I've no idea why this very evident is missed in this discussion. The history of football is basically 11 players randomly running on a pitch and gradually, someone will come in and gradually organize, structure and refine that running and movement. This will naturally lead to coaching levels getting more and more honed with time. PL teams in the '90s played with more basic setups and simpler tactics than their counterparts even at the time, let alone how football is played today. This was exposed at the European stage where only us could compete with the best of Europe in almost an entire decade. The idea that that level of coaching that was required to compete back then could simply be copy pasted against the competition of today is really absurd.
Roy Keane
- Thread starter MyOnlySolskjaer
- Start date
Confirmed he got into a ruck with Big Pete in a hotel corridor.
Would pay to see grainy CCTV footage of that showdown.
Would pay to see grainy CCTV footage of that showdown.
When & over what?
It was pre season and I think Keane had just retaken the captaincy from Schmeichel. Schmeichel was waiting for him to start it and grabbed him and Keane butted him from the stories and it went from there.
When you listen to Keane, the class of 92, Ole himself or any of the squad of around that era talking about what stood the team apart- of course they mention world class players and ability...but primarily, they talk about character.
With regard to us needing a young Keane on the pitch or his toughness in the dugout...it would do fuk all I fear. Roy Keane’s Utds would fuking scare the life out of this bunch...Scmeichel, Irwin, Bruce, Pallister, Ince, Choccy, Hughes, Cantona, Class of 92 into Rio, Stam, Rooney, Ronaldo, Park... then there are the lads you might not think were fuking hardcore but you listen to the impact that dressing room had on them...The Utd podcast is excellent for gaining an insight into the character that was required to be part of those teams. May, Ronny Johnsen, Brown, OShea, Quinton Fortune - bags of character...Fuking Blomqvist was an out and out winner...
my point is Keane was no exception...he was the top of an unbelievable pile that Ferguson managed to replenish year after year. I don’t see that fight or pride in the majority of our players...Fred, Rashford, Martial, Bissaka, Lindelof, Pogba, Harry, Jesse, Sancho, Dalot, Telles...all seem like top pros...they talk a good game and are world class at apologising on Instagram....but elite mentality? I don’t think so. It would take a lot more than just Keano to light a match under this lot...and while football may not have been as technical back then as it is now...there is no way a Guardiola or a Klopp team would have been given the freedom to strut around Old Trafford, every pass being cheered by the away end...if Keano and one of his teams were defending the Stratford end. Regardless of the oppositions quality...they just wouldn’t have let it happen.
With regard to us needing a young Keane on the pitch or his toughness in the dugout...it would do fuk all I fear. Roy Keane’s Utds would fuking scare the life out of this bunch...Scmeichel, Irwin, Bruce, Pallister, Ince, Choccy, Hughes, Cantona, Class of 92 into Rio, Stam, Rooney, Ronaldo, Park... then there are the lads you might not think were fuking hardcore but you listen to the impact that dressing room had on them...The Utd podcast is excellent for gaining an insight into the character that was required to be part of those teams. May, Ronny Johnsen, Brown, OShea, Quinton Fortune - bags of character...Fuking Blomqvist was an out and out winner...
my point is Keane was no exception...he was the top of an unbelievable pile that Ferguson managed to replenish year after year. I don’t see that fight or pride in the majority of our players...Fred, Rashford, Martial, Bissaka, Lindelof, Pogba, Harry, Jesse, Sancho, Dalot, Telles...all seem like top pros...they talk a good game and are world class at apologising on Instagram....but elite mentality? I don’t think so. It would take a lot more than just Keano to light a match under this lot...and while football may not have been as technical back then as it is now...there is no way a Guardiola or a Klopp team would have been given the freedom to strut around Old Trafford, every pass being cheered by the away end...if Keano and one of his teams were defending the Stratford end. Regardless of the oppositions quality...they just wouldn’t have let it happen.
When it comes to Pep & Klopp, whilst some or most UTD fans may not like them, I think UTD fans will be able to see that both those guys have the determination to win & succeed & instil that in their players & how their teams play, something we do not see in Ole or a lot of his players.
I agree mainly except for the bit about football being more technical now.
We just finished 2nd with McFred, AWB and a few others whose touch and short passing is nowhere near players of the past. So how much can the game have moved on?
What has changed is the passing between goalkeepers and defenders, in that there's a lot more of it. Beyond that the game isn't more technical than it was 20-25 years ago.
Since Keane have we had a CM with a first touch and short passing game like him?
It's definitely changed quite a bit, you mentioned the passing between keepers and defenders, and this has definitely led to an increase in the technical capabilities of the backline. The role of the fullback has evolved massive over that time frame, and your CBs in the top flight have to be fairly competent on the ball, especially with so many teams employing a press, and also the requirement of playing it out from the back being such an integral part of many teams approach. This isn't to say these players didn't exist a couple of decades ago, of course they did, but it wasn't as ubiquitous as it is now.
One of the big changes is the speed of the game. It's far faster than it was back then, players make double the high intensity runs that they did a couple decades ago, while covering a lot more ground on average. This is both down to tactical shifts, and the more holistic approach to training that has led to fitter players on average. The game being quicker makes it harder, and this is coupled with the fact that the ball spends a lot more time on the ground than it did back then, with teams making a lot more passes than they did back then. Like the backline this isn't to say there weren't plenty of players back then capable of hitting the same heights in today's football, just that it's a very different game that required different strengths and approaches. A number 9 from today might struggle back then due to a lack of aerial prowess, and a number 9 could struggle today if they had a lack of link up play. Whereas you'd get some players who'd fit in perfectly in both eras, like a Keane.
You don't even need to go back to the 90s, watching a game from the mid 2000s and watching one from today it's amazing how apparent the differences are, you don't really notice them as the season progress and incremental changes are made, but it's staggering how different the football looks.
Nicky Butt was the referee. Why does nobody ask him about what went on? All we know is Keane dislocated a finger and Pete had a massive black eye the next day. You'd have to be pretty mental to try and take on Big Pete
The speed and intensity may have increased(although were high intensity runs being measured 20 years ago?)but we're talking about technique here.
Goalkeepers and CB's have improved with the ball. No doubt. Agree that's changed significantly how a game looks. Personally I don't think for the better.
But beyond that it really hasn't changed much from a technical standpoint.
Fullbacks have been attacking outlets for a long time now. That isn't a recent thing. Our fullbacks in '97 had better technique than Shaw and AWB do now. Shaw has a good left foot but his right may as well be a stump.
Up front in the mid 90's we had Cantona and Hughes. Their technique a level above Rashford, Cavani, Martial.
To swing it back to Keane. If technique in football has increased so much, how are we finishing 2nd with McFred in midfield as opposed to somebody like Keane? How are we winning a europa league and finishing 2nd with Fellaini in midfield as opposed to Keane.
Again have we had a CM since Keane that has his first touch, ball retention and passing through the lines? If technique has improved so much we must surely have had numerous.
I don't know how anybody can watch United in say 2000 and think they're technically way off the current bunch.
But I guess this is a generational argument. Each generation thinks their time is the time.
Pep’s city carry out tactical/professional fouls all the time, I would go as far as to say they’ve been trained to be particularly effective at it. City do dominate possession but when their opponents have the chance to launch a counter players like Fernandinho or Kompany never hesitated to bring them down. I’m not suggesting they’re dirty just clever. It’s the way City have been properly schooled to snuff out dangerous situations as far away from their own penalty area as possible.
What Keane was getting at, I think, is that Utd players in similar situations either chase back aimlessly without making any sort of tackle at all or recklessly diving in at the last moment to concede free kicks in dangerous positions.
Look at the criticism Fred got after the Everton game for not bringing down his man when he lost the ball in the Everton half. No way Rodri wouldn’t have made the professional foul in the same situation.
I don't see the distinction. A foul is a foul. Leeds pulled this stuff in the 60s and 70s and were known as 'Dirty Leeds.' Pulling players down to gain an advantage is, for me, dirty play. Nothing clever about it.
Agree and look how they targeted Zaha after he was involved in the Laporte sending off.
And sometimes it's what the fans need to get going which in turn pumps the players up.
I don't want bad or dangerous tackles but I'm desperate to see a few United players being genuinely horrible and aggressive.
Clever enough to have won City a fair few titles under Pep.
Carrick had a better first touch and passing than Keane.
Carrick wasn’t fit to lace Keane’s boots.
That makes it all right? If referees had any guts, they'd crack down on the practice and when players spend more time suspended than they do playing, it will change. I don't consider winning by cheating clever. A team of City's quality and skill don't need to play that way to win titles.
Please don't get me started on Carrick, ffs
The guy offered nothing in my eyes, barely made a tackle, rarely scored or made an assist, no wonder England manager after England manager rarely picked him.
Disagree. Long passing yeah but prime Keane better in all other departments.
But even so Carrick was years ago now, immediately after Keane.
If technique in the game has progressed so much, getting a CM with Keane's technical abilities should be no problem.
I'm not seeing it. Where are the British CM's with that level of ability? Rice, Phillips, McGinn are good players but not Keane or even Carrick level.
The game should be littered with them if so much progress has been made.
I know what you mean, but while they're different facets of the game they do impact each other massively. Technical football becomes harder when the speed of the game is increased, everything from your first touch, distribution, dribbling is made significantly harder.
https://sciencenordic.com/denmark-f...sts-football-has-changed-dramatically/1440511
That's only from a comparison from the mid noughties, but it shows they way football has moved to in the PL.
Of course there will be plenty of players from bygone eras who played in similar roles, but it's less about individuals and more about evaluating the league as a whole. If you look back to the year you mentioned, the vast majority of sides in the country played with out and out wingers. Whereas in today's football most sides rely on their fullbacks to provide the width, as true wingers are much more of a rarity these days. Managers often opt for inside forwards and players who can play in the half spaces, and this has led to fullbacks becoming much more involved in the attacking side of the game as they've had to take on the responsibility of wingers.
Attacking fullbacks has always been a thing in football, and there was a resurgence of them when Roberto Carlos and Cafu became household names. There are plenty of individuals who functioned as important cogs of the attack, but if you look at the league as a whole it was far less common than it is today.
Gary Neville wrote a great piece last year explaining how the role has changed. It's well worth a read.
https://www.skysports.com/football/...neville-how-full-backs-have-evolved-over-time
It's hard to compare between eras as the style of football was so different. I don't necessarily disagree with the evaluations you've made here, but the demands are very different. Martial is very technically gifted, and Pogba is wonderfully talented when it comes to technique, this doesn't necessarily translate to winning things though. The argument you're making isn't really a fair one, it would be like me saying if technique was so great back then how come United kept winning with Nicky Butt in midfield? He was a fine player but doesn't match up to Pogba technically, but it would be incorrect of me to use this as an assertion to evaluate an entire league's standard of football.
Someone like Cantona could play in any era, but it's about how football has changed in the league rather than individuals. A world class player will be world class in any era.
It's not really about a generational thing, I've watched football from the 50s (the little we have) and more football from every decade onwards. Everything in football is recycled, I've spoken about how pressing has become such a ubiquitous part of the PL but we had Rinus Michels brilliant Dutch side employing a high octane press in 1974 with a high line, Arrigo Sacchi's Milan was heavily inspired by Michels, but applied their own pressing system involving zonal marking and greater compactness. These systems have heavily inspired modern football and we can see their essence in Guardiola's Barcelona and the sides that came afterwards, where he built his own style from the blueprints of his predecessors, using his 6 second rule to regain control of the ball and then relying on the compact shape to stop counters if unsuccessful. Klopp's spin was to instead of relying on the press as a strategy to stop counters, or regain control of the ball, was to use it as an offensive strategy in order to create chances during the transitional period before the opponents can regain shape.
Every era of football is different, and heavily recycled, with approaches that may have gone out of fashion being once again reintroduced, or a manager puts his own innovative spin on one of the classics. Every period has it's own strengths and unique style, so when I say the technical standard in the PL player for player is better now than it was in the 90s, it's not as a derogatory remark but an acknowledgement of how the game has changed.
I do think football has changed an enormous amount over that period. Considering technical and tactical capacities, you can see the concept of whole team defending has massively changed the game- I mean the whole pressing emphasis and the extra pressure that has put on the technical abilities, or lack thereof, of players in attack , midfield and defence. The former separation of these aspect of team play has in addition given way to defenders attacking and attackers defending to a degree that shifts the tactical texture and intensity of games in ways that just weren't thought about in the 90s.
With UTD, there's the added problem, of course, of massive nostalgia, and the nepotism that is linked to it and tries to revive 90s glories that belong to the past, and distract us from the present... in its full horror.
I should add- lots of people are saying how terrible the caf is, but I love it- its really made me think about these issues.
Last edited:
And now, thanks to LVG, he’s been one of our coaching staff ever since. A major factor, in my opinion, why our midfield has been so lacklustre for years.Please don't get me started on Carrick, ffs
The guy offered nothing in my eyes, barely made a tackle, rarely scored or made an assist, no wonder England manager after England manager rarely picked him.
Keane's first touch was often immaculate. Fletcher said it was the best he ever saw and he played with both Carrick and Paul Scholes.
The only pass Carrick did better than Keane was the long diagonal. Short range, i'd pick Keane everyday.
Regardless, he still had a better first touch and passing than Keane, this shouldn't even be a debate. He was a better ball player than Keane. He didn't even have to join us for that to be obvious.
Not in the same division. Keane was the only man in the English game good enough to replace Bryan Robson. I know Robbo was at the fag-end of his career when we bought Keane, but he brought the same intesity, drive, goals, and leadership with him.
Keane was the better player but take nothing away from Carrick he was superb.
Yeah great decision by England. They definitely didn't need a Carrick to bring balance to the side. They were better off by trying to shoe-horn Stevie me and Lampard in midfield.Please don't get me started on Carrick, ffs
The guy offered nothing in my eyes, barely made a tackle, rarely scored or made an assist, no wonder England manager after England manager rarely picked him.
Pep Guardiola called him one of the best holding midfielders he's ever seen. I'll leave it at that.
Very good post.
Agree its not about individuals but about the whole when drawing comparisons.
I picked a few individuals to demonstrate how the shift in technique, if it exists at all, isn't seizmic. If it was seizmic we wouldn't today have the likes of AWB, McFred etc. It just couldn't exist. Or Henderson and Milner playing big roles at Liverpool for instance.
I do think generational bias plays a part. Not for yourself and I'd hope not for me but in and out of football there's a fair chunk of society that believes what they're seeing isn't recycled, that it's brand new.
Personally I think Neville has bought into modern football too much. Prime Neville would be just fine in todays game. Keane I think doesn't buy into it.
The only thing I'd disagree with is about the technique of Martial, Pogba etc and I think this is why many think technique has improved so much.
What they have are moments that look great in flashes. A few things that create the impression of great technique. Rashford is another.
That's not to dismiss what they're good at but at the same time one or two strong abilities doesn't necessarily equal great technical ability.
Martial and Pogba actually both have a poor first touch. All three are incredibly inconsistent with their short passing. Martial and particularly Rashford are shockingly one footed. The latter heads the ball like an amateur as well. Martial has one finish in his locker really, Rashford going the same way.
This to me is what technique is about. The consistency of first touch, second touch to create space with left or right, then weight of pass. A player can't be considered technically good if he can't do the above consistently when under pressure. Anybody can do it sometimes given space.
Whislt yes you have to look at the whole when comparing generations I also have to look at individuals.
So I come back to Keane, who in his day wasn't considered to be of the highest technical ability and ask, where are all today's British CM's with his touch and passing?
I promise you "pressing" has always existed. It was called working hard to win the ball back. We were famed for it back in the mid 90's. It wasn't just one player scurrying around either. Players had enough common sense and willingness to do it in packs. Just like today. It's not complicated.
What's happened is that it's been rebranded with buzzwords. Namely "high press."
Everyone now parrots "high press" because as fans we like to pretend we know what we're on about.
Now this has maybe diverted from Roy Keane discussion. But actually I think I'm starting to sound like him.
I haven't intentionally left out parts of your comment for no reason, it's just the parts I've skipped I generally agree with and haven't got anything to add!
I think Pogba passes this test though, I'd disagree about him having a poor first touch, and while I think his short passing can be a little erratic I still think it's fairly decent, and when coupled with his long passing in which he can use both feet very well I do think he's a very good technical player. I think he's also great at striking the ball, and is also adept when it comes to carrying the ball. I think with Pogba all the ingredients are there but he's just never hit the consistency he should have. Though I guess this comes to down to opinions and we all have a different view!
I like the question though so if I was to answer it, and with the 4-4-2 being less common the role of Keane and Vieira doesn't really have a pure equivalent i'm just going to cast a wide net and use midfielders in general.
If it's only British, I'd say from England that Mason Mount is a very gifted technical footballer, only 22 and has a CL under his belt. Jack Grealish has excellent technique, Bellingham, Smith Rowe and Harvey Elliott are all very young but are excellent technicians even at their tender age. They all have a great touch and very classy distribution and thanks to watching a lot of championship football I got a good look early on, and I think all three are destined for big things.
From Wales Ramsey was blessed technically, he didn't quite fill his potential but was technically very good. Gilmour is another youngster with excellent technique who's made a poor loan move.
That isn't to say I think any of these players were as good as Keane or even on his level, but they're all British players who have a great first touch, can turn in the half spaces and are also very good at playing the ball.
Of course Keane wasn't British so I should be allowed to include the likes of KDB, Silva and other non Brits
I think we've gone massively off topic but it's been a fun discussion.
This is a fair point, the midfield that won the CL a couple years back was pretty industrious, and while I like Milner and Henderson I don't think they're wonderfully technical or anything. I think in part this is because Klopp values a hardworking midfield to facilitate Trent and Robertson for the width, Salah and Mane as the inside forwards and Firmino to function as a forward who drops deep. By them functioning as anchors and dropping in, it allows Klopp to employ such offensively minded fullbacks and allows Mane and Salah a lot of attacking freedom. It's still a very technically talented team but I think the offensive flourishes comes from other areas of the pitch. Someone like Thiago is supremely gifted when it comes to technical qualities but has never really suited the role in this side.
Again fair point! I certainly don't think I'm immune from generational bias, the late 90s early noughties is probably my ideal version of football, and while I think there are some objective reasons for that it's also because I was younger then and more passionate about the game. The 2000s period is also particularly great to me for Swansea related reasons, so it is hard sometimes to objectively assess different football periods in terms of which is better because it's hard to separate it from it's emotional impact.
I get what you're saying here, and you're right that when it comes to assessing technique a more holistic approach should be taken. But while I think you're right in this regard concerning Martial I think it's quite harsh on Pogba. Martial has wonderful control with the ball when navigating in tight spaces (on form that is) but other facets of his game haven't progressed like I thought they would.
I think Pogba passes this test though, I'd disagree about him having a poor first touch, and while I think his short passing can be a little erratic I still think it's fairly decent, and when coupled with his long passing in which he can use both feet very well I do think he's a very good technical player. I think he's also great at striking the ball, and is also adept when it comes to carrying the ball. I think with Pogba all the ingredients are there but he's just never hit the consistency he should have. Though I guess this comes to down to opinions and we all have a different view!
With individuals I don't have an argument, I think players like Best and Garrincha match up to anyone technically from any period, but I still think the technical standard overall is better now than it was in the 50s and 60s.
I like the question though so if I was to answer it, and with the 4-4-2 being less common the role of Keane and Vieira doesn't really have a pure equivalent i'm just going to cast a wide net and use midfielders in general.
If it's only British, I'd say from England that Mason Mount is a very gifted technical footballer, only 22 and has a CL under his belt. Jack Grealish has excellent technique, Bellingham, Smith Rowe and Harvey Elliott are all very young but are excellent technicians even at their tender age. They all have a great touch and very classy distribution and thanks to watching a lot of championship football I got a good look early on, and I think all three are destined for big things.
From Wales Ramsey was blessed technically, he didn't quite fill his potential but was technically very good. Gilmour is another youngster with excellent technique who's made a poor loan move.
That isn't to say I think any of these players were as good as Keane or even on his level, but they're all British players who have a great first touch, can turn in the half spaces and are also very good at playing the ball.
Of course Keane wasn't British so I should be allowed to include the likes of KDB, Silva and other non Brits
I think we've gone massively off topic but it's been a fun discussion.
I confess, maybe I got a little carried away on my own rhetoric :-)
Total rubbish. Pressing existed in limited forms in the last century with some teams that stood out - Ajax and Dynamo Kyiv in the 70s, Milan in the late 80s - but it was never widespread and we were never one of those standouts. We played with pace and intensity with lots of hard working players but we had none of the organisation that Sacchi's Milan did, that's what pressing is.
If you counted the number of times a Klopp or Guardiola team scored after winning the ball high up the pitch vs. us you'd find this huge chasm, for obvious reasons. We were renowned for counter attacks that started way, way deeper than that, and that's because we let teams come onto us, we soaked up pressure with centre backs that wanted the ball in the air not on the ground, and that was practically everpresent throughout Sir Alex's time.
I don't think the way teams play now is better than the way teams played before, for what it's worth. No generational bias there. They obviously play differently though.
Our 94 - early 2000 team wasn't a soaking up the pressure type at all. That wasn't Keane's game at that age, same goes for Ince, Butt, young Giggs, young Scholes, Kanchelskis/young Beckham. These were front foot players.
That we had the ability to counter and sometimes did sit deeper in certain games doesn't make it the defining style of the team.
You can watch any highlight package from those eras. The team was very aggressive, very much on the front foot, constantly winning the ball back high up the pitch. It just wasn't at that stage called a "high press." Not in British media anyway.
Keane in particular played like that throughout the 90's and early 2000's. His younger version was probably incapable of sitting deep and being passive. Even at the end of his career, Fergie wanted him to be a DM but he couldn't really do it. Wasn't his nature.
That United side defended in numbers and attacked in numbers. High octane stuff. Saachi's Milan used to press in fours, if memory serves me right. Groups of four equally spaced out used to move together - expecially the midfield.
Last edited:
Completely agree with this. United could counter attack at great speed but the team didn't sit back at all. If anything, the team in that era was far too open and slightly naive and it cost them more success in Europe.
The Beckham, Keane, Scholes, Giggs midfield was ridiculously open. Scholes played almost like a number 10 and couldn't defend to save his life. It was only that they had a colossus in Keane behind him that it worked at all.
They regularly left Stam and Johnsen 2 vs 2 at the back. It's the reason the wheels fell off so spectacularly when Stam left.
Sure, none of Sir Alex's teams sat deep and soaked up pressure in the way Mourinho's Chelsea would - they were always attacking first. That United team with Rooney, Tevez, Ronaldo and co. were front-foot players too. They weren't a pressing team, though. It's about how they approached the game without the ball, what their first instincts were.
Were they more likely to score after winning the ball in their own half or the opposition half? No matter what Sir Alex team we're talking about, it was always the former. Sure there were variations in style but there was never variation in something that fundamental, because Sir Alex's teams were never systematic, they were always individualistic. The fact that some individuals ran more and faster than others doesn't change that. You can't play a pressing game without the intense focus on the system that Sacchi or Guardiola demanded. Sir Alex hated the idea of stifling his players in such a way.
It's not really something that we need to talk about from memory. Here's a random game from 1994; you're seriously saying that this is a high pressing team then we're practically watching different sports.
High press / Low block - fancy new works for working hard to get the ball back and catenaccio.
I think people forget just how good the football was at times with those players and how good they were at playing football. There is some notion that nowadays that teamwork didn't exist back then and is new thing and because of it football is somehow so much better and so much more sophisticated now that it ever was before.
Some of the football, passing and movement on display for some of these goals is right up there with what people are jizzing themselves over seeing what Liverpool and City are doing today.
I can't watch a full game but whatever that shows it is just one game. I'd also say that in the Roy Keane thread you've picked a game that Keane wasn't playing in. A post 30 McClair taking his place is going to change a team performance. Equally we've got David May at right back, Hughes over 30. Obviously not a good team performance in general either. It's not a typical example of United in that period.
But I could pull a City game from the last 12 month and find a performance where they're not at it.
I just think you're overcomplicating it. You say Rooney and Tevez were front foot players but didn't press high? I don't see how that can be.
You said United in the 90's were a team that sat deep and invited pressure but I think you'd be in a tiny minority with that opinion.
There's just no way a team with Ince and Keane in midfield prefers to sit back and win the ball in it's own half as opposed to the oppositions.
Because it's about the collective, not the individuals. Rooney wanted to win the ball back all the time, but he rarely participated in an orchestrated press. Much like Bruno now, or Giggs in the 90s. Chasing after the ball as an individual - which you can see plenty of evidence of in that Leeds game - is not pressing.
If our pressing game falls apart without Keane, then it wasn't a pressing game at all - it was just that Roy Keane was particularly good at winning the ball back and ran all day. City rotate their key players all the time and play the same way. Some are better runners than others but this cohesive unit closing down spaces in packs over and over again is what defines their pressing game, and that's just something we never did. Which is why the 90s team could be described as "too open" - again that's the opposite of what pressing intends to do, it's about compressing the space.
One of the key things required to do that is playing a high line - it's such an obvious feature that we never employed. Bruce and Vidic simply couldn't play in a high line, and we knew that when we bought them. They were bought because we wanted defenders who could defend the box and dominate the air, not high up the pitch in tight spaces.
If the binary choice is between high press and sat deep, then we were much more often in the latter category. Of course there's plenty of variation in that spectrum and we weren't anything like Mourinho's teams, but the binary choice was created to simplify the discussion.
Just pick up any random game from Ajax or Netherlands in the early 70s and contrast that with United in the 90s. It doesn't matter which game you pick for any of them, the contrast is so stark, and while the term "pressing" wasn't used in the UK then, everyone could recognise that the Dutch were playing a completely different game. England was one of the last leagues to employ anything resembling a pressing game, and it didn't happen in the last century.
I could see back in the 80’s Liverpool used to what we now call “press” although no one called it that back then, and only Liverpool really used to do it (in this country anyway) - I thought at the time that it was their “secret” and why they were so much better than the rest back then. Even the players you thought of as purely attackers used to press (I think they called it “defend from the front” then, if anything), the likes of John Barnes and Ian Rush.