What should Utd's footballing philosophy be?

[Physiocrat]

One of the hopes of hiring a Director of Football is that we will get continuity of playing style and player recruitment over time. Barcelona are often cited as a club which has an overall footballing identity/ philosophy however the way they have played since Cruyff took over has been somewhat different. Cruyff and Pep had much more of a team mentality whereas Rikjaard allowed for more individualism. Cruyff's sides were also significantly more direct than Pep. Enrique turned them into a quasi- counter attacking side too. So what is Barcelona's philosophy?

I'm not saying that Barca don't have a unifying philosophy but it's clear it must have a reasonable amount of flexibility for the Head Coach. So any general philosophy must then be then somewhat, general. Given Utd's history and my own preferences I would like Utd committed to - high tempo, pro active and with a reasonably high risk approach and an emphasis on wing play (by either more traditional wingers or genuine wide forwards).

It would be interesting to see if there's any general consensus on the matter.

 

[FootyGirl88]

I would like us to play high tempo attacking football - I'm not a fan of us sitting back and hoping the opposition makes a mistake.

I would like to see us play on the front foot as soon as the whistle goes. Too many times last season we waited until we were a goal down before we decided to start playing.

 

[Mainoldo]

Quick attacking football. Hate to say it but what Klopp delivers. We aren’t Barcelona we are not about possession and looking pretty in tight areas. What you get from us is a sense of excitement filled with pace and aggression. Our signings and players should also represent this. Fellaini and Mata are good examples of bad signings for our Philosophy not that they are bad players, especially the latter. Martial and Rashford pretty much represent us as a club. If I was a director your Harry Maguire’s and Pulisic’s of this world would be our future. We’ve never been a club for brand world class stars even though we are a club for quality, which shouldn’t be confused.

 

[Treble]

One of the hopes of hiring a Director of Football is that we will get continuity of playing style and player recruitment over time. Barcelona are often cited as a club which has an overall footballing identity/ philosophy however the way they have played since Cruyff took over has been somewhat different. Cruyff and Pep had much more of a team mentality whereas Rikjaard allowed for more individualism. Cruyff's sides were also significantly more direct than Pep. Enrique turned them into a quasi- counter attacking side too. So what is Barcelona's philosophy?

I'm not saying that Barca don't have a unifying philosophy but it's clear it must have a reasonable amount of flexibility for the Head Coach. So any general philosophy must then be then somewhat, general. Given Utd's history and my own preferences I would like Utd committed to - high tempo, pro active and with a reasonably high risk approach and an emphasis on wing play (by either more traditional wingers or genuine wide forwards).

It would be interesting to see if there's any general consensus on the matter.

Sounds like Liverpool (last calendar year).

A high risk approach can't be successful by definition. When you take big risks chances are you'll get hurt more often than you'd like.

Is City's approach high risk? Surely not, because they concede less chances than virtually any other team in Europe. Their defence system is different but not high risk.

 

[FootyGirl88]

Sounds like Liverpool.

A high risk approach can't be successful by definition. When you take big risks chances are you'll get hurt more often than you'd like.

Is City's approach high risk? Surely not, because they concede less chances than virtually any other team in Europe. Their defence system is different but not high risk.

Football is all about risks - Klopp played the same way with Dortmund and won the league. If you have good quality players it can work.

 

[SpyLuke10]

Genuine attacking intent. Entertaining. 'Never say die' attitude. No fear (not afraid of any opponent).

 

[Lam]

Every fan wants to the team to play attacking football. There's no two ways about it. But with the game constantly changing we can't say short passing is the right one or playing with line hugging wingers is the United way. The intention should be to entertain the fans, give 100% and win.

What we clearly lack since SAF left is Grit. We no longer are a gritty team which digs deep or the one which gives 100% not just on the field but 24*7. I hoped with Mourinho coming in he'll bring that culture/philosophy back to United. But looking at how some of the players just switch off or accept mediocrity, it definitely isn't there. We had so many average footballers who put in world class performances week after week because they wouldn't accept giving up.

I want United to be Gritty team/club again. The cups will follow if it's back.

 

[SpyLuke10]

Sounds like Liverpool.

A high risk approach can't be successful by definition. When you take big risks chances are you'll get hurt more often than you'd like.

Is City's approach high risk? Surely not, because they concede less chances than virtually any other team in Europe. Their defence system is different but not high risk.

its about when you take risks. you have to be smart. if we are level or especially behind i'd love to see us really throw everything we got at our opponents to get the win. Feck draws (unless we only need a draw to win on aggregate in a cup comp).

 

[Treble]

Football is all about risks - Klopp played the same way with Dortmund and won the league. If you have good quality players it can work.

That's silly. Let's play with 5 strikers then.

 

[redIndianDevil]

That's silly. Let's play with 5 strikers then.

Why?

 

[SpyLuke10]

Every fan wants to the team to play attacking football. There's no two ways about it. But with the game constantly changing we can't say short passing is the right one or playing with line hugging wingers is the United way. The intention should be to entertain the fans, give 100% and win.

What we clearly lack since SAF left is Grit. We no longer are a gritty team which digs deep or the one which gives 100% not just on the field but 24*7. I hoped with Mourinho coming in he'll bring that culture/philosophy back to United. But looking at how some of the players just switch off or accept mediocrity, it definitely isn't there. We had so many average footballers who put in world class performances week after week because they wouldn't accept giving up.

I want United to be Gritty team/club again. The cups will follow if it's back.

Agreed. There shouldn't be a set style of play for the club, but there should be a mentality and approach to football. Attacking football. Entertaining. Giving 100% for the badge.

 

[Treble]

Why?

Because it's all about risks.

Klopp's Liverpool now isn't all about risks at all. Their defensive record this calendar year is generally outstanding.

 

[ForestRGoinUp]

If we’re being honest we want to play similar to Liverpool. Had the chance to also and sold the guy on being a Mickey Mouse club...

We are lacking heart and identity at the minute but let’s leave the grit for the relegation battlers. Our players need to trust in each other and in their manager again. Get some of that back and we’ll be on our way. (And get the deadwood out haha)

 

[Physiocrat]

Sounds like Liverpool (last calendar year).

A high risk approach can't be successful by definition. When you take big risks chances are you'll get hurt more often than you'd like.

Is City's approach high risk? Surely not, because they concede less chances than virtually any other team in Europe. Their defence system is different but not high risk.

By high risk I mean being somewhat direct and trying to force the issue rather than wait for the opposition to make a mistake a la LVG. Obviously there's times to be more cautious but this would be a general disposition

EDIT- By risky I do not necessarily mean a high defensive line. It could be but you can be risky likely under Fergie without a high line

 

[Physiocrat]

Agreed. There shouldn't be a set style of play for the club, but there should be a mentality and approach to football.

How are you distinguishing approach and set style? The ideas I suggested in the OP seem to be similar to what people are thinking about with comparisons to Barcelona.

Another thing I'd add is an emphasis and bringing through youth team players.

 

[redIndianDevil]

Because it's all about risks.

Klopp's Liverpool now isn't all about risks at all. Their defensive record this calendar year is generally outstanding.

playing 5 strikers is not being risky at all and no does it. What's risky is having a high line of defence and having your fullbacks playing like wingers and pressing very high up the pitch.

 

[Adisa]

We are not a Barcelona or Ajax who have a very specific way of how football should be played.
Any type of attacking football with high tempo and conviction to always try and score will do. Whether it is the positional game, gengenpress or transitional play, it shouldn't matter.
Personally, I would like the club to always look to control territory on the pitch, that means playing high.

 

[Treble]

playing 5 strikers is not being risky at all and no does it. What's risky is having a high line of defence and having your fullbacks playing like wingers and pressing very high up the pitch.

No, it isn't risky per se. It becomes risky when it isn't done well. If you do it as well as City did last season, the risk is very low because you don't concede many chances.

To have 5 strikers is unreasonably risky because you can't control possession and don't have enough players to win the ball back. Basic stuff.

 

[predator]

Basically how we were playing in 2007/08/09.
Fast, direct, dominant, deadly on the counter with vital wing play.
We need a 'main man' I think though. Not sure who will step up to that plate in this current squad.

 

[Billy Blaggs]

That's silly. Let's play with 5 strikers then.

Tottenham tried that and it fails miserabley.

 

[JPRouve]

When it comes to philosophy I would put a bigger emphasis on squad building and I would have several key points:

- Always have a relatively young team.
- Develop prospects players into top players instead of purchasing ready made top players.(It's obviously not rigid you can/should make exceptions)
- Focus on technically gifted and coachable players.

As for the style, it should suit the core players depending on their mental or physical strength and weaknesses but a balanced approach is probably the best way to go, generally dominate possession, play with width and an above average tempo without going to the extremes.

 

[Physiocrat]

We are not a Barcelona or Ajax who have a very specific way of how football should be played.

What is the Barca way? Also, doesn't not having a specific way of playing reduce the benefit of a Director of Football?

 

[Ballache]

High tempo, direct with a lot of width. Basically us in 2006/2007.

 

[Adisa]

What is the Barca way? Also, doesn't not having a specific way of playing reduce the benefit of a Director of Football?

Barcelona like Ajax believe in the Crujff style, although Valverde has shifted from it slightly. Some Barca fans will never warm to it because of that.
I don't think it reduces the need for a DoF. The director of football looks after far more than the style the club adopts.

 

[Physiocrat]

Barcelona like Ajax believe in the Crujff style, although Valverde has shifted from it slightly. Some Barca fans will never warm to it because of that.
I don't think it reduces the need for a DoF. The director of football looks after far more than the style the club adopts.

True, but one of major benefits being touted is continuity of style. I get Barca is supposed to be the Cruyff way but they've deviated quite often from it, eg Rikjaard.

Is there anything style wise which unites all the managers post Cruyff at Barca?

 

[redIndianDevil]

No, it isn't risky per se. It becomes risky when it isn't done well. If you do it as well as City did last season, the risk is very low because you don't concede many chances.

To have 5 strikers is unreasonably risky because you can't control possession and don't have enough players to win the ball back. Basic stuff.

No sane manager in football ever plays with 5 strikers, and that's just absurd to call it risky in football, it's just stupid is what is it is not "basic stuff".

What City and Liverpool both do is quite risky compared to us because in order to do is well, you need very good practice and training(having good footballers helps too). Why Liverpool or Dortmund is more risky because, they weren't blessed with amazing footballers, Liverpool played Karius, Lovren and Matip of all people in central defence and in an high line and went to a CL finals, that is a risk paying off(until Karius lost it in the finals). Dortmund under Klopp succeeded in the league with his risky approach but again lost in the CL finals to a good team. Hope you get the difference.

 

[JPRouve]

True, but one of major benefits being touted is continuity of style. I get Barca is supposed to be the Cruyff way but they've deviated quite often from it, eg Rikjaard.

Is there anything style wise which unites all the managers post Cruyff at Barca?

Except a few exception, they play with a midfield three and put an emphasis on wingers/inside forwards.

 

[FootyGirl88]

No sane manager in football ever plays with 5 strikers, and that's just absurd to call it risky in football, it's just stupid is what is it is not "basic stuff".

What City and Liverpool both do is quite risky compared to us because in order to do is well, you need very good practice and training(having good footballers helps too). Why Liverpool or Dortmund is more risky because, they weren't blessed with amazing footballers, Liverpool played Karius, Lovren and Matip of all people in central defence and in an high line and went to a CL finals, that is a risk paying off(until Karius lost it in the finals). Dortmund under Klopp succeeded in the league with his risky approach but again lost in the CL finals to a good team. Hope you get the difference.

He was just trying to be smart because I said football is all about taking risks - any logical person would know what I meant.

 

[Moriarty]

Barcelona like Ajax believe in the Crujff style, although Valverde has shifted from it slightly. Some Barca fans will never warm to it because of that.
I don't think it reduces the need for a DoF. The director of football looks after far more than the style the club adopts.

I always thought that the 'Cruyff style' was, more or less, that of Rinus Michels and therefore a bit of a misnomer. I do stand to be corrected if I'm wrong though.

 

[Andersons Dietician]

Because it's all about risks.

Klopp's Liverpool now isn't all about risks at all. Their defensive record this calendar year is generally outstanding.

Their and Cities defensive record is due to how they play, as in they take the risk of pushing people forward and pinning the opposition back and not allowing people out.

1 well executed run and pass and it’s all done which is what Liverpool found out a lot until they got VVDJK. If you compare the risks they take to us it’s massive. Robertson, Mendy, Walker, Arnold for example are pushed right up and go at teams like they are WB’s. Shaw has shown us he can do something similar but if you watch our wide players compared to theirs when our fullbacks over lap or push the wide forward protects the position. Liverpool or City’s wide players make their way in to the box.

 

[Adisa]

I always thought that the 'Cruyff style' was, more or less, that of Rinus Michels and therefore a bit of a misnomer. I do stand to be corrected if I'm wrong though.

Yes it is. Not too educated on it to give details but I'm sure I will read on numerous occasions that Michels was the first to champion that brand of football long before Cruyff became a coach.

 

[Adisa]

True, but one of major benefits being touted is continuity of style. I get Barca is supposed to be the Cruyff way but they've deviated quite often from it, eg Rikjaard.

Is there anything style wise which unites all the managers post Cruyff at Barca?

Vast majority of Barca coaches since Cruyff have adapted the possession game that relies on ball circulation rather than players moving positions to create space. A Barca coach that doesn't care about possession would be run out of town.

 

[Treble]

No sane manager in football ever plays with 5 strikers, and that's just absurd to call it risky in football, it's just stupid is what is it is not "basic stuff".

What City and Liverpool both do is quite risky compared to us because in order to do is well, you need very good practice and training(having good footballers helps too). Why Liverpool or Dortmund is more risky because, they weren't blessed with amazing footballers, Liverpool played Karius, Lovren and Matip of all people in central defence and in an high line and went to a CL finals, that is a risk paying off(until Karius lost it in the finals). Dortmund under Klopp succeeded in the league with his risky approach but again lost in the CL finals to a good team. Hope you get the difference.

Basically, you agreed with my point that to play like City and Liverpool is not risky per se but depends on the excecution. City and Liverpool have the best defensive record in 2018. Basic understanding of the relation between risk and probability could help you understand why their approach is not risky as such. When you concede less chances than the other teams your approach is not risky.

 

[ivaldo]

Football is all about risks - Klopp played the same way with Dortmund and won the league. If you have good quality players it can work.

And Ranieri played the opposite and won with a comparatively far inferior squad.

 

[ForestRGoinUp]

And Ranieri played the opposite and won with a comparatively far inferior squad.

Nobody sat back against Leicester. To think we could play that way is silly.

 

[FootyGirl88]

And Ranieri played the opposite and won with a comparatively far inferior squad.

True - but how many teams in the past 10yrs have won big trophies playing passive football? I can only think of Leciester and Athletico Madrid.

Your more likely to win big trophies if you play attacking football.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Vast majority of Barca coaches since Cruyff have adapted the possession game that relies on ball circulation rather than players moving positions to create space. A Barca coach that doesn't care about possession would be run out of town.

Pretty much. Dominating the ball is at the very core of the club's philosophy, regardless of the suttle differences between coaches in regards to how to attack. Can't imagine ever having a Jose trying to turn them into a reactive team.

 

[ivaldo]

Nobody sat back against Leicester. To think we could play that way is silly.

Who said we should play that way?

 

[ivaldo]

True - but how many teams in the past 10yrs have won big trophies playing passive football? I can only think of Leciester and Athletico Madrid.

Your more likely to win big trophies if you play attacking football.

Conte also won it with pretty negative football. I get your sentiment though.

 

[FootyGirl88]

Conte also won it with pretty negative football. I get your sentiment though.

In his first season they played some very good football. They had a good balance between attack and defense.