Sell Rashford, Sell Bruno?... Statistical Breakdown Of The Root Causes Behind Ten Hag's Project Stalling?

[ArmaDino]

He’s spent insane money and appears to have done it mainly on players who would be best in possession sides (Onana, Martinez, Antony).
Despite this he doesn’t seem interested in making us a possession team, instead a transition one. Some players who are shite in possession he desperately wanted to sell, yet now are dead certs to start.

You have to realize that we are not a normal run football club. And the fact that ETH never tells the true story when it comes to how are things internally. Since that is the case let's look at the evidence:

The signings you mentioned were indeed intended for a possession based team(except Onana because even a direct transition team needs a GK that can pass under pressure). We can also add Eriksen to the mould and the fact that we chased FDJ all summer. Couple with the likes that we were linked with players like Todibo, Frimpong, etc. Clearly ETH was building a possession based team at the time.

So what changed? Why did ETH suddenly decide to change his tune?

Judging by the fact that Rashford plays every game and Bruno is undroppable, most likely what happened was he went to the higher ups with the next steps of his vision which included the sale of AWB, Maguire, McTomminay, Fred, Bruno and Rashford and replacing them with more possession based players.

Knowing our management they most likely told him that we can only sell certain players, but the likes of Rashford and Bruno are too big of a commercial impact. Not only do they have to stay, but also they have to play as much as possible to maximize their commercial impact.(ie. Martial and Pogba back in the day)

So ETH did the thing most people are accusing him not doing. He adapted his play style, to suit the likes of McTomminay, Rashford, Maguire, etc

The problem is that if half your players are used to being possession based, while the other half are direct you have a hodge podge of 2 groups of players that are on the different wave lengths and they don't gel. We saw how just by dropping Rashford we had 2 of our best attacking displays of the season(against Galatasaray and Palace).

Couple with the fact that the players that we have are only suited for a team that sets up in low to midblock. This goes against ETH's principles which has us set up higher up the pitch. That's why other teams are just slicing through us like butter right now. And the thing is ETH doesn't know/is too stubborn to set up in a low to midblock formation.

With all that being said, it looks like ETH is forced by our management to play a style that he isn't suited for because of politics.

So we either sack ETH and bring back a manager that will have us set up in a more defensive/pragmatic way with the players that we have(i.e. Conte or Ancelotti) kind of like Mourinho or Ole did.

Or we back ETH and let him build a possession based side while restructuring our footballing side, but this is more problematic because of the Glazers. The whole commercial aspect was their creation, so the only way to get rid of it is by kicking them out of the club, which is not happening.

 

[NZT-One]

That's a fair point. I was tempted to call composure under pressure in general, but colloquially, press resistance is usually used to describe the build-up phase.

On second thought: composure under pressure in the build-up phase?

To be honest, I know this phases concept but I am always unsure when it comes to those transition from one phase to the other. I'd sign "composure under pressure" instantly. I never thought that a 10 that made the right decisions to create a chance under pressure (while 25m in front of opposition goal) would be not press resistant to be honest. I agree, usually the most obvious press (the one that is the easiest to notice) is the high press and this always is against the opposition builtup. But afaik there is pressing in the midblock as well (I thought, that was something Ole was pretty invested in) and even in the low block (but that might be just a nominal thing because it isn't used all that much).

 

[Fortitude]

Press resistant = composed in your own half

Press resistance is quite literally being resistant to a concerted press by multiple players converging in unison. It doesn't matter where on the pitch it occurs, but evading players hunting in packs is something some players cannot do, whilst others are so able that the opposition will stop pressing them because it just exposes them. Verratti, Modric, Xavi, Iniesta, Scholes (to a lesser degree) are famed examples, all of whom were so good at beating the press that their reputation preceded them and the opposition would elect to approach who they passed to and hold position whilst they had the ball.

Busquets is another vaunted in a different way and perhaps the most celebrated because he made it look so easy whilst not being an actual mazy dribbler and twister turner like the aforementioned. He'd take out swathes of men with a simple drag back and one touch play through, or a drop of the should before turning out the other direction with the ball, leaving a massive hole in midfield to be exploited.

Pressing usually occurs in the middle of the pitch, particularly in midfield battles, which is why it's usually a host of midfielders referred to and associated with being definitively press resistant.

 

[MackRobinson]

Press resistance is quite literally being resistant to a concerted press by multiple players converging in unison. It doesn't matter where on the pitch it occurs, but evading players hunting in packs is something some players cannot do, whilst others are so able that the opposition will stop pressing them because it just exposes them. Verratti, Modric, Xavi, Iniesta, Scholes (to a lesser degree) are famed examples, all of whom were so good at beating the press that their reputation preceded them and the opposition would elect to approach who they passed to and hold position whilst they had the ball.

Busquets is another vaunted in a different way and perhaps the most celebrated because he made it look so easy whilst not being an actual mazy dribbler and twister turner like the aforementioned. He'd take out swathes of men with a simple drag back and one touch play through, or a drop of the should before turning out the other direction with the ball, leaving a massive hole in midfield to be exploited.

Pressing usually occurs in the middle of the pitch, particularly in midfield battles, which is why it's usually a host of midfielders referred to and associated with being definitively press-resistant.

When thinking about it more, I think it's most straightforward to call it composure under pressure.

 

[Fortitude]

When thinking about it more, I think it's most straightforward to call it composure under pressure.

But don't have to be press resistant to be composed under pressure. Players with the self awareness and wherewithal are savvy enough to calmly get rid of the ball before the pack is on them; press resistance is literally beating the press outright, not avoiding it; coming straight through it with the ball.

 

[JPRouve]

But don't have to be press resistant to be composed under pressure. Players with the self awareness and wherewithal are savvy enough to calmly get rid of the ball before the pack is on them; press resistance is literally beating the press outright, not avoiding it; coming straight through it with the ball.

Cleverley was composed under pressure, he would kick the ball in Carrick's general direction 100% of the time even if it put Carrick in trouble.

 

[Fortitude]

Cleverley was composed under pressure, he would kick the ball in Carrick's general direction 100% of the time even if it put Carrick in trouble.

Good times.

Carrick delighted.

 

[JPRouve]

Good times.

Carrick delighted.

Your thread about picking a single player from the past made me realize how much I and seemingly many other fans took Carrick for granted. I don't think that it's an exaggeration to say that he would easily transform our current team, rarely do you see a player that has the ability to clean nearly any football thrown at him and his passing range was excellent. Scholes and Keane are easily praised for it but Carrick was also an exceptional midfielder for United.

 

[Lyng]

Calling a player "press resistant" is a similarly hipster postmodern word that just means a player has a shit first touch or is weak. If a player has a great first touch then I guess they are "press resistant" but it's just being sold by people who pretend to know a lot more than they really do about football.

No then people would say he has a shit first touch. Press resistant is much more than that. Its about how players react to being rushed by opposition. De Jong and Busquets are great examples of players who handle being pressured really well and actually invite that pressure to free up space for their team mates. The only midfielder we currently have who shows signs of this is Mainoo.

 

[Fortitude]

Your thread about picking a single player from the past made me realize how much I and seemingly many other fans took Carrick for granted. I don't think that it's an exaggeration to say that he would easily transform our current team, rarely do you see a player that has the ability to clean nearly any football thrown at him and his passing range was excellent. Scholes and Keane are easily praised for it but Carrick was also an exceptional midfielder for United.

Next to Mainoo!

 

[Cheimoon]

You first sentence is to me a mistake for two reasons first because you should never ignore the full history of someone and base your expectation on that flawed context and also he didn't build that team, he has no idea or experience building such teams, he was given a team and had to adapt to it. That last point is the most important one, what made ETH interesting was his ability to adapt to different personnel and it's the one thing that he isn't doing well at United which is why as an armchair psychologist I believe that it's his ego preventing him from pulling his head from his backside.

Also Pochettino isn't a possession manager and Spurs weren't very possession oriented, you are making the mistake in your use of stats. Tottenham had high possessions stats because they were one if not the best gegenpress team in Europe, their mentality wasn't to keep possession but to regain possession very quickly while being a very direct team, at some point on average they would regain possession deep into the opposition own half(it's the season where they scored the most goals if I remember correctly) and score through fast breaks.

And that remark is somewhat important in our case. There are two big ways to have large possession of the ball and these often(City is an exception, they can do both) require two completely different types of players. You have the Barcelona/Spain Tiki Taka which requires highly technical players that will heavily lean on their technical superiority and won't give the ball back until they reached an "easy" goalscoring opportuntiy and then you have the high level gegenpress tactics which relies on players that are generally less technical but far better athletes, they don't maintain possession but regain it at an incredible pace, an example of such teams will be Dortmund under Klopp, 2015-2018 Spurs under Pochettino, the first versions of Liverpool under Klopp, Bayern under Heynckes or the memorable Chile under Bielsa-Sampaoli.

The short version is that high possession stats are divided in two groups, the teams that wants to keep the ball at all cost and the teams that prevents you from keeping it at all cost. ETH for some reason seem to be stuck between two opposite mentalities.

Ten Hag wasn't really a possession manager at Ajax either. As a top team, you end up having a lot of possession against smaller teams because you have so much quality and they often let you have the ball (although there aren't as many defensively minded teams in the Netherlands); but at the core, his Ajax team was also about being a high-pressing, very vertical team - closer to Klopp than Guardiola, let's say. And as you say, before Ajax he was managing smaller sides, where he was known for making them perform well above the sum of their parts (hence his constant 'promotions' to bigger clubs), but not for posession. So calling Ten Hag a possession-focused manager makes little sense to me, as you also said.

Regarding your last paragraph: I do think he's still more in the latter camp (pressing to force transitions), and also at United doesn't care much about the former (possession) at all. That's also what he said at the start of the season ('we want to be the best transition team' - whch of course doesn't mean low-block, counter-attacking), and it shows in the stats, too. Or at least, an article from the Guardian from a few weeks ago (https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...r-united-chaos-so-has-gambled-on-embracing-it - which is more generally quite interesting I thought) pointed out that a couple of key stats about transition and vertical play are way up this season:

High turnovers – defined as winning possession within 40 metres of the opposition goal – is one. United were sixth on this measure last season; this season they are top, with almost 11 turnovers per game. Passes per opposition defensive action – a measure of how fluently they are playing out from the back – are up 11%. Progressive passes are up 12%. United led the league for direct attacks last season and are third this time. The average speed of their attacks has increased.

So something is developing in that sense. But I anyway agree that Ten Hag is stuck between different lines of thought, although I'd actually argue it's two different things (instead of half going for a possession aproach).

First, it seems that he's too worried about defensive security and accepts that some players work better hanging back further (like Maguire now). Other managers might just force their CBs to move upfield and accept the issues that come with that until the ill-fitting players are replaced. Of course, it seems that replacement is what Ten Hag wanted for Maguire last summer and he's unlucky that it didn't materialize. But so now he's adapting tactics to this kind of player rather than adapting the player to the tactic (to their best ability).

The second thing I think is that he's desparately trying to get goals from somewhere, and playing some players just because they do tend to score goals. I'm convinced that's why McTominay has been playing so much of late. Surely Ten Hag can also see that McTominay is not good enough at other aspects of play and an ill fit tactically; and indeed he appears to be another player that was supposed to be gone last summer. So I think McTominay is playing because he has a knack of scoring goals - which he has also actually been doing fairly regularly (especially for someone in his position). Same with Rashford. Garnacho starting on the left lately shows that Rashford has dropped in the hierarchy - but him starting on the right suggests that Ten Hag ranks him above Antony in that position. That can't be because Rashford contributes so much to overall play (Ten Hag can't have missed how Rashford doesn't track back enough - especially with Bruno highlighting post-Everton how much work Garnacho does in that regard), so here too, I really think Rashford is playing because at least he had at least one scoring streak in his career (even if it's pretty long gone now), while scoring goals has never been Antony's forte. (And there is no further competition on the wings, with Sancho out, Amad injured (and unproven), and Pellistri not being at the required level yet.)

To me, if you look at team selection and tactics that way, it explains a lot of what's happening. I can also see how this line of thinking (adapt to the defenders available, get goal scorers on the pitch) makes some sense: it's a results business, especially at a club that's supposed to be in the top section of the table, and preventing and scoring goals are invaluable at a low-scoring sport like football. But at the same time, the approach really hampers tactical cohesion and overall progress. I'm therefore thinking Ten Hag should maybe have bit the bullet already in spring and just decide 'feck it, we're going for it', and focus on his transition approach - at the cost of more weird scorelines and losses. But then again, he did finish third last season doing pretty much the same thing, which somehow got United to pull off enough wins against smaller teams to offset the boring football and losses against everyone else. So maybe Ten Hag is thinking this is the only way to replicate that feat and end up in the CL spots again? Cause there's no guarantee that just playing transition football and making Maguire position like Van Dijk wouldn't lead to results like Spurs have had since their first-choice CBs got injured. (I.e., lots of points lost.)

I'm not sure there's a conclusion to his, but that's my thinking so far, anyway!

 

[JPRouve]

Ten Hag wasn't really a possession manager at Ajax either. As a top team, you end up having a lot of possession against smaller teams because you have so much quality and they often let you have the ball (although there aren't as many defensively minded teams in the Netherlands); but at the core, his Ajax team was also about being a high-pressing, very vertical team - closer to Klopp than Guardiola, let's say. And as you say, before Ajax he was managing smaller sides, where he was known for making them perform well above the sum of their parts (hence his constant 'promotions' to bigger clubs), but not for posession. So calling Ten Hag a possession-focused manager makes little sense to me, as you also said.

Regarding your last paragraph: I do think he's still more in the latter camp (pressing to force transitions), and also at United doesn't care much about the former (possession) at all. That's also what he said at the start of the season ('we want to be the best transition team' - whch of course doesn't mean low-block, counter-attacking), and it shows in the stats, too. Or at least, an article from the Guardian from a few weeks ago (https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...r-united-chaos-so-has-gambled-on-embracing-it - which is more generally quite interesting I thought) pointed out that a couple of key stats about transition and vertical play are way up this season:

So something is developing in that sense. But I anyway agree that Ten Hag is stuck between different lines of thought, although I'd actually argue it's two different things (instead of half going for a possession aproach).

First, it seems that he's too worried about defensive security and accepts that some players work better hanging back further (like Maguire now). Other managers might just force their CBs to move upfield and accept the issues that come with that until the ill-fitting players are replaced. Of course, it seems that replacement is what Ten Hag wanted for Maguire last summer and he's unlucky that it didn't materialize. But so now he's adapting tactics to this kind of player rather than adapting the player to the tactic (to their best ability).

The second thing I think is that he's desparately trying to get goals from somewhere, and playing some players just because they do tend to score goals. I'm convinced that's why McTominay has been playing so much of late. Surely Ten Hag can also see that McTominay is not good enough at other aspects of play and an ill fit tactically; and indeed he appears to be another player that was supposed to be gone last summer. So I think McTominay is playing because he has a knack of scoring goals - which he has also actually been doing fairly regularly (especially for someone in his position). Same with Rashford. Garnacho starting on the left lately shows that Rashford has dropped in the hierarchy - but him starting on the right suggests that Ten Hag ranks him above Antony in that position. That can't be because Rashford contributes so much to overall play (Ten Hag can't have missed how Rashford doesn't track back enough - especially with Bruno highlighting post-Everton how much work Garnacho does in that regard), so here too, I really think Rashford is playing because at least he had at least one scoring streak in his career (even if it's pretty long gone now), while scoring goals has never been Antony's forte. (And there is no further competition on the wings, with Sancho out, Amad injured (and unproven), and Pellistri not being at the required level yet.)

To me, if you look at team selection and tactics that way, it explains a lot of what's happening. I can also see how this line of thinking (adapt to the defenders available, get goal scorers on the pitch) makes some sense: it's a results business, especially at a club that's supposed to be in the top section of the table, and preventing and scoring goals are invaluable at a low-scoring sport like football. But at the same time, the approach really hampers tactical cohesion and overall progress. I'm therefore thinking Ten Hag should maybe have bit the bullet already in spring and just decide 'feck it, we're going for it', and focus on his transition approach - at the cost of more weird scorelines and losses. But then again, he did finish third last season doing pretty much the same thing, which somehow got United to pull off enough wins against smaller teams to offset the boring football and losses against everyone else. So maybe Ten Hag is thinking this is the only way to replicate that feat and end up in the CL spots again? Cause there's no guarantee that just playing transition football and making Maguire position like Van Dijk wouldn't lead to results like Spurs have had since their first-choice CBs got injured. (I.e., lots of points lost.)

I'm not sure there's a conclusion to his, but that's my thinking so far, anyway!

I totally agree with you. The distinctions that you made totally mirrors my thinking but you made them clearer.

Also I want to emphasize the idea that the club should support him but also be critical of his job. ETH is a good manager but in order to be at the top, he needs to take a clearer/cleaner direction, if it's to focus on transition or heavy possession then so be it but indecision won't work. Though I agree with @Raees that identity cannot be built around the likes of Bruno or Rashford, neither of them induce consistency.

 

[Hammondo]

Very good video.

 

[Cheimoon]

I totally agree with you. The distinctions that you made totally mirrors my thinking but you made them clearer.

And of course McTominay has scored in the meantime just to underline my point about why he's playing - while probably also showing the same issues as usual in every other aspect of play. I also think Rashford continuing not to score while really being detrimental to the team tactically might have forced Ten Hag's hand on him. At this point, there's next to no reason left to keep him (he's really not scoring or even getting close regularly) and plenty to start benching him.

Also I want to emphasize the idea that the club should support him but also be critical of his job. ETH is a good manager but in order to be at the top, he needs to take a clearer/cleaner direction, if it's to focus on transition or heavy possession then so be it but indecision won't work. Though I agree with @Raees that identity cannot be built around the likes of Bruno or Rashford, neither of them induce consistency.

Yeah, definitely. That 's where you would like to have a strong DoF with a clear vision, that can have those difficult discussions with the coach if the football isn't what it was intended to be, and is empowered to demand and receive change. I suppose that would be Murtough at United? But of course nothing would ever come out of those conversations until it's sacking time, so we have no way of knowing what feedback Ten Hag is getting from those around him on the management side of the club.

Bruno and Rashford are interesting cases though. Normally, you'd expect a coach to be able to work with players and redirect their style (what they do intuitively) to suit the desired tactics better. But while Bruno of course has great defensive performance, attackingly he seems to be about as random as ever. I don't have to say more about Rashford. And similarly for Maguire in defense. Does United have a surprisingly large number of players that aren't very versatile stylistically; does that versatility not really exist and has United been exceptionally disjointed in recruitment; or is Ten Hag focusing on this redirection too little and working within players' preferred styles too much? (To be honest, probably all three!)

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Judging by the fact that Rashford plays every game and Bruno is undroppable, most likely what happened was he went to the higher ups with the next steps of his vision which included the sale of AWB, Maguire, McTomminay, Fred, Bruno and Rashford and replacing them with more possession based players..

“Most likely” is some fantasyland nonsense from your own brain about him selling the man he made captain and the forward he couldn’t stop heaping praise on all last season and who, despite his poor form, until tonight he has been starting all season.

Sure mate, sounds legit

 

[NZT-One]

To me, if you look at team selection and tactics that way, it explains a lot of what's happening. I can also see how this line of thinking (adapt to the defenders available, get goal scorers on the pitch) makes some sense: it's a results business, especially at a club that's supposed to be in the top section of the table, and preventing and scoring goals are invaluable at a low-scoring sport like football. But at the same time, the approach really hampers tactical cohesion and overall progress. I'm therefore thinking Ten Hag should maybe have bit the bullet already in spring and just decide 'feck it, we're going for it', and focus on his transition approach - at the cost of more weird scorelines and losses. But then again, he did finish third last season doing pretty much the same thing, which somehow got United to pull off enough wins against smaller teams to offset the boring football and losses against everyone else. So maybe Ten Hag is thinking this is the only way to replicate that feat and end up in the CL spots again? Cause there's no guarantee that just playing transition football and making Maguire position like Van Dijk wouldn't lead to results like Spurs have had since their first-choice CBs got injured. (I.e., lots of points lost.)

I'm not sure there's a conclusion to his, but that's my thinking so far, anyway!

Very good post.

I agree with your points. Lets hope, ETH doesn't underestimate the effect of negative mood everywhere around. He may well take the approach you line out, get a few results, be pragmatic and all, but at the end of the day, this will cost him trust in the fan base. We can see it around here. People need to get an idea what he is trying to go for. As you said - be that possession or something else, but we have to see it. The way right now, having the attackers press high but leaving the defense too far back is causing issues for all involved. No suprise that his might be frustrating to the players as well.

One additional thought - I agree about the notion that ETH might not be the possession fan many (me included) have hoped and expected. The thing is though, at a top club, I think, you don't have the luxury to be either or. Even if high press is what we are going for as Plan A, we have to get to an at least good if not very good level of possession to compete with the big hitters. The greatest teams around were next to perfect in both aspects, remember Tiki Taka when space was given, they cut through you with 4 passes and scored (Pedro, Sanchez). Or the Bayern team that first obliterated Prime Barca only to become a force of nature a year after under Heynckes I believe. Obviously this is the very top end of the spectrum but even looking a level below, it didn't take too long until even Klopp saw the need to introduce quality in possession (Keita and Thiago transfers) because his heavy metal approach ran its course to a degree.

 

[ArmaDino]

“Most likely” is some fantasyland nonsense from your own brain about him selling the man he made captain and the forward he couldn’t stop heaping praise on all last season and who, despite his poor form, until tonight he has been starting all season.

Sure mate, sounds legit

You mean the same way he heaped praise on Sancho, Maguire, Rashford and Ronaldo? Fairly certain quiet a few outlets reported that ETH left the captain decision to a player vote.

Oh and look, the moment we drop Rashford suddenly we look more like a cohesive team. Pretty sure Mount was bought as a potential Bruno replacement.

 

[NZT-One]

You mean the same way he heaped praise on Sancho, Maguire, Rashford and Ronaldo? Fairly certain quiet a few outlets reported that ETH left the captain decision to a player vote.

Oh and look, the moment we drop Rashford suddenly we look more like a cohesive team. Pretty sure Mount was bought as a potential Bruno replacement.

We do look better. But that is connected with Antony running the right side more on his own while Dalot is tucking in supporting midfield. Also Chelsea look just as frantic as we do and make many mistakes. It was definitely the right decision to leave Rash out today but lets not overstate one game.

 

[Cheimoon]

Very good post.

I agree with your points. Lets hope, ETH doesn't underestimate the effect of negative mood everywhere around. He may well take the approach you line out, get a few results, be pragmatic and all, but at the end of the day, this will cost him trust in the fan base. We can see it around here. People need to get an idea what he is trying to go for. As you said - be that possession or something else, but we have to see it. The way right now, having the attackers press high but leaving the defense too far back is causing issues for all involved. No suprise that his might be frustrating to the players as well.

Yeah, definitely. But then, of course, when the makeshift method isn't even producing results, there is no reason to stick with it. Ten Hag won't be that stubborn either. But while it continues producing sufficient results (for top 4) and the occasional good game that gives some flash of long-term intentions (maybe like today's game), there's not much incentive to change for something potentially much riskier (like going all out high-positioning transition style and leaving Maguire and Lindelöf exposed in the back).

One additional thought - I agree about the notion that ETH might not be the possession fan many (me included) have hoped and expected. The thing is though, at a top club, I think, you don't have the luxury to be either or. Even if high press is what we are going for as Plan A, we have to get to an at least good if not very good level of possession to compete with the big hitters. The greatest teams around were next to perfect in both aspects, remember Tiki Taka when space was given, they cut through you with 4 passes and scored (Pedro, Sanchez). Or the Bayern team that first obliterated Prime Barca only to become force of nation a year after under Heynckes I believe. Obviously this is the very top end of the spectrum but even looking a level below, it didn't take too long until even Klopp saw the need to introduce quality in possession (Keita and Thiago transfers) because his heavy metal approach ran its course to a degree.

Yeah, definitely. As I said (which actually in turn I got from someone else), against smaller teams, good teams dominate and have the possession even if they don't care for it. And as much as you can try and bate them into moments where you can create transitions, it won't work as well against a cautious team. In those cases, you need to be able to create from a basis of posession as well - or otherwise be very patient for those few nice transition moments that tend to occur sometimes anyway.

Right now though, I suppose everyone would be delighted if United could at least turn into one of those high-block transition teams, even if the possession side is wanting for the moment. Can't fix everything at once! (But I'm sure someone would respond to that saying, 'no, but how about Ten Hag finally fixed at least one thing!' But I guess today he did. )

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

You mean the same way he heaped praise on Sancho, Maguire, Rashford and Ronaldo? Fairly certain quiet a few outlets reported that ETH left the captain decision to a player vote.

Oh and look, the moment we drop Rashford suddenly we look more like a cohesive team. Pretty sure Mount was bought as a potential Bruno replacement.

Oh look. Bruno just absolutely bossed it, proving once again how good he can be in possession when instructed. 88.4% pass completion, 5 key passes, his captain, but sure, he wants to sell him.

And absolutely we looked better with Antony on the right, we always do.

 

[ArmaDino]

We do look better. But that is connected with Antony running the right side more on his own while Dalot is tucking in supporting midfield. Also Chelsea look just as frantic as we do and make many mistakes. It was definitely the right decision to leave Rash out today but lets not overstate one game.

It's not one game. Palace in the cup and Galatasaray away are clear examples that we create more as a team without Rashford.

 

[Herschel Krustofsky]

What the feck do you call either then? Managers themselves have used these terms

Defending deep and being good on the ball

 

[Raees]

I totally agree with you. The distinctions that you made totally mirrors my thinking but you made them clearer.

Also I want to emphasize the idea that the club should support him but also be critical of his job. ETH is a good manager but in order to be at the top, he needs to take a clearer/cleaner direction, if it's to focus on transition or heavy possession then so be it but indecision won't work. Though I agree with @Raees that identity cannot be built around the likes of Bruno or Rashford, neither of them induce consistency.

this post aged well. As we saw this so called style of football led to us mauling Chelsea but barely any control today against a Bournemouth at home. It’s a very broken off the cuff style of football with no bodies in the midfield.

 

[JPRouve]

this post aged well. As we saw this so called style of football led to us mauling Chelsea but barely any control today against a Bournemouth at home. It’s a very broken off the cuff style of football with no bodies in the midfield.

It's not due to the style per se but the players we chose to lead it. If you have as an example Griezmann instead of Bruno and someone like Son Heung-Min then ETH could employ similar tactics and the team would be fine at the highest level. The issue is that Bruno is a Europa League level player while Rashford is as inconsistent as it gets, he goes from pub to champions league within minutes. Personally I'm done looking at their good moments because they represent maybe 5% of what a club like United require. Jettisoning them will see us take an immediate step back because they do have those great moments but building for or with them is like build a sandcastle, it's not stable or reliable.