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?
You are flat track bullies. Score loads against weaker opposition, but hide like little girls when a decent team confronts you.
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.
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.
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.
View attachment 82960 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.
i joined in here . 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.
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.
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.
It seems that Liverpool fans should be worried tonight. James McLean is being unleashed from the start. Salah and co may well be seeing a lot of the medical team, although there is always a bonus of a possible red card
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.
Giroud to injure himself scoring a last minute equalizer, which condemns the Goons to a whole bunch of narrow losses for the remainder of the season.
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!!
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!)
Nowhere near the worst thing that Lazio fans have done... https://www.football-italia.net/114184/lazio-fans-mock-giacomelli Meanwhile, at different ends of the M62...
