WSL 23/24 | United v Chelsea at OT - 3pm Sat 18 May
- Thread starter jojojo
- Start date
I think the "top 5" playing against each other table tells us a lot.
City - 16 points
Arsenal - 16
Chelsea - 13
Liverpool - 12
United - 1 - a draw against Arsenal in October
We've had one good result this season, the Cup semifinal against Chelsea.
I like Katie Zelem but the idea that she should play every minute of a WSL season is beyond crazy; it is blindingly obvious that her skill-set suits certain situations but not others. In some circumstances her lack of mobility is a huge issue for the team.
She plays because she is captain, no other reason. I would love for her to stick around as a squad player, she has a useful skill set. But she does not have the talent or ability to start every week if we want to progress. Similar to Maguire with the men to be honest.
I don't often do this but I was too irritated after the match to talk about what happened in the game itself. However I can at least type it without swearing now 
Chelsea started the match by scoring, then they did it again. Did this act as a warning to look at whether our defensive setup was working? Of course not. We stuck to this flexible back three/four thing that leaves Maya Le Tissier (usually) or Rivière up in midfield somewhere, while the other three form a defensive line about 20 metres further back.
Instead the pseudo-back 3 went narrow. So Chelsea had all the time and space in the world to use the wings. Blundell in particular was the fall guy here, constantly trapped in foot races she couldn't win.
Did we bring Hayley Ladd on? Did we go to a conventional back 4 or even a back 5 given how easy Chelsea were finding it at two goals up? Of course not. Because the master plan would obviously work if only the players weren't so bad at obeying orders.
Halftime comes and Blundell goes off and Mannion comes on. Does the setup change? No, because we're handling Chelsea so well - or would be if only our players were better at it.
If it was one game, under the influence of end of season party vibes, it would be almost forgiveable. But it hasn't been only one game and it hasn't only happened against Chelsea. Our record against the top four is worth repeating: P8 W0 D1 L7
I do sometimes try to convince myself that I see glimmers of hope in Skinner's evolution - at least he's realised he can bring on five subs for example. But then he opens his mouth and says something and all I can think is that if he was my boss I'd either keep my ear defenders on or get sacked for arguing back.
Chelsea started the match by scoring, then they did it again. Did this act as a warning to look at whether our defensive setup was working? Of course not. We stuck to this flexible back three/four thing that leaves Maya Le Tissier (usually) or Rivière up in midfield somewhere, while the other three form a defensive line about 20 metres further back.
Instead the pseudo-back 3 went narrow. So Chelsea had all the time and space in the world to use the wings. Blundell in particular was the fall guy here, constantly trapped in foot races she couldn't win.
Did we bring Hayley Ladd on? Did we go to a conventional back 4 or even a back 5 given how easy Chelsea were finding it at two goals up? Of course not. Because the master plan would obviously work if only the players weren't so bad at obeying orders.
Halftime comes and Blundell goes off and Mannion comes on. Does the setup change? No, because we're handling Chelsea so well - or would be if only our players were better at it.
If it was one game, under the influence of end of season party vibes, it would be almost forgiveable. But it hasn't been only one game and it hasn't only happened against Chelsea. Our record against the top four is worth repeating: P8 W0 D1 L7
I do sometimes try to convince myself that I see glimmers of hope in Skinner's evolution - at least he's realised he can bring on five subs for example. But then he opens his mouth and says something and all I can think is that if he was my boss I'd either keep my ear defenders on or get sacked for arguing back.
Excellent post.I don't often do this but I was too irritated after the match to talk about what happened in the game itself. However I can at least type it without swearing now
Chelsea started the match by scoring, then they did it again. Did this act as a warning to look at whether our defensive setup was working? Of course not. We stuck to this flexible back three/four thing that leaves Maya Le Tissier (usually) or Rivière up in midfield somewhere, while the other three form a defensive line about 20 metres further back.
Instead the pseudo-back 3 went narrow. So Chelsea had all the time and space in the world to use the wings. Blundell in particular was the fall guy here, constantly trapped in foot races she couldn't win.
Did we bring Hayley Ladd on? Did we go to a conventional back 4 or even a back 5 given how easy Chelsea were finding it at two goals up? Of course not. Because the master plan would obviously work if only the players weren't so bad at obeying orders.
Halftime comes and Blundell goes off and Mannion comes on. Does the setup change? No, because we're handling Chelsea so well - or would be if only our players were better at it.
If it was one game, under the influence of end of season party vibes, it would be almost forgiveable. But it hasn't been only one game and it hasn't only happened against Chelsea. Our record against the top four is worth repeating: P8 W0 D1 L7
I do sometimes try to convince myself that I see glimmers of hope in Skinner's evolution - at least he's realised he can bring on five subs for example. But then he opens his mouth and says something and all I can think is that if he was my boss I'd either keep my ear defenders on or get sacked for arguing back.
I was so disappointed with our performance and the humiliating result, but oddly not at all surprised by it. The results against the top four speak volumes, and yet Skinner has persisted with a system that throws everything into attack - the attack has invariably broken down and left us exposed. Time after time.
I think Ladd has been ridiculously underused (as my previous posts have pointed out), and I find that so frustrating. Guerrero got, what - 28 minutes in total?
Next season will be interesting. I am guessing that we will lose Earps, Garcia, Clinton, Ladd, Malard. Part of me thinks that we should focus on those players that remain rather than scambling to replace them in a haphazard United way.
If we lose Clinton we might as well pack it all up. I don't expect to though, she's under contract and I can't see her forcing a move without playing a game for us. Next season is another matter if we continue showing the same incompetence over renewals.
Ladd also signed an extension 6 months ago and is only 30, so unless there's something coaching-wise she has to leave for, this seems too soon.
My expectations of exits would be Earps, Garcia and Parris, not sure what the agreed fee was with Lyon for Malard and I guess her coming back would depend on that (but hopefully she will). I could easily also see Irene and Geyse leaving if they aren't happy.
Ladd also signed an extension 6 months ago and is only 30, so unless there's something coaching-wise she has to leave for, this seems too soon.
My expectations of exits would be Earps, Garcia and Parris, not sure what the agreed fee was with Lyon for Malard and I guess her coming back would depend on that (but hopefully she will). I could easily also see Irene and Geyse leaving if they aren't happy.