My point was, I wouldn't expect a parked bus to score virtually the same number of goals as an entertaining one. can you explain this to me?
Effectiveness ≠ entertainment. Southampton and Burnley have scored the same number of goals. They're not equal in either effectiveness or entertainment. Using goals scored as your only barometer is incredibly simplistic and makes very little sense. Are Liverpool more entertaining than you purely because they've scored more goals?
I'll explain it the exact same way I explained it the last time: 21 of your 60 league goals this season were scored in your first seven games, all of which happened to be against cannon fodder (West Scam, Stoke, Palace, Southampton) or teams that started the season as defensive basket cases (Everton, Swansea) It took fourteen games after that to match that goal tally, and by complete coincidence those fourteen games had Man Utd facing actual opposition such as Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Liverpool - and half of that tally came in three games, four each against Newcastle and Watford and three against Arsenal.
As it happens Liverpool (and City) are more entertaining than us at the moment and both have scored more goals coincidentally. What I am asking you to tell me is how a boring, defensive parked bus has managed to score almost the same amount of goals as your team who I presume you find very entertaining. You would think we would struggle to score sat back all the time, could it be that we actually attack sometimes?
I'm not sure why you seem to be struggling with this concept, despite me explaining it to you repeatedly. Goals are a measure of how effective a team is at scoring. That's it. The amount says nothing about how entertaining a team's overall play is. What part of that is puzzling you?
We certainly haven't been at our free-flowing best for much of this season. Partly due to form of key players, massively due to Walker leaving and Rose turning to a steaming pile of horse manure. Our lack of pace down the flanks has meant that for most games we have to do everything centrally, which suits our opposition down to the ground as most of them are more than happy to let us pass the ball back n forth across their area and occasionally panic if Kane or Eriksen makes half a yard to shoot. If you truly believe that goals are the sole measure of a team's style, so be it. There is honestly no point debating it and @PleaseNotPoll might as well wheel out his Chris Brunt > Xavi powerpoint presentation as I'm certain you'll be nodding along in agreement throughout. I've watched United 9 or 10 times this season as one of my best mates is a fan and one every single occasion I have found myself bored numb and actually feeling a bit sorry for the attacking talent you have, clearly being shackled by a paranoid manager. Many were making a similar argument about Leicester 2 years ago. True, watch their highlights for 2 or 3 minutes on MOTD and you see a risk-taking, swashbuckling team full of pace and guile. Watch them for 90 minutes and the truth became more apparent: they won the league averaging 38% possession in every game, sat deep to compensate for the fact that Huth and Morgan were only quick enough to elbow stuff, and relied on catching the opposition on the break. It was 88 minutes of tedium, 2 minutes of magic.
I think most Utd fans find Mourinho's conservatism/pragmatism/efficiency tedious having been used to the all out attacking philosophy of the SAF era. It's especially disappointing given the talents available to him. The pace and power in the team is not being exploited to its best advantage. He has improved the results, but not to the extent that his tactics could be justified. There have been many games where releasing the shackles and allowing the players to express themselves might have brought better results - the Sevilla games being the most recent examples. Utd really should have been able to put up a better show at home to them; when they scored there really was no excuse for not attacking relentlessly.
Liverpool demonstrated last night what a powerful attack can do when it's unleashed on City from the start of a match. The Man Utd fans that I spoke to today laughed at the suggestion that Mourinho might attempt to replicate that. Mourinho is a lot of things and successful is probably the main one. He's not a proponent of the beautiful game, though. Substance is all that he's after and style is an afterthought, at best. Some people like that and others don't. I'm not convinced that it's completely suited to Man Utd.
https://www.dreamteamfc.com/c/news-gossip/372042/chris-brunt-assists-eden-hazard/ I should ****ing sue.
One of the most telling insights I ever had in Maureen's philosophy was in an interview after a La liga game quite a few years back. Real had just won 4-0 yet Maureen was moaning (makes a change) about how they had been sloppy in possession and not focused enough in defence. I can't quote verbatim but the gist of his comment was that in his mind, the ultimate victory was a 1-0 where the opposition can't get a sniff. Literally no shots on target. A 1-0 so comfortable a person reading the score online might panic but anyone watching the game would comfortably and happily get up to make a tea with 5 minutes to go. Immensely revealing in terms of how he believes the game should be played.
I completely understand it and I think that there's definitely a place for managers that have that mindset. Pulis and Allardyce share it and they've had long careers that have generally punched above the weight of their clubs. You don't lose if the other side don't score and unbeaten runs build confidence. Italian football has embraced that philosophy for decades and it works. The problem with it is when it fails or it's attempted at clubs that don't embrace that mentality. Bored fans have little patience and the fanbases of some teams are brought up on style, flair and a swashbuckling, cavalier attitude. Manchester United are one of them, I think. Ferguson won at all costs, but he also did it with a swagger. How long will Mourinho get while he's in Pep's shadow and playing less attractive football?
Utd's great appeal has been based on style. Fortunately, it did bring success although that hasn't always been the case. We were spoilt to have sustained style and success under SAF. There's never been success without style though. If Mourinho achieves it, it will lose much of its sheen because of sterile football played to achieve it- although I hasten to add this team is still some way short of winning the two major prizes.
