Manchester United vs Middlesbrough | League Cup 4th Round

I am happy to question, and agree with some at least of your concerns and criticisms.

The problem is that there are certain individuals who have a preconcieved agenda, and that maybe makes others overly defensive.

Originally Posted by red in cumbria

I am happy to question, and agree with some at least of your concerns and criticisms.

The problem is that there are certain individuals who have a preconcieved agenda, and that maybe makes others overly defensive.

Things don't need to be so polarized. In fact the truth of any situation is usually found in the middle ground of extreme positions. You can both like Van Gaal, believe he is the right man for the here and now, and also question why the £#%&! his team is playing such boring, chance free football. Anyone who is as invested as we are in United should never abdicate free thought to an auto-pilot opinion. Van Gaal wouldn't.

Originally Posted by utd99

Things don't need to be so polarized. In fact the truth of any situation is usually found in the middle ground of extreme positions. You can both like Van Gaal, believe he is the right man for the here and now, and also question why the £#%&! his team is playing such boring, chance free football. Anyone who is as invested as we are in United should never abdicate free thought to an auto-pilot opinion. Van Gaal wouldn't.

Well there it is. Tbr is perhaps at one polar extreme of the scale and siders is at the other. Obvs, tbr doesn't know why he's there but he can't be arsed either way whereas siders should know but can't bring himself back.

Ish

Originally Posted by utd99

Things don't need to be so polarized. In fact the truth of any situation is usually found in the middle ground of extreme positions. You can both like Van Gaal, believe he is the right man for the here and now, and also question why the £#%&! his team is playing such boring, chance free football. Anyone who is as invested as we are in United should never abdicate free thought to an auto-pilot opinion. Van Gaal wouldn't.

My opinion isn't that extreme. I don't disagree that the football isn't great. I just don't think it's because the type of football we're trying to play cannot be great, a claim history would support. I've also offered ideas on the reasons. We have a shit centre-forward for a start. Arsenal have poor striking options too and when they're not playing us they've found goals a little slow to come by too.

And the reason I mention van Gaal being questioned at every turn is because he's the only manager who is always indirectly or directly questioned after a poor passage of play. So we play great at Everton and everyone's happy, but it takes a poor half in the very next game for the pundits to critical of the manager's approach again. It's never just a bad performance; it's always linked to the style.

For what it's worth, while the football is still a way off the ideal I want to see, I quite enjoyed the Sunderland, Everton, Wolsfburg and City games.

All in the last month or so.

Interesting response on the game the other night:

"I have said that once or twice, but the media that are writing.

“When you come to the match and see how we have played, you see how Boro played, also in a fantastic way.

“It is of course not so nice for us, but I think that the fans have enjoyed it.
“But we are out of the cup and you know that the next day is always like that.

“In the first round, we were knocked out by MK Dons, now we were nearly in the quarter-finals.

“But I have to rotate because we have so many games and the players cannot recover. All the managers agree about that because they are all doing it.

“When you see the history of Boro, they beat City 2-0 at City last season, but we were 0-0 and we could have won.

“But we lost and as a manager of Manchester United, you know you shall have a hard time."

Boro did play well to be fair, Ayala was very impressive.

That being said the United side of things wasn't good enough, he should be demanding improvements from those who under achieved the other night yet seems happy with the performance.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

My opinion isn't that extreme. I don't disagree that the football isn't great. I just don't think it's because the type of football we're trying to play cannot be great, a claim history would support. I've also offered ideas on the reasons. We have a shit centre-forward for a start. Arsenal have poor striking options too and when they're not playing us they've found goals a little slow to come by too.

And the reason I mention van Gaal being questioned at every turn is because he's the only manager who is always indirectly or directly questioned after a poor passage of play. So we play great at Everton and everyone's happy, but it takes a poor half in the very next game for the pundits to critical of the manager's approach again. It's never just a bad performance; it's always linked to the style.

For what it's worth, while the football is still a way off the ideal I want to see, I quite enjoyed the Sunderland, Everton, Wolsfburg and City games.

All in the last month or so.

Ok, but boiled down to it's most basic component, how many times during a game do you say "oh, for £#%&!s sake" when one of our players either controls or passes the ball backwards, both with an eye on retaining possession, when there were fairly simple clear forward moves available? I do, a lot; and I don't £#%&!ing get it.

It reeks of fear, and doesn't accomplish the safety objective anyway because knocking the ball around in midfield only increases the risk of an interception leading to a counter in a good position. It's actually much safer to push high up the field because, not only might you create a chance for yourself, but even if you lose the ball the other team then have to build from a much lower position.

Regardless, this shouldn't degenerate into a debate about what does or doesn't constitute a 'chance'. It just confuses the issue. We may not be able to define it, but we all know what one £#%&!ing looks like when we see it. If we see it.

Not as often as I say 'oh ffs' as a result of a poor touch or poor pass, generally

Originally Posted by dunk

Not as often as I say 'oh ffs' as a result of a poor touch or poor pass, generally

And this is the other thing. The more passes in any given move, the more likely you are to see what you just described. That's not tactics analysis, it's mathematics.

Originally Posted by That Boy Ronaldo!

Interesting response on the game the other night:



Boro did play well to be fair, Ayala was very impressive.

When he wasn't cheating, perhaps

Originally Posted by That Boy Ronaldo!

Interesting response on the game the other night:



Boro did play well to be fair, Ayala was very impressive.

That being said the United side of things wasn't good enough, he should be demanding improvements from those who under achieved the other night yet seems happy with the performance.

Why do people keep assuming every interview with Geoff Shreeves after the game is an insight into his soul?

The front four had an average age of 20. I'm sure he'll look to continue developing them rather than slaughtering them.

Originally Posted by utd99

Ok, but boiled down to it's most basic component, how many times during a game do you say "oh, for £#%&!s sake" when one of our players either controls or passes the ball backwards, both with an eye on retaining possession, when there were fairly simple clear forward moves available? I do, a lot; and I don't £#%&!ing get it.

It reeks of fear, and doesn't accomplish the safety objective anyway because knocking the ball around in midfield only increases the risk of an interception leading to a counter in a good position. It's actually much safer to push high up the field because, not only might you create a chance for yourself, but even if you lose the ball the other team then have to build from a much lower position.

Regardless, this shouldn't degenerate into a debate about what does or doesn't constitute a 'chance'. It just confuses the issue. We may not be able to define it, but we all know what one £#%&!ing looks like when we see it. If we see it.

It's obvious that converting good possession into chances is an issue that has intermittently been a problem. I remember Sers posting that the shots per game ratio was improving earlier this season, but it's definitely the issue facing us right now.

As for how often I get frustrated by that, sometimes when we win the ball back I don't think it goes forward quickly enough. But generally I'm quite happy for it to stay away from Rooney if possible. A sideways pass to Martial is more positive than a forward pass to Rooney these days.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Why do people keep assuming every interview with Geoff Shreeves after the game is an insight into his soul?

The front four had an average age of 20. I'm sure he'll look to continue developing them rather than slaughtering them.



It's obvious that converting good possession into chances is an issue that has intermittently been a problem. I remember Sers posting that the shots per game ratio was improving earlier this season, but it's definitely the issue facing us right now.

As for how often I get frustrated by that, sometimes when we win the ball back I don't think it goes forward quickly enough. But generally I'm quite happy for it to stay away from Rooney if possible. A sideways pass to Martial is more positive than a forward pass to Rooney these days.

slagging off king louis's team selections as if he's a novice? :shakehead: