Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2017

Minderbinder

Lithium93_ wrote: »

So international break, anyone wish it was just done and dusted with already.

That said the first International Rules game is on early Saturday morning. Something to look forward to over the International break.

I think Ireland have a soccer game too.

Tylerdurex

Deleted User wrote: »

No matter what the journos report now, I'm anticipating very little to no transfer business for the club in January. Whether we need additions then or not, it is generally not an ideal time to buy. I've long given up on getting excited about the January window.

That said, if AMadrid go out of the CL at the group stages, I would find it hard not to go through a frantic state of page refreshing at some point in January. Griezmann aside though, I won't be getting my hopes up.

As for selling players, unless it's to free-up funds to make a new signing, I wouldn't be using the mid-season window to chop the deadwood. Shaw, okay, but anyone who is actually playing regularly to semi-regularly for us so far should be seeing out the season, excepting a transfer request from the player of course.

Names mentioned in here...

Shaw - Absolutely, and probably the only one. But we'd likely get fúck-all cash for him for our 'sell to buy' fund.

Mkhi - I'm quite frustrated with his current form, but will give him a chance at the club until the end of the season. We mightn't like him so much right now, but Jose does like something. I'd be very surprised to see him go in January unless a replacement (Griezmann, Ozil) comes in.

Smalling - This just seems to be a 'who we in the thread ideally would like to see shipped out' rather than who the manager apparently would. Yes the team has Rojo coming back soon, but more defensive injuries will happen this season. Smalling won't be going anywhere in January IMO.

Mata - This just makes no sense and I think he is an underappreciated player in here. There is the potential to overrate him of course, but much more than that lately I've seen his name mentioned as an expendable. Jose does seem to like him (at United) though. He hasn't hit his full potential with us IMO, consistently at least, but he is such a smart and creative player who is capable of big game performances. Be it at 10 or drifting in from the right. He mightn't have scored much in 17/18 yet, but he was a regular in the team during our strongest period so far this season, and a regular in our strongest last season (around this time last year when it looked like we might be mounting a title challenge).

Darmian - He hasn't fully made his mark at the club in 2 seasons and there's persistently rumours of a move back to Italy, but I'd be hoping to hold onto all of our active squad defensive players until Summer. At 27, he's likely to look for a regular place somewhere soon though if not at United.

So I'm not arguing that any of these players definitely have what it takes to be part of a title-winning 11 at United (or another one in Smalling's case), or that their position could not be improved upon next Summer. Just, January isn't time to clear the deadwood or seek many reinforcements. Get rid of the odd bit of foliage which has barely blossomed on the tree (Shaw), yes, but not the potential roots of a good squad (Smalling, Mkhi, Mata).

They could go back in for Perisic, hes having a very good season for Inter and he could also play in europe for us

Nalz

Lithium93_ wrote: »

So international break, anyone wish it was just done and dusted with already.

That said the first International Rules game is on early Saturday morning. Something to look forward to over the International break.

Fúck international rules, load of pig shít

Mitch Connor

Nalz wrote: »

Fúck international rules, load of pig shít

What, do you HATE Ireland? Is that it - you hate Ireland and have no respect for those brave young men battling for the Flag? SHAME ON YOU.

#MAGA #BREXIT #POPPY #REMEMBER #FLAG

Adamocovic

I for one enjoy the international break

ShooterSF

Adamocovic wrote: »

I for one enjoy the international break

I don't know if enjoy is the right word, rather I sit with my 4th glass of wine trying to ease my nerves watching the national team play.

jayo26

I hate international football I'd rather cut the grass unless we make it to a summer tournament and there is some space on the bandwagon then I put COYBIG as a frame on my Facebook picture and put green white and gold covers on the door mirrors of the car and hang my Irish flag out of the bedroom windows.

Cantona's Collars

With Pogba.

Chances per game: 14.8

Big chances: 3

Goals per game: 3



Without Pogba.

Chances per game: 7

Big chances: 1.6

Goals per game: 1.6

Just goes to show how reliant we are on one player to pull the strings in the creative role and that nobody has really stepped up to fill the void.

jayo26

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

With Pogba.

Chances per game: 14.8

Big chances: 3

Goals per game: 3



Without Pogba.

Chances per game: 7

Big chances: 1.6

Goals per game: 1.6

Just goes to show how reliant we are on one player to pull the strings in the creative role and that nobody has really stepped up to fill the void.

jayo26 wrote: »

Hopefully he back for the 18th.

Just goes to show you will always zerk it

Mitch Connor

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

With Pogba.

Chances per game: 14.8

Big chances: 3

Goals per game: 3



Without Pogba.

Chances per game: 7

Big chances: 1.6

Goals per game: 1.6

Just goes to show how reliant we are on one player to pull the strings in the creative role and that nobody has really stepped up to fill the void.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Maybe Pogba coming back will fix everything - but things to consider:

Caliber of teams we played before he went out.
Caliber of teams we played without him.

After losing Pogba we beat Basel 3-0, Everton 4-0, Burton 4-1, Southampton 1-0, CSKA 4-1, Palace 4-0. Most of these results were in line with the results prior to him getting injured and a similar type/level of team.

Then we also lost Fellaini.

We then drew 0-0 with Liverpool. Team in general were rubbish and we played a defensive stle.
Benfica 1-0, Huddersfield 1-2, Swansea 2-0, Spurs 1-0, Chelsea 0-1.

Would the Liverpool, Spurs or Chelsea performances have seen us play far more on the attack with Pogba or would it have been the same formation with pogba in for Miki/Herrera? Would it have made a HUGE difference? Would Pogba have lifted the entire team vs Huddersfield cause they were all freaking rubbish?

I'd worry that United were not great, but more clinical up to the Liverpool game, and have now reverted to average and can't finish - rather than Pogba being some missing piece that has ruined everything.

I love Pogba as a player, and I think he would make some difference, but not to the extent those stats may look to imply. I think there are bigger team/tactics/performance issues at play.

Robson99

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Correlation does not equal causation.

Maybe Pogba coming back will fix everything - but things to consider:

Caliber of teams we played before he went out.
Caliber of teams we played without him.

After losing Pogba we beat Basel 3-0, Everton 4-0, Burton 4-1, Southampton 1-0, CSKA 4-1, Palace 4-0. Most of these results were in line with the results prior to him getting injured and a similar type/level of team.

Then we also lost Fellaini.

We then drew 0-0 with Liverpool. Team in general were rubbish and we played a defensive stle.
Benfica 1-0, Huddersfield 1-2, Swansea 2-0, Spurs 1-0, Chelsea 0-1.

Would the Liverpool, Spurs or Chelsea performances have seen us play far more on the attack with Pogba or would it have been the same formation with pogba in for Miki/Herrera? Would it have made a HUGE difference? Would Pogba have lifted the entire team vs Huddersfield cause they were all freaking rubbish?

I'd worry that United were not great, but more clinical up to the Liverpool game, and have now reverted to average and can't finish - rather than Pogba being some missing piece that has ruined everything.

I love Pogba as a player, and I think he would make some difference, but not to the extent those stats may look to imply. I think there are bigger team/tactics/performance issues at play.

Exactly. Taking a look at Mourinhos record in his last 10 or 12 away games against the top 6 teams may give a better indication of where the problem lies.
Dont think he has won one of them

Robson99

Robson99 wrote: »

Exactly. Taking a look at Mourinhos record in his last 10 or 12 away games against the top 6 teams may give a better indication of where the problem lies.
Dont think he has won one of them

Why are his games as chelsea included in these stats? what has it to do with united. What arbitrary line was used to include some chelsea years and not others. Cherry picking stats to drive an agenda?

2 of them games for UNITED came at the end of last season when we were concentrating on the uefa cup but sure continue to rehash some sky sports dribble.

Mitch Connor

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are his games as chelsea included in these stats? what has it to do with united. What arbitrary line was used to include some chelsea years and not others. Cherry picking stats to drive an agenda.

2 of them games for UNITED came at the end of last season when we were concentrating on the uefa cup but sure continue to rehash some sky sports dribble.

Because it shows a trend in the performance and set up of the manager in big games. Why do you think the way that Mourinho has managed, historically, is not relevant?

As long as Mourinho continues to set his teams up in a fashion that has resulted in this terrible away record, it will be a relevant narrative.

Robson99

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are his games as chelsea included in these stats? what has it to do with united. What arbitrary line was used to include some chelsea years and not others. Cherry picking stats to drive an agenda?

2 of them games for UNITED came at the end of last season when we were concentrating on the uefa cup but sure continue to rehash some sky sports dribble.

Style of Managment and the way he sets teams up is why its relevant.
Only points he got in them games were nil all draws. And he had Pogba, Hazard, etc available.
There is always an excuse for Mourhino with some people. Never his fault.
Well the bottom line is it starts with him

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Because it shows a trend in the performance and set up of the manager in big games. Why do you think the way that Mourinho has managed, historically, is not relevant?

As long as Mourinho continues to set his teams up in a fashion that has resulted in this terrible away record, it will be a relevant narrative.

Its a bull**** stat Mitch. Why does it only include some of his chelsea games and not others. Id say the people who quote it can even tell me what years it includes weather its league or cup games. Its absolute nonsense tbh and anyone buying into is being lead up the garden path.

Its also a small sample size at 2 different clubs so it doesn't show any trend. Why are certain parts of history left out or do people think the ****ing waterboy stole his top 6 play book 3 years ago and now he can't beat top 6 teams.

Robson99

Robson99 wrote: »

Style of Managment and the way he sets teams up is why its relevant.
Only points he got in them games were nil all draws. And he had Pogba, Hazard, etc available.
There is always an excuse for Mourhino with some people. Never his fault.
Well the bottom line is it starts with him

whats seasons? what years? what games are included? i'll bet you dont even know and your spouting this as some kind of proof of what exactly? why isn't his whle history in top 6 games included. who choose the line and why then?

bangkok

[Deleted User] wrote: »

whats seasons? what years? what games are included? i'll bet you dont even know and your spouting this as some kind of proof of what exactly? why isn't his whle history in top 6 games included. who choose the line and why then?

Maybe because the top 6 has only been formed in the last couple of seasons?

jayo26

Robson99 wrote: »

Style of Managment and the way he sets teams up is why its relevant.
Only points he got in them games were nil all draws. And he had Pogba, Hazard, etc available.
There is always an excuse for Mourhino with some people. Never his fault.
Well the bottom line is it starts with him

The bottom line is them stats are from six months of his title winning season with Chelsea and a few months of the team downing tools.

His games with United are picked from a season he won two trophies and and downed tools in league with nearly 8 games to go.

If them stats are showing that jose doesn't know what he is doing or that he doesn't know how to win with a top team they are doing a bad job of it.

bangkok

bangkok wrote: »

Maybe because the top 6 has only been formed in the last couple of seasons?

So we only use games from the years those teams finished in the top 6 ok we have a starting point so. Thats last season and 14/15 the year chelsea won the league under Jose.

Robson99

jayo26 wrote: »

The bottom line is them stats are from six months of his title winning season with Chelsea and a few months of the team downing tools.

His games with United are picked from a season he won two trophies and and downed tools in league with nearly 8 games to go.

If them stats are showing that jose doesn't know what he is doing or that he doesn't know how to win with a top team they are doing a bad job of it.

Its showwing he needs to change his tactics against the better teams away from home as its not bringing success or goals for that matter

jayo26

Robson99 wrote: »

Its showwing he needs to change his tactics against the better teams away from home as its not bringing success or goals for that matter

In the period of time of them stats he has won one league title a Europa league and league cup?

I'm with Mick that stats is nonsense and the argument it don't bring success is equally nonsense.

Mitch Connor

jayo26 wrote: »

The bottom line is them stats are from six months of his title winning season with Chelsea and a few months of the team downing tools.

His games with United are picked from a season he won two trophies and and downed tools in league with nearly 8 games to go.

If them stats are showing that jose doesn't know what he is doing or that he doesn't know how to win with a top team they are doing a bad job of it.

Well no, the stats would call into question his set up vs top sides, away from home.

It could well be Jose considers that to win the league, not losing ground on these teams in the respective away fixtures is vital (so looks to nail the draw rather than risk defeat?) and thinks winning the home games and matches home/away vs the rest of the league will get him the points needed.

He could be right. It doesn't question his ability to win trophies, it questions his ability and desire to win a particular type of football match.

bangkok

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So we only use games from the years those teams finished in the top 6 ok we have a starting point so. Thats last season and 14/15 the year chelsea won the league under Jose.

Used to be the top 4, united chelsea liverpool arsenal for years. City and tottenham are now in that

Robson99

Robson99 wrote: »

Its showwing he needs to change his tactics against the better teams away from home as its not bringing success or goals for that matter

why the arbitray line? why is the season where those 6 temas actually finished as a top 6 not included. The year he won the league?

Where he lost 1 games via the top 6 and took 16 points from a possible 30

jayo26

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Well no, the stats would call into question his set up vs top sides, away from home.

It could well be Jose considers that to win the league, not losing ground on these teams in the respective away fixtures is vital (so looks to nail the draw rather than risk defeat?) and thinks winning the home games and matches home/away vs the rest of the league will get him the points needed.

He could be right. It doesn't question his ability to win trophies, it questions his ability and desire to win a particular type of football match.

He is not here to win games against 5 other clubs he is here to win trophies mitch.

Two of us are using the same stats to argue two different failures of the manager that's how nonsense they are.

All the stats show is he hasn't won against a top six team but the true stats are that he has won a league and 2 cups in that period of time.

bangkok

bangkok wrote: »

Used to be the top 4, united chelsea liverpool arsenal for years. City and tottenham are now in that

Since when, I didnt get any email about it? hang on i'll check my trash?

So years when those teams actually finished as a top 6 dont count but ones where they didnt do? ok makes sense

Mitch Connor

jayo26 wrote: »

He is not here to win games against 5 other clubs he is here to win trophies mitch.

Two of us are using the same stats to argue two different failures of the manager that's how nonsense they are.

All the stats show is he hasn't won against a top six team but the true stats are that he has won a league and 2 cups in that period of time.

And finished 5th in the league.

If we want to finish higher in the league, like i dunno, 1st? Then we need to improve our results in the league. Drastically. Picking up points in 6 of the fixtures would be a good start, no?

jayo26

Mitch Connor wrote: »

And finished 5th in the league.

If we want to finish higher in the league, like i dunno, 1st? Then we need to improve our results in the league. Drastically. Picking up points in 6 of the fixtures would be a good start, no?

Or winning against the likes of Huddersfield and stoke would be worth as much?

Again I'll say when them stats were taken from he also won the league in that season? So why is that ignored?

Mitch Connor

Deleted User wrote: »

Since when, I didnt get any email about it? hang on i'll check my trash?

So years when those teams actually finished as a top 6 dont count but ones where they didnt do? ok makes sense

Are you honestly saying you don't see a difference in the league now vs say 10 years ago? You honestly think United/Arsenal were genuinely fighting teams down to 6th for the title? You don't think the top of the table and list of realistic potential winners has changed? City and all their investment makes no difference to the argument of the original top 4? (Which only really came about when Abramovic came in).

Honestly, you seem needlessly angry and irritated by what is a generally accepted state of play and change in the league over the last 10 years.

bangkok

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Since when, I didnt get any email about it? hang on i'll check my trash?

So years when those teams actually finished as a top 6 dont count but ones where they didnt do? ok makes sense

They are the teams that are considered the top 6 teams in the league. Even if Watford or west brom finished in top 6 this season, they wouldnt be considered in the traditional "top6 team"

Mitch Connor

jayo26 wrote: »

Or winning against the likes of Huddersfield and stoke would be worth as much?

Again I'll say when them stats were taken from he also won the league in that season? So why is that ignored?

Worth as many points to us.

But if we beat Huddersfield away and City win, there is no points gained on a championship rival.

If we beat City away then we get 3 points and they get 0. 3 points vs City has a bigger effect on a potential title race.

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Are you honestly saying you don't see a difference in the league now vs say 10 years ago? You honestly think United/Arsenal were genuinely fighting teams down to 6th for the title? You don't think the top of the table and list of realistic potential winners has changed? City and all their investment makes no difference to the argument of the original top 4? (Which only really came about when Abramovic came in).

Honestly, you seem needlessly angry and irritated by what is a generally accepted state of play and change in the league over the last 10 years.

All im asking is where is the line and why it includes (i think) his last season at chelsea but not the one before. I'm asking where this magical line for this stat started is all and why it started there. Something which no one seems to be able to answer.

The year before it seemingly started a year where these 6 teams actually finished as a top 6 isn't counted but years where they didn't do? Why is that.

I'm not talking about years ago even just why one year before doesn't count?

jayo26

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Worth as many points to us.

But if we beat Huddersfield away and City win, there is no points gained on a championship rival.

If we beat City away then we get 3 points and they get 0. 3 points vs City has a bigger effect on a potential title race.

Yes that's true but your saying he can't win the league unless that record improves where as he actually has won the league from the season when them stats started!!!

Mitch Connor

jayo26 wrote: »

Again I'll say when them stats were taken from he also won the league in that season? So why is that ignored?

So even when he has the best team in the league he doesn't win away to the top sides? Is that a good argument or a bad one?

He has a bad record vs top 6..... I don't understand why you don't consider it any sort of issue, or have a problem with it being pointed out.

I honestly don't get the problem here. If he won against the top 6 every match but lost every other away game we would be looking at all those other away games and wondering why Jose is getting it wrong and not getting postive results.

If there is a statistical trend of poor results, why in the name of god would you want to simply ignore it rather than see it be improved?

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Worth as many points to us.

But if we beat Huddersfield away and City win, there is no points gained on a championship rival.

If we beat City away then we get 3 points and they get 0. 3 points vs City has a bigger effect on a potential title race.

And here is the thing with that if you feel as a team and a manger you can make less mistakes and lose less points against the lower teams, then drawing matches with rivals becomes a way better proposition. As you deny them points to gain on you.

Its interesting point of debate imo and maybe something that has worked in the past but wont this season

Mitch Connor

jayo26 wrote: »

Yes that's true but your saying he can't win the league unless that record improves where as he actually has won the league from the season when them stats started!!!

Except I'm not saying that.

I'm saying our chances of winning the league would improve if we got more points from a significant number of matches.

It isn't impossible to win the league without doing so, but it makes it harder.

When Chelsea won the league under Jose they draw 9 and lost 3 matches. Of the remaining 27 league games, City will need to Draw 8 and lose 3 of them to match that record. I think that is unlikely, so a higher points total may be needed - less margin for error, less scope for dropping points in *ANY* fixture, more importance on beating City home and away to close that points gap.

So I just looked back and that stat starts the year Chelsea won the league under Jose with a 0-0 against Arsenal when they had the league pretty much wrapped up.

But leaves out from the same year a 5-3 loss to spurs 1-1 draws via united and city and a 2-1 win away to liverpool.

I think its started then to cherry pick and say jose has only score one goal in x amount of games even left out the loss to spurs as it was the next game that would be on the list,as they scored 3 goals in it.

Seems odd unless you have some sort of agenda I guess.

Lord TSC

jayo26 wrote: »

Or winning against the likes of Huddersfield and stoke would be worth as much?

Again I'll say when them stats were taken from he also won the league in that season? So why is that ignored?

Agreed with the point RE Huddersifeld and Stoke. Win those two games and we are three off City but five ahead of Spurs p, six ahead of Chelsea an9 ahead of Arsenal and Liverpool. That's keeping results against Chelsea, Spurs and Pool the same.

You absolutely do not NEED to break neck in those "big games" as we can see by the fact we are still second despite performances in those games. It helps, sure. But if Jose doesn't trust the team to go all out against those teams, and fathers not just he point but blocking the other teams gaining on us, so be it.

I'd be far more angry with the performances against Stoke and Huddersfield than the big three we faced so far.

bangkok

Lord TSC wrote: »

Agreed with the point RE Huddersifeld and Stoke. Win those two games and we are three off City but five ahead of Spurs p, six ahead of Chelsea an9 ahead of Arsenal and Liverpool. That's keeping results against Chelsea, Spurs and Pool the same.

You absolutely do not NEED to break neck in those "big games" as we can see by the fact we are still second despite performances in those games. It helps, sure. But if Jose doesn't trust the team to go all out against those teams, and fathers not just he point but blocking the other teams gaining on us, so be it.

I'd be far more angry with the performances against Stoke and Huddersfield than the big three we faced so far.

Liverpool game was one of the worst games i have ever witnessed

jayo26

bangkok wrote: »

Liverpool game was one of the worst games i have ever witnessed

Hyperbole

bangkok

jayo26 wrote: »

Hyperbole

Not really. I couldnt wait for the game to be over. It was pathetic

jayo26

bangkok wrote: »

Not really. I couldnt wait for the game to be over. It was pathetic

Wasn't great now but I'm sure we have been far worse against even worse teams I'd say even this year Huddersfield was pathetic.

Mitch Connor

Lord TSC wrote: »

Agreed with the point RE Huddersifeld and Stoke. Win those two games and we are three off City but five ahead of Spurs p, six ahead of Chelsea an9 ahead of Arsenal and Liverpool. That's keeping results against Chelsea, Spurs and Pool the same.

You absolutely do not NEED to break neck in those "big games" as we can see by the fact we are still second despite performances in those games. It helps, sure. But if Jose doesn't trust the team to go all out against those teams, and fathers not just he point but blocking the other teams gaining on us, so be it.

I'd be far more angry with the performances against Stoke and Huddersfield than the big three we faced so far.

I agree, completely.

The issue, imo, is simply the trend. The trend isn't really for us to be screwing up vs smaller sides (unless we are at home, last season...) so I would still expect us to win those types for games. Vs the big sides though, you can only really hope for a draw. We may win, but the odds will favour us playing for the draw rather than take risks going for the win.

Drumpot

Lord TSC wrote: »

Agreed with the point RE Huddersifeld and Stoke. Win those two games and we are three off City but five ahead of Spurs p, six ahead of Chelsea an9 ahead of Arsenal and Liverpool. That's keeping results against Chelsea, Spurs and Pool the same.

You absolutely do not NEED to break neck in those "big games" as we can see by the fact we are still second despite performances in those games. It helps, sure. But if Jose doesn't trust the team to go all out against those teams, and fathers not just he point but blocking the other teams gaining on us, so be it.

I'd be far more angry with the performances against Stoke and Huddersfield than the big three we faced so far.

I agree completely. Top 6 record is not really important in winning the league, its all about consistently beating the teams you should be beating. I cant think of it off the top of my head but I do recall seasons when Liverpool fans were whinging about how good they were against top teams, but fell down in games they should of won ( Like famous cock-up against Palace).

I think beating teams in the top bracket is not as important as not losing to them and beating everybody else. As such I think the stoke and Huddersfield results were the worst, by far, this season. Right now, there is no shame or disaster in losing away to City, Spurs, Liverpool or City and a draw in all four of those games would be a good result. I am not suggesting that this should be United's target, I am just stating that not losing away at these grounds is not a bad result on paper.

Look at how well Spurs have played this season, thus far (beating Madrid) and they are still behind united. Spurs have looked better, more cohesive and stronger then united IMO, yet they still trail us in the league and I still think united will finish ahead of them.

The problem, as I see it, is that City just look stronger and United wont have too much room to drop points. At any stage over the last 4 years United would be top or only a point or two off top spot.

pjohnson

bangkok wrote: »

Not really. I couldnt wait for the game to be over. It was pathetic

Off the top of my head Balotelli tearing us to bits getting a hattrick for City was far worse. Hell loosing to Huddersfield this year was worse. As far as Liverpool results when Vidic got sent off and we lost 4-1 was the worst Liverpool result I remember.


When did a draw become WORSE than a defeat?

Mitch Connor

On a different topic, I wonder if United were trying to sell Fellaini in the summer, despite what Jose said on the subject.

Very odd for us to have let him get into the last year of his contract, if we were intending and planning on keeping him for this season.

I don't want us to sell Fellaini, and I didn't think Jose would be interested in selling him - but I can't see why his contract situation wasn't sorted last season, if he was always being counted on for this season.

From what I have heard he loves it at United and is a fantastic person round the club - coupled with the fact he is a key squad player its odd it still isn't sorted. Wonder if he is looking for 'crazy' money or if United are being cheap.

Drumpot

pjohnson wrote: »

Off the top of my head Balotelli tearing us to bits getting a hattrick for City was far worse. Hell loosing to Huddersfield this year was worse. As far as Liverpool results when Vidic got sent off and we lost 4-1 was the worst Liverpool result I remember.


When did a draw become WORSE than a defeat?

People forget City winning at home 1-0 against United when they first won the league. United had blown a 2 or 3 goal lead (cant remember which) against Everton at home and the next game was against City.

SAF reverted to the most defensive tactics I have ever seen him employ. City should of won that game 5-0 and United were awful.

Most managers (bar Wenger, Klopp and Pep) will revert to a more defensive approach if a game warrants it. Most teams are not good enough to blow teams out of the water, certainly not top quality teams. I will be very interested to see how City get on in CL and in later league games against quality opposition if things get tight at the top.

Mitch Connor

Drumpot wrote: »

People forget City winning at home 1-0 against United when they first won the league. United had blown a 2 or 3 goal lead (cant remember which) against Everton at home and the next game was against City.

SAF reverted to the most defensive tactics I have ever seen him employ. City should of won that game 5-0 and United were awful.

Most managers (bar Wenger, Klopp and Pep) will revert to a more defensive approach if a game warrants it. Most teams are not good enough to blow teams out of the water, certainly not top quality teams. I will be very interested to see how City get on in CL and in later league games against quality opposition if things get tight at the top.

And then he apparently blamed Nani for the defeat, for not being able to carry an attacking threat all on his own.

That game, my god.

Trigger

Reports this morning in various places that Pogba will be back for the Newcastle game.

bucketybuck

Drumpot wrote: »

Look at how well Spurs have played this season, thus far (beating Madrid) and they are still behind united. Spurs have looked better, more cohesive and stronger then united IMO, yet they still trail us in the league and I still think united will finish ahead of them.

This seems to be a common opinion, but it ignores the single biggest reason we are currently ahead of these teams and not stuck back in 5th/6th like last season.

A piss easy start to the season.