Greenlizard0 Weekend Football Thread ** spoilers ** [21st - 27th April 2017]

[BaZ87]

There's a time and a place for counter-attacking football though, United just weren't able to hit City on the break like they wanted to. There's no way United would have gone there and beaten them if they'd tried to match City in terms of playing style, that would have been suicidal, particularly with a midfield three of Herrera, Carrick and Fellaini. United used to play smash and grab football under SAF at times as well, this isn't something new. The 1-0 win at Anfield thanks to a last-minute O'Shea goal springs to mind as a perfect example of that.

JanesyB, did you actually read the article?

I said something similar along the lines of the tweet before in the summer:

https://twitter.com/MiguelDelaney/status/857910792204804096

Just like 2nd time around at Chelsea, he arrived to all the talk that he'd changed, he'd play expansive attacking football and within 6 months he was blaming this new approach for poor results and how he had to play Oscar over Mata for his defensive work in order to get results. He spent an absolute fortune in the summer, has the most expensive squad in world football at his disposal and he's still managed to convince people that the only option is to play like a Tony Pulis side against any half decent side - it's remarkable.

You mention your midfield options as if you've gone up against City with Sunday league players. Everton beat City 4-0 with a midfield of Barry and Davies. Even before this season, teams have had the most joy against City when they've pressed them high up the pitch and exposed Toure in midfield. This idea that Utd had no option but to play like West Brom is laughable. And you can't honestly be comparing yesterday or the away performance at Anfield to anything under Taggart. Yes, there would be games that he would be more pragmatic and look to play on the break but never to that extent. The reason why Utd had no threat on the break last night wasn't because of your midfield but because of how deep everyone but Rashford dropped. Counter attacking when Rashford was the only player outside your own 18 yard box was always going to be a tough ask and Mourinho knew that and sacrificed that threat to be more defensive.

 

[The Running Man]

Regardless of luck...we lost to city at Old Trafford too. We were lucky not to lost at city too.

 

[nicktay2605]

That Everton vs City game was totally different, it's not reasonable to use that for any sort of comparison. For one, it was at Goodison not at the Etihad. Having home support is always going to make a difference, particularly with Everton, who have generally been very good at home this season. Everton scored four goals from six shots, so as well as being clinical they played a poor City defence. City are completely different with Kompany back in there instead of Stones, who's had a very poor season. Also, City were coming off the back of a loss at Anfield and just scraping past Burnley at home.

I'm not saying I like Mourinho's negativity at times, but personally I think his tactics at City were justified. I'm happy with the point. Sure, it would be great if we'd won, and yes I do agree with you that we generally played too deep, but I think to press them high with the players we had available would have been very difficult.

Also, to call Mourinho generally negative isn't fair. Real Madrid scored a record amount of goals and got a record amount of points when they won the league with him in charge in 2011-12, beating Guardiola-managed Barcelona in the process, despite Messi scoring fifty league goals. Equally, his Inter team are the only Italian side to ever win a treble and in his first spell at Chelsea he set club records for most clean sheets, fewest goals conceded, and most points achieved in a PL season. The style of football Mourinho plays depends on the opponent and the squad he has available. Would I have liked us to play more attacking, more exciting football against City? Yes, but I'm happy we got the point, and I'd sacrifice that style of football for that one game to get a result. United haven't played negative football all season, they don't park the bus each match, he just decided that against City in such a big game he had to try to hit them on the break. Okay, it didn't work, but I think the result has shown that his tactics were right.

 

[BaZ87]

That Everton vs City game was totally different, it's not reasonable to use that for any sort of comparison. For one, it was at Goodison not at the Etihad. Having home support is always going to make a difference, particularly with Everton, who have generally been very good at home this season. Everton scored four goals from six shots, so as well as being clinical they played a poor City defence. City are completely different with Kompany back in there instead of Stones, who's had a very poor season. Also, City were coming off the back of a loss at Anfield and just scraping past Burnley at home.

I'm not saying I like Mourinho's negativity at times, but personally I think his tactics at City were justified. I'm happy with the point. Sure, it would be great if we'd won, and yes I do agree with you that we generally played too deep, but I think to press them high with the players we had available would have been very difficult.

Also, to call Mourinho generally negative isn't fair. Real Madrid scored a record amount of goals and got a record amount of points when they won the league with him in charge in 2011-12, beating Guardiola-managed Barcelona in the process, despite Messi scoring fifty league goals. Equally, his Inter team are the only Italian side to ever win a treble and in his first spell at Chelsea he set club records for most clean sheets, fewest goals conceded, and most points achieved in a PL season. The style of football Mourinho plays depends on the opponent and the squad he has available. Would I have liked us to play more attacking, more exciting football against City? Yes, but I'm happy we got the point, and I'd sacrifice that style of football for that one game to get a result. United haven't played negative football all season, they don't park the bus each match, he just decided that against City in such a big game he had to try to hit them on the break. Okay, it didn't work, but I think the result has shown that his tactics were right.

Of course it was reasonable to use it as a comparison - it was one of many games where City have come unstuck when sides have been organised at the back but been willing to press them high up the pitch and expose their defense. Yes Everton were at home but they also didn't have nearly the same quality of players on the pitch as Utd had. You mention Kompany playing instead of Stone but you only had to look at the first 15 minutes, when Utd actually got Martial and Rashford on the ball high up the pitch to see just how suspect City's defense was. We'll never know the outcome of the game had Utd played a more expansive system but this idea that it was that or a 6-0 loss is plain ridiculous.

And I know you're not saying you like his tactics - it's the fact that you're justifying them that I was questioning.

Calling Mourinho negative is completely fair and justified. The Real Madrid argument was thrown up when he was appointed and a few on here were convinced he'd go back to Utd's traditions of free flowing attacking football. It's easy to play attacking football when your side is so much superior to the opposition. What happened when they came up against Barca or a big CL tie though? He reverted to type, stuck Pepe in midfield to kick the **** out of every Barca player and played for a 0-0. As for Utd not playing as negatively as yesterday all season - of course not but everything is relative and you certainly haven't been throwing the kitchen sink at sides either. How many of those home draws could have been turned into wins had he played Martial or Shaw more regularly? And why doesn't he fully trust those two players in particular? Because his first focus is not to lose. How many times over the years had teams under Ferguson been chasing a win and you ended up with 4 strikers on the pitch? The shear panic that alone cause won Utd matches. The best you can hope for under Mourinho is he chucks Fellaini or Huth up front and you start launching long balls.

When he returned to Chelsea and when he got the Utd job we got spun the same bs - he's changed, he's going to be more attacking etc etc etc. It's all bs. He'll never change. Whenever it comes to the crunch he'll revert back to what he knows best and that will be to set his team up not to lose, knowing with the quality of the individual players he has at his disposal, if they don't concede then they've always got a chance of pinching the game 1-0.

I'm not questioning his success at what he does because Madrid and the last 2 seasons aside he's been very successful but to say he's not a negative manager and to suggest that Utd had to play like West Brom yesterday or away at Anfield is just not true. It wasn't the only way, it was just the Mourinho way and it always will be.

 

[Purdy]

That's unfair, Mourinho attempted to get his team to play football Vs Barca and got smashed in the most embarrassing fashion.

Then he reverted to talentless tactics

 

[nicktay2605]

Mourinho had a pretty reasonable record against Barca. Yes he got thrashed 5-0 in that first Classico, but over his time at Real he managed to beat them twice, draw twice, and lose twice. Against what many would consider the greatest club side of all time I'd say that's pretty respectable. He played classic counter-attacking football against the big sides when he was RM boss, he knew he had serious pace in the likes of Ronaldo and Bale so he hit teams on the break, much like Leicester did last season. Yes there was some nasty stuff as well, some hacking players and mind games, but then Barca aren't exactly blameless when it comes to gamesmanship either.

United have been pretty dominant in most home matches. Had we been more clinical in front of goal we'd have scored quite a few more goals. If you look at Opta stats for the season we have had the third most amount of shots, hit the woodwork the third most, and missed the most 'big chances'. In terms of goals scored we are down in seventh despite all those chances we create, so it's clearly not our style of football that's the issue. I will concede that I don't like the way he calls players out in public and humiliates them. It's something he didn't do in his first spell at Chelsea and something SAF would never have done. Stuff like that should be kept behind closed doors. Like I said before, I don't by any means think Mourinho is a perfect coach, but I think he's miles better than Moyes and LvG and I believe he's taking United in the right direction. If that means playing negative football in a few games to win a few extra points then I'm okay with that. It can never be as bad as the one million crosses of David Moyes era or the 70% possession but with no chances created of the LvG era!

 

[shipinabottle]

I just absolutely hate your point of view.

Aguero walked into Fellaini and was jointly responsible for initiating contact of heads. You saying that it's a good part of the game to do this, and then to go down like a sack of **** under what is not actually a headbutt, is disgusting. **** that.

Huh, I didn't say it was a good part of the sport... I said it's common place and it's something people do... Just like diving, grabbing, nipping and verbal mind games.