Anyone else reminded of United around 2005?

Attack limited by an immobile attacker, struggling to break teams down.

Knocked out of Champions League at group stage.

Central midfielder playing a lot of games on the wing.

Legacies being shredded at every turn.

Talented but inconsistent young attackers.

An improving pacy & strong centreback without a quality partner.

Turned it around & solved the problems eventually - with some big egos being sent packing along the way

No, this is much worse tbh.

United in 2005 at least finished 3rd and only lost 5 games all season.

Originally Posted by Ranier Wolfcastle

Attack limited by an immobile attacker, struggling to break teams down.

Knocked out of Champions League at group stage.

Central midfielder playing a lot of games on the wing.

Legacies being shredded at every turn.

Talented but inconsistent young attackers.

An improving pacy & strong centreback without a quality partner.

Turned it around & solved the problems eventually - with some big egos being sent packing along the way

He is here as there is no other option at the moment.
He isn't turning £#%&! all around. He plans to leave regardless in 18 months ffs.

As a spoiled modern United fan, 2005 was one of my darker periods

@#%&!ted at Boro 4-1 and then getting beat in Lille was a real lowpoint. Probably the only time I can remember a post-success Fergie having so many doubters among fans. Obviously the takeover and Keane factors were prevalent.

Footballing wise, some of our most memorable seasons under Fergie came after awful goalscoring runs (6 goals in 12 games in '92) but I don't think we've ever looked quite this toothless. To me, it's extreme enough to suggest there are several reasons for it.

Ultimately, you go into a season without several goalscorers and you're asking for trouble. Something Fergie never did post-92.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

As a spoiled modern United fan, 2005 was one of my darker periods

@#%&!ted at Boro 4-1 and then getting beat in Lille was a real lowpoint. Probably the only time I can remember a post-success Fergie having so many doubters among fans. Obviously the takeover and Keane factors were prevalent.

Footballing wise, some of our most memorable seasons under Fergie came after awful goalscoring runs (6 goals in 12 games in '92) but I don't think we've ever looked quite this toothless. To me, it's extreme enough to suggest there are several reasons for it.

Ultimately, you go into a season without several goalscorers and you're asking for trouble. Something Fergie never did post-92.

We just don't create chances. We also do not commit numbers forward, certainly not enough to cause opposing defences any bother most of the time. The ball comes into the box, there's 2 United players vs about 6-7 defenders.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

We just don't create chances. We also do not commit numbers forward, certainly not enough to cause opposing defences any bother most of the time. The ball comes into the box, there's 2 United players vs about 6-7 defenders.

Often yes, as the tempo fizzles out too quickly. Van Gaal talks about a good spirit, but the confidence is too fragile. But there have been games in recent weeks (the 0-0s against Chelsea and West Ham) where we easily created enough chances to win the game. Against Chelsea we hit the woodwork twice, had two clear penalties denied and missed a couple of sitters.

But goals change games. Swansea was a great example as for 15-20 minutes after Martial's goal we played very well; tempo was great, players looking full of confidence. How often City's fairly unconvincing football is rewarded by a moment of brilliance from Toure or Aguero that lifts the team. United often start well, but soon the confidence drops. We're lacking inspiration in attack, imo.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Often yes, as the tempo fizzles out too quickly. Van Gaal talks about a good spirit, but the confidence is too fragile. But there have been games in recent weeks (the 0-0s against Chelsea and West Ham) where we easily created enough chances to win the game. Against Chelsea we hit the woodwork twice, had two clear penalties denied and missed a couple of sitters.

But goals change games. Swansea was a great example as for 15-20 minutes after Martial's goal we played very well; tempo was great, players looking full of confidence. How often City's fairly unconvincing football is rewarded by a moment of brilliance from Toure or Aguero that lifts the team. United often start well, but soon the confidence drops. We're lacking inspiration in attack, imo.

Yes, there's that. But there's also very little in the way of players linking up together throughout a game. There's no link-up play in forward areas. You have 11 players all carrying out individual instructions apparently just assuming that goals will happen at some point.

There's very little movement at all in the final 3rd.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Yes, there's that. But there's also very little in the way of players linking up together throughout a game. There's no link-up play in forward areas. You have 11 players all carrying out individual instructions apparently just assuming that goals will happen at some point.

There's very little movement at all in the final 3rd.

Movement has been much better off the ball when Lingard has played. As Van Gaal said after Leicester, we miss his running in behind.

Yesterday doesn't bother me too much, as getting through that without exerting too much energy ahead of Tuesday was probably the plan. But it does still so often look an unbalanced team. Weak attacking threat from full-back, Fellaini in the role that a creative hub like Xavi would take, Mata dwadling about and Rooney playing well once every three months. Injuries not helping.

I think LvG needs to make a few strong decisions and stick with a settled, balanced side for the next two. Feels like a crossroads.

No

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Yes, there's that. But there's also very little in the way of players linking up together throughout a game. There's no link-up play in forward areas. You have 11 players all carrying out individual instructions apparently just assuming that goals will happen at some point.

There's very little movement at all in the final 3rd.

At times the approach play can be good and looks promising but then fizzles out because there's no £#%&!er in the box at the end of it. This is where Martial and Roonet esp should be but they're involved in the build up and pbably following instructions

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

As a spoiled modern United fan, 2005 was one of my darker periods

@#%&!ted at Boro 4-1 and then getting beat in Lille was a real lowpoint. Probably the only time I can remember a post-success Fergie having so many doubters among fans. Obviously the takeover and Keane factors were prevalent.

Footballing wise, some of our most memorable seasons under Fergie came after awful goalscoring runs (6 goals in 12 games in '92) but I don't think we've ever looked quite this toothless. To me, it's extreme enough to suggest there are several reasons for it.

Ultimately, you go into a season without several goalscorers and you're asking for trouble. Something Fergie never did post-92.

we were that spoilt it made some of us £#%&! off and support a pub team

The difference then is that you knew when Ferguson was in a transitional period and invariably you knew he'd get it right, it was all par for the course. The point now, and I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face, is why are United so indebted to van Gaal, that they will allow him three years to impose his style on the club before handing over the reins? Is van Gaal so revered that his style will be carried on like the Olympic flame by his successor, regardless of what their own "philosophy" might be? And finally, how can you say his three years here will be transitional, when he's half way through, still barely knows his best side and probably needs to replace or add 5-10 players in the 18 months he has remaining?

For me, putting aside the fact that I just don't like him, he still has too many unanswered questions at this stage in his tenure to even consider him a good appointment, let alone a success. He comes across as an obstinate @#%&! and it almost feels like that's the philosophy coming across from the players rather than anything else.

In 2005, Ferguson was the most obstinate @#%&! of them all but he'd earned it, with the players and the fans. I owe van Gaal nothing and he owes United nothing either and my biggest concern is that the three years he is here, his philosophy will do more bad than good. Trying to recover from one bad year with Moyes has been hard enough, imagine how hard it's going to be for Giggs trying to reverse three bad years of this.

Originally Posted by believe

we were that spoilt it made some of us £#%&! off and support a pub team

The difference then is that you knew when Ferguson was in a transitional period and invariably you knew he'd get it right, it was all par for the course. The point now, and I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face, is why are United so indebted to van Gaal, that they will allow him three years to impose his style on the club before handing over the reins? Is van Gaal so revered that his style will be carried on like the Olympic flame by his successor, regardless of what their own "philosophy" might be? And finally, how can you say his three years here will be transitional, when he's half way through, still barely knows his best side and probably needs to replace or add 5-10 players in the 18 months he has remaining?

For me, putting aside the fact that I just don't like him, he still has too many unanswered questions at this stage in his tenure to even consider him a good appointment, let alone a success. He comes across as an obstinate c*** and it almost feels like that's the philosophy coming across from the players rather than anything else.

In 2005, Ferguson was the most obstinate c*** of them all but he'd earned it, with the players and the fans. I owe van Gaal nothing and he owes United nothing either and my biggest concern is that the three years he is here, his philosophy will do more bad than good. Trying to recover from one bad year with Moyes has been hard enough, imagine how hard it's going to be for Giggs trying to reverse three bad years of this.

Absolutely bang on. And repped.

Originally Posted by believe

we were that spoilt it made some of us £#%&! off and support a pub team

The difference then is that you knew when Ferguson was in a transitional period and invariably you knew he'd get it right, it was all par for the course. The point now, and I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face, is why are United so indebted to van Gaal, that they will allow him three years to impose his style on the club before handing over the reins? Is van Gaal so revered that his style will be carried on like the Olympic flame by his successor, regardless of what their own "philosophy" might be? And finally, how can you say his three years here will be transitional, when he's half way through, still barely knows his best side and probably needs to replace or add 5-10 players in the 18 months he has remaining?

For me, putting aside the fact that I just don't like him, he still has too many unanswered questions at this stage in his tenure to even consider him a good appointment, let alone a success. He comes across as an obstinate @#%&! and it almost feels like that's the philosophy coming across from the players rather than anything else.

In 2005, Ferguson was the most obstinate @#%&! of them all but he'd earned it, with the players and the fans. I owe van Gaal nothing and he owes United nothing either and my biggest concern is that the three years he is here, his philosophy will do more bad than good. Trying to recover from one bad year with Moyes has been hard enough, imagine how hard it's going to be for Giggs trying to reverse three bad years of this.

Serious bellers is serious

And right

A dig at the FC lot as well

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

@#%&!ted at Boro 4-1 and then getting beat in Lille was a real lowpoint.

I was at both (top red) then Chelsea at the end of the week when Fletcher scored, scenes.

As mentioned this is much worse than back then. Right now there is no light at the end of the tunnel, we are playing shite, have done for some time now and do not look like changing.

At least back then we had Fergie

We dont commit enough going forward because the players are too £#%&!ing slow to get forward or back.

Shite. Utter £#%&!ing shite. From back to front. There's £#%&! all pace to attack teams, and £#%&! all pace to defend teams hitting on the break

Originally Posted by believe

we were that spoilt it made some of us £#%&! off and support a pub team

The difference then is that you knew when Ferguson was in a transitional period and invariably you knew he'd get it right, it was all par for the course. The point now, and I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face, is why are United so indebted to van Gaal, that they will allow him three years to impose his style on the club before handing over the reins? Is van Gaal so revered that his style will be carried on like the Olympic flame by his successor, regardless of what their own "philosophy" might be? And finally, how can you say his three years here will be transitional, when he's half way through, still barely knows his best side and probably needs to replace or add 5-10 players in the 18 months he has remaining?

For me, putting aside the fact that I just don't like him, he still has too many unanswered questions at this stage in his tenure to even consider him a good appointment, let alone a success. He comes across as an obstinate @#%&! and it almost feels like that's the philosophy coming across from the players rather than anything else.

In 2005, Ferguson was the most obstinate @#%&! of them all but he'd earned it, with the players and the fans. I owe van Gaal nothing and he owes United nothing either and my biggest concern is that the three years he is here, his philosophy will do more bad than good. Trying to recover from one bad year with Moyes has been hard enough, imagine how hard it's going to be for Giggs trying to reverse three bad years of this.

Bad run of eight games, Fellaini starts. Two much improved performances and he doesn't. Shot on a stick football until he gets taken off on Saturday. Can't be a £#%&!ing coincidence. Don't want him out on loan because there's a possibility that he will come back. Bin Fellaini off and we will do far better. Based on the last dozen games, the solution is obvious.

Originally Posted by Ranier Wolfcastle

Attack limited by an immobile attacker, struggling to break teams down.

Knocked out of Champions League at group stage.

Central midfielder playing a lot of games on the wing.

Legacies being shredded at every turn.

Talented but inconsistent young attackers.

An improving pacy & strong centreback without a quality partner.

Turned it around & solved the problems eventually - with some big egos being sent packing along the way

No it's a lot worse .

Originally Posted by elephantstone

A dig at the FC lot as well

aye, but the FC lot didn't jump ship because they weren't getting enough trophies - they'd've jumped long before if that was the case

different breed from the press-button- "I-want-now"-crew