19 Apr 2019 09:30:23
Do you guys feel that United were reluctant too long to make a transition from our traditional way of attacking from the wings to a more modern style of high press, possession based and quick free flowing football? Especially towards Sir Alex's final years, when City were adopting to that sort of attacking style.

With football evolving as a whole and with a lot of teams in the PL adopting a more high press, counter attacking style over the years, we have struggled even against teams in the lower half for some time now.

Who or what do you think is responsible for our lack of transitioning to a more modern style of football, when the top most teams are already playing that way?


1.) 19 Apr 2019
19 Apr 2019 13:37:18
Good question. Well into the tenure of Sir Alex, we started having more trouble in Europe, as the more continental teams would play 3 v 2 in the center of midfield. So the old English style of 4-4-2 with wingers on the flanks was no longer as effective. Queiroz was helpful in helping the team to adapt to the changes in style. But then look at how after Sir Alex retired, we have not only strayed from the club's traditions tactically, but we have had no coherent footballing philosophy at all.

Moyes was too defensively oriented. Rio spoke of it at one point, wondering why so much of training was spent on defending. Moyes had brought his Everton approach to Manchester United. Perhaps he did not have a big enough name to draw prospects like Kroos, Bale, or Fabregas to United.

Then Van Gaal came, who is an excellent manager with a clearly defined philosophy, but was very possession oriented, and fans grew impatient. His period to me is the most debatable of the three, because he was experimental (Rooney in midfield) and he had an eye for players. Tactically I think the team failed in his period for being too static and slow. Perhaps the fluidity would have come had he been given more time. He spread the players out very well, but we did not see enough interchange and movement off the ball.

Then Mourinho comes and we have another change in philosophy. He sets the team out, not to take the initiative, not to create, but to nullify, defend first. That alone put him at odds with our traditions. Add his negativity and it was a relief to see him gone.

But the main point is that without any director of football, any guiding figures from above that guide the club in a clear tactical direction, we have had no progression of developing a team with any continuity. Moyes, defensive, Van Gaal, possession, Mourinho, defensive again. Now Ole, who seems to want to press higher, more like the way you described the best teams nowadays.

Then think about how the players do not fit in, from one manager to the next. How can Smalling excel in a possession based team? How can Blind be very good in a possession based team, but then not get minutes in a Mourinho team?
How can Young excel in a high pressing team? No continuity of a philosophy.


2.) 19 Apr 2019
19 Apr 2019 13:54:40
Good post. For all Oles' talk of playing attacking football, the style hasn't changed. It's basically rebooted mourinho football, the only difference being, we've got more men forward in support of the counter attacks, full backs playing higher etc. If the two games against wolves taught us anything, it's that if a team surrenders possession to us, we're toothless. Nobody can find find the killer pass, there's no invention, nobody actually brave enough on the ball.

Who's responsible? I think it comes down to a lack of vision from the top. No manager as yet, has come in and said 'right, this is how were going to play now'. If you think back to the beginning of klopp, pochettino and guardiolas' first few months in charge, there was a clear and focused new set of ideas being introduced. Ole has experimented with different systems, my only hope is that with the right pre season and some shrewd signings, his vision might become more clear.


3.) 19 Apr 2019
19 Apr 2019 15:19:13
Blame who keeps hiring the managers on why we've drifted from our identity. Some reluctant to admit their out of their depth and yo hand over power.