Agreed. But this has always been a calculated risk that SAF has taken over the years. To do that you have to know and trust your team and your players. A win and a defeat is better than 2 draws. But SAF could trust his players and himself not to be demoralised by that defeat. To LVG at this moment a defeat could have more negative consequences and I suspect he'd rather take 2 points from 2 games if he had no other choice. On a purely pragmatic basis, the first priority for a big club is getting the CL. By a long distance. The title will be nice too but the consequences of not winning the title are dwarfed by those of not getting into the CL. You are no longer part of the elite, you don't participate in the biggest and most prestigious competition the world, and you also miss out on the revenue. None of those apply if you miss out on the title. At some stage we are going to have to prioritise the title but we are not at that stage yet.
I can see the CL argument, but tbh I think we should be looking beyond pragmatism now. Chelsea and Liverpool are gone as threats this season, and I doubt Leicester will maintain their current form to the end of the season (by which I mean I doubt Vardy will). So it's us, Arsenal, City and Spurs for the top four, with both Arsenal and City looking vulnerable. So we may not have anywhere near as good a chance at the title next season, if Chelsea come back strongly and Arsenal and City both strengthen. I would rather push for the title and risk coming third or fourth rather than just playing it safe and settling for second or third and retaining the top four trophy. As massive an achievement as that would be of course...
Managed to check the GA column for the past few years and while you ate right Swarbs, its not quite as clear cut. The side with the best, or top 3 best defences does indeed win the league. These can also be skewed somewhat depending how early the title is wrapped up. But my point is that the defence is very important. If we are not conceding, were well set to win games.
Apart from 2013 when we had the joint fifth best defence and won the league by scoring most goals And 2000 when we had the sixth best defence and won the league by scoring most goals And 1996, when we had the fifth best defence and won the league by scoring most goals And of course 1999 when we had the fourth best defence. And scored most goals. Sure we won something that year, can't quite remember what tho'. Arsenal must have won something that season tho' what with their super tight defence conceding only 17 goals in 38 games... Defence is always useful, and helps to separate sides which are similarly good at going forwards as it did for City in 2014. But ultimately it is the attack which wins titles. SAF didn't become the most successful British football manager of all time of the basis of a solid defence, as those four titles show. Even when Mourinho was winning titles by parking the bus he was still focused enough on attack to score more than 70 goals each season. Since it went to a 38 game season, the lowest number of goals scored by a title winner was 68. We're currently on track to score 54 goals this season, and if that doesn't improve then we don't have a chance of winning the title.
Ah but like I said, its slightly skewed. We had won the league early and drew our last game 5-5. We weren't playing for the title at that point.
Not all that skewed. Even if you selectively exclude that game, our defence that season was on a par with Everton and Chelsea, and worse than City's and Arsenal. We won the league on the strength of our attack, same way we have done pretty much every season we've won the league. Can't think of a single one when it was our defence which made the difference without us having a strong attack and the ability to win the tight games by finding a way to score.
I'm not saying a weak attack and strong defence is key. More that a strong defence is equally important. Not just because clean sheets mean you have a better chance of winning but because a solid defence allows for a better attack. They don't have to worry about getting countered for example.
I think when we had VDS, Evra, Rio, Vidic in our back 5, our defence was key to all our success. As much so as the attack with the likes of Ronaldo and Rooney involved. They made us great together.
I agree with this. Although that is our main problem - we defend for the sake of defending, we don't us our defence as the basis of a strong attack. That's why we won't win the league without a change in approach.
I always find the argument that "playing poorly and winning" is better than "playing well and losing" as a bit like saying "being slightly less 5hit" is better than "being 5hit". I prefer a more traditional opinion... how about a choice between playing boring football while drawing/winning games OR playing expansive, attractive football while winning/drawing games??? Ofcourse this is far too basic a premise for those who defend mediocrity. The likes of Arsenal or Chelsea or Liverpool don't lose games because they're playing attractive, expansive, free-flowing football ffs. They lose games because they're defensively 5hite. It is tiresome listening to ppl trying to push the notion that somehow you can't have exciting, attacking football without being defensively sound. It's usually the same ppl who think the way Capello, Ancellotti manage is the same as Van Gaal. It's not. I could totally understand the argument, we don't have the players to attack so we focus on defence and grind out results. But that's not the case at all. We have an abundance of quality, creative, attacking players. Moreso than at any time in 6 years.
An awful lot has been made of the "attack, attack attack" chant in the press and on TV. It is a United chant and has been for years and years, even under Fergie, why the big fuss now?
Too true Diego, I have been meaning to mention it myself but well, couldn't be arsed really. It seems the press have also bought into the idea that football was invented by the premier league and conveniently forgotten this. Was even sung under Atkinson, and to give big Ron his due his teams certainly did attack. United fans are used to and expect attacking football, it just goes along with that.
That almost proves my point about taking United winning for granted. There is a world of difference between playing well and losing and playing poorly/boringly and winning. Far from being sh1t and less sh1t. The name of the game is winning. Ask Wenger or Mourinho or Klopp. Not winning brings massive pressure. So that to still be under pressure after a 2-0 win is rather perverse.
I don't think he is under pressure right now. If he adopts your let's just make sure we get fourth first approach though he will be soon enough.
The fact is, we're well in the hunt for the title and, as Swarbs has skillfully and vividly shown, the way to win titles is the attacking approach, not the pragmatic approach.
It doesn't prove your point at all. It's not a choice between playing poorly while winning/drawing OR playing well while losing. That's a defeatist argument. All things being equal (ie. the results) then what's to stop a team doing it playing attractive football? What's to stop United doing it playing attractive football? The Arsenal, Chelsea comparison I've already covered so I won't go over that again. I'm surprised you used it again tbh.
It is all about expectations. I had no great ones especially after Moyes. I can understand your frustration if you think United ought to be strong title contenders by now. You cannot see any reason why with the resources we have we shouldn't play a different type of football. LVG it seems quite obvious does not do both attractive football and win at all cost. I have come to accept that with LVG it is pragmatism. Don't lose the ball and you won't concede a goal to a counterattack. For me as long as he wins the necessary points to get into the CL and does a good CL campaign, we are making the necessary progress. The next stage will be for another manager. So for me it is so far so good.
Takes an element of both. Sides that are too attacking often fall short. There needs to be a balance between the two. Of course having a fully firing RvP, Rooney, Ronaldo, Cole, Yorke, Cantona, Mclair, Hughes, Giggs and co certainly helps things. But we've always had a defence others are envious of.
