This is what happens when analysis is made on the basis of results instead of performances.
Looking at the performances a year ago and now - and I’m talking about tactics, not quality - we are playing differently now and more attacking minded. Before, we used to tailor our formation to the opposition, play with a low block and have more emphasis on counterattacks from deep.
Now we play 4-2-3-1 even against the best, press high much more, higher line more, more variation between counter and possession. These are tactical choices with higher risk.
What is interesting is that now we have teams like Chelsea set up more to nullify us than to dominate us, even at home.
This is also explained in iterviews by Solskjær and diverse players - we played more reactive tactics a year ago because we were not good enough yet to get results any other way. Now we play more ambitiously our own style because we choose to, even if we’re not yet at the level were we regularily beat top teams that way.
We have sacrficed tactical ingenuity and results (consistently beating better teams) for development and progress. The trade of is that weholdnour own against the top teams even in a phase of development, and we pick more points against the lesser teams.
He's chatting bullshit though. Our Liverpool game this season was no different to last year. Our game vs City was as much them tailoring cautiously to us as it was us to them, both Arsenal games this season was no different to last. And Spurs was a diabolical implosion.
It's quite funny, Ole and Maguire would come out after the Liverpool game and say "the way we approached the game shows how far we've come" and posters lap it up. If I'm not mistaken had less shots on target, same possession to the fixture last season (something like 33%) and tailored the team around the opposition. There was no "progression" in our approach to the game even though Liverpool looked like shadows of themselves.
This idea that Chelsea also only set up to nullify us is very odd. They played the same system they have played in every game under Tuchel and brought Kante in but that's about it. They actually had evens possession, better chance creation, stronger XG and more shots. They didn't set up to just contain us. We dominated about 35 mins of the first half before they took better control in the second. And their change in approach isn't a reflection of how far we've come - it's a reflection of them having changed their manager.
No that's not in reference to you specifically. But there is a narrative that is being put out and accepted without actually evaluating. For example that poster claimed Chelsea had set out just to nullify us which they obviously didn't.
Feel free to answer me to my ‘face’ next time you want to say I’m bullshitting, lapping it up or not evaluating. I can handle it and it is more ingenuous.
I think you’re acting a bit lazy in dismissing it as ‘not evaluating’, as it is exactly what I’m trying to and I think you are missing my point. It seems to me you are conflating ‘approach’, ‘tactic’, ‘attempt’ with ‘result’, ‘outcome’ and ‘performance’.
I’m not saying United has created more chances, had more possession, produced more shots at goal, deserved to win, or even played better. In fact, I think we’ve played slightly worse in our top games this last year compared to before, and so results reflect that fairly.
My point is about our approach to these games. If you look at our games vs Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Liverpool, PSG, Barca and City after Solskjær arrived, or if you pick the games vs Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Leicester and City last season, I think you’ll find a markedly different approach to this season’s games vs Sevilla (yeah, I’m including that here, as the closest we had to a preseason was before the Europa League games), Spurs, Chelsea, Arsenal, PSG, Leibzig, City, Leicester and Liverpool. I actually think the shift started before, that is, between last seasons win at City and the loss at Arsenal.
The difference was that before, we’d switch formation, we’d radically lower press height voluntarily (as opposed to forced), we’d play long balls out from the back most of the time, and we’d be careful not to lift the back four much when we had possesion in the other half. This is how we’d start many of the games, or retreat to within a short spell of the game.
After the wins at home to spurs and away to City last season, and a few more disappointing underachievements against lesser opposition, I for one noticed a change. Against Arsenal, we played more or less like we would have done against Burnley and Watford, or Arsenal at home. 4-2-3-1, attempted the high press for larger parts of the game, lifting the backs when we had the chance and sometimes even the CB’s. And were spanked, because we didn’t do it very well, lost the ball quickly, were overplayed, the defenders grew nervous and cautious again due to that. That’s how playing proactively against a team of good ball players look if you’re not adept at it and used to it, though. At that time, our results against lesser teams started (very) slowly improving, even before the exchanging of Lingard/Pereira/Mata with Bruno as the lynchpin.
This season, we’ve stuck to our main formation, mostly made attacking player choices (yes, including Pogba on the wing), tried much harder at playing out from the back, tried much more to keep the high press up. Of course, not being good enough yet at high press, even a team like Arsenal will be able to play you low with the type of players they have, so the outcome doesn’t have to be more possession or having the ball in their half more. But if you remember our away win at PSG, in the second half we pinned them back for surprisingly large parts with high press and bouts of possesion high up the pitch that they clearly didn’t expect, and which we of course never were close to playing them at home or away two seasons ago - because we didn’t remotely try.
Doing it this way actually is the more risky solution, even if it has resulted in a lot of drab draws, a few grand halves and a collapse - or rather because of it. Because playing a more similar game to our normal game, we lose much of the opportunity to punish teams that attack high with long balls into large spaces for Rashford and James.
The games at home vs Chelsea last season and this actually might provide the best example. Last season, we invited pressure, gave them loads of semi-chances, and quashed them on the counter. This season, we tried (emphasis on try) to take the game to them, didn’t really manage it, didn’t in any way get dominated, but neither team were really close to opening the other up because of lack of quality.
With Solskjær a fan of directness, and players like Rashford, Martial, James and Bruno, we’re always going to use counters heavily, but this year we are sacrificing that a bit against the top opposition to try to develop our plan b and c, in my opinion.