Manchester United's lack of identity

[Skills]

For such a huge club, our inherent lack of identity is fecking appalling.

We're the footballing equivalent of a chameleon - we just morph into whatever shape the current manager wants us to be. There's no vision or bigger picture - it's just what the current manager wants. The closest thing we have to an identity is the word youth, but there's a lack of natural integration between the academy and first team - and once again it just comes down to whatever manager in charge in how much they buy into it.

 

[Cassidy]

We literally just hired a manager/head coach with a clear identify, let the man work

 

[Skills]

We literally just hired a manager/head coach with a clear identify, let the man work

Erik Ten Hag FC.

 

[Cassidy]

Erik Ten Hag FC.

You have to start somewhere, where has the Liverpool teams identity come from, Mars?

 

[altodevil]

It's always going to take time to build an identity - we've only just hired the right coach. Give it a few years then make a new thread.

 

[groovyalbert]

We're probably the only truly massive club to have had their success defined by so few managers. I don't think what we've seen in the dip since Fergie left is necessarily all that out of character, albeit an extreme version, of how the club has performed in the modern (60s onwards) era of football.

A big challenge for the club is installing an ethos and structure which enables success and quality to be achieved beyond the impact of the manager. Now, more than ever, this is how successful football clubs are run.

 

[WeedmineR]

I am not sure what you are on about - we have an identity - our players cannot control the midfield battle and win any second balls. Just not good enough, that's the identity and the reality.
We are just a bad team with bad players.
We need time and better players at certain positions, it's well known, patience and correct decisions. It's apparent it's not only about the manager.

 

[Wheato]

Ten Hag has a very clear identity and style of play, but after 10 minutes yesterday, the home fans started groaning when they tried to play it out from the back. So the players panicked and resorted back to hoof ball which played right into Brighton's hands because they just won the ball back quite easily as we had no holding players up front.

The fans need to give the manager more than 10 minutes of a new system, and the players need to grow a pair and not fall apart when the home fans complain.

 

[WeedmineR]

Ten Hag has a very clear identity and style of play, but after 10 minutes yesterday, the home fans started groaning when they tried to play it out from the back. So the players panicked and resorted back to hoof ball which played right into Brighton's hands because they just won the ball back quite easily as we had no holding players up front.

The fans need to give the manager more than 10 minutes of a new system, and the players need to grow a pair and not fall apart when the home fans complain.

Completely agree.
But why? Just because they tried to play it out from the back? What's the logic behind that exactly?

 

[Sweet Square]

Cool thread to make after Ten Hag first game as manager.

 

[VorZakone]

What "identities" do other clubs have?

 

[elmo]

It’s clear that we’ve an identity. It’s just not a positive one.

If you want soul sucking football with the players just strolling about to make their opponents look world class, just watch us.

 

[The Gatekeeper]

Let's be honest: By "lack of identity" what you mean is "lack of winning". I, clearly, can relate.

 

[Chief123]

For the first time in many years, I actually feel like I know what kind of team we are and what to expect each time we play. We really haven’t had that for a long time.

You can see our patterns of play, little triangles, pressing co-ordination, overlapping full backs, inverted full backs in possession, midfielders running in behind from deep.

There’s so much that is becoming part of our style and identity. It’s good to see and long may it continue. It’s exciting to see what ETH can do with more players he brings in that fit the profile even better of what he wants.

 

[Suedesi]

For such a huge club, our inherent lack of identity is fecking appalling.

We're the footballing equivalent of a chameleon - we just morph into whatever shape the current manager wants us to be. There's no vision or bigger picture - it's just what the current manager wants. The closest thing we have to an identity is the word youth, but there's a lack of natural integration between the academy and first team - and once again it just comes down to whatever manager in charge in how much they buy into it.

Identity in football is thrown around too easily. Yes, some clubs have it - like Barcelona with tiki-taka or Guardiola's teams that generally follow the same blueprint - but lots of other teams don't and that's ok.

Take Real Madrid for example. What's their philosophy or identity? I have watched lots of their games and what sticks out is they are super flexible in their approach. They will adapt their tactics and style based on the level of opposition and the competition. Currently, they're happy to cede possession and play on the counter against the bigger teams in the Champions League and play possession football against the smaller teams. This pragmatic approach is part of the reason why they win so much because the end goal is winning and not having a certain identity or playing a certain style.

With City or Barca is the opposite - these teams never change their style and it's invariably the same against PSG, Burnley, and Valladolid. That's fine, but it's not necessarily the most successful way. Plus it takes lots and lots of time to learn to play a certain way.

 

[Gordon Godot]

Identity in football is thrown around too easily. Yes, some clubs have it - like Barcelona with tiki-taka or Guardiola's teams that generally follow the same blueprint - but lots of other teams don't and that's ok.

Take Real Madrid for example. What's their philosophy or identity? I have watched lots of their games and what sticks out is they are super flexible in their approach. They will adapt their tactics and style based on the level of opposition and the competition. Currently, they're happy to cede possession and play on the counter against the bigger teams in the Champions League and play possession football against the smaller teams. This pragmatic approach is part of the reason why they win so much because the end goal is winning and not having a certain identity or playing a certain style.

With City or Barca is the opposite - these teams never change their style and it's invariably the same against PSG, Burnley, and Valladolid. That's fine, but it's not necessarily the most successful way. Plus it takes lots and lots of time to learn to play a certain way.

I disagree. United used to have a fairly clear approach to how players were coached and expected to play from youth to first team, that was developed by Fergie but also began to fade towards the end of his tenure. Its not always now about consistent system, but the teams with the best academies to include Ajax and to a degree Barca and City definitely do this. Regardless of football style, a clear pathway through youth system to first team also exists at these clubs, with the odd exception this has largely one also at OT. Too many of youth system simply not good enough. It is hard as more teams compete and geogrpaphic restrictions, but the City set up (including education and off pitch stuff) is still way ahead of Utds.

 

[Zen86]

This long-term club “identity” on the pitch that people talk about is complete nonsense. Pure manufactured PR rubbish in the same vein as “mes que un club”. Football changes from manager-to-manager, decade-to-decade, and as players come and go.

Youth, fight, and attacking football are things that are ingrained in our history. Philosophical purism by clubs however is a load of BS.

 

[Suedesi]

This long-term club “identity” on the pitch that people talk about is complete nonsense. Pure manufactured PR rubbish in the same vein as “mes que un club”. Football changes from manager-to-manager, decade-to-decade, and as players come and go.

Youth, fight, and attacking football are things that are ingrained in our history. Philosophical purism by clubs however is a load of BS.

+1

 

[DSG]

Identity in football is thrown around too easily. Yes, some clubs have it - like Barcelona with tiki-taka or Guardiola's teams that generally follow the same blueprint - but lots of other teams don't and that's ok.

Take Real Madrid for example. What's their philosophy or identity? I have watched lots of their games and what sticks out is they are super flexible in their approach. They will adapt their tactics and style based on the level of opposition and the competition. Currently, they're happy to cede possession and play on the counter against the bigger teams in the Champions League and play possession football against the smaller teams. This pragmatic approach is part of the reason why they win so much because the end goal is winning and not having a certain identity or playing a certain style.

With City or Barca is the opposite - these teams never change their style and it's invariably the same against PSG, Burnley, and Valladolid. That's fine, but it's not necessarily the most successful way. Plus it takes lots and lots of time to learn to play a certain way.

So true. The hipsters are all about Pep and tiki taka, when Real, without a single identity, has more trophies than than them all. If anything, Pep’s dogmatic devotion to his footballing philosophy has probably cost him in the CL.

 

[DSG]

This long-term club “identity” on the pitch that people talk about is complete nonsense. Pure manufactured PR rubbish in the same vein as “mes que un club”. Football changes from manager-to-manager, decade-to-decade, and as players come and go.

Youth, fight, and attacking football are things that are ingrained in our history. Philosophical purism by clubs however is a load of BS.

Agree to an extent. You could say Barca and Ajax are the only clubs that have remained true to their club philosophy. I don’t think this actually means more trophies however…

 

[Zen86]

Agree to an extent. You could say Barca and Ajax are the only clubs that have remained true to their club philosophy. I don’t think this actually means more trophies however…

I wouldn’t say Barca have been true to anything. They talk about philosophy when it suits them.

 

[Stocar]

I don't know how Madrid can be called the best in the world when they've consistently been second best at home, but whatever. Cup competitions are often not won by the best team. This used to be common sense.

As others have pointed out, when people talk about having recognizable identity, it's usually about Ajax, Barcelona, and lately City. Teams with possession based style of football that originates from the same school of football. These teams have quiet good domestic records and rather consistently produce high scoring attacking football.

Some people like their style of football, and prefer to watch teams that are inspired by it. It has its downsides though, as it takes time to perfect and doesn't work best in elite knockout competitions. Amusingly, it also seems to provoke hate from other group (if not majority) of fans, who insist that this brand of football is inherently boring, overrated, or doesn't really exist.

 

[Cassidy]

I don't know how Madrid can be called the best in the world when they've consistently been second best at home, but whatever. Cup competitions are often not won by the best team. This used to be common sense.

As others have pointed out, when people talk about having recognizable identity, it's usually about Ajax, Barcelona, and lately City. Teams with possession based style that originates from the same school of football. These teams have quiet good domestic records and rather consistently produce high scoring attacking football.

I like their style of football, and prefer to watch teams that try are inspired by it. It has it downsides though, as it takes time to perfect and doesn't seem to work best in elite knockout competitions. Amusingly , it also provokes hate of "proper football fans", who insist that this brand of football is inherently boring, overrated, or doesn't really exist.

Huh? Are you sure about that?

 

[wangyu]

I’m super confident, bad timing for a negative post!

 

[Cassidy]

If I haven't missed something, Barcelona have won significantly more domestic titles over the last decade or so.

I don't remember when it comes to the copa del rey, but if you're speaking about the league, then that's wrong. Its close, Barca edge it by one or 2.
And frankly home domination is measured mainly in leagues

 

[STYLOISRED]

For such a huge club, our inherent lack of identity is fecking appalling.

We're the footballing equivalent of a chameleon - we just morph into whatever shape the current manager wants us to be. There's no vision or bigger picture - it's just what the current manager wants. The closest thing we have to an identity is the word youth, but there's a lack of natural integration between the academy and first team - and once again it just comes down to whatever manager in charge in how much they buy into it.

The identity of this club is the whiniest fanbase in the world.
The biggest and most successful football club in the world (Real Madrid) have even less of an identity than we do. Bayern Munich a club that is half owned by fans don't claim to have any sort of identity. AC Milan one of the most admired Club by neutrals never claimed to possess some everlasting identity. Its only fans of Manchester United that will whine about a club being flexible with its principles of playing the game.

 

[Stocar]

I don't remember when it comes to the copa del rey, but if you're speaking about the league, then that's wrong. Its close, Barca edge it by one or 2

Well, if they have more league titles, that means they've been a better team. I just don't see how a team can be called best in the world when they've been second best at home.

 

[Cassidy]

Well, if they have more league titles, they've very probably been a better team.

The point being they haven't consistently been second best, when its 1 title in 22 years between them. Especially when they have the most league titles in Spain

 

[Stocar]

The point being they haven't consistently been second best, when its 1 title in 22 years between them. Especially when they have the most league titles in Spain

OK, maybe not thoroughly and consistently, but it's a fact they've been second best. Also, I thought we're talking about more recent times, not since 2000 or the beginning of time.

 

[Stocar]

By the way, Chelsea have two European titles in this century. Does that mean they've been the best English team in that period of time? Did they even win them in seasons when they really were the best English team?

 

[Cassidy]

OK, maybe not thoroughly and consistently, but it's a fact they've been second best. Also, I thought we're talking about more recent times, not since 2000 or the beginning of time.

Not since 2000? You said this century which is since 2000, but even since 2010 the difference in the league is the same.

 

[Cassidy]

By the way, Chelsea have two European titles in this century. Does that mean they've been the best English team in that period of time? Did they even win them in seasons when they really were the best English team?

That's a stupid comment because they are not the only English team to win 2 European titles this century.
Also they are in the conversation as they have won a lot of league titles this century too to go along with their European titles. The Abramovic era was actually very successful for them

 

[Stocar]

I didn't mention Liverpool, as they didn't win much domestically. Anyway, the same question applies. Were Liverpool and Chelsea best teams in the world when they won their European titles? You don't really need to answer.

 

[Boondog]

The identity of this club is the whiniest fanbase in the world.

Yes. Most entitled cnuts per capita.

 

[SirReginald]

I didn't mention Liverpool, as they didn't win much domestically. Anyway, the same question applies. Were Liverpool and Chelsea best teams in the world when they won their European titles? You don't really need to answer.

Arguably yes, I’d say we probably were the best team in the World when we beat City. At that point we had numerous clean sheets, a GK with a save ratio of 88% and completely dominated every team we played in the CL. The margins and stats weren’t even close and that includes both Madrid teams. But anyway, you were saying.

 

[Freak]

Yes. Most entitled cnuts per capita.

Many of whom would rather support individual players throwing childish behavior like Pogba and Ronaldo over the team/club as a whole.

 

[bosnian_red]

United had an identity with Ole, with Mourinho, and with Van Gaal. Different, but we were functional teams. Not as good as we should have been, but functional and there was a way to do things.

Now we are actually good and have a proactive, attacking, dominant identity, suitable for United. That's the difference.

 

[Boondog]

Many of whom would rather support individual players throwing childish behavior like Pogba and Ronaldo over the team/club as a whole.

What does that have to do with anything.

 

[roonster09]

Apart from Barca and Ajax, none of the big clubs have playing style "identity"

 

[OpenIntrovert]

Many of whom would rather support individual players throwing childish behavior like Pogba and Ronaldo over the team/club as a whole.

Its the complete opposite. The whiniest ones are the ones who have been complaining about United, the manager and the players have been like this even before Pogba came back. These are not really fans, just people who support the success of the club rather than the club itself.