.

 

[Crashoutcassius]

so that's a yes then

No i genuinely think the people that run the club know better than me and I just support. I try to balance out biased arguments on here and enjoy the non-blinkered discussion. My ideal scenario for next season would be we sign pochettino and he plays the kids and is given time to build a team with youth graduates.

 

[Red Pavan]

So, what the hell is his 'philosophy' supposed to entail if not possession?

 

[Crashoutcassius]

You disagree with what exactly? Here's what I claimed: The evidence points to LVG's methods not working for us. And you disagree with this? Bear the context in mind: He's attempting to make us play football in a certain way, that's the task at hand. Does the evidence point to him being up to that task?

Bear in mind that generally respecting his guru status isn't an argument. Insisting nobly on not throwing your toys out the pram isn't an argument either.

you said his past history of success isn't relevant in the context of him working here. I think his past success raises the probability of him making it work here vs what the probability would look like if this was his first job. You seem to disagree and say that the only thing that matters is the last 21 months, which is fair enough, i don't agree

Was talking to someone else re: the toys being thrown out of the pram. Nothing noble about just not thinking I know things absolutely about football. a month ago lots of posters were saying with absolute insight that top 4 was impossible. I just think it's sensible to reject that nonsense