Rival watch

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
humanbeingincroydon said:
Once again you're ignoring the fact that for the first few weeks of the season (because mid-August to late September is a few weeks) most of their opposition were defensive basket cases such as Palace, West Scam, Everton and Swansea - and by complete coincidence that's where the majority of their league goals were scored this season. If you're going to ignore data that's right in front of you as it doesn't fit your argument, at least have the courtesy to promise £350m a week to the NHS while you're doing it.

On the subject of data you're ignoring because it doesn't fit your argument, you did read the parts where Spurs scored as many or even scored more than they did at various points in the season, right?
Click to expand...

The argument is that Man united are **** and park the bus (inferring they don't score goals)?

Even taking into account the first 6 weeks where Man U supposedly blasted teams through their luck, it's funny how Tottenham with the worlds best striker and most attractive footballing philosophy still on match Uniteds tally. Think my data fits my argument just fine.

So what is it? Spurs park the bus to? Spurs strikers are ****? or maybe united aren't as defensive as some suggest?
 
Diego said:
Does it not embarrass you that a parked bus has outscored you when you have the best striker and midfielder in the league in your attractive attacking team?
Click to expand...
You are flat track bullies. Score loads against weaker opposition, but hide like little girls when a decent team confronts you.
 
BobbyD said:
The argument is that Man united are **** and park the bus (inferring they don't score goals)?
Click to expand...
Nope. It suggests that Utd play negatively and aim to stifle the opposition as a priority.
I'm surprised that anyone's even looking to debate that, to be honest, as it appears to be the consensus amongst Utd fans.

Look at the recent games against Spurs, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and City.
Won two, drew one and narrowly lost the other two, but were unbelievably negative in all of them.
Had less possession, shots, shots on target, territory and the like in every single match.
Largely sat back, spoiled and tried to hit on the counter, which is not something that Man Utd fans are used to and they don't like it.

Did they have anything different under Moyes or van Gaal? Not really. They didn't like them, either.
A lifetime of Fergie has set certain standards and Mourinho's not living up to them, despite his results.
It's not enough to win games for the Old Trafford faithful. You have to play with flair and generate some excitement, too.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
Nope. It suggests that Utd play negatively and aim to stifle the opposition as a priority.
I'm surprised that anyone's even looking to debate that, to be honest, as it appears to be the consensus amongst Utd fans.

Look at the recent games against Spurs, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and City.
Won two, drew one and narrowly lost the other two, but were unbelievably negative in all of them.
Had less possession, shots, shots on target, territory and the like in every single match.
Largely sat back, spoiled and tried to hit on the counter, which is not something that Man Utd fans are used to and they don't like it.

Did they have anything different under Moyes or van Gaal? Not really. They didn't like them, either.
A lifetime of Fergie has set certain standards and Mourinho's not living up to them, despite his results.
It's not enough to win games for the Old Trafford faithful. You have to play with flair and generate some excitement, too.
Click to expand...

Can't argue that is their approach in the big games.

Just read back, the original question was is it not embarassing to be scoring less than United. Then it descended into someone saying United only scored more because they scored loads at the beginning (something that still isn't true, they've been outscoring spurs or at the minimum on par depending on the slice) and then the argument changed that they only scored most of their goals against cannon fodder which if you look is:

Here are the two conclusions that can be drawn from that data
i.) Man Utd scored 21 of their 38 league goals against cannon fodder in August/September, which is exactly what I said
ii.) Spurs scored as many goals as Man Utd in September and more than they did in October (and, so far, more than they have in December), which is the exact opposite of what you said
Click to expand...

21 goals of their 36 (the original quoter got it wrong with 38 goals) which means he's saying 15 goals were against non cannon fodder.

The irony shown is that across similar fixtures (taking out goals scored against the same teams united played) then spurs have only scored 13 goals out of their 26 against "harder" opposition so still less than pragmatic united.
 
BobbyD said:
Can't argue that is their approach in the big games.

Just read back, the original question was is it not embarassing to be scoring less than United. Then it descended into someone saying United only scored more because they scored loads at the beginning (something that still isn't true, they've been outscoring spurs or at the minimum on par depending on the slice) and then the argument changed that they only scored most of their goals against cannon fodder which if you look is:



21 goals of their 36 (the original quoter got it wrong with 38 goals) which means he's saying 15 goals were against non cannon fodder.

The irony shown is that across similar fixtures (taking out goals scored against the same teams united played) then spurs have only scored 13 goals out of their 26 against "harder" opposition so still less than pragmatic united.
Click to expand...
You're talking about how effective Utd are at scoring. That has nothing to do with their style of play.
Mourinho's sides are always effective. They're also largely dull and negative.
Floyd Mayweather's extremely effective at what he does. He's also very, very boring.
That doesn't make him a **** boxer. It does make me want to avoid watching his fights, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: littleDinosaurLuke
You must log in or register to see images

PleaseNotPoll said:
Nope. It suggests that Utd play negatively and aim to stifle the opposition as a priority.
I'm surprised that anyone's even looking to debate that, to be honest, as it appears to be the consensus amongst Utd fans.

Look at the recent games against Spurs, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and City.
Won two, drew one and narrowly lost the other two, but were unbelievably negative in all of them.
Had less possession, shots, shots on target, territory and the like in every single match.
Largely sat back, spoiled and tried to hit on the counter, which is not something that Man Utd fans are used to and they don't like it.

Did they have anything different under Moyes or van Gaal? Not really. They didn't like them, either.
A lifetime of Fergie has set certain standards and Mourinho's not living up to them, despite his results.
It's not enough to win games for the Old Trafford faithful. You have to play with flair and generate some excitement, too.
Click to expand...

In the early part of the season United scored a lot of goals late on in games. One thing that they have, that most others don't, are options on the bench. If you can chuck on a Fellaini, Martial, Mata, M'Khitaryan or whoever against a tiring opposition, that's an enormous advantage.

United are becoming the new Pulis team. Keep it tight in the first 75 and go for it in the last 15 or 20. It's a tactic but it ain't football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deedub93 and PleaseNotPoll
PleaseNotPoll said:
You're talking about how effective Utd are at scoring. That has nothing to do with their style of play.
Mourinho's sides are always effective. They're also largely dull and negative.
Floyd Mayweather's extremely effective at what he does. He's also very, very boring.
That doesn't make him a **** boxer. It does make me want to avoid watching his fights, though.
Click to expand...

i joined in here <ok>.

I won't argue against what constitutes fun to watch vs effective footie vs goals = good to watch as this is a subjective matter although i think we can all declare that Mourinho isn't well known for attacking in the big games.

The part where you pretend the majority of those goals came in the first few weeks of the season against cannon fodder such as Palace and West Scam, and since then the goals have dried up - especially from the bloke you paid £75m for in the summer to, you know, score goals.
Click to expand...
 
BobbyD said:
i joined in here <ok>.

I won't argue against what constitutes fun to watch vs effective footie vs goals = good to watch as this is a subjective matter although i think we can all declare that Mourinho isn't well known for attacking in the big games.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that Mourinho can be blamed for Lukaku failing to score against the better sides, as he's always struggled with it.
It's hard to even criticise the player for it, as everyone scores less against good teams. That's why they're good.
He's remarkably ineffective in a lot of those games though and that's on the manager, for me.
If he's not scoring and he's not influencing the game, then why's he still on the pitch and why do you keep starting him in those matches?

Utd hit the ground running for a few reasons, in my opinion.
They happened to have fixtures against a bunch of unsettled sides that had poor summers and management issues.
They were pretty stable, didn't lose anyone of note (sorry, Wayne!) and had an easy Champions League draw.
They have a massive squad of extremely expensive and experienced players and a similar manager who has had time with the squad.

Sounds simple enough, but most sides can't replicate that.
They still managed to bore their way through a lot of games, drop points to teams that they should be beating (Stoke, Huddersfield) and have various meltdowns.
It's standard Mourinho stuff, but not quite as effective as he normally is. He'll probably have one more year after this and then be off.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
Nope. It suggests that Utd play negatively and aim to stifle the opposition as a priority.
I'm surprised that anyone's even looking to debate that, to be honest, as it appears to be the consensus amongst Utd fans.

Look at the recent games against Spurs, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and City.
Won two, drew one and narrowly lost the other two, but were unbelievably negative in all of them.
Had less possession, shots, shots on target, territory and the like in every single match.
Largely sat back, spoiled and tried to hit on the counter, which is not something that Man Utd fans are used to and they don't like it.

Did they have anything different under Moyes or van Gaal? Not really. They didn't like them, either.
A lifetime of Fergie has set certain standards and Mourinho's not living up to them, despite his results.
It's not enough to win games for the Old Trafford faithful. You have to play with flair and generate some excitement, too.
Click to expand...
The problem is lack of control in midfield. We don't have a playmaker who can dictate play. The strengths of the team are power and athleticism.
If Mourinho had Silva, he might play differently against the better teams.
The Liverpool and Chelsea performances were dire.
He was too fearful of City; when the team had to throw caution to the wind, they looked able the cause City problems.
The Spurs game was poor all round, but we did attack you and cause problems in the second half.
The tactics were spot on against Arsenal and it worked a treat, but we didn't have the quality on the ball in midfield to prevent them dominating possession and creating chances, although they were kept out of the penalty area most of the time.
As a pragmatist, Mourinho probably sees 7 points from those 5 games as acceptable, but 2 or 3 points less than ideal.
 
BobbyD said:
The argument is that Man united are **** and park the bus (inferring they don't score goals)?

Even taking into account the first 6 weeks where Man U supposedly blasted teams through their luck, it's funny how Tottenham with the worlds best striker and most attractive footballing philosophy still on match Uniteds tally. Think my data fits my argument just fine.

So what is it? Spurs park the bus to? Spurs strikers are ****? or maybe united aren't as defensive as some suggest?
Click to expand...
No, the argument is that people are using deliberately misleading arguments that don't stand up to ten seconds worth of research. As I clearly stated (for the third time now) Man Utd had a run of games against defensive basket cases at the start of the season and scored the majority of their league goals in that six week period. There is no arguing with this, because I have helpfully provided the statistics, and for comparison's sake also supplied head-to-head comparisons with Spurs to show that they haven't outscored us all season.
 
So Gooners or Spammers to lose? Toughie that one. On the grounds West Ham will lose loads anyway, come on you Irons.
 
SpursDisciple said:
So Gooners or Spammers to lose? Toughie that one. On the grounds West Ham will lose loads anyway, come on you Irons.
Click to expand...
Last two games has been a real struggle for me: Spammers against Chavs & Goons. Best option would be for a thermo-nuclear device from North Korea to somehow reach further than anticipated...... on two occasions!! <laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: deedub93 and Rocky blue army
I can only get Swansea and West Ham on my telly so I ain't watching either. I'm watching Bayern v Arsenal(sorry,Koln!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back