Why is this Man Utd side seen as inconsistent?

[Maagge]

We're picking up more consistent results now, but if you look at the performances we can go from being better than PSG to looking like West Brom will turn us over. And it all happens within a few days or even from half to half as we've seen in recent games. We're just a really strange team currently.

 

[Nou_Camp99]

We're actually incredibly consistent just not in a good way

9 away PL wins on the trot is some going. Not even Fergie ever did that.

Just need to sort out the home form now and we can be optimistic for the future. The doomsayers on here have painted a picture that isn't true. There's lot to be positive about. Best I feel the club has looked since Fergie retired.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

How do posters define consistent?

Do you mean consistent in a game or consistent in results, because in results in 2020 you've been remarkably consistent. Yes there's been the odd freak result like the Spurs game, but all teams have these occasionally like Liverpool's Aston Villa result.

If you mean in a game, teams are very rarely on top for 90 minutes at this level.

You're win rate in 2020, so almost a year, is 61.2%, Liverpool's is 63.6% - hardly a huge difference (SAF's by comparison is 59.7% though of course if Ole can keep that up over decades it would be amazing), so why is United seen as inconsistent and Liverpool see as super consistent?

I think there are two answers, press and pundits know hysteria around United means more views and clicks etc and people are easily swept up into this narrative and a part of your fan base won't see you as consistent unless you convincingly win every game going, even though despite your successful history, you've never done that, noone has.

Liverpool have won nearly 200 points in the last two seasons, some (not all) of the most ardent Solskjaer supporters don't want him to be held accountable if we miss out on top-four because he didn't spend another 300 million pounds. Liverpool are among the favourites to win the CL -again- while no one will blink an eye if we go out tomorrow. That's the state of things and it's up to us to change it. Statistics can be useful for analysis when they're used in the right context. Liverpool have nothing to prove either to themselves or to anyone else while United have everything to prove. They are in the place we want to arrive, simple as.

But to answer your question: Being inconsistent means that although we played excellent football in the first two games of our group and managed to put ourselves in the driver's seat, we risk throwing it all away because our "floor" performance was so low that it cost us three points that both PSG and Leipzig won. And they both haven't produced better performances (ceiling) than us. This is an example why fans, pundits or whoever is still hesitant.

I don't know why people get upset. Not everything is a criticism of Solskjaer with a demand for his sacking at the end of it. The gap between our highs and lows has to be become smaller. It has since 2018 but there is still work to be done. Lots of it. And when this happens we won't have to post imaginary tables of form to prove a point, the real one will be proof enough. Hopefully, that day will come soon enough for us.

 

[Dante]

I don't think our style is necessarily counter-attacking. That simply happens to be the situation in which our players look at their best.

A bit like my style is clean shaven. But at the weekend when I grow a bit of stubble, people tell me I look better that way. It's not really something I intend or even want. It just happens inadvertently.

 

[padzilla]

The Athletic has a piece today suggesting we are the most consistent team in the league in that we rely on individual brilliance to deliver a knock-out blow based on the attacking firepower we have available.

 

[Lennon7]

Also based off the facts, we’ve had 4 points at home and 15 away in the same amount of league games (5 each) this season. That’s ridiculously inconsistent.

 

[Lash]

The Athletic has a piece today suggesting we are the most consistent team in the league in that we rely on individual brilliance to deliver a knock-out blow based on the attacking firepower we have available.

I always find this notion a bit odd. No one said this when Vardy and Mahrez won Leicester the title. Even Hassenhutl, who everyone seems to love, relies heavily on Ward-Prowses set pieces. Most good teams set themselves up to allow their talent players to express their talent. Bruno in a "system" would be a cog in a machine and not the outrageous talent he is, because he's basically allowed to do what he wants.

 

[jetlee]

I have to laugh at the inconsistent notion and double standard here. Everyone was wanking themselves silly over Liverpool always winning from goals down last season and it was seen as an ultimate evidence of their mentality. Now it is turned back and used as another stick to beat the team with.
Their wins wasn't too beautiful to watch either but efficient. It can catch up with us but I couln't say that these games are not entertaining because they certainly are.
And no not winning against the likes of PSG or maybe City in the weekend is not inconsistent as these are really strong teams which you can't expect to beat all the time.

 

[DickDastardly]

I don't think our style is necessarily counter-attacking. That simply happens to be the situation in which our players look at their best.

A bit like my style is clean shaven. But at the weekend when I grow a bit of stubble, people tell me I look better that way. It's not really something I intend or even want. It just happens inadvertently.

You have to have a really good, firm chin to look even remotely good clean shaven.

Zero underchin, no baby fat on the face, your thyroid should work flawlessly.....

That's almost as good of a description of our team....not quite there yet.
That's why we do look better counter-attacking, you don't have to work too much for it, you just sit back and hit them on the counter.

 

[Plymouth Red]

I always find this notion a bit odd. No one said this when Vardy and Mahrez won Leicester the title. Even Hassenhutl, who everyone seems to love, relies heavily on Ward-Prowses set pieces. Most good teams set themselves up to allow their talent players to express their talent. Bruno in a "system" would be a cog in a machine and not the outrageous talent he is, because he's basically allowed to do what he wants.

I don't have a problem with playing to our strengths. It makes sense to do so.

However, when Bruno is sitting on the subs bench, I don't expect to see the absolute dross that we saw against West Ham until he came onto the pitch. Even without him, we should be able to do far, far better than we did.

There was no cohesion, passing was abysmal, our players looked like they had never met before, let alone played together. It was totally clueless.

We should not have to rely on one player to come on to the pitch and suddenly all of the others realise what their job is and how to kick a ball to someone in the same colour shirt. What happens if/when Bruno is out for a month or more?

I really hope we never see such a situation, because I think it will be pretty ugly.

 

[Green_Red]

Breaking the usual habit of starting a thread with a tweet, I'd like to ask why the CAF thinks that Man Utd are currently viewed as inconsistent?

Based off of facts, I cannot find any reason to label the current Man Utd as inconsistent. Man Utd finished 3rd last season. In other words, we achieved as many or more points than 17 other Premier League sides. To do this you must achieve a certain level of consistency.

Likewise, with a quarter of the league played, we are a few points off the top of the Premier League table. Again, this would not be possible if Utd were hugely inconsistent. As the aforesaid inconsistency would be reflected in our points total.

I can only think that people say we are inconsistent because we don't play well every weekend? However, who does?

Even under Fergie we were not brilliant every week. Far from it actually. However, some of our best memories came from being rubbish for a half. I seem to remember Gabi Agbonlahor giving Chris Smalling a warm time and going in 2-0 down at Villa before Chicharito turned it into a 3-2 win. Or being garbage against Newcastle over Christmas but finding a way to win 4-3 in the last minute, again thanks to a Chicharito winner.

Many of our memorable comebacks under Fergie were the result of being crap for a half or more, then Sir Alex doing something to shift momentum. We could all compile lists of favourite Utd comebacks, because there are so many. However, very few of those would contain games in which we obviously outplayed our opponents for more than 30-45 minutes.

So is it just performance people are talking about as inconsistent? If not, what is it?

We finished third having lost 8 and drawn 12. That is inconsistent, especially when you consider the form we had post Bruno signing.

We are 5 points off top with a game in hand. Of our 10 played we've lost 3 and drawn 1. Those stats have improved in our last five. Our first 5 was where we lost the 3 and drew the 1. That first 5 was inconsistent.

100% agree with that.

Yea, the performances are up and down, we've put in a good run in the league in our last 5, but that's only 5 games, its hardly the level needed to challenge in this league, if you consider the last 3 champions were practically untouchable for the whole of their respective seasons. Its encouraging that we are starting to win games, even when we are as poor as we were against Southampton and West Ham in the first halves. Lets revisit the consistency debate at the end of January.

 

[U99ted]

I have to laugh at the inconsistent notion and double standard here. Everyone was wanking themselves silly over Liverpool always winning from goals down last season and it was seen as an ultimate evidence of their mentality. Now it is turned back and used as another stick to beat the team with.
Their wins wasn't too beautiful to watch either but efficient. It can catch up with us but I couln't say that these games are not entertaining because they certainly are.
And no not winning against the likes of PSG or maybe City in the weekend is not inconsistent as these are really strong teams which you can't expect to beat all the time.

The Southampton and West Ham comebacks were pretty different IMO.

Against Southampton we were unlucky to be 2 down. We created good chances that we didn't put away and could have been level at least. Against West Ham we looked utterly clueless in the first half, I think the xG was over 2 for WH, and 0.07 for us. I'm going to bet that Liverpool's comebacks were closer to the Southampton game than the West Ham. Of course, we won, which was entertaining and I'm happy to see.

Take the CL, we beat PSG away and lost at home, but put in a good performance against a strong team. On another day Cavani's chip goes in, or Martial doesn't miss the rebound and another open goal. But we stupidly lost to Istanbul, who have lost their other 4 games in the group. We looked drunk in that game. We beat last season's semi-finalists 5-0, then days later were very poor against relegation level trash like Arsenal & West Brom. That's why we're seen as inconsistent.

I agree a lot with @TheRedDevil'sAdvocate , in that pointing this out doesn't mean people are OleOuters or anything like that. Just that we need to stop being as bad as we were against Arsenal/Istanbul away.

 

[Smores]

I'd agree it's mainly performance this season. We've pulled it out the bag in a good number of games, which is an important trait but you can't start every game poorly. We'll get top 4 playing that way but eventually we'd need to eradicate it before a title challenge.

We've still underperformed though, Palace and Villa are games you'd expect 6 pts. Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea 1pt is pretty bad. The rest are teams we should have won anyway, perhaps you can argument Everton as a good result.

Win our next 3 league games and we're back in par.

 

[VP89]

We're seen as inconsistent because of our performances. There appears to be controversy in our wins such as West Ham, Brighton or West Brom. Then you add our losses on top, the neutrals just think our league position is flattering.

That's OK though as long as we can play into convincing form soon enough.

 

[RedSky]

Inconsistent performances but fairly consistent results.

 

[jetlee]

The Southampton and West Ham comebacks were pretty different IMO.

Against Southampton we were unlucky to be 2 down. We created good chances that we didn't put away and could have been level at least. Against West Ham we looked utterly clueless in the first half, I think the xG was over 2 for WH, and 0.07 for us. I'm going to bet that Liverpool's comebacks were closer to the Southampton game than the West Ham. Of course, we won, which was entertaining and I'm happy to see.

Take the CL, we beat PSG away and lost at home, but put in a good performance against a strong team. On another day Cavani's chip goes in, or Martial doesn't miss the rebound and another open goal. But we stupidly lost to Istanbul, who have lost their other 4 games in the group. We looked drunk in that game. We beat last season's semi-finalists 5-0, then days later were very poor against relegation level trash like Arsenal & West Brom. That's why we're seen as inconsistent.

I agree a lot with @TheRedDevil'sAdvocate , in that pointing this out doesn't mean people are OleOuters or anything like that. Just that we need to stop being as bad as we were against Arsenal/Istanbul away.

Yes, You are right but by that metric who is looking consistent in the same timeframe?
Spurs who got to contend in El weekdays, and are more ridiculously reliant on Son and Kane than we are on Bruno. Plus Chelsea who also have a lot easier CL group but yes nowadays they seem the most consistent.
City and Liverpool also produced freak results/ performances in the last couple of weeks.
I agree that for the christmas period we have to produce consistency as we will have the same recovery time as smaller teams. Until then we just have to stay in touching distance.

 

[Maccataq]

I think this is what Ole has been trying to suggest because if you look back over 30-40 games, we have been consistent, results-wise.

However, our performances are strewn with inconsistency. The problem is our highs are incredible at times but we still have significant lows. When we can raise the level of our lows then the inconsistency will stop. Just because we demonstrated similar results under Fergie, doesn't mean it was the norm. In his final season, yes, we were behind every week before rallying to win but that was far from his best team. We were very consistent under Fergie and that's why we won so much. One of the great characteristics of Fergie's teams was that after we lost we would bounce back with a win and then go on another run more often than not.

Carl Anka wrote a piece on why we are consistent in the Athletic yesterday. It takes the line that we consistently show the vulnerabilities at the back in giving up chances but have the counter punching ability to hurt any team - we see it every week at the moment so it is an interesting but fair assessment.

It's a rollercoaster ride at the minute and to some extent is very enjoyable, especially when we keep rallying back to win but I think sooner rather than later we would all appreciate a few boring formalities where we win 2-0. Although I'd rather not do it Jose style with zero shots in the second half, 2 weeks running.

 

[Glorio]

Always think its a bit simplistic to solely attribute poor performances to mentality. Roy keane always attributes our inconsistency to mentality and lack of leadership but thats very much his way of thinking. However there must be something psychological to explain why we often start games looking so lethargic

I think it's complacency to be honest with you. I think it started creeping in even before this season. Our players seem to coast by default at the start of games, and usually require a shock to be woken up.

The difference in off the ball effort when we're chasing a game to when we aren't is clear as night and day.

 

[L1nk]

Regardless of how the results pan out, it is slightly worrying how we go from looking on top of the world one match, to looking like we can't string two passes together the next, it's extremely bizarre, and whats most bizarre is the ends of the spectrum the team lands on, its extremely one sided for both good and bad, there is no middle ground with this team, we are either really really good, or absolutely horrendously unwatchable.

 

[lex talionis]

West Ham took the lead against Liverpool, drew with City and Spurs and beat Wolves and Leicester but we are inconsistent because they had a good half against us.

All true, but it can’t be argued that West Ham overpowered an outstanding defensive performance and made the most of their chances.

United are inconsistent, as proven by the diametrically opposite performances we put in between the first and second halfs.

If we’re looking for a different way of explaining the phenomenon wherein we fall behind average clubs like Southampton and West Ham, perhaps we can look to the impact of substitutions. Whatever it is, we can’t deny that we’ve fallen behind against sides we don’t expect to fall behind to. We’ve overcome those deficits and as fans we love it, but we there were other deficits we did not overcome against lesser sides. Palace and Arsenal come to mind. We can actually expect the occasional banana peel, such as Palace, but we should be putting better performances against these lesser sides early in matches so that we can rest key players like Bruno and Rashford, who I worry are at risk of being run into the ground so that by April we could be in serious trouble of running low on battery.

 

[OleTheGreat]

There is a lot of inconsistency in the level of the performance and also in terms of results but it is not as bad as they are portrayed. As Man United, we are expected to win all the games apart from those who belong to the top6. We are expected to win titles and trophies year after year. Even under SAF, we did not play exceptionally well all the time but Fergie did things that Ole I doubt can. He sometimes played teams that are not expected to win and we still did. What was even more amazing under SAF was that, Old Trafford was a fort and teams feared coming here. It is certainly not the case these days, it all depends on how we play on that day. Sometimes we turn and play one touch passes, forming triangles and move like crazy, press like crazy and so on but some other times we just lay low and defend which totally works against us. The inconsistencies come from both the players and the manager and the blame should also be on the board for this. We buy players who are not exciting as such and do not add quality (except of course Bruno and Cavani). VDB is great but unnecessary and so on. We just play depending totally on the tactics of the opponents and not to our strengths. Even after 2 years under Ole, I don't think he knows exactly how we should play. He just says, go-press-recover- attack! Certain no patterns of play and we do not have players who can play well in tight spaces. Rashford runs like a mad dog sometimes even when there are players making recovery runs and he knows he cannot keep the ball if he kept going. Martial is too fast and lose with the ball. Fred is shabby when you least expect it. Wan Bissaka is suffocated on the right hand side in attack. Maguire and Lindelof are good but not title winning partners yet. Shaw has lost it, Telles much better. We need Pogba even though we think we don't (for some reason). There is inconsistency throughout the club, no DoF. Lots to talk about.

 

[OleTheGreat]

Regardless of how the results pan out, it is slightly worrying how we go from looking on top of the world one match, to looking like we can't string two passes together the next, it's extremely bizarre, and whats most bizarre is the ends of the spectrum the team lands on, its extremely one sided for both good and bad, there is no middle ground with this team, we are either really really good, or absolutely horrendously unwatchable.

Totally agree. I fear a lot for the upcoming games against Leipzig and City

 

[Bristol_Red_87]

Some good points made here already, one of which is the comparison between SAF's and OGS's sides in terms of consistency in performances.

It's easy to forgot we were often tosh for large periods of games under SAF.

I think the biggest difference back then is you knew, no matter how bad we were, almost no matter what the score was, we had match winners all over the pitch to get you a goal and subsequently, a sniff.

Once we had built ourselves a reputation for being able to claw victory from the jaws of defeat, this added a significant psychological edge under SAF.

What we are starting to see, or at least wishing to beyond any potential false dawn, is a United side that is developing that trait. We are building a side with match winners, Bruno being a prime example.

Bruno can prove to be slightly infuriating at times. He often does the simple things badly. He occasionally makes the wrong decisions. But that's what match winners do. Why? Because they are willing to take risks. They are willing to keep trying that 10% pass as ultimately they back themselves to pull it off 100% of the time.

Look at Liverpool for example. Have Mane and Salah always been world beaters? They are both now in their prime and are proven match-winners, something we can look forward to in 3-4 years with the likes of Rashford and even Martial with Mason to follow if he stays grounded.

With that said, and the expectation the likes of Rashford, Greenwood and yes Martial, as well as Bruno will continue to improve and develop that consistency, so the team will start to churn out performances and results on a more consistent basis.

In the meantime, enjoy the ride! (I'll refer back here at 10pm tomorrow night to remind myself of this no doubt!)

 

[Eriku]

Remember it took SAF 5 years to build a side capable of winning the title. If we’re using SAF as the comparison, most of this forum would have been calling for his head in 1988.

Ole has been very smart. Mourinho alienated himself by being overly critical of players he ended up relying on.

Solakjaer has been very positive and kept players onside but I’m 100% sure some of these players are being tolerated rather than being seen as long term solutions

The one thing we all agree on is that OGS played with fantastic players during his playing career - in my opinion he knows what a “United standard” player looks like and how they act. It just takes time to build a squad of 23 in that imagine. It can’t be achieved in three or four windows

Not a high percentage of this forum would have any idea about what the day-to-day of United in the early tenure or Ferguson was like. Myself included. The way that he rebuilt the squad so many times and retained that insatiable hunger in the squad really was unique.

 

[Plymouth Red]

Not a high percentage of this forum would have any idea about what the day-to-day of United in the early tenure or Ferguson was like. Myself included. The way that he rebuilt the squad so many times and retained that insatiable hunger in the squad really was unique.

I’ve been following United since 1963 and of all the managers during that time, SAF has been the best, in my eyes.
If you’re interested in an insight into how he approached the job, there’s an excellent article in the Harvard Business Review here

https://hbr.org/2013/10/fergusons-formula

Lots of thought provoking stuff which is relevant to any job and also any relationship, as well as football.

 

[Eriku]

I’ve been following United since 1963 and of all the managers during that time, SAF has been the best, in my eyes.
If you’re interested in an insight into how he approached the job, there’s an excellent article in the Harvard Business Review here

https://hbr.org/2013/10/fergusons-formula

Lots of thought provoking stuff which is relevant to any job and also any relationship, as well as football.

I’ve read both the biographies and seen the video where he does his Harvard talk for the students. Thanks for the link, though. As you say, Fergie’s approach would serve a lot of people well outside football as well.

More curious about the experience being a fan during his early days, and what feelings of false dawns and doubt the general fanbase had at the time.

 

[Number32]

Attitude is our biggest problem. Only few players have a good attitude off/on the pitch. Our ex-players have been criticizing that for years, also both LVG and Jose.

Martial and Pogba are the easiest example. They were world class in one game, then inconsistent when they had a bad mood. Sadly, we don't have any role model until Bruno came in.
Off the pitch, we have Shaw who always struggle with his fitness, and several immature young players.

 

[RayK47]

If the persistently half arsed, inconsistent players, Pogba, Martial, Matic, Luke Shaw continue to play we will continue to be inconsistent.

 

[Inter Yer Nan]

We can’t put two good halves of football together. Incredibly over reliant on Bruno, don’t seem to have control over games. That can only take you so far. The inconsistency is in the performances which unfortunately will translate into results unless other players step up.

 

[Lentwood]

Not a high percentage of this forum would have any idea about what the day-to-day of United in the early tenure or Ferguson was like. Myself included. The way that he rebuilt the squad so many times and retained that insatiable hunger in the squad really was unique.

I suppose my point is, when SAF took the job we had been two decades without a major trophy.

We had spent a good amount of money on players who undelivered and often showed the wrong attitude. We were burning through managers at a rate of knots.

Just as things seemed to be improving, the wheels fell off. We finished 2nd under Sexton in 1980 and had several near misses under Ron Atkinson, including once winning the first ten games in a row before eventually finishing mid-table. I believe we also finished 2nd under SAF in the late 80s, only to be left floundering in the bottom half the following year.

Throughout all of this, the fans called for his head. They cited lack of consistency, poor results, bad attitudes and players caught up in scandals. But SAF was clever, he knew Utd didn’t need a facelift, they needed a full “cultural reset”. That takes time. SAF had so called quality players, but many were unprofessional or injury prone (or both)

I see the poster after your reply shared SAFs talk at Harvard. It’s a good example of my point. Posters get it wrong when they think football is played on a chess board. It’s not. Most of the time, the best managers are the best managers because they instil a winning mentality. How many times did you ever hear SAF talking tactics?

 

[TMDaines]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[NinjaZombie]

Good players will come up with good results and performances occasionally, like we've done under Ole. It takes a good coach/manager to come up with a framework or set up that allows those players to consistently be performing at the levels they are capable of.

 

[Stretfordender]

Mentally mentally weak, don’t come back at me saying we show character in the EPL away from home coming back and winning games, load of shite. Couple with the fact the club is rotten to the core and the manager/coaching staff aren’t up to it, ultimately the majority of our players are mentally weak hence the inconsistency

 

[Plymouth Red]

I’ve read both the biographies and seen the video where he does his Harvard talk for the students. Thanks for the link, though. As you say, Fergie’s approach would serve a lot of people well outside football as well.

More curious about the experience being a fan during his early days, and what feelings of false dawns and doubt the general fanbase had at the time.

Sorry for not getting the original point.
SAF’s first three years were a challenge for everyone. Even with plenty of good new faces in the squad and a change in dressing room culture around drinking and fitness, results were up and down. The 89/90 cup run which culminated in his first trophy at OT was fortuitous and generally unexpected. This calmed the fans down enough to buy him more time.
The next couple of years saw more quality purchases as well as some unsuccessful bids and again fans became very restless. However, their hope was that the team would improve and the youngsters coming through would live up to expect, which clearly they did. Sounds familiar?
The pivotal point was Cantona in 92/93. What a transformation!
Immediately, the lights came on and the rest is history.
Eric was idolised and SAF eventually assumed his status as greatest manager ever.
I hope this answers your question a bit better.