Manchester United Superthread 2014 Mod warning Post #1880 #2613

Pro. F wrote: »

Your posting style mirrors this behaviour precisely.

As in I'm in the middle of drunk ManU fans or laughing my bollix off? Which is it?

Gringo180 wrote: »

Have been watching Utd the past few weeks closely, one thing that baffles me is how the side is set up, its like just go out and play football without any real shape or gameplay? Team selection is horrendous too, hes in the job nearly a year now and still doesnt seem to now his best 11. Its amazing to think hes still in the job.

To be honest the set up reminds me of my Sunday League team. We have the bare 11 every Sunday, usually made up of different players each week. There's a rough formation set up but no discussion of tactics really. Then it's go out and defend like mad for 90 minutes while attacking whenever we can and without any pre-determined purpose. Unsuprisingly our results have not being good.

But watching the match last night it's what it reminded me off. Energetic but chaotic counter attacking and confused defending. A few times City just played a few simple passes through us and our players hadn't a clue what to do. We'd get the ball and there would be nobody to pass too until somebody tried an over the top through ball which either got intercepted or went out of play.

That to me reeks of no tactical advice give to the players or nothing worked on in training other than crossing and set pieces. It was depressing.

TheDoc wrote: »

Too much being made of the "aspire to be city" comment aswell by the way.

The comment came clearly in relation to the level of play on the pitch, and it is the truth and I'm glad he said it, rather then sugar coat it with some rubbish. We are completely off the pace this season, and City have looked the dominant force. LEague is theres to lose.

People getting ancy over it need to get over themselves, and learn how to take in a point with the relevant context.

City are a vastly superior football team this season, there is just no arguement in this.

Indeed. Things are bad enough as they are, without forensic assessment of every sentence Moyes mutters.

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I think his teamtalk is something like

"Mon when youuu see our player on the ball you run as far far away from that player as possible"

It seems like Moyes accepts the possibility of defeat and it rubs off on the players.

Allowing City to play their football without pressuring them was suicide.

Hang on, you're at Old Trafford, I'm going to close you down and fight for every ball, and look to pass it fowards, ohh hang on, no width, passing backwards, no-one closing down. Where was Janujaz?

Everton just look so much better without Moyes. Ross Barkley even said Martinez is more positive and much more tactical.

tallaghtmick wrote: »

I do when im driving Plenty of people done it for years before. A good commentator can deliver a perfect match over the radio trust me.

Absolutley, the local radio station here on a Saturday will make Wolves v. Leyton Orient sound like El Classico.

Also, lol at your man thinking his ticket is paying for the players cars.

Might be a shock revelation, but it's been the case for some time now, that gate receipts are a puny fraction of the clubs overall finances nowadays (top division clubs).

I must find the article, but it was an amazing read backed up by the figures and finances, but it basically was a very telling point to draw debate on the "mindset of old" that fans have a major say because they fund the club via their attendance.

The article and investigation in no blunter terms outlined that ticket income accounts for a puny fraction.

So in actual fact, your money doesn't pay for the Bentley in the carpark, it probably pays for the crisps another fan is eating. Because gate receipts are so inconsequential to the overall finances of a club. (According to that study, which I've no reason to doubt, and REALLY need to find the link)

Tony EH wrote: »

That's not really the point though.

The operative word in the sentence is "standard".

"I think we've played a very good side and it's the sort of standard and level we need to try and aspire to get ourselves to at this moment in time. I think we need to play better. We're needing to come up a couple of levels at the moment and we're not quite there."

You didn't answer my question. I'll take it that, the statement that you said had nothing to do with Manchester City, the "very good side" referenced in it, was actually Manchester City then.

Also, operative word? Please, re-read that and try to grasp exactly what a load of bollocks it is.

How is this man supposed to motivate, inspire, and instill confidence in the players? It is as indicative of his mentality, as the lack of fighting spirit his team are showing.

The basic things a manager should bring to the table, are to instill a fighting mentality and basic organisation of the team. Neither of these are present. Losing is fine, when you go down fighting.

The best leaders have at least a touch of arrogance about them. If you don't have self belief, there is absolutely no possibility you will instill belief into others. Could you ever imagine such a statement from the manager of any big European club side?

TheDoc wrote: »

Also, lol at your man thinking his ticket is paying for the players cars.

Might be a shock revelation, but it's been the case for some time now, that gate receipts are a puny fraction of the clubs overall finances nowadays (top division clubs).

I must find the article, but it was an amazing read backed up by the figures and finances, but it basically was a very telling point to draw debate on the "mindset of old" that fans have a major say because they fund the club via their attendance.

The article and investigation in no blunter terms outlined that ticket income accounts for a puny fraction.

So in actual fact, your money doesn't pay for the Bentley in the carpark, it probably pays for the crisps another fan is eating. Because gate receipts are so inconsequential to the overall finances of a club. (According to that study, which I've no reason to doubt, and REALLY need to find the link)

Why do some posters take everything so literally when the overall point was quite clear?

Is this the article any good:

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club

Just looking at Arsenal:

turnover = £245m; gate receipts - £95m. That's roughly 38% of Arsenals income comes from gate receipts.

Oh and £143m spent on wages. That's 66% relative to gate receipts.

So using some very rudimenatary maths, 66% of my match day ticket potentially covers wages at the club.

Hardly inconsequential...:P

So why are clubs not looking to downsize their stadia as the receipts are so puny?

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Have a feeling the second Bayern game will be Moyes' last.


Also apparently we've collapsed and gone 20 years without a league title, news to me....bitter.

A bad beating at home could be his last as well

v3ttel wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. I'll take it that, the statement that you said had nothing to do with Manchester City, the "very good side" referenced in it, was actually Manchester City then.

Also, operative word? Please, re-read that and try to grasp exactly what a load of bollocks it is.

Whatever lad, if you want to read it as needing to emulate City, go right ahead. It really makes no difference.

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Beating the Greeks might have been a great result after all

The Greeks beat themselves , they came to O.T and expected to go out.

In an ideal world he would be relieved of his duties if (when) Bayern hammer us over the two legs (OK, an ideal world would have been Moyes removed from power months ago, but I'm I said ideal world - not dream world). BUT, is it just me or does anyone else feel like there is just no chance the board will sack him before the summer - regardless of how the season's results finish out?