This current team has huge issues...

acrebo

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
3,875
Location
Exeter
After that, Chelsea completely dominated the game right up until the first red card. Constantly giving the ball away and committing stupid, stupid fouls could have been our downfall quite easily, if not for that delightful Van Persie pass to Young out of nothing. I still don't get why referees blow for a foul every time a defender runs behind the attacker who falls over but I'm glad he did this time.
Chelsea dominated the end of the first half and the beginning of the second. They played brilliantly for that spell and forced their way back into the game. However, once they equalised, that actually seemed to galvanise us again and we were the better team up to the point where Young was clean through and taken out by Ivanovic. As said, if the game remains 11v11 then we are almost certainly back in front.

This team is something I've never seen from a SAF side. They're bottlers. And they're in danger of becoming the ultimate bottlers.

Previously, going 2-0 up would allow us to relax as fans (much like going 8 points clear in a run-in). It never does with this lot. Age only goes so far as an excuse at a club that made a mockery of Alan Hansen's infamous claims.
Bottlers? Seriously? I don't think you realise quite how good an attacking side we were playing against yesterday, in their own back yard.

You really believe that we would ever have had a 'relaxing' 70 minutes against a team of Chelsea's quality, away from home? Going 2-0 up so quickly was always going to invite massive pressure, much like we impose on teams that go ahead early against us at OT.

In fact, almost exactly like teams that go ahead early against us at OT. It's a default response.
 

marjen

Desperately wants to be like Noodle
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
8,643
Location
At the back post
This team is something I've never seen from a SAF side. They're bottlers. And they're in danger of becoming the ultimate bottlers.

Previously, going 2-0 up would allow us to relax as fans (much like going 8 points clear in a run-in). It never does with this lot. Age only goes so far as an excuse at a club that made a mockery of Alan Hansen's infamous claims.
Bottlers?

9 points out of Newcastle, Liverpool and Chelsea away. That's not bottling. Not by far.
 

Varun

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
46,780
Location
Mumbai
The timing of the thread is shocking. Such a massive win and the 1st thing that comes to your mind is to have a whine about aspects of our play. Come on..
 

Livvie

Executive Manager being kept sane only by her madn
Scout
Joined
Jun 5, 2000
Messages
41,730
Bottlers?

9 points out of Newcastle, Liverpool and Chelsea away. That's not bottling. Not by far.
I think he means that we aren't as solid as we used to be, and we've had some very nervy moments. I don't know if it's bottling, as much as a lack of the really hard men like Robson, Keane, Ince, Hughes etc.
 

finneh

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
7,318
Very strange thread considering we were playing the best Chelsea team in 5~ years in the best form in a similar period. It was the worst possible time to visit historically our most difficult fixture of the season. In my opinion, ignoring the decisions the game went something like:

0-35 mins: Chelsea have more of the ball but look ineffectual. United look lethal every time they get the ball and save some wastefulness could be at least 3 up.

35-45 mins: Chelsea wake up, which combined with United changing mentality causes Chelsea being on the ascendancy. Decent defending combined with excellent Goalkeeping means we should be going into half time 2-0 up. Brain fart from Rooney, excellent set piece, 2-1.

45-55: As expected Chelsea come out of the traps and United continue to defend, Chelsea score, 2-2.

55-63: Exactly as Chelsea did at 2-0, United wake up and start playing some good Football. Game could go either way at this point.

63-70: United's ascendancy is illustrated when Young is tripped when clear through on goal, Ivanovic has to go. United in the driving seat, Torres harshly sent off.

70-75: Inevitable that United will score, United score.

75-90: United see out the game relatively comfortably against Chelsea's 9 men, bar a few stupid passes that give Chelsea possession.

It was a good performance against a very good team, the 65 minutes of 11-11 was roughly split between us being much better for half and them being much better for half. They packed the midfield, which exposed Cleverley-Carrick for the period Chelsea were ahead. We went for width, which exposed their full backs for the period we were ahead.

Although I can see why some people think it was a far more terrible performance when people are writing this:

It was an abysmal decision. Not just wrong, but full of the alienating arrogance of modern officialdom. There is no way Clattenburg could have been sure, 100 per cent sure, stone-cold guaranteed beyond all semblance of doubt sure, that Torres had cheated. He knew the consequence of a booking would be a red card. Yet he ploughed ahead, altering the balance of power beyond repair, convicting an innocent man on a hunch. He ruined the game, there and then. It was now a matter of time before United found a way through.

It took seven minutes. Van Persie shot, Petr Cech got his fingertips to the ball and, as it edged towards the goal-line, recovered to kick clear. His desperate attempt found only Rafael, however, who drilled a shot into the area to be turned in by substitute Javier Hernandez. If the sense of injustice inside Stamford Bridge was already palpable it exploded when replays showed Hernandez standing in an offside position when Rafael shot. He was almost on the goal-line, level with Cech at best, but behind every blue shirt. It was not a difficult offside for a linesman to spot. To be fair, Lemon Jefferson could have taken a fair swing at it. Using Ray Charles’s spectacles.
At this point it is customary to trot out the cliche about refereeing being an impossible job and its protagonists deserving of sympathy. No it isn’t and no they aren’t. Not here, anyway. It is not impossible to use common sense, as Clattenburg should have done over Torres, or to spot no blue shirt between a red shirt and goal. Yet Clattenburg’s bravado continued to the bitter end. In stoppage-time, he booked Antonio Valencia for diving when he plainly ran into Mikel. He should not be near a match as big as this for a very long time.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
49,955
Location
W.Yorks
And not only that, even when they were down to 9, we were still sitting back, they were still the better team. And we looked like we could still concede. 9 men, and they still looked like they could nick a goal. How is that even possible?
I know I'm a bit late to the party, but can I just :lol: at this...

One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard for quite sometime (and I'm saying this after I've just read elsewhere that Ivanovic wasn't the last man...)
 

buckooo1978

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
13,767
finneh sums the game up perfectly there.....

my only complaints are that our midfield wasn't great towards the end of the first half

read on twitter that Carrick and Cleverley's first half passing stats were 75% and 64%

we should have also used Scholes in the closing stages - i think his passing would have really hit Chelsea hard

all things considered we have 9 points at Anfield, the Bridge and at St James Park where we picked up 2 last season - definate room for improvement in that midfield though
 

Ash_G

Full Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
7,402
I don't think there are huge issues, clearly a bit ott, this is an inform chelsea at a ground where we've had out worst results in the PL. There are two issues though that currently stand out for me, the very questionable defending and our lack of players who can get past people and carry the ball, particularly centrally. Valencia was imo pretty average and waseful on the ball once he couldn't get the space to go past Cole or was coming on to a slow ball and Young relies more on quick passing then technical ability. I think that's the one thing missing from our attack when Nani isn't there and limits the way in which we threaten.

But on the whole I'd say the team is looking promising and would really like us to keep with the central 3 of Carrick, Clev and Rooney, with RVP ahead. Think we could experiment with the players flanking him but that quartet is a great base.
 

Ash_G

Full Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
7,402
It's all linked up though, we expose teams out wide because we play with two wingers as well as pushing up the fullbacks. Teams expose us centrally though because of that, we have 4-5 players spread across the width of the midfield where as they'll have 5 players quite narrow, often with multiple players in pockets of space. That's why the diamond typically led to more possession as there were lots of players relatively close together, reducing the gaps and making it easier to win/retain the ball.

Personally I liked the set up we did against Chelsea I just think we need to work on getting more variety from the wingers in terms of balancing wide play to coming inside and also working on clevs positioning in a deeper role which still needs fine tuning imo.
 

marjen

Desperately wants to be like Noodle
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
8,643
Location
At the back post
We've got some issues, yeah. We're leaking goals, although leaking two goals against a side like Chelsea in a match we won anyway isn't the real issue.

But what we've also got is a lot of points from reasonably tough opposition at the start of the season, and an array of attacking talent that exposes every team we come up against.

So all in all it's not so bad, and it's really entertaining.
 

sincher

"I will cry if Rooney leaves"
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
25,592
Location
YSC
Defensively, there are a couple of problems. De Gea is very promising and still progressing but still has his moments of uncertainty, and I think we're missing a bit of steel at the back with Vidic out (and Smalling and Jones). The former will resolve itself over time, especially if he gets a good run of games, and the latter should be improved soon by Smalling and then Vidic returning to fitness.

We still have a little problem in midfield as well, though it's less glaring than before because Cleverley is doing very well and improving all the time, and with Van Persie, Rooney is able to contribute more in midfield against the bigger teams. Carrick is a good player but is just not quite high-energy enough for that role in the team (shielding the defence) I think; it's not a problem against most teams but sometimes it shows itself against the more incisive attacking sides. Fletcher would probably do a little better if he was fully fit. I don't think Anderson will ever have enough off the ball energy sadly. I still think Jones could be a good option there, especially long term.

Attack-wise we look dead sexy I think.

I'm optimistic but we need to start getting more solid quite soon or we will lose too many games.
 

manusteve

Full Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
1,928
Defensively, there are a couple of problems. De Gea is very promising and still progressing but still has his moments of uncertainty, and I think we're missing a bit of steel at the back with Vidic out (and Smalling and Jones). The former will resolve itself over time, especially if he gets a good run of games, and the latter should be improved soon by Smalling and then Vidic returning to fitness.

We still have a little problem in midfield as well, though it's less glaring than before because Cleverley is doing very well and improving all the time, and with Van Persie, Rooney is able to contribute more in midfield against the bigger teams. Carrick is a good player but is just not quite high-energy enough for that role in the team (shielding the defence) I think; it's not a problem against most teams but sometimes it shows itself against the more incisive attacking sides. Fletcher would probably do a little better if he was fully fit. I don't think Anderson will ever have enough off the ball energy sadly. I still think Jones could be a good option there, especially long term.

Attack-wise we look dead sexy I think.

I'm optimistic but we need to start getting more solid quite soon or we will lose too many games.
I don't think Smalling and Jones give us more steel at all, but I understand your point.

For me, Jonny Evans has been excellent and I have no problem if he and Vidic form the consistent partnership when the latter returns from injury.

Personally I'd like more steel in central midfield, but I thought Rooney was exceptional yesterday (apart from the stupid foul on Hazard). I think if we had gone in 2-0, we could have closed it out or at worst won 2-1.

I think we did very well considering how potent Chelsea's three No. 10's were yesterday and if they had, say Falcao instead of Torres it would have been much harder. However, we won while playing really well, so all good.
 

SkeppyRed

Lineups Game Winner 2012/13
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
4,064
Worst OP ever. Only possible explanation is they were watching a completely different game to everyone else.
 

londonredmaniac

I suffer delusions of grandeur
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
18,663
Location
Mid life crisis
No it isn't. Slightly dramatic but some good points.
Correct.

I mean we're letting in goals left, right and centre and our midfield has been cut through by the mighy Stoke, Southampton, Fulham etc. Of course there is issues.

What we do have is a potent attack capable of scoring at anytime. That's the good stuff.
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,788
Location
india
So many people overreacting in this thread. Sure, one should be able to enjoy a win like this for a day or two but this place was made for discussion and if there is something that is worthy of being discussed, it WILL be discussed. Our performance yesterday, as with all performances, will be scrutinized.

And although the OP goes over the top with his wording, he's not all that wrong. We do need to improve our general a lot. We're getting points through the sheer brilliance of the individuals we are right now but as a unit, we're still nowhere the level we should be aiming to achieve. There's a real lack of fluidity and control over games.
 

londonredmaniac

I suffer delusions of grandeur
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
18,663
Location
Mid life crisis
Worst OP ever. Only possible explanation is they were watching a completely different game to everyone else.
Not especially. Granted it is worded OTT but some of the points and those that have followed have been fairly valid.

Even Fergie has said so in recent times. From minute 30 until the sending off we could not get hold of the ball for more than about 5 passes and got punished.

Chelsea were all over us...it's just fact.
 

Bross

Noggie Pez Dispenser
Joined
May 14, 2011
Messages
9,162
Location
Chillin with Giggsy at the Retardment Castle
This team is something I've never seen from a SAF side. They're bottlers. And they're in danger of becoming the ultimate bottlers.

Previously, going 2-0 up would allow us to relax as fans (much like going 8 points clear in a run-in). It never does with this lot. Age only goes so far as an excuse at a club that made a mockery of Alan Hansen's infamous claims.
"Bottlers" :lol: We have earned 12 points in the first 10 games after being behind, and we have nine out of nine points in aways against Chelsea, Liverpool and Newcastle, 3 fixtures we could not win last year. "Bottlers" is about as far you get from the truth. Bottlers feck up whenever they get out of their comfort zone and face some difficulties - we are nothing like that.

Thinking that we can expect to keep a side like Chelsea at home from having a good spell during 90 minutes is deluded. We also dominated them for the first 30 minutes.
 

apotheosis

O'Fortuna
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,234
Location
waiting for everyone else to catch up!!
For me while we do have some issues within the squad, most of our shortcomings seem to be most evident in a 4-4-2.

Yes it has it's uses, but in big games it makes it incredibly difficult to gain any real control. I have to wonder why we persisted with 4-4-2 after going 2 goals up. The only way we could really lose from that position was by allowing Chelsea the opportunity to control the game, gain some momentum and start putting us under pressure. Which they did in the last 10mins of the first half when they pulled one back after some sustained pressure.

During this time i felt the justification for keeping a 4-4-2 would be based upon whether or not we still carried a regular threat on the counter when Chelsea were attacking. We didn't. The pressure increased and we could not even string 3 passes together before Chelsea came at us again.

The second half continued in a similar vein. Sustained pressure from Chelsea, Utd struggling to keep it. We gained nothing from staying with 4-4-2 after we scored our second goal. All it did was allow Chelsea to dominate midfield and build pressure and momentum.

We were second best really for quite a while until RVP's pass to Young, which then of course the sending off changed the game. Personally i don't know why we didn't change to a 4-3-3 for the second half. We would have been better able to protect our defence and keep possession, while the 3 strikers would have given us plenty of threat on the break.

So for me the tactics didn't help our cause whatsoever after we scored the 2 goals. Chelsea play with no real width, so it was obvious their best chance was to dominate centrally, which our 4-4-2 only aided. When we have played 4-3-3 this season we have looked good, and not as shaky at the back. So it baffles me why we would stick with a system that allows our opponents the opportunity to play to their strengths, whilst at the same time exposing our weaknesses.
 

finneh

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
7,318
Not especially. Granted it is worded OTT but some of the points and those that have followed have been fairly valid.

Even Fergie has said so in recent times. From minute 30 until the sending off we could not get hold of the ball for more than about 5 passes and got punished.

Chelsea were all over us...it's just fact.
You have to accept though in every game against top opposition, particularly away from home you are bound to go through periods where you are up against it. Minute 30 up until the sending off was 30 minutes where they were massively on top, similar to minute 0-30 where we were cutting through them like butter.

If this thread were posted in reference to the games against Everton, Fulham, S'ton, Liverpool, Spurs I'm sure people would be lapping it up. The fact is during a 60 minute 11v11 game we played arguably the best 30 minutes of the season and significantly outplayed the opposition at our hardest fixture of the season.

I'm usually a big cynic even when we win; but even I'm struggling to stomach some of this.
 

SkeppyRed

Lineups Game Winner 2012/13
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
4,064
Not especially. Granted it is worded OTT but some of the points and those that have followed have been fairly valid.

Even Fergie has said so in recent times. From minute 30 until the sending off we could not get hold of the ball for more than about 5 passes and got punished.

Chelsea were all over us...it's just fact.
Im talking about the OP which is a very poor summary of the match. Did we have a shaky spell? Yes. Did we deserve the win over the whole 90 minutes? Yes.

Chelsea were only all over us for a 30 minute period, thats the fact, fifteen minutes each side of half time. Before and after that we were comfortable and our defense dealt with everything well apart from in that half hour period. They certainly did not look like scoring or were the better team when we had 10/9 men like the OP ridiculously suggests.

They in fact looked far more vulnerable in defence than we did. Right throughout the match we looked dangerous every time we went forward and at 2-2/11v11 we cut them wide open and they needed to commit a cynical foul to stop a clear-cut goalscoring opportunity we created. This then gave us the edge but minutes later Torres was sent off and from then on people were just guessing how the game would of panned out depending on their own agendas. Personally I would of fancied us to exploit the space Chelsea would of left behind with ten men seeing as our counter attacking was devastating.

As for refereeing decisions that should of been different, Hernandez's goal would of been disallowed but Mikel, Luiz and Ramirez should of gone for persistent fouls and Torres should of been sent off with a straight red which would of had an impact on the outcome just as much. Swings and roundabouts.

The OP made his post not long after the final whistle so I can only imagine emotions distorted his view of how the match actually went.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
49,955
Location
W.Yorks
The OP is mostly bollocks, break down the points

"I'm sure right now you're all happy and giddy because we won. But quite frankly, if it wasn't for some very unlikely refereeing calls, we'd have had lost that. In fact, we were having our asses handed to us. "
Nonsense, if you think Ivanovic's red card was the wrong decision, then you're an idiot. 11vs10, the game was very much ours for the taking.

We were being totally and utterly outclassed and outplayed. I don't want this thread to be about the calls today (that can go somewhere else) but without them, we wouldn't have won today.
Whilst being OTT he's sort of got a fair point here (until the bollocks at the end)... but you surely have to add that this occured only from about 30 minutes onwards, before that, we were in control and Chelsea looked utterly clueless. Frankly though, they're a very good side playing at home, so for someone to not expect them to come at us is a bit unrealistic.

"Our defence and our midfield just look a complete and utter shambles. And not only that, even when they were down to 9, we were still sitting back, they were still the better team. And we looked like we could still concede. 9 men, and they still looked like they could nick a goal. How is that even possible?"
I'm not sure our defence and midfield were an "utter shambles" as ultimately, we were still drawing the game. Our defence is obviously not in the best shape at the moment due to injuries, which obviously cannot be helped. Alas, OTT whilst it is, he may have something of a point... but then it decends into madness. They were the better team when they had 9 men? What the feck?! We scored a goal and then controlled the game from a winning position... what more does he want?! Chelsea didn't fashion a single chance after going down to 9 and didn't trouble us at all. This last point is such an incredible amount of bollocks, it overshadows the whole post in bollocksness.
 

Ferguson

Full Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
3,930
Location
Seoul, South Korea
I think a lot of United fans are used to seeing us on the front foot, dominating possession and attacking nonstop.

On the rare occasions that United choose to counterattack, cede territory to an opponent and allow an opponent to keep the lion's share of possession, these fans don't know how to react. They watch United for the beautiful attacking football, but instead they are witnessing a cold, calculated football aimed at getting a result in a difficult place against a difficult side.

It appeared that Chelsea was dominating us, but the fact is we scored two and had Ivanovic sent off on the counter. Italians have been winning this way for years yet when we do it our team is a mess and we have huge issues to address.

As I see it there is only one issue: getting Vidic, Smalling, and Jones back. Given the circumstances the choice to protect our centre and hit Chelsea on the counter was a no-brainer.

No reason for any fan to complain IMO.
 

Devil may care

New Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
35,976
It was an abysmal decision. Not just wrong, but full of the alienating arrogance of modern officialdom. There is no way Clattenburg could have been sure, 100 per cent sure, stone-cold guaranteed beyond all semblance of doubt sure, that Torres had cheated. He knew the consequence of a booking would be a red card. Yet he ploughed ahead, altering the balance of power beyond repair, convicting an innocent man on a hunch. He ruined the game, there and then. It was now a matter of time before United found a way through.

It took seven minutes. Van Persie shot, Petr Cech got his fingertips to the ball and, as it edged towards the goal-line, recovered to kick clear. His desperate attempt found only Rafael, however, who drilled a shot into the area to be turned in by substitute Javier Hernandez. If the sense of injustice inside Stamford Bridge was already palpable it exploded when replays showed Hernandez standing in an offside position when Rafael shot. He was almost on the goal-line, level with Cech at best, but behind every blue shirt. It was not a difficult offside for a linesman to spot. To be fair, Lemon Jefferson could have taken a fair swing at it. Using Ray Charles’s spectacles.
At this point it is customary to trot out the cliche about refereeing being an impossible job and its protagonists deserving of sympathy. No it isn’t and no they aren’t. Not here, anyway. It is not impossible to use common sense, as Clattenburg should have done over Torres, or to spot no blue shirt between a red shirt and goal. Yet Clattenburg’s bravado continued to the bitter end. In stoppage-time, he booked Antonio Valencia for diving when he plainly ran into Mikel. He should not be near a match as big as this for a very long time.
Who wrote this hyperbolic crap? One thing no one is taking into consideration with the Torres sending off is that he was faking being hurt and then was miraculously fine a second later when he realized he wasn't getting the free kick, surely it's not hard to see how that would give the ref the feeling he was diving in the first place.

He didn't just not make a great opening shot of it, he continued in the same vein even when told to wise up. So given the fact his first post was bollocks, and he then compounded it all by continuing to spout bollocks, I'd say the fact that he was told he was talking bollocks is just about fair. In my opinion, obviously.
I just think it's a waste of time when points made within his post were valid for discussion rather than simply typing up posts slagging the guy, as beyond his posts plenty of others in here have taken the topic and turned it into a proper discussion of the basic point that this team has some issues.
 

brad-dyrak

Full Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
2,431
Man some of you lot like to pile on. The OP's points were valid enough. Maybe OTT here and there. Easily debatable who was the better team, but I'd give it to Chelsea. Awful reffing, lucky first goal, some great DG saves, Hernandez offsides, Torres sent off etc.
 

surf

Full Member
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
6,714
Location
In the wilderness
Chelsea couldn't get near Rooney and RVP for 30 minutes. This team is like the old 60's side, classy forwards that will score a ton of goals and a defence that is never entirely convincing. The defence is a work in progress anyway, what with De Gea, Rafael, Smalling and Jones still being emerging players. Cleverley was average yesterday, but he will improve too. Some of the referee/linesman decisions were debatable or wrong, but Chelsea basically ceded the game when Ivanovic took down Young and correctly got a red.
 

Adebesi

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
19,159
Location
Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth.
Not huge issues. Small-to-medium sized issues. One medium sized issue and maybe a couple of ancillary, smaller issues.

Certainly it has less issues than most of our domestic competition have at the moment.

Also, I think Paceme's characterisation of the Caf is a little unfair. Yes a lot of people want to see money invested in the midfield. But there is also generally a lot of enthusiasm for youth development, which comes up a lot in the SAF Succession threads, for example. I think a lot of us hold onto that tradition as something that separates us from the likes of City and Chelsea, and we are proud of it. Just because we want to sign an experienced replacement for Scholes, doesnt make us all transfer muppets.
 

londonredmaniac

I suffer delusions of grandeur
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
18,663
Location
Mid life crisis
Not huge issues. Small-to-medium sized issues. One medium sized issue and maybe a couple of ancillary, smaller issues.

Certainly it has less issues than most of our domestic competition have at the moment.

Also, I think Paceme's characterisation of the Caf is a little unfair. Yes a lot of people want to see money invested in the midfield. But there is also generally a lot of enthusiasm for youth development, which comes up a lot in the SAF Succession threads, for example. I think a lot of us hold onto that tradition as something that separates us from the likes of City and Chelsea, and we are proud of it. Just because we want to sign an experienced replacement for Scholes, doesnt make us all transfer muppets.
No...it just makes complete and logical sense.