We are an awfully coached team

Bobcat

Full Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
5,291
Location
Behind the curtains, leering at the neighbors
I don’t think anyone has ever suggested that management and coaching has no bearing in results.

If anything, it’s actually the opposite. Plenty of posters here seem to strip any and all responsibility from the players and place results solely on “the system” and the “style of play”. It actually goes as far as people suggesting misplaced passes and individual f***ups are the result of “poor coaching”. Obviously it doesn’t go the other way, as any positives are dismissed under that laughable term “individual brilliance”.

Anyone with any sense knows that football is far more complicated than to suggest any one thing is the root of all failures or success.
This. The worst part imo is people who make bold claims about coaching when:
  1. They dont have a fecking clue what goes on at Carrington or any other training ground
  2. They have not even coached football at a kindergarten level
Of course coaching matters, but it seems a widespread belief among some fans that player talent matters little and that anyone can do anything with the right coaching
 

united for life

Full Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
683
Until we can consistently keep our high tempo passing/quick transition identity with multiple personnel and not just our best team players I will always believe we are poorly coached. When we dont have a Fred or martial playing the coaching always shows it's ass.
this might sound news to you, but we are level with Liverpool on top of the league. What are you talking about?
 

Dominos

Full Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
5,098
Location
Manchester
This. The worst part imo is people who make bold claims about coaching when:
  1. They dont have a fecking clue what goes on at Carrington or any other training ground
  2. They have not even coached football at a kindergarten level
Of course coaching matters, but it seems a widespread belief among some fans that player talent matters little and that anyone can do anything with the right coaching
So again we're back to the argument that because we don't see the coaching then we cannot comment on whether the team look like a well drilled cohesive unit, and whether they're underperforming/overperforming relative the quality of the players we have.

Of course everyone believes the talent of the players matters, if you're of the opinion that the quality of players we have is higher than that of the performances that are being produced then you may ask whether the manager is doing a good job. That's kind of the point of the manager, to get the best out of his team no?

At the end of the day the team is likely in one of 3 scenarios.
1. We're performing at a level better than the quality of the players we have (suggests we're very well coached)
2. We're performing at the level our quality of players would warrant (suggests we're adequately coached?)
3. We're performing at a level worse than the quality of players we have (suggests we're poorly coached)

It also raises the question of whether adequate would be good enough. If other teams can overperform relative to the talent in their squad, then should Manchester United not expect the same?

Again, post not intended to say we're poorly coached.
 

Inigo Montoya

Leave Wayne Rooney alone!!
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
34,229
So again we're back to the argument that because we don't see the coaching then we cannot comment on whether the team look like a well drilled cohesive unit, and whether they're underperforming/overperforming relative the quality of the players we have.

Of course everyone believes the talent of the players matters, if you're of the opinion that the quality of players we have is higher than that of the performances that are being produced then you may ask whether the manager is doing a good job. That's kind of the point of the manager, to get the best out of his team no?

At the end of the day the team is likely in one of 3 scenarios.
1. We're performing at a level better than the quality of the players we have (suggests we're very well coached)
2. We're performing at the level our quality of players would warrant (suggests we're adequately coached?)
3. We're performing at a level worse than the quality of players we have (suggests we're poorly coached)

It also raises the question of whether adequate would be good enough. If other teams can overperform relative to the talent in their squad, then should Manchester United not expect the same?

Again, post not intended to say we're poorly coached.
So again we're back to the argument that because we don't see the coaching then we cannot comment on whether the team look like a well drilled cohesive unit, and whether they're underperforming/overperforming relative the quality of the players we have.

Of course everyone believes the talent of the players matters, if you're of the opinion that the quality of players we have is higher than that of the performances that are being produced then you may ask whether the manager is doing a good job. That's kind of the point of the manager, to get the best out of his team no?

At the end of the day the team is likely in one of 3 scenarios.
1. We're performing at a level better than the quality of the players we have (suggests we're very well coached)
2. We're performing at the level our quality of players would warrant (suggests we're adequately coached?)
3. We're performing at a level worse than the quality of players we have (suggests we're poorly coached)

It also raises the question of whether adequate would be good enough. If other teams can overperform relative to the talent in their squad, then should Manchester United not expect the same?

Again, post not intended to say we're poorly coached.
So what are we then, in your humble opinion? well, adequately or poor?
 

Ole's screen

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Messages
104
Location
Right next to Ole’s seat
Supports
KC Chiefs
So again we're back to the argument that because we don't see the coaching then we cannot comment on whether the team look like a well drilled cohesive unit, and whether they're underperforming/overperforming relative the quality of the players we have.

Of course everyone believes the talent of the players matters, if you're of the opinion that the quality of players we have is higher than that of the performances that are being produced then you may ask whether the manager is doing a good job. That's kind of the point of the manager, to get the best out of his team no?

At the end of the day the team is likely in one of 3 scenarios.
1. We're performing at a level better than the quality of the players we have (suggests we're very well coached)
2. We're performing at the level our quality of players would warrant (suggests we're adequately coached?)
3. We're performing at a level worse than the quality of players we have (suggests we're poorly coached)

It also raises the question of whether adequate would be good enough. If other teams can overperform relative to the talent in their squad, then should Manchester United not expect the same?

Again, post not intended to say we're poorly coached.
I’m sorry that entire framework is bogus as the details matter quite a lot. For example, do your good players fit the way you wanna play? How well do the players understand how you want them to play. A team of less talented players can beat a team of more talented players based simply on them not being suited to the game plan or having not yet fully integrated the managers philosophy and not have developed the automatons between players that the other team has.

Further, the players’ quality varies with the system they play in, how fit they are, how motivated they are, what’s going on in their lives outside football and tons of other things. It’s very hard to judge from the outside whether the team is over or underperforming the talent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niall

Bobcat

Full Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
5,291
Location
Behind the curtains, leering at the neighbors
So again we're back to the argument that because we don't see the coaching then we cannot comment on whether the team look like a well drilled cohesive unit, and whether they're underperforming/overperforming relative the quality of the players we have.

Of course everyone believes the talent of the players matters, if you're of the opinion that the quality of players we have is higher than that of the performances that are being produced then you may ask whether the manager is doing a good job. That's kind of the point of the manager, to get the best out of his team no?

At the end of the day the team is likely in one of 3 scenarios.
1. We're performing at a level better than the quality of the players we have (suggests we're very well coached)
2. We're performing at the level our quality of players would warrant (suggests we're adequately coached?)
3. We're performing at a level worse than the quality of players we have (suggests we're poorly coached)

It also raises the question of whether adequate would be good enough. If other teams can overperform relative to the talent in their squad, then should Manchester United not expect the same?

Again, post not intended to say we're poorly coached.
No its because 90% of it is kneejerk nonsense which is based on sweet feck all.

This thread was created Nov.4, right after we lost to Istanbul in the CL. Coincidence? I think not

Also, the relative strenght of a team is not that clear. Of course generally speaking you can say City have better players than Bristol, but its not like we know the max potential of x, y and z player. In our case you can reasonably claim we should finish the season top 4 or thereabouts, but use single games or a small sample of games as evidence of good/poor coaching is just daft

There is a lot of different factors at play here. Case in point, Chris Wilder was constantly used last year as a stick to beat Ole with. So what happened? Did he turn into a shite coach in 2020? Did Ole turn into one of the best coaches in the PL January 2020?

There was another gem of a thread here called "Rate the PL coaches" where loads of people had Ole dead last, while "elite" coach Arteta was often top 6. Many of these were the same who talk most about coaching and pretty hard proof they were talking out their arse
 

Dominos

Full Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
5,098
Location
Manchester
So what are we then, in your humble opinion? well, adequately or poor?
I don't know because none of us are football or coaching experts but in the spirit of a discussion forum we can speculate.

Starting with results only. We're currently on course for 78 points this season - do I think we're massively overperforming relative to the quality of our squad? Not really. Nor do I think we're massively underperforming, because I think our squad is pretty good. But not complete.

Do I think Leipzig has better players than us and should be going through to the CL knockouts at our expense? No. Now there is an example of a team playing way above the level you'd expect given their squad.

Do I think our results are better than our performances have deserved? Potentially yes. We've overperformed our expected points this season, which isn't necessarily a massive worry as top teams tend to, however we've overperformed by quite a margin compared to other top teams (City and Chelsea have actually underperformed).

When you break down some of the individual aspects of the game.
Do we press like a top team?
Do we defend like a top team?
Are we good defending at set pieces?
Are we good at breaking down a low block?

For me the answer would be no.

However we are very good on the counter and in attacking transition.

Overall I'd be hard pressed to say we're anything more than an adequately coached team. I do think it's likely some other managers would have us looking more like a cohesive pressing and passing unit, and dominating games that we're currently scraping by.

Where I think Ole is doing a good job is the squad he's building, keeping the players happy, confident and in good spirits. Mourinho, LVG and Moyes drained the players morale, for the first time in a while it looks like the players actually like the manager which is important.
 

OrcaFat

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
1,094
So again we're back to the argument that because we don't see the coaching then we cannot comment on whether the team look like a well drilled cohesive unit, and whether they're underperforming/overperforming relative the quality of the players we have.

Of course everyone believes the talent of the players matters, if you're of the opinion that the quality of players we have is higher than that of the performances that are being produced then you may ask whether the manager is doing a good job. That's kind of the point of the manager, to get the best out of his team no?

At the end of the day the team is likely in one of 3 scenarios.
1. We're performing at a level better than the quality of the players we have (suggests we're very well coached)
2. We're performing at the level our quality of players would warrant (suggests we're adequately coached?)
3. We're performing at a level worse than the quality of players we have (suggests we're poorly coached)

It also raises the question of whether adequate would be good enough. If other teams can overperform relative to the talent in their squad, then should Manchester United not expect the same?

Again, post not intended to say we're poorly coached.
The best indication of the effectiveness of the management and coaching is the results we get over a long period. If we’re looking for something in particular and it ain’t there or if player A or B ain’t delivering like we know he could, we’re missing the big picture.

People say they see no evidence of good coaching, they just need to look at the results. Over a long period.
 

Raees

Legal Guardian of the Football forums
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
28,770
There is more to football than ‘coaching’. What Sir Alex proved was that ‘managing’ is more important and a rarer quality.

Ole is one of the best ‘managers’ in the league and that is why where we are at the moment. He’s got the players eating out of his hands, they’re enjoying their football and they’re fighting to the end and he’s rotated the squad well and picked people on merit.

There is barely any toxicity in the squad or lack of mental freshness. The players trust him not to throw them under the bus but he’s also not a walkover either. He’s proven that in way he’s handled Pogba.

From a coaching POV are we amazing? No but tactically we are a smarter side than is given credit and very adaptable.
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
10,098
Location
Sunny Manc
Yes you're right failures are most likely a combination of factors. There are posters who aren't convinced we're a well coached team, but there are also loads of posters who ridicule the idea that any of our problems could be down to poor coaching.
The thing is, these people have no idea if we’re well coached or not. Most of them state we have no coaching at all, no game plan, no tactics, no approach to football. There’s no insight there. They’re presumptions based purely on results, nothing more. Bad results must = bad coaching. People are more comfortable having a pantomime villain to point the finger at though.

This. The worst part imo is people who make bold claims about coaching when:
  1. They dont have a fecking clue what goes on at Carrington or any other training ground
  2. They have not even coached football at a kindergarten level
Of course coaching matters, but it seems a widespread belief among some fans that player talent matters little and that anyone can do anything with the right coaching
It basically boils down to small mindedness more than anything. Their remarks on coaching is based on “what Klopp does” most of the time. It was the same with Pep, but obviously he’s not flavour of the month right now.

There’s a bizarre belief that there’s only one way to win in football, and it’s whatever the current league champions do.
 

Dominos

Full Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
5,098
Location
Manchester
I’m sorry that entire framework is bogus as the details matter quite a lot. For example, do your good players fit the way you wanna play? How well do the players understand how you want them to play. A team of less talented players can beat a team of more talented players based simply on them not being suited to the game plan or having not yet fully integrated the managers philosophy and not have developed the automatons between players that the other team has.

Further, the players’ quality varies with the system they play in, how fit they are, how motivated they are, what’s going on in their lives outside football and tons of other things. It’s very hard to judge from the outside whether the team is over or underperforming the talent.
Coaching an effective gameplan relative to your players strengths, and making them understand the way you want to play is surely part of being a well coached team?

Basically we're saying because we don't know exactly what a team's potential is relative to their talent then we can never say whether a manager is doing a good or bad job. And presumably the owners of football clubs shouldn't be replacing their managers because how on earth could they possibly know whether the team is under or over performing?

I said in previous post that factors such as confidence, injuries could be the cause of underperformance so you're right on that front that it's not always down to coaching. However factors like motivation and confidence are also intagible that we don't see so we'd have the same posters saying we're not allowed to question that either. So if a team is underperforming, what exactly are we allowed to have an opinion on? We don't know the players talent level, we don't know their confidence level, we don't know what goes on in training, we don't know what tactical instructions they were given, we don't know whether the players are smart enough to follow tactical instruction. What even is the point of the discussion forum?
 

OrcaFat

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
1,094
Coaching an effective gameplan relative to your players strengths, and making them understand the way you want to play is surely part of being a well coached team?

Basically we're saying because we don't know exactly what a team's potential is relative to their talent then we can never say whether a manager is doing a good or bad job. And presumably the owners of football clubs shouldn't be replacing their managers because how on earth could they possibly know whether the team is under or over performing?

I said in previous post that factors such as confidence, injuries could be the cause of underperformance so you're right on that front that it's not always down to coaching. However factors like motivation and confidence are also intagible that we don't see so we'd have the same posters saying we're not allowed to question that either. So if a team is underperforming, what exactly are we allowed to have an opinion on? We don't know the players talent level, we don't know their confidence level, we don't know what goes on in training, we don't know what tactical instructions they were given, we don't know whether the players are smart enough to follow tactical instruction. What even is the point of the discussion forum?
Funny!

But speculation is all it is, mostly, anyway. I’m happier if posters say how they wanted to see us play rather just say we are badly coached. The table says we are not badly coached. But not everyone likes how we play, that’s fine. Post away!
 

kouroux

45k posts to finally achieve this tagline
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
81,278
Location
Djibouti (La terre des braves)
I've been too critical of Ole that it's only fair that I recognize the very very good work he's been doing for the last few weeks. He's made it exciting to watch United and wait for games.
That's immense for me
 

Ole's screen

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Messages
104
Location
Right next to Ole’s seat
Supports
KC Chiefs
Coaching an effective gameplan relative to your players strengths, and making them understand the way you want to play is surely part of being a well coached team?

Basically we're saying because we don't know exactly what a team's potential is relative to their talent then we can never say whether a manager is doing a good or bad job. And presumably the owners of football clubs shouldn't be replacing their managers because how on earth could they possibly know whether the team is under or over performing?

I said in previous post that factors such as confidence, injuries could be the cause of underperformance so you're right on that front that it's not always down to coaching. However factors like motivation and confidence are also intagible that we don't see so we'd have the same posters saying we're not allowed to question that either. So if a team is underperforming, what exactly are we allowed to have an opinion on? We don't know the players talent level, we don't know their confidence level, we don't know what goes on in training, we don't know what tactical instructions they were given, we don't know whether the players are smart enough to follow tactical instruction. What even is the point of the discussion forum?
If you agree there's a ton of facts and its hard to judge if its coaching or not then maybe fans in general shouldn't be calling for the manager's head unless there's drastic underachievement going on and things don't like like they're going to improve anytime soon.

All we've had is a poor start to the season where we were running a game behind everyone in terms of fitness and preparedness and failed to get out of a group having beaten all the teams in it. Things like these happen in football. But we've competed head on with two of the best teams in Europe and been quietly consistent for most of the year. Will you then grant then people seriously questioning Ole's coaching were doing it more because they assumed he's not good enough because he coached Molde over say a Leipzig and not being a fancy name rather than things they saw on the pitch - which have been apart from a few bad patches been pretty good for a year now.
 

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
12,432
I'm not commenting on the coaching, per se, but Ole did say that over the last few weeks there's been very little training, just minor preparation as the games are crowding the calendar.

I don't think we've seen a change in style or movement, but the team has shown a change in attitude and Ole has influenced that, not least with his continued selection of Fred and McTominay at important moments, which shows what he values.
 

Polar

Full Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
501
When you break down some of the individual aspects of the game.
Do we press like a top team?
Do we defend like a top team?
Are we good defending at set pieces?
Are we good at breaking down a low block?

For me the answer would be no.

However we are very good on the counter and in attacking transition.
Probably some conflicting demands you have listed.

I think it’s very difficult to press with very high intensity and at the same time have power or surplus energy to maintain our extreme quality in the counter and attacking transition.

In the beginning it looked like Ole tried to prioritise both high intensity pressure and high intensity counters, but he probably realised it was to demanding; one quality went on the expense off the other.

Today we can agree it was right of him to prioritise our counter- and transitionstrategy. I can’t come by any team better than us in this regard.

Are we good at breaking down low blocks? I think we have made progress and we are not as shitty as someone claim. These claims have some element of adopted truth.

Maybe we also have to remember that established play (compared to breakdown) is the less efficient way to score goals? In general it’s a good strategy to use the phase “established attack” to recover players during the match.

Agree we have some work to do defensively.

Considering the players we have, how we have performed lately and our position in the league, it’s not very controversial to argue the team is at least adequately coached - probably well coached in total.
 
Last edited:

Ranchero

Full Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
3,988
Location
Glasgow
I think we are clearly evolving. The coaching team are evolving as are the team. Right now we cannot argue with the position we are in, which is more down to the failures of the City and Liverpool than anything we have done. There have been bloopers tactically this season, most notably the seven defenders we played in the crucial match against Leipzig, which we failed in. But what I find is hopeful is that Ole appears to be willing to change and seems more adaptable to other ideas than our last manager Mourinho. Case in point, was willing to give Daniel James a chance after a promising previous game, only to haul him off when he clearly wasn't cutting it. Now before, he would persevere with him.

I think when he said in an interview the other day "I am not here to keep people happy", that was a statement of intent and a real revelation that he is recognising that it does not matter who you are if you are not cutting it you are out. That may seem bleedin obvious but there are so many managers, Mourinho was one, who had his favourites for one reason or another and would not change certain players. Matic was a glaring example of someone who underperformed consistently yet would still be in the team the following week under Mourinho. Ole has a system now where there is clear competition for places and so far it looks more like a meritocracy than it has ever looked, which is welcome.

It is clear that Ole is trying to have a fluidity to United's play, allowing the players to express themselves, and that may have cost him in terms of firm tactics, but I think that again has evolved.

But we still look extremely shaky at the back and that has to be addressed. And I think that is our achilles heel in terms of coaching. In defending set pieces, for example, all 11 players end up in our own penalty box, so when a clearance is made, the ball comes straight back in and we are put under more pressure, or there is a shot at goal with no marking whatsoever.. Now that smacks of uncertainty. Having everyone in the box is a liability. And that really annoys the heck out of me every time. And I am amazed we do not have a single player further upfield, ready for any clearance on the counter, if only to occupy their defenders.

What we have is a team that has been up and down and I am not kidding myself that we are there yet.
 

matt10000

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2018
Messages
757
Location
Salford UK
When you break down some of the individual aspects of the game.
Do we press like a top team?
Do we defend like a top team?
Are we good defending at set pieces?
Are we good at breaking down a low block?
Have we got the same number of points as the league leaders?
Have we won more points since Fernandes signed than any other pre team?
 

MikeKing

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
4,703
Supports
Bournemouth
I don't know because none of us are football or coaching experts but in the spirit of a discussion forum we can speculate.

Starting with results only. We're currently on course for 78 points this season - do I think we're massively overperforming relative to the quality of our squad? Not really. Nor do I think we're massively underperforming, because I think our squad is pretty good. But not complete.

Do I think Leipzig has better players than us and should be going through to the CL knockouts at our expense? No. Now there is an example of a team playing way above the level you'd expect given their squad.

Do I think our results are better than our performances have deserved? Potentially yes. We've overperformed our expected points this season, which isn't necessarily a massive worry as top teams tend to, however we've overperformed by quite a margin compared to other top teams (City and Chelsea have actually underperformed).

When you break down some of the individual aspects of the game.
Do we press like a top team?
Do we defend like a top team?
Are we good defending at set pieces?
Are we good at breaking down a low block?

For me the answer would be no.

However we are very good on the counter and in attacking transition.

Overall I'd be hard pressed to say we're anything more than an adequately coached team. I do think it's likely some other managers would have us looking more like a cohesive pressing and passing unit, and dominating games that we're currently scraping by.

Where I think Ole is doing a good job is the squad he's building, keeping the players happy, confident and in good spirits. Mourinho, LVG and Moyes drained the players morale, for the first time in a while it looks like the players actually like the manager which is important.
First off, I largely agree with the sentiment here as you probably appreciate where we was before Ole came in comparison to where we are now. You do seem to acknowledge that the changes in our approach isn't something we can take for granted. However, I'll try to give my opinion on your questions.

When you break down some of the individual aspects of the game.
Do we press like a top team? Considering top managers gets to buy an entire midfield at their top club, designed to press or dominate possession while our players in midfield are all leftovers from previous managers or academy graduates I think we're doing quite well. We have had a dysfunctional system in midfield probably since before Moyes, and under Mourinho this was especially true when a defensive approach was clearly hammered into our midfielders. It has taken some time but the mental aspect of that approach has finally been changed and we play more and more without fear. We try to press to the best of our abilities and despite not always being successful we're mostly matching top teams in running stats, which is an indication that we're not that far off.

I don't think we have a system that can make Matic, Pogba effective as runners or McTominay and Fred into creative masters so with the deficiencies in midfield I think we are managing this group of midfield options adequately in regards to their different skills and qualities. Sometimes we have to make use of Pogba since he is here but we can't change the team for him. If he doesn't run and press he wont play, and others like McTominay and Fred have been given a new chance under Ole and has gone up a few levels because of trust and a clear, easy to digest message about the expectations placed upon them. Bruno has had a great effect on our ability to press and create opportunities from winning the ball high up the pitch and attack quickly.

Do we defend like a top team? No. If we did, we would probably be a top team in world football right now. We just don't have the right cb partnership yet and having Jones and Rojo walking around the corridors is a reminder that we still have some work to do. Maguire needs someone next to him and there is plenty of room to improve for our fullbacks. However, I do think we've seen clear improvement on certain aspects with AWB, Shaw and Maguire and also getting better at playing out from the back. It's really, really slow process at times and frankly I'm a bit sick of that but I can also see that we are in fact getting better at it. We're not that experienced and many goals can be avoided with more of it. In regards to coaching I think we're fine. We look well organised and difficult to get through mostly, until we don't. It's not that we're leaking goals because of consistent issues, there is plenty to fix but tactically I think it's fine.

Are we good defending at set pieces? No.
Are we good at breaking down a low block? Good? Not as good as a great top team gets but... We're definitely better than last year, and if we can utilise all our attacking players this shouldn't be a problem. I think we've been pretty good at this since Bruno came, and teams have changed their approach to us because of it. Teams try to play more patiently against us without committing people on the counter because we'll punish them with our quick transitions if they do. Playing a low block for 90 minutes wont work so there is definitely gaps where United is capable of breaking down even a very organised unit.

I think we need to see more chemistry between players, so they know their teammates and where they are on the pitch but as I said that comes with experience and playing together. This is a very young team after all. I do think certain stuff should be pointed out to some players because it seem some never improves certain areas even when it's clear to see what they should be working on. One thing I would like to see is Luke Shaw form a partnership with Martial or whoever plays striker, and the right wing so that either player occupies a dangerous area at the time Luke has to cross/pass. Luke isn't assured enough in those situations close to goal, to make any decision, even if it's right in front of his nose he freezes up. They need to agree on two or three things and keep working on those movements consistently. That way it increases the chance of it coming off in a game, which it feels like just never happens.
 

romufc

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
7,361
Its quite funny when the hardcore Ole Out crowd say that he has no tactics and no coaching, we have good talent which wins games.

I am so surprised clubs haven't tried that before, have no manager but instead good talents. Ole doesn't get the best out of this team they say, yet at the start of the season alot expected 4th / 5th place finish. So for us to be ahead of that, doesn't it mean that he is getting more out of the squad than some expected?

Don't Chelsea have a very talented squad too? Why can't their players freestyle wins?
 

RedSky

likes to kick 10-year-olds
Scout
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
67,034
Location
Hereford FC (Soccermanager)
Right now we cannot argue with the position we are in, which is more down to the failures of the City and Liverpool than anything we have done.
We've lost 3 times in 30 matches in the league and this season we're only 3 points behind Joses 2nd place finish (he was on 35 points after 16 games).

I do agree that both City and Liverpool have gone down a gear but that's more of a Covid issue with the crazy schedule impacting their results and squad fitness. It's been a balancer for us as Ole has managed the club very well post lockdown, we're statisically the best club with the highest win percentage and highest points per game.

But I do agree with your last sentence, I'm expecting a few more bumps this season. We're not close to the finished article yet and we still have big issues in the squad that needs fixing. But it's refreshing to see players not only fight for the shirt but also have the ability we expect and demand. That's what all of us have wanted so it's good to see our transfer strategy falling back in line with fan expectations.
 

troylocker

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
810
There is more to football than ‘coaching’. What Sir Alex proved was that ‘managing’ is more important and a rarer quality.

Ole is one of the best ‘managers’ in the league and that is why where we are at the moment. He’s got the players eating out of his hands, they’re enjoying their football and they’re fighting to the end and he’s rotated the squad well and picked people on merit.

There is barely any toxicity in the squad or lack of mental freshness. The players trust him not to throw them under the bus but he’s also not a walkover either. He’s proven that in way he’s handled Pogba.

From a coaching POV are we amazing? No but tactically we are a smarter side than is given credit and very adaptable.
Good points! One of Ole's biggest strengths are definitely man-management. Making the players feel important, boost their confidence and making them winners mentally are just as important as coaching and tactical approach to each game. The mental part of the game plays a much bigger part than most think. Klopp is also a master at this, and I think his success is more down to this than his "system" and pattern of play. This is what separates the best from the rest of managers.

I don't think the quality of the coaching differs that much from team to team on the top level, but philosophy does though, and Ole's philosophy is not hard to figure out if you watch our matches: Fast direct, vertical, attacking football before possession and a mix of high pressing and deep pressing defence to create space.
You may not like it, but that is our style of play. It is a very modern way of football and it generates a lot of chances.
 

FatherWolff

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 24, 2020
Messages
387
Good points! one Ole's biggest strengths are definitely man-management. Making the players feel important, boost their confidence and making them winners mentally are just as important as coaching and tactical approach to each game. The mental part of the game plays a much bigger part than most think. Klopp is also a master at this, and I think his success is more down to this than his "system" and pattern of play. This is what separates the best from the rest of managers.

I don't think the quality of the coaching differs that much from team to team on the top level, but philosophy does though, and Ole's philosophy is not hard to figure out if you watch our matches: Fast direct, vertical, attacking football before possession and a mix of high pressing and deep pressing defence to create space.
You may not like it, but that is our style of play. It is a very modern way of football and it generates a lot of chances.
Add to that, Ollie G don’t do the coaching. He said so numerous times.. Unless there are technical specific. Good post!
 

Haddock

Full Member
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
682
Its quite funny when the hardcore Ole Out crowd say that he has no tactics and no coaching, we have good talent which wins games.

I am so surprised clubs haven't tried that before, have no manager but instead good talents. Ole doesn't get the best out of this team they say, yet at the start of the season alot expected 4th / 5th place finish. So for us to be ahead of that, doesn't it mean that he is getting more out of the squad than some expected?

Don't Chelsea have a very talented squad too? Why can't their players freestyle wins?
To be fair, Chelsea's players freestyled 2 European trophies over the last decade.
 

MattyLT

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
134
Have to chuckle a bit at people who seem to think that the moment you start seeing the results of training/coaching is the moment the coaching/training suddenly "became good". It used to be bad, but now it's good :D
 

romufc

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
7,361
To be fair, Chelsea's players freestyled 2 European trophies over the last decade.
The team that won the title, with John Terry, Drogba, Lampard? Are you calling them free style players then?
 

Crashoutcassius

Full Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2013
Messages
8,335
Location
playa del carmen
No its because 90% of it is kneejerk nonsense which is based on sweet feck all.

This thread was created Nov.4, right after we lost to Istanbul in the CL. Coincidence? I think not

Also, the relative strenght of a team is not that clear. Of course generally speaking you can say City have better players than Bristol, but its not like we know the max potential of x, y and z player. In our case you can reasonably claim we should finish the season top 4 or thereabouts, but use single games or a small sample of games as evidence of good/poor coaching is just daft

There is a lot of different factors at play here. Case in point, Chris Wilder was constantly used last year as a stick to beat Ole with. So what happened? Did he turn into a shite coach in 2020? Did Ole turn into one of the best coaches in the PL January 2020?

There was another gem of a thread here called "Rate the PL coaches" where loads of people had Ole dead last, while "elite" coach Arteta was often top 6. Many of these were the same who talk most about coaching and pretty hard proof they were talking out their arse
Good post

The cafs view on players and managers has been a fairly reliable negative indicator in the few years that I have been here.
 

pocco

loco
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
16,377
Location
Keep a clean shit tomorrow, United is my final bus
I said I don't think Ole is good enough unless he's got a great team. I also said I think this team is good enough to compete in the league this season, under the current circumstances with the overall level of top teams really low. I said I believe we could win the league this season a good few weeks ago.

I still stand by this and think we're currently seeing it come to fruition at the moment. Whether we'll sustain it or if one of the other top teams will find their form, remains to be seen. But whilst City and Liverpool wobble, we have a chance. If it was a "normal" season then I don't think we'd be close. We're like the Leicester City of 15/16. Counter attack/pace exploit and ride our luck. I don't feel like we dominate games, much like Leicester that season.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
6,876
Issue with trying to identify aspects of coaching is that we adapt/change so much game to game - we could look rubbish one week and still win (Wolves) and then play well and not win (Leicester). We are never going to be the most aesthetic team to watch and Ole doesn't really care about offensive possession, preferring our midfield to unload the ball quickly and directly, particularly in big games, it might not be the best watch for the neutral but if we're winning then who cares?

Is it going to be good enough to win major honours, I'm not sure but nice little run of games coming up where we can find out; City in a cup game (albeit a cup that's definitely a minor trophy) and Pool in the league in a short space of time will be a good test of where we're at.
 

Foxbatt

Full Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
9,308
Why Ole is responsible for everything is because the buck stops with the manager. Yes we have other people to do the actual coaching. It's not Ole.
Look at the Lindelof goal. It's a near post flick by Martial. It's a huge change from what we have been doing regularly. That's is a straight one for Maguire to head. Against Villa we played narrow to stop them playing thru the middle.
I feel that the coaches are learning as they gain more experience on the job. They also seem to have realized that we can't play a pressing game with the current players we have.
It's going to be a hard fight to get into the CL spot this season. City, Spurs and Arsenal are all on a roll. Leicester and Everton are going to be in the fight too.
I still think the mental aspect of the players have to be improved. We are too naive on the pitch. Otherwise that goal we conceded to Villa would not have been scored.
 

The holy trinity 68

The disparager
Joined
Apr 10, 2016
Messages
3,443
Location
Manchester
Why Ole is responsible for everything is because the buck stops with the manager. Yes we have other people to do the actual coaching. It's not Ole.
Look at the Lindelof goal. It's a near post flick by Martial. It's a huge change from what we have been doing regularly. That's is a straight one for Maguire to head. Against Villa we played narrow to stop them playing thru the middle.
I feel that the coaches are learning as they gain more experience on the job. They also seem to have realized that we can't play a pressing game with the current players we have.
It's going to be a hard fight to get into the CL spot this season. City, Spurs and Arsenal are all on a roll. Leicester and Everton are going to be in the fight too.
I still think the mental aspect of the players have to be improved. We are too naive on the pitch. Otherwise that goal we conceded to Villa would not have been scored.
Arsenal :houllier: :lol:

They have won the last 3 games yes but Brighton and West Brom are both likely to be relegated and Chelsea have their worst manager in the Roman era. Not to mention Arsenal are 10 points behind us and we have a game in hand over them.
 

The United

Full Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
2,859
I said I don't think Ole is good enough unless he's got a great team. I also said I think this team is good enough to compete in the league this season, under the current circumstances with the overall level of top teams really low. I said I believe we could win the league this season a good few weeks ago.

I still stand by this and think we're currently seeing it come to fruition at the moment. Whether we'll sustain it or if one of the other top teams will find their form, remains to be seen. But whilst City and Liverpool wobble, we have a chance. If it was a "normal" season then I don't think we'd be close. We're like the Leicester City of 15/16. Counter attack/pace exploit and ride our luck. I don't feel like we dominate games, much like Leicester that season.
Of course if managers have great teams, they will go some places. Even I would.

Thing is Ole is building his own team. If his team is good/great, it is to his credit and he has all the rights to enjoy the success with it?

I am not sure if we will maintain our form this whole season but it is not our fault that other teams are not doing well. We did not even have any advantage over them at all this season. We did not have proper pre season and if anything, we were at disadvantage which showed in early results and later results showed that we are doing good regardless of what other teams are doing or not doing.

Counter attacking is a good and proven style of football which we won so many titles and trophies with in our own history. Any style will be defined as 'dominating football style' as long as it helps win some titles. Some people might think Leicester city won it in a shit season (clearly not for them) and many think that it was one of the greatest if not the greatest achievement in EPL (modern league football) history especially in the league which had so many world class managers and teams.
 
Last edited:

beycont

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2000
Messages
1,230
Location
Malaysia
I said I don't think Ole is good enough unless he's got a great team. I also said I think this team is good enough to compete in the league this season, under the current circumstances with the overall level of top teams really low. I said I believe we could win the league this season a good few weeks ago.

I still stand by this and think we're currently seeing it come to fruition at the moment. Whether we'll sustain it or if one of the other top teams will find their form, remains to be seen. But whilst City and Liverpool wobble, we have a chance. If it was a "normal" season then I don't think we'd be close. We're like the Leicester City of 15/16. Counter attack/pace exploit and ride our luck. I don't feel like we dominate games, much like Leicester that season.
I do not agree at all that we are in this position due to the underperformance of the other teams, that is unfair on our players and the coaching staff.

But let's say your assumption is true, we still would have to be in a position to take advantage right? And for us to be in that position we need to be doing well in the league and that is certainly down to how the team is managed and coached, no?

And how would you define a "great" team? Was Barca with a prime Messi, Iniesta and Xavi a great team? Does that mean it was the team that made Pep great or vice-versa?
 

Isotope

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
17,006
Supports
Ole Ole Ole
Raineri won the League with Leicester not long ago. That Leicester team was worse than what we have now, players wise. I don't see anyone is saying Raineri is a top manager, or people clamoring United to sign him.

Why is that? I mean, he's actually done it. With a worse team.

Then you see Di Matteo won CL with Chelsea, and Avram came 2nd in the League and reached CL Final (Terry's slipped away from winning it). I don't see anyone is saying they're top managers.
 
Last edited:

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
875
So again we're back to the argument that because we don't see the coaching then we cannot comment on whether the team look like a well drilled cohesive unit, and whether they're underperforming/overperforming relative the quality of the players we have.

Of course everyone believes the talent of the players matters, if you're of the opinion that the quality of players we have is higher than that of the performances that are being produced then you may ask whether the manager is doing a good job. That's kind of the point of the manager, to get the best out of his team no?

At the end of the day the team is likely in one of 3 scenarios.
1. We're performing at a level better than the quality of the players we have (suggests we're very well coached)
2. We're performing at the level our quality of players would warrant (suggests we're adequately coached?)
3. We're performing at a level worse than the quality of players we have (suggests we're poorly coached)

It also raises the question of whether adequate would be good enough. If other teams can overperform relative to the talent in their squad, then should Manchester United not expect the same?

Again, post not intended to say we're poorly coached.
I think it's fundamentally true that the net result is the thing we can observe and form judgments about. But, you also have to make allowances for the possibility that performance is not necessarily a direct expression of the coaching. Many things impact - injuries, player group dynamics, attitude - various things that the coaches can affect, but not necessarily control. Sometimes, it just takes time.

And in any case, while what you propose sounds straightforward, it really isn't, because the issue then becomes just what is the quality of the players we have, and just how good is the performance? Judging from the discussion around here, there is much less agreement on both of those things than I'd have thought there'd be. You see people arguing that the squad is good enough to win the title, and people arguing that our players are shite. Sometimes, they're the same people. You see people who are very happy with what is being achieved, and people arguing that we haven't achieved anything other than disgraceful 3rd place finishes and semifinal losses. There are people arguing that the team's record since Bruno arrived is a meaningless cherry-picked statistic that we shouldn't pay any attention to. There are people arguing that we've been lucky and it's all down to moments of individual brilliance, whereby even good performances are considered to prove that we're badly coached (because why else would we be dependent on moments of individual dominance?).