It has to be. The last 4 games should show us that. There is clearly no plan, no style and he doesn't know how to get the best out of players he's asked for from the board - I can already see Sancho becoming a real problem in terms of not knowing how to use him. This will be a slow, sad divorce but it's one that needs to happen.
Neville - ‘’no style of play’’
- Thread starter IrishRedDevil
- Start date
No, he's too nice to turn his back on Phelan, Carrick, McKenna. Carrick completely baffles me - he never looks like he has a clue what's going on, was present during the dreaded LVG years and somehow, as one of the best holding mids of the last 15 years is happy to field a team with Mctominay and Fred playing there.
Ole's only hope of redemption is to revamp the coaching set up, and fast.
This is it. Dont forget the poor decision making, assumedly because we havent worked on scenarios in training, and sloppy losses of possession.
Thank the lord somebody is bringing sensibility to this conversation.
Far too much negativity and anti OSG. Especially when we haven’t seen so much forward play since SAF resigned.
I appreciate passionate comments overcoming thoughtful, insightful comments given the last result but really.........
There’s a lot of so called fans on here that remind me of the old Berty McGoo (bitter blue).
It’s a shame that after so long, the defence is looking rock solid, attackers galore, and all quality, maybe an issue or two in midfield...
But still, we are title contenders this season, and, as you put it so simply. If it doesn’t work he will go.
In the meantime members should be supportive and remain positive instead of sounding like whining City fans from the 80s & 90s.
A wee bit shameful some of em!
Time will tell. You may be right.
Then proceeds to write a post full of emotional garbage and a lame attempt at shaming those with a different view to his own.
Just one point. People are not judging ole on one match. Only the most intellectually challenged would write that or believe that.
It’s definitely more than one match. Some of the excuses are poor. Criticism of the manager isn’t because of one match, or because of a single poor refereeing decision. Read elsewhere that it isn’t his fault we’ve been an awful pressing side for the vast majority of his tenure because we signed Ronaldo five minutes ago. Then you get into the “Ferguson also lost games” area of desperation.
Ok, I think your just being deliberately obtuse here. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean my point is illogical.
Of course anybody is entitled to an opinion, and the position Ole is in comes with a large side of criticism. I get that. But my point is that Gary is just a pundit. He had a chance to prove his credentials at Valencia after years of being a coach with England and he flopped hard. Therefore his call about patterns of play holds no more weight than Carragher, Richards or Shearer. He simply wasn’t able to implement the things he is talking about in his own team and therefore I feel his critique of Ole is lame considering OGS is doing a much more competent job at arguably a higher level.
As for my opinion seeing as you asked, I don’t see how we would be finishing top 3 in consecutive seasons and getting to semi finals and finals if the manager was tactically inept. I have neither the time nor the interest to watch other teams matches so I’m not well placed to compare but I don’t think the view that OGS is poor tactically holds water. I’ve seen him regularly change systems when we need a result to good effect. He is capable of effecting a match outcome in his favour. He is doing his job in this regard. Two recent losses do not change this fact.
I also think one mans ‘style of play’ or ‘patterns’ is another mans predictable for the opposition. And we wouldn’t want to broadcast our game plan to the world now, would we?
so Conte, Sarri, Lampard and Tuchel all play and teach the same football?
Fergie managed for 26 years. Each of his teams during his tenure have different style of play. For example the 1999 treble team style of play is markedly different with the 2008 double team.
Our current style of play IMO is similar to that 1999 team, with much lower level quality. But that 2008 team, its style of play is as continental as you get. It's just a shame that that team encountered one of the greatest football side of all time.
Ole:
"Sometimes we look too much into the all intricacies, but it's passion, it's desire; who wants to win the ball? Which one of the strikers has the desire to get on the end of crosses?
"You can talk about all sorts, it looks nice on paper. But when you go out on that pitch, it's who wants to win, that’s one of the big things. You want winners and I think I’m getting there with my team, team players."
"Sometimes we look too much into the all intricacies, but it's passion, it's desire; who wants to win the ball? Which one of the strikers has the desire to get on the end of crosses?
"You can talk about all sorts, it looks nice on paper. But when you go out on that pitch, it's who wants to win, that’s one of the big things. You want winners and I think I’m getting there with my team, team players."
What a supprise this team does not have a style of play or an identity with a manager who has never shown a philosophy or has a CV to back up a vision.
Counter attacking football with two holding midfielders cos you had your pants pulled down by a spurs side has scarred him and reflects on his tactics.
Get a manager in who manages and not one who is unproven
Simple.
Counter attacking football with two holding midfielders cos you had your pants pulled down by a spurs side has scarred him and reflects on his tactics.
Get a manager in who manages and not one who is unproven
Simple.
If he has a style why has he spent a large chunk of his transfer budget on players apparently unable to play it
Great we’re managed by the Norwegian Graham Taylor
Ole made one vital mistake and due to that mistake he set himself up down this path, his stubborn reliance on this 4-2-3-1 formation. To play this formation, you can't just put 11 players out there. There has to be a balance from the attack to the defense. The AM needs to link with both wide players and interchange, the two 8s need to cover the space left by the full backs going forward and also quickly recycle possession to the front 4. The 2 CB's need to push higher up to allow the team to press higher and lastly the tempo needs to be quick passing and sharp movements.
We see none of this, if he knew he was this tactically inept he would have been better served with just going for a 4-4-2, get it wide and get it to the two strikers quickly. It also can't be about we don't have the players for this or that, we can play any formation we want as long as we have a manager that can implement it. Our squad is scary, Ole's ineptitude is what makes people look at the squad sometimes and think it's inadequate, but it's a great squad that any competent manager would make into world beaters. We can't keep relying on individual brilliance when we have a squad full of great players.
His occasional (oh look, I'm a tactician) 3-5-2 is another example of how he doesn't understand what's required. He just shoves the players out there without any tactical plan or awareness. 3 CB's need to have 2 pressing and one covering. The fullbacks need to be high up the pitch but somehow he makes a formation, Tuchel and Conte use so well, look so ugly and lop-sided. I've wanted him to succeed from the start but it's too clear now he can't do this job. We need that change.
We see none of this, if he knew he was this tactically inept he would have been better served with just going for a 4-4-2, get it wide and get it to the two strikers quickly. It also can't be about we don't have the players for this or that, we can play any formation we want as long as we have a manager that can implement it. Our squad is scary, Ole's ineptitude is what makes people look at the squad sometimes and think it's inadequate, but it's a great squad that any competent manager would make into world beaters. We can't keep relying on individual brilliance when we have a squad full of great players.
His occasional (oh look, I'm a tactician) 3-5-2 is another example of how he doesn't understand what's required. He just shoves the players out there without any tactical plan or awareness. 3 CB's need to have 2 pressing and one covering. The fullbacks need to be high up the pitch but somehow he makes a formation, Tuchel and Conte use so well, look so ugly and lop-sided. I've wanted him to succeed from the start but it's too clear now he can't do this job. We need that change.
No it's actually completely illogical given that you seem to be more interested in the managerial credentials of the person presenting the opinion rather than the opinion itself which is usually the sign of a distraction being used in absence of a valid counter-argument. Gary's opinion, which is nothing new, has been previous spoken and echoed a countless number of times by football fans over the past 3 years. He's just presenting it more delicately as it involves his friend and another manager.
His main job is to win trophies and he definitely hasn't done that till date. Ole is not tactically inept but that's where the issue starts - we look at him from the perspective of being/not being poor or possibly not being/being capable, whereas clubs that win big trophies tend to have excellent/top class instead, which Ole is not.
Yes really sad how Pep, Klopp and Tuchel expose their secrets of implementing fluid systems at their clubs. They should just tell their players to do random shit to keep the mystery. And avoid trophies which are definitely bad.
Last edited:
A more cynical Tim Sherwood is what he is.
I've seen this or a variation of this quite a few times on this forum in the last few weeks.
Just because Neville failed as a manager does not mean he does not understand tactics and patters or lack thereof, when he watches a team play.
It's a flawed logic applied to defend Ole's shortcomings, to point out the managerial shortcomings of the person being critical of his style of play.
See this is what gets me about people who are militant Ole outters, are we still harping on about his time in Molde or Cardiff as being his only experience and ignoring that he's had consecutive top 4 finishes, has improved his league standing each season, overturned a mish mash of a squad and added world class talent, has gone on some strong cup runs and got us to a European final which we lost on the 11th penalty.
The fact is Ole has set a pretty high bar, one that LVG, Moyes and Mourinho couldn't guarantee during their tenure despite their successful CVs and visions. There's likely only a handful of managers who could guarantee an improvement on what he's delivered and they are employed by our fiercest rivals.
I'm not convinced Ole is the man to take us back to the top (but that's as much to do with the strength of City and Chelsea as Ole's weaknesses) but he deserves a hell of a lot more credit and respect than what a lot of fans are currently giving him.
Right here. Because that's still a bunch of BS.
I wonder what delights could be found if someone like @Wumminator were to go through the Gary Neville - Pundit thread and seek out the inconsistencies in opinion? There's got to be a bunch of people calling Neville a hack who couldn't cut it in that thread and now somebody who knows what he's talking about in this one
SAF is, from a tactical perspective, still weirdly underrated even by United fans.
His tactics varied by game and altered over time. He was more focused on combinations of players. For example, it was no coincidence that as Giggs aged he went for an attacking LB in Evra to provide pace and width on the left. Even when Giggs moved permanently to CM, the left winger would be right footed and cut inside (Nani, Park, Young), allowing Evra to create the width. Evra was virtually never rested, in comparison to the RB position, because his role was so pivotal. It's no coincidence he often played a natural CB (Brown, O'Shea, Jones, Smalling) at RB to give balance, especially when Ronaldo or Nani were playing RW. He'd have numerous players for the same position who had hugely varying qualities and pick them according to the game and the opposition.
The structure usually, certainly in the league and against weaker opposition, was two centre forwards in a 442. Generally one deeper than the other. But he avoided the typical 442 tropes of the time such as big man - little man up front. He didn't like target men who couldn't play, and he didn't like poachers who couldn't drop deep and build up play. He never signed players like Defoe or Darren Bent who were linked with for this reason. Andy Cole joined and was told he had to adapt his game to play deeper, he joined as a run in behind merchant from Newcastle. He signed players who were good in the air but also good with their feet like Cantona, Sheringham and Berbatov. He liked number 10s or old school second strikers who could operate between the lines, but they also had to be able to get in behind or get into the 6 yard box for crosses. Like Yorke, Tevez and Rooney, or his attempt to sign Di Canio! Rooney joined as a free roaming second striker who loved dropping deep and shooting from distance, but was molded into a complete forward who also made runs in behind and attacked the six yard box. In his later years this annoyed supports who clamouring for fashionable number 10s like Sniejder, Van der Vaart, Deco etc but SAF was interested in such a luxury show pony. The strikers would in old school terms "work the channels", which nowadays would be called "dropping into the half space". The exception was during Ruud's time here, which is the only time he consistently played 4231 in the league (pre and post Ruud this was only used in Europe or against top domestic rivals, to combat quality sides who packed midfield and controlled possession).
Wingers had to defend and attack, regardless of formation. The had to track their full back and they had to get to byline, or if the ball was on the opposite wing, get into the box. Depending on the game, sometimes both wingers would press high. Other times they would be deeper, or one of them would be deeper, to 'lock down one side of the pitch, especially in tough games or when protecting a lead. This is something I'm sure he picked up from Italian coaches, who he admired. The two flying wingers is a bit of cliche though, as often one winger would be more inverted and drift inside to midfield (or "the half space") if we were competing for the midfield. Again, this would change during the game depending on the situation. The one exception again was Ronaldos last couple seasons, where he started supposedly as a winger but drifted all over and didn't have to track back much, and this was accommodated by two terriers in Rooney and Tevez, plus Hargreaves/Fletcher/Carrick covering the right midfield position when Ronaldo was awol.
SAF was flexible. He'd make decisions that looked strange. He played Fletcher LW away at Spurs, and completely nullified Spurs' threat on the RW. He played Giggs in CM against Chelsea early days when Giggs was still playing as a winger, because he thought he had the pace to disrupt Chelsea's midfield (leaving in form Scholes and Carrick on the bench). He would substitute on an extra striker when chasing a goal, often having 3 or even 4 strikers on the pitch. He would leave a star player on the bench and play an unpopular workhorse to provide balance. He would drop an in form player to pick someone who had different attributes for a certain opposition.
The centre mids generally had to play in a 2 man midfield and needed to be good at everything. Sure, one would be deeper and protect the defence, but they had to play. Even United fans dismiss SAF as a 90s, 442, work hard man. He wouldn't have had success into the 2010s if that was the case. He hated defensive midfielders who couldn't play. We were constantly linked to British bulldog type CMs under his tenure, even fans clamouring for hacks like Parker, Barton, Noble, Reo Coker, Cattermole (seriously) to add bite and passion. He was never interested. It wasn't just about fight, it was bravery on the ball. Getting the ball forward, quickly and cleanly, wanting the ball, wanting to make the difference on the ball, making the right decisions, passing accurately, taking responsibility.
No, we didn't often pass out from the back like modern teams do. But he valued CBs who were good on the ball. They weren't expected to pass in triangles to get past a pressing forward, but they were expected to pass accurately into midfield, or to the wings, or into the channels. Sometimes we'd play one (or two) full backs who could dribble, like Evra or Rafael, and this would contribute to our build up play as they had license to dribble forwards from a deep starting position and build attacks. Nowadays defenders, especially our full backs, are so risk averse because they fear giving the ball away. SAF would never have allowed that, everyone had to be brave and take responsibility. A hoomph into the channels has gone out of fashion but it was (and still likely would be) an effective weapon at times. Under SAF our defenders knew our forwards would be looking to receive a direct ball into the channels ("half space"), and they knew that our forwards would fight for it too. Its dismissed as a desperate, defensive play to simply get rid of the ball, it's not, if it's done with accuracy and purpose it's getting the ball into dangerous areas and flooding men forward. If a team does it today its probably called gegenpressing, or vertically beating the press.
I do think you're right in that Ole is trying in part to bring back some of the United way and some of SAF's ethos and strategy. I think he's got a muddle of SAF tactics and modern tactics, and not the best bits of either. He also lacks the main thing that SAF had that was flexibility and adaptability, a confidence to change things in game, game to game or season to season, which came from his genuine knowledge and understanding of the game, his own players and the opposition.
Its a major peeve of mine that SAF is too often dismissed as someone who relied on man management and wasn't interested in tactics, but it couldn't be further from the case. He understood football. His tactics were dynamic and flexible, so you couldn't easily analyse it and say "United do these patterns of play repeatedly, United focus on doing this". It changed. There were some constants which shared some correlation with the 90s, 442, work hard, be direct, get crosses in tactics of the time, and so he is too often dismissed as being part of that school. He was much more advanced than that, and ironically many who underrated him tactically are too simplistic in their mind sets to recognise that fact.
Last edited:
Assuming, your not a chef, if you go a restaurant and get served food that undercooked and over seasoned you’d be in no position to criticise the chef?
Great post. I’ve been reading this thread and getting slightly irked with the comments of “what was the style under Fergie”.. or “ole is similar to Fergie”.
Good someone took the time out to explain to the idiots.
I think what it is with some people is that if your style isn’t high press and passing it in between your defence all the time and you don’t stand on the touch line pointing lots then you don’t have a style or know any tactics.
I get some on here might be too young to know the mid-late 90’s United teams but surely these people were old enough to pay attention between 2006-2009. How can you be a United fan and have experienced the range in tactical flexibility and style that team had during that period and then come in here and start asking questions about what we did under Fergie. It’s actually embarrassing.
To me, Ole does nothing like Fergie even though he definitely tries very hard too. He doesn’t utilise his squad well, we don’t stretch play, we don’t control the tempo of games, he doesn’t show tactical flexibility.
And Ultimately the biggest difference between Fergie and Ole is risk. They are at completely different ends of the spectrum. And that makes a massive difference because its reflected in your players and the point you made about wing backs epitomises that.
That’s why we rarely ever see cut back goals. There’s no wing backs going to the byline and there’s no midfielders and forwards swarming the box because everyone is too scared to take risk except Bruno and Pogba.
Astute observations and its undoubtedly the case that Sir Alex is underrated as a tactician. The way some people talk about him you'd think he was a passhun merchant.
People forget about how Sir Alex was an innovator. The blitzing of Norwich at Carrow road back in 1993 (I think), was a prime example. The way Fergie set up was so different than what Norwich, what the league was used to, they couldn't cope. 3-0 down inside half an hour (I believe). They were looking for a striker who wasn't there while Giggsy and Andrei were running through them like greyhounds. Cantona dropping off and pulling the strings.
I think the problem is a lot of our supporters don't actually remember Fergie's tenure that well. A lot of online fans only actually remember post 2006-07. The heady days of Liam Miller (RIP) and David Bellion missed them.
Fergie was the one responsible for taking English sides back to the top level of European football after the 5 year ban. In that 5 years England had fallen behind. That 5 years was the period where Cruyff was doing his thing at Barcelona. Where Sacchi was doing his thing at Milan, then Capello. Where Lippi was turning Juventus into dogs of war, while simultaneously answering the question that seemingly nobody could until then: 'How do you get the best out of Zidane?' Before Lippi got Zidane the French actually preferred Djorkaeff. It was Lippi who showed the world how to use Zidane properly. **For the avoidance of doubt I know Zidane signed for Juve in 1996. I'm just talking about how Lippi developed his ideas during the period where English football had no contact with the continent.
Fergie, coming effectively from behind a closed door, had to encounter these innovations, understand them, devise solutions to them and still impose our way of playing on matches. 1991 we were European Cup winners cup winners. 1999 European Cup winners. Think about the strides he was taking, figuring out how to deal with all these new ideas. If he was just a man motivator on the sidelines do people really think he'd have won the Treble? C'mon.
As for Ole, in many ways I agree. I think Ole is just caught between two stools: pure counter attack and something more expansive. The squad still finds it easier to play pure counter attack. The players understand their roles better and many look uncomfortable when not in a compact shape with a mid to low block. Its something he has to address. This merging of old ideas with new ideas that you are talking about is, conceptually, fine. However, in practice, its leaving a lot to be desired.
Not at all. Zidane was seen as a Cantona's successor before his move to Juventus, from 1995 he played alongside Djorkaeff who was an older and more established top player but Zidane was groomed to lead the team. What Lippi did for Zidane is that he developped his overall game, using him deeper and making a better defender from midfield.Astute observations and its undoubtedly the case that Sir Alex is underrated as a tactician. The way some people talk about him you'd think he was a passhun merchant.
People forget about how Sir Alex was an innovator. The blitzing of Norwich at Carrow road back in 1993 (I think), was a prime example. The way Fergie set up was so different than what Norwich, what the league was used to, they couldn't cope. 3-0 down inside half an hour (I believe). They were looking for a striker who wasn't there while Giggsy and Andrei were running through them like greyhounds. Cantona dropping off and pulling the strings.
I think the problem is a lot of our supporters don't actually remember Fergie's tenure that well. A lot of online fans only actually remember post 2006-07. The heady days of Liam Miller (RIP) and David Bellion missed them.
Fergie was the one responsible for taking English sides back to the top level of European football after the 5 year ban. In that 5 years England had fallen behind. That 5 years was the period where Cruyff was doing his thing at Barcelona. Where Sacchi was doing his thing at Milan, then Capello. Where Lippi was turning Juventus into dogs of war, while simultaneously answering the question that seemingly nobody could until then: 'How do you get the best out of Zidane?' Before Lippi got Zidane the French actually preferred Djorkaeff. It was Lippi who showed the world how to use Zidane properly. **For the avoidance of doubt I know Zidane signed for Juve in 1996. I'm just talking about how Lippi developed his ideas during the period where English football had no contact with the continent.
Fergie, coming effectively from behind a closed door, had to encounter these innovations, understand them, devise solutions to them and still impose our way of playing on matches. 1991 we were European Cup winners cup winners. 1999 European Cup winners. Think about the strides he was taking, figuring out how to deal with all these new ideas. If he was just a man motivator on the sidelines do people really think he'd have won the Treble? C'mon.
As for Ole, in many ways I agree. I think Ole is just caught between two stools: pure counter attack and something more expansive. The squad still finds it easier to play pure counter attack. The players understand their roles better and many look uncomfortable when not in a compact shape with a mid to low block. Its something he has to address. This merging of old ideas with new ideas that you are talking about is, conceptually, fine. However, in practice, its leaving a lot to be desired.
Not the same thing though is it? It would be more akin to going to a restaurant and the meal being adequate but then complaining about the way the chef had chopped the veg.
If as a chef you undercook the food, then you deserve criticism for not doing your job. Olé is not that chef!
Last edited:
Brilliant post. I remember awesome tactical battles between Wenger and SAF over the years. Whenever we beat you, we were sure to see Fletcher or O’Shea or Park (or all three) on the team sheet in the reverse fixture nullifying our threats.
I think a lot of fans mistake figure-pointing and touchline instructions for tactics. Kind of like how shouting and gesturing is viewed as leadership. Complex tactics are not necessarily better tactics. And the most important thing is that everyone understands, buys into and executes whatever plan the manager decides upon.
It’s amazing he has already spent around 400m, plus the team he inherit from Mourinho, who has also spent around 370m too, that’s around 770m spent over past 5 years.
Still the DM role was never reinforced. Its evident that it was not never top priority. Ole somehow think that McFred can do the job there
This could play out like Lampard who went back to 4-3-3 when things started going badly and got a few decent results which led him to say how much better it was for the players and how happy he was with that call. Until of course things then got even worse with the 4-3-3 and that effectively killed him because he had backed himself into a corner.
Second rate coaching will ultimately never get masked by a slightly better formation.
Second rate coaching will ultimately never get masked by a slightly better formation.
this seems to be ignored by those adamant we need a DMC
I am not excluding that Ole now wants a DM. His transfers can be divided in two (or in one ie safe) which are World renowned players (Varane, Ronaldo, Cavani etc) and local talent (AWB, Maguire, Sancho, James etc). That restricts his selection. For all we know he might be planning a 100m bid for Declan Rice as we speak. However even if that is true the initial argument is still valid. Ole would rather rely on McFred then risk bringing in a DM who doesn't fall in one of those two categories.
Are they ignoring it or expressing their own opinion?
Defensive Midfielder Central
This is an excellent write up.
It isnt that he wasnt interested in tactics. Rather its that he saw tactics through the lens of people and how they performed. If you read his earlier books where he talks about games in details, he definitely talks tactics, but he doesnt talk about formations or philosophies. He talks about them in terms of the roles that individuals had on the pitch. A good example is when he wrote about his tactics for the Cup Winners Cup final.
He doesn't write "Barcelona played with a 3-5-2 so we went with a 4-4-1-1", which is the kind of thing LVG might say. It was tactical, but he's interested in what their players do and what our players do. In many ways its bottom up tactics rather than top down. Top down would be choosing a formation and then filling it with players and telling them what to do. SAF looks at how our players can hurt the opposition and puts them in a formation that lets them do that. Its definitely tactical, but different from the double-pivot-false-9 type conversations that we talk about today.SAF said:
I do worry about Sancho under Ole I hope he dosent become another VDB. I wish we got a DM to go with Varane and Ronaldo instead of Sancho really but I hope he can come good. Ole needs to start playing a way that suits him somehow.
On SAF, these quotes should answer what he was and why/how he evolved:
Manchester United: It's time for Ole Gunnar Solskjaer to prove himself as an elite-level manager - Micah Richards
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58700033
There’s another article on Sky Sports News that for some reason I can’t share a link too but it seems the media and analysts are all starting to get on Ole now and to be fair I think it’s warranted, outside of the odd experiment with with a back 3 due to injuries Ole has never tried to mix things up tactically from a 4-2-3-1 other than who he’s deployed in the starting 11 and it’s that lack of tactical and coaching ability that is hurting us most rather than players as player for player and at our best I think we’re arguably the best in the league now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58700033
There’s another article on Sky Sports News that for some reason I can’t share a link too but it seems the media and analysts are all starting to get on Ole now and to be fair I think it’s warranted, outside of the odd experiment with with a back 3 due to injuries Ole has never tried to mix things up tactically from a 4-2-3-1 other than who he’s deployed in the starting 11 and it’s that lack of tactical and coaching ability that is hurting us most rather than players as player for player and at our best I think we’re arguably the best in the league now.