The "United Way" in Europe

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

has always been quite underwhelming. Even under Fergie, the only area where we were below par was at Europe. Having to compete with a legendary Barca didn't help either....but the fact is we have always been under performed at Europe.

I never really figured out the exact reason for this.

Is CL more technical than EPL? Do the open free flowing do it by the guts rarely triumphs over the clinical/technical teams?

Should Ole let himself be influence by peak Mourinho (Porto/Inter versions) and take a leaf out of that? Or do we assume that the "United Way" which has been a revelation in EPL under Ole would carry us...at least this time around with better results.... in Europe?

 

[willhse456]

Could be a bit of a controversial opinion this, but recently in the big games we have taken a very Mourinho-like approach, at least from his Chelsea/Inter days. We have soaked up pressure, whilst counter attacking at pace. I am personally a fan of this style, but we haven't properly dominated teams since Christmas.

 

[cyril C]

European competition should always be taking seriously and a little bit cautiously. First of all your competitions are much stronger, take Ajax as example they are easily at Wolves standard, not a walk over. Secondly the ref are much tougher on pulling shirts or hard challenge compared with EPL so perhaps harder to defend against skilful players. Thirdly your away game is much tougher, from -4C to artificial grass plus long haul flight. Fourthly, the ref is right on the clock, no more fergi time.

I believe ever since Fergi era, it is always about discipline and not losing silly goals - somewhere close to Mourinho mentality if not exactly the same.

 

[Drz]

Fergie also used to defend with two banks of four sitting deep in specific games, it's all about how you decide to play once that defending paid-off. I think this was a late development when we fell a bit behind the elite in our capacity for possession play.
In 99 though, it was all about the attack, I don't think we lost a single game in the European campaign

 

[Andycoleno9]

In knock out phase of CL, in those 7 games, only important thing is win. If you must park the bus, then do it.
Against Psg, we had 4 shots in whole game, we were in defence whole game but emotions after that game.....priceless.

 

[devilish]

The CL was one of the things I criticised SAF for and I got plenty of slack because of it. While everyone was happy winning the EPL title year after year, I felt that our team will not be recognised as a truly great side unless it won more CLs. I also believed that SAF didn't took the CL seriously which made sense at the time but it proven wrong a decade or so later. Take for example what happened after our historical treble win. We had the perfect young team who steamrolled everybody to success. All it needed was minor reparation works. Schmeichel has left, Irwin was at his last legs while Johnsen and Blomqvist had picked career threatening injuries which needed to be addressed. Instead of going for top players which would have ensured our position as a top club we went for substandard players like Bosnich and Silvestre instead. That team would go on never winning the CL again.

Then, one fine day, I had the opportunity to hear Martin Edwards interview and suddenly it all made sense. Our former owner made it quite clear that the United's aim was always that of winning in England not in Europe. The European project was considered as 'too expensive' and 'unpredictable' for United to gamble upon. SAF was against that idea which explains why he wanted top players such as Gabriel Batistuta. However, the club vetoed that and any attempt to take United from a British powerhouse to a European superpower.

I think that this flawed mentality is what always kept United from really claiming its crown as a European giant at par with Real or Milan. Once we dominate the local pond we're just happy staying in that position rather then spend a bit extra and go to the next level. Such mentality still survived under the 'value' strategy and our 4 signings per summer mentality.

 

[Juan King Dead]

It's not always been like that. We were not always the free flowing football team, even under Fergie.

Queiroz was the one who taught SAF the 4-3-3 formations and together they won the CHL playing a 4-6-0 with the LB and the RB closing in the very crucial gap between the traditional CB and full back positions. The wingers acted as wing backs, but you coukd never tell that we were nit attacking, because we exploited the open space in such a fashion and speed that you could enjoy our game. But still, it was not as beautiful as other Fergie teams.
In fact, the 06-07 team played better football and we didn't pass the ball square as we did in the 07-08 season where we had much more patience and didn't give the ball away.

First of all your competitions are much stronger, take Ajax as example they are easily at Wolves standard, not a walk over. Fourthly, the ref is right on the clock, no more fergi time.

Wolves, in no way can play the football or get the results that Ajax do.
And there is no Fergi time. It is a legend that never existed. Statistically, other teams produced more chances and goals after 80 minutes. Oh, and United doesn't take more extra time than other teams do. We usually didn't need 90 minutes under Fergie.

 

[Hoof the ball]

It's difficult to define the United Way, however. Swashbuckling attacking football isn't quite the blueprint people seem to believe it is. For the longest time, Sir Alex employed very conservative tactics vs. top six teams, very often winning games in a smash and grab fashion, or simply countering when necessary. Nothing like the reputation precedes insofar as taking the game to every single opponent in an overtly offensive dominating way.

The United Way is, at its peak, the ability at various times to do both, possession and domination to see through games, and counter-attack viciously in tough games vs. equal or better opposition. At this point, we do the second one very well.

 

[MrPooni]

4-5-1 with Park in midfield and Rooney out on the left. Boot it up to Ronaldo up top.

 

[Havak]

We've historically not been the best at a possession based game with lots of passing and craft in the middle of the park, at least against the more elite sides. The difference is that we have historically had pacey attackers and been clinical at finishing. I personally love this style and I think it's why everyone (including neutral fans) is in love with Ole. Goals that happen in under 20 Seconds of us having the ball back within 3-4 passes is amazing to watch. It's ruthless and just as beautiful as stringing 30 passes together and walking it in.

 

[deafepl]

We probably have won more UCL in the late 90s if it wasn't for Bosman ruling, our squad is made up of mostly British/Irish players with 3 foreign players.

We didn't have much luck as the likes of Real Madrid, Barcelona, etc and often go out on away goal.

 

[AaronRedDevil]

I think the only way for this United team to succeed is to focused on itself. We have a young squad and it's prone to mistakes, the best thing to do is sharpen up the attacking plans, be clinical and dangerous. You can't win a game if you're set defending the whole time. So when the chance comes you don't mess it up. Because against Barcelona, that chance will be far and few between. A lot of teams had the mistake of thinking they can stop Barca from scoring. All they do is score.

 

[deafepl]

Style of play Klopp, Poch, Tuchel, etc are playing is perfect for United the way, it's not about possession based like Pep, Sarri, etc they always attack and look to hit opponents on the counter while submitting more players to go forward and love to attack width with winger/fullback, that was more entertaining rather than passing around back and trying to walk it in

 

[Tomuś]

Could be a bit of a controversial opinion this, but recently in the big games we have taken a very Mourinho-like approach, at least from his Chelsea/Inter days. We have soaked up pressure, whilst counter attacking at pace. I am personally a fan of this style, but we haven't properly dominated teams since Christmas.

Apart from the first 15 minutes we dominated Arsenal and I'd say we wouldn't play the was we did against Chelsea away. Arsenal (FA Cup) away was good, too. Counter-attacking - yes but it's how everyone wise will play there.

What's hardly improved yet is our performance at home vs big sides. Way too cautious and terrible offensively against PSG and probably a bit too cautious vs Liverpool.

Then again, the sample is too small and we've been riddled by injuries. 2 or more home games against the big boys should shed some light.

 

[Someone]

It wasn't just tactics. I've always felt we were behind in terms of quality when it comes to europe. Apart from the 2008 squad, we've always been just a level below other top european clubs.

 

[VivaHerrera]

Between 2007-2011 I believe United were one of the best in Europe. One CL trophy doesn't give us any justice. We were just very unlucky to play one of the best teams ever in 2009 and 2011 finals. I also hate how we were robbed against Madrid when Nani got sent off in 2013. Thought Fergie would have tried one more season in Europe to avenge that. Alas he didn't and we've been a million miles away from the top teams in Europe since.

 

[crossy1686]

We've under achieved massively in Europe but I feel that was always because Fergie took priority over the PL in his early days and we were too far behind some of the big boys in his later days.

I also feel we persisted with some players for too long when we should have replaced them earlier. I guess we'll never know the truth behind what impact the Galzers had taking over and the whole 'no value in the market' nonsense.

I also think we were in for quite a few of the big players back in the days but they ultimately chose Madrid or Barcelona over us at the time.

 

[rcoobc]

has always been quite underwhelming. Even under Fergie, the only area where we were below par was at Europe. Having to compete with a legendary Barca didn't help either....but the fact is we have always been under performed at Europe.

I never really figured out the exact reason for this.

Is CL more technical than EPL? Do the open free flowing do it by the guts rarely triumphs over the clinical/technical teams?

Should Ole let himself be influence by peak Mourinho (Porto/Inter versions) and take a leaf out of that? Or do we assume that the "United Way" which has been a revelation in EPL under Ole would carry us...at least this time around with better results.... in Europe?

Fergie got taken apart in Europe in 2000-2003 playing 4-4-2. That, plus Carlos Quiroz encouraged a switch away from 4-4-2 . Also Ronaldo emerging as an inside forward.

Our general approach has always been 4-5-1 with keeping a tight defensive line and 10 or even 11 men behind the ball when defending. Look at the fa cup final Vs arsenal in 05, where we dominated and lost, and the semi final victory Vs Barca in 08, which we won. The approaches are surprisingly similar.

 

[wolvored]

The CL was one of the things I criticised SAF for and I got plenty of slack because of it. While everyone was happy winning the EPL title year after year, I felt that our team will not be recognised as a truly great side unless it won more CLs. I also believed that SAF didn't took the CL seriously which made sense at the time but it proven wrong a decade or so later. Take for example what happened after our historical treble win. We had the perfect young team who steamrolled everybody to success. All it needed was minor reparation works. Schmeichel has left, Irwin was at his last legs while Johnsen and Blomqvist had picked career threatening injuries which needed to be addressed. Instead of going for top players which would have ensured our position as a top club we went for substandard players like Bosnich and Silvestre instead. That team would go on never winning the CL again.

Then, one fine day, I had the opportunity to hear Martin Edwards interview and suddenly it all made sense. Our former owner made it quite clear that the United's aim was always that of winning in England not in Europe. The European project was considered as 'too expensive' and 'unpredictable' for United to gamble upon. SAF was against that idea which explains why he wanted top players such as Gabriel Batistuta. However, the club vetoed that and any attempt to take United from a British powerhouse to a European superpower.

I think that this flawed mentality is what always kept United from really claiming its crown as a European giant at par with Real or Milan. Once we dominate the local pond we're just happy staying in that position rather then spend a bit extra and go to the next level. Such mentality still survived under the 'value' strategy and our 4 signings per summer mentality.

With the owners its all about the money. In those days what did you get for winning the European cup, £15-20 million? Buying the cream of European football would have cost that for one player, with no guarantee of winning it.
From a fans perspective it was so frustrating knowing we couldnt attract the very best in their prime. Of course with a lot of foreign players the prospect of playing for the top Italian and Spanish sides was a big pull as well.

 

[page302]

Everything written above, is fair enough for me. We've never been consistently big hitters in Europe (07-11 aside) and the early to mid 90's were so frustrating as a supporter. So in that sense I agree with the OP.

That all being said, don't forget the historical context. English clubs have only ever had one period of dominance in European competition - the 70's and early 80's. Unfortunately this coincided with a period where we were an utter shambles of a club. You then had Heysel and I strongly believe it took English football many, many years to recover from that. In those 5 years we feel so far behind and i think people often overlook this.

 

[Davie Moyes]

The CL was one of the things I criticised SAF for and I got plenty of slack because of it. While everyone was happy winning the EPL title year after year, I felt that our team will not be recognised as a truly great side unless it won more CLs. I also believed that SAF didn't took the CL seriously which made sense at the time but it proven wrong a decade or so later. Take for example what happened after our historical treble win. We had the perfect young team who steamrolled everybody to success. All it needed was minor reparation works. Schmeichel has left, Irwin was at his last legs while Johnsen and Blomqvist had picked career threatening injuries which needed to be addressed. Instead of going for top players which would have ensured our position as a top club we went for substandard players like Bosnich and Silvestre instead. That team would go on never winning the CL again.

Then, one fine day, I had the opportunity to hear Martin Edwards interview and suddenly it all made sense. Our former owner made it quite clear that the United's aim was always that of winning in England not in Europe. The European project was considered as 'too expensive' and 'unpredictable' for United to gamble upon. SAF was against that idea which explains why he wanted top players such as Gabriel Batistuta. However, the club vetoed that and any attempt to take United from a British powerhouse to a European superpower.

I think that this flawed mentality is what always kept United from really claiming its crown as a European giant at par with Real or Milan. Once we dominate the local pond we're just happy staying in that position rather then spend a bit extra and go to the next level. Such mentality still survived under the 'value' strategy and our 4 signings per summer mentality.

Interesting post, thanks. Never really thought about it this way but does make sense.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Then, one fine day, I had the opportunity to hear Martin Edwards interview and suddenly it all made sense. Our former owner made it quite clear that the United's aim was always that of winning in England not in Europe. The European project was considered as 'too expensive' and 'unpredictable' for United to gamble upon. SAF was against that idea which explains why he wanted top players such as Gabriel Batistuta. However, the club vetoed that and any attempt to take United from a British powerhouse to a European superpower.

Didn't we go against the League wished and participated in EL. If not for Munich, we'd have a decent shot there. Perhaps the thought has changed since then? Was there a difference in ideology between Busby/Fergie vs the Club itself?

 

[norm87cro]

SAF wanted more CL for sure and definetly adapted from 2003 to his last season in 2013 when we should have knocked Real out but the ref had other ideas with the Nani red. Before that we DID play offensive football and prehaps the two away goal draw knocouts against weaker opposition ( Monaco 98 and Leverkusen 02) presuaded him to be more pragmatic in his approach. If that cnut Ronaldo stayed for another season or two we would probably have won number 4 by now. After number 20 and the RVP magic season he knew he should retire because it was obvious to all of us that the team needed rebuilding and after 26 years at the club it was time for somebody else. In 08 we defended for our lives against Barca in the semis

 

[devilish]

Didn't we go against the League wished and participated in EL. If not for Munich, we'd have a decent shot there. Perhaps the thought has changed since then? Was there a difference in ideology between Busby/Fergie vs the Club itself?

I am not that old to know what happened during Sir Matt's time but I suspect that the people sitting at the United board back then were different to the ones SAF had to work with. From what I heard from the older fans, Louis Edwards was a different man to his son Martin. The former was a bit of an arse but he was a supporter, the latter was described as a scrooge who would sell United to Satan himself for an extra penny. He was so bad that SAF had to rely on Graham sending him a copy of his contract so that he could show it to Edwards and get his much deserved pay rise.

Martin Edwards was one of the most difficult people SAF had ever worked with. He was with United prior to SAF and he remained there up until 2003 when he sold his 6.7% stake to Harry Dobson. Then we had that huge spat between SAF and the M&M which was followed by the Glazers's buying the club and saddle all their debt on us in 2005. Basically, SAF was never in a position were he could rely on the full potential of United's financial muscle

 

[GazTheLegend]

Could not disagree more strongly @Edgar Allan Pillow

For a start, if you followed United properly since the 90’s you’d realise that we’ve actually been arguably the best team in Europe a lot more often than you’d think, and if we’d had a bit more luck would have more champions leagues than we do. The only disappointment of Alex Ferguson’s career is that he didn’t lift more - he should probably have done so but you need a bit of fortune in the cups.

I’ll start with a few off the top of my head:

• Bayern Munich 2007. We were far the better team but a harsh red card gave them a chance and we lost out on a final vs inter Milan that I would have made us heavy favourites for
• Borussia Dortmund 1997 - we were the better team over the two legs, and would have got to the final if Nicky butts shot had gone in instead of hitting the post, or a goal wasn’t wrongly disallowed in the second leg
• Barcelona 2009 - although that Messi team was better than us over the 90 minutes, for the first 10-20 minutes we were absolutely dominating them. Ronaldo has 3-4 decent chances and if any of those had gone in it may have been a totally different story.
• Porto 2004 - once again, we were the better side and were extremely unlucky to go out. We would have been favourites vs Monaco in the final
• Real Madrid 2011 - before a harsh Nani red card, man united were a goal up and dominating the game. Ferguson’s last attempt and he was devastated as he knew it - refereeing decision, nothing to do with “the United way”

I don’t see the Man Utd “way” as being particularly weak, Real Madrid had Ronaldo and Barcelona have Messi. That’s the difference, it really is. Where are Real without Ronaldo?

 

[SadlerMUFC]

Apart from the first 15 minutes we dominated Arsenal and I'd say we wouldn't play the was we did against Chelsea away. Arsenal (FA Cup) away was good, too. Counter-attacking - yes but it's how everyone wise will play there.

What's hardly improved yet is our performance at home vs big sides. Way too cautious and terrible offensively against PSG and probably a bit too cautious vs Liverpool.

Then again, the sample is too small and we've been riddled by injuries. 2 or more home games against the big boys should shed some light.

Kind of hard to be critical of the offense in matches where we had attacking players dropping like flies. Most of our injuries came in the matches against Liverpool and PSG (home)...

 

[Sylar]

From 09 onwards, I reckon we would / could have done better if we had just signed one world class midfielder to pair with Carrick. Would have given us a better shot at controlling the midfield and taking on Barca.

In the 90s we were a bit naive and behind + also the european / homegrown rule didnt help us esp mid 90's time. Late 90's to mid 00's I reckon we were unlucky quite a few times, with some of the games mentioned by @GazTheLegend
However we did adapt especially with the period where we got Veron and onwards, and when we brought in Quieroz. We seemed more able to plan for teams we were playing then trying to just play our own way and win.

In 99 though, it was all about the attack, I don't think we lost a single game in the European campaign

Dont think we lost a single game in 08 either.

 

[clarkydaz]

Then, one fine day, I had the opportunity to hear Martin Edwards interview and suddenly it all made sense. Our former owner made it quite clear that the United's aim was always that of winning in England not in Europe. The European project was considered as 'too expensive' and 'unpredictable' for United to gamble upon. SAF was against that idea which explains why he wanted top players such as Gabriel Batistuta. However, the club vetoed that and any attempt to take United from a British powerhouse to a European superpower.

I think that this flawed mentality is what always kept United from really claiming its crown as a European giant at par with Real or Milan. Once we dominate the local pond we're just happy staying in that position rather then spend a bit extra and go to the next level. Such mentality still survived under the 'value' strategy and our 4 signings per summer mentality.

that's very interesting. Sure I recall one of the reasons Cantona walked away was the club wasn't prepared to go that extra step that you mention. it might be in Fergies book in which he concedes the club didn't go all out, and he understood Erics view

 

[Canagel]

we just need to refine it and add few extra bits. but there's nothing wrong with it fundamentally.

 

[devilish]

With the owners its all about the money. In those days what did you get for winning the European cup, £15-20 million? Buying the cream of European football would have cost that for one player, with no guarantee of winning it.
From a fans perspective it was so frustrating knowing we couldnt attract the very best in their prime. Of course with a lot of foreign players the prospect of playing for the top Italian and Spanish sides was a big pull as well.

Its far from 15m

https://www.totalsportek.com/money/uefa-champions-league-prize-money/

There are two ways how to see it.

Pro building a top team to be serious CL contender

There's big money in the CL both in terms of performance and sponsors/media exposure. Top players also bring business of their own. Not to forget that a top team would probably win not only in the CL but also in the league as well.

Against building a top team to be serious CL contender

The CL is treacherous and unpredictable. It only takes an unlucky draw (ex meeting Barcelona or Real early in the CL) and you might risk being kicked out. Not to forget that upsets can and will happen. Not to forget that a popular team like United doesn't need big names and trophies to attract sponsors and money, players btw who might come on a huge fee +/ salary and fail miserable. Our fans aren't demanding either. For example can you imagine what Real fans would do if the talent of the level of Ronaldo, Scholes and Giggs were replaced with talent of the level of Valencia, Cleverley and Young? They'll destroy the Bernabeu (not literally but you get the drift) which, in turn, will scare sponsors away. We're just happy to see a serious dip in talent and performance as long as the players work hard and are fun. Which means that the club can easily find a workhorse, hype him a bit and still keep the image of being ambitious.

 

[ottosec]

It wasn't the tactics, it was our quality that was always behind the top teams. When we had the quality it worked great.

 

[Irwin99]

Genuinely think we were unlucky at times but the 99 team needed some squad rebuilding/strengthening that just didn't happen sadly.

You also have to look at the relative strength of the league of the 90s to around the mid 00s. I had a look a few months back at Arsenals record in Europe between 98-2005 and it was pretty awful despite them having a very good team. Patrick Vieria for instance never got past the quarter finals in any of those great Arsenal teams. I can't honestly remember why they were so bad.

 

[steakpie]

Even under Ferguson we were negative, with the likes of Fletcher and Park starting over Nani and Berbatov.

I would prefer if we went all out attack. For example like other big clubs like Real Madrid or Barcelona.

Our mentality in Europe is one of a weaker team, where we should be one of the best teams in Europe.

 

[Chicharo]

There are several reasons:
For instance - we underperformed against Bayer. We had a good result after the first leg, and then failed to win at home, which no one had expected. It would've been a great final against Real in Glasgow.
Against Porto and Real, we were ripped off.
And, yes, SAF wanted to "knock the Scousers..." But then came Barca
We were also very close in 2010. but failed to keep the result against Bayern.
We certainly had to win at least one more

 

[breakout67]

There is no 'way' in Europe to win. Just have the best players and hope the refs don't feck you over. Aleggri is a far better tactician than Enrique and Zidane but they had far better teams.

 

[wolvored]

Its far from 15m

https://www.totalsportek.com/money/uefa-champions-league-prize-money/

There are two ways how to see it.

Pro building a top team to be serious CL contender

There's big money in the CL both in terms of performance and sponsors/media exposure. Top players also bring business of their own. Not to forget that a top team would probably win not only in the CL but also in the league as well.

Against building a top team to be serious CL contender

The CL is treacherous and unpredictable. It only takes an unlucky draw (ex meeting Barcelona or Real early in the CL) and you might risk being kicked out. Not to forget that upsets can and will happen. Not to forget that a popular team like United doesn't need big names and trophies to attract sponsors and money, players btw who might come on a huge fee +/ salary and fail miserable. Our fans aren't demanding either. For example can you imagine what Real fans would do if the talent of the level of Ronaldo, Scholes and Giggs were replaced with talent of the level of Valencia, Cleverley and Young? They'll destroy the Bernabeu (not literally but you get the drift) which, in turn, will scare sponsors away. We're just happy to see a serious dip in talent and performance as long as the players work hard and are fun. Which means that the club can easily find a workhorse, hype him a bit and still keep the image of being ambitious.

I was talking early 2000s not now for the prize money. percentage wise still the same. Possible to win 100 million but pay 150-200 million for Mbappe neymar and hope you do

 

[soaphroniscuss]

I was talking early 2000s not now for the prize money. percentage wise still the same. Possible to win 100 million but pay 150-200 million for Mbappe neymar and hope you do

It's not that percentage that matters. It is the cost of funding the lower expected return when the market expands in that manner.

Easiest way to see that, is to consider what would happen if we multiplied the prize money and player prices by 100.

As the prices/prizes increase the cost of not-winning becomes more acute.