Even in the context of another remarkably high-scoring Premier League weekend, Manchester United losing 6-1 at Old Trafford felt like a new low for a club who have still never seriously challenged for the title since Sir Alex Ferguson’s departure seven years ago. On this evidence, United will be waiting much longer.
We’ve seen Manchester United lose 6-1 at Old Trafford during Ferguson’s era, of course. But that 2011 defeat to Manchester City was very different — three concessions in stoppage time, when United had been piling men forward in a desperate attempt to produce a typically unlikely comeback. The scoreboard said 6-1, but the performance was perhaps 3-1.
Yesterday’s 6-1 defeat to Tottenham, though, felt far bleaker. Tottenham were not piling men into attack and attempting to run up a cricket score; while Jose Mourinho was surely eager to inflict damage on his former club, he was also cautious enough to replace Son Heung-min, his greatest goal threat, with Ben Davies, who hasn’t scored for three years, with 17 minutes remaining.
The defeat means Manchester United have now conceded 11 goals in their first three matches of the campaign. This is the same record as Fulham — whose back four has been treated as something of a laughing stock — with the important exception that Manchester United have played one game fewer.
United have been outplayed by Crystal Palace, outplayed by Brighton and now outplayed by Tottenham Hotspur. The “expected goals” figures, which sometimes suggested Ole Gunnar Solskjaer’s side were unfortunate in the opening months of last season, now indicate United should probably have been defeated in all three matches. They’ve lost twice, and snatched a victory at Brighton courtesy of the woodwork and a dramatic last-gasp penalty.
The most worrying thing is that United’s disastrous defending is actually a novel problem. Throughout last season — and, more broadly, for much of the time under Louis van Gaal and Jose Mourinho — United’s defensive record was very good. At times that owed to David De Gea’s heroics, but that certainly wasn’t the case last season, when Solskjaer’s defensive organisation deserved credit.
But yesterday’s defensive performance was truly hopeless, from the succession of missed clearances that turned a hopeful Tottenham throw into a point-blank chance for an early equaliser without any contribution from Spurs attackers, to the way Luke Shaw was constantly dragged inside to leave the left side of the defence completely open, this was a back four which offered no cohesion as a unit, and could depend upon no protection from ahead. If United aren’t able to defend deep in a solid shape, you wonder precisely what Solskjaer is offering.
That is the peculiar thing, the fundamental contradiction at the heart of Solskjaer’s reign at Old Trafford. We are constantly told that Solskjaer suits Manchester United because he understands the grand attacking traditions of the club, but this is a manager who, throughout his first 18 months in charge, consistently demonstrated that he’s very capable of devising a good defensive, reactive, counter-attacking gameplan against quality opponents but appears completely unsuited to devising an approach that breaks down a deeper defence.
This major issue has been completely overlooked throughout his time in charge, often to staggering levels of delusion from the army of Solskjaer’s former team-mates setting the football agenda in their role as pundits. The best example came after Marcus Rashford slammed home the penalty to complete an unthinkable turnaround against Paris Saint-Germain in the Champions League last-16 clash when Solskjaer was still only in temporary charge. “That’s what it’s about! The young lads coming in the team and playing!” shouted Rio Ferdinand. “Sitting back and defending? It don’t happen here!”
Rashford’s winner had come in the 94th minute, courtesy of a dubious handball decision, at the end of a match where PSG had recorded 690 completed passes to United’s 223, of which 232 were in the final third compared to United’s 40, which resulted in 12 shots to United’s five.
Solskjaer’s side had been on the back foot throughout the game, then counter-attacked and taken their chances. It’s a perfectly legitimate way to play, but it wasn’t remotely indicative of any commitment to attack. Solskjaer probably earned the United job on the back of that result, more than anything else. It was a cautious, cagey performance apt for an underdog. If that’s what Manchester United wanted, fine. That was, by and large, what they’ve got.
To highlight Ferdinand’s off-the-cuff, technically off-air punditry at an evidently jubilant moment might seem unfair, but this type of thing has become familiar throughout Solskjaer’s period in charge, and has set the tone for analysis of United.
In addition to “understanding the club”, another major theme has concerned the lack of signings, which is increasingly considered the only way football clubs can ever become better, overlooking the actual process of coaching individuals into better players, and coaching a group of players into a better team.
That was Paul Scholes’ immediate analysis when United were eliminated from the Europa League by Sevilla in August, despite the fact United probably had the better starting XI on paper — and certainly the more expensively-assembled XI, in any case. Gary Neville, commentating on yesterday’s defeat, broke away from ruing United’s attitude to optimistically suggest an unnamed journalist was tweeting that the club was close to signing a new left-back.
Good players certainly help — but when United are outplayed by the likes of Crystal Palace and Brighton, who would probably get two players into the United starting XI at best, it becomes a bizarre argument. The greater problem is United’s lack of structural organisation, primarily in possession but seemingly now without possession too, and perhaps their overall mentality. Both are the responsibility of the manager and are not remedied solely by new signings.
In a way, though, the analysis is right — Manchester United do need to pack their side with new arrivals, because their manager hasn’t demonstrated an ability to make players better. The common pattern from United’s three major signings last summer — Aaron Wan-Bissaka, Harry Maguire and Daniel James — is that their best performances came in their opening weeks, before they regressed to the level of the club’s other underperformers. The same might prove true of Bruno Fernandes, even if only because sustaining his incredible form from his opening couple of months will prove impossible. Buying good players helps but unless they’re playing under a good manager, they won’t remain good for long.
And it essentially all comes back to the genuine peculiarity that Solskjaer is in charge of Manchester United in the first place. Before his caretaker appointment in December 2018, Solskjaer’s most notable achievements were relegation from the Premier League with Cardiff, and title success in Norway — a top flight which is, according to those who statistically model these things for analysis and recruitment purposes, roughly as strong as League One. On that basis, Solskjaer probably merited a job at a Championship club.
The tactical demands of coaching Manchester United are very different. It’s worth pointing out that his performance as caretaker boss was very impressive, and football management is not solely about tactical acumen. After the unhappiness around the club in the latter days of Mourinho, Solskjaer genuinely did lift the mood among the players, he genuinely did give supporters something to believe in.
But taking charge for a few months is very different to taking charge for a couple of years. In Solskjaer’s sole complete season in charge, he earned Manchester United 66 points. This is the same number Louis van Gaal earned in 2015-16, which led to his sacking (despite an FA Cup triumph), and just two more than in the dreadful David Moyes season of 2013-14 (although Moyes himself didn’t earn all those points, having been sacked in April).
Solskjaer’s job at Manchester United could perhaps be compared to that of Tim Sherwood at Tottenham in 2013-14. Sherwood freshened up the club, gave opportunities to youngsters — including a then-untried Harry Kane — and led a tactically chaotic but eager and energetic side to some fine results.
Despite boasting the best win percentage of any Tottenham manager, as Sherwood is keen to remind everyone, it was obvious his approach was right for the short-term, and not for the long-term. Sherwood was fired.
In his place, Mauricio Pochettino was appointed, and that increasingly looks like a tempting option for Manchester United. The only thing more typical of the managerial merry-go-round than Solskjaer being dismissed after a defeat by Mourinho, the man he replaced at Old Trafford, would be Solskjaer being replaced by the man Mourinho replaced at Tottenham, Pochettino.
Solskjaer might be saved by deadline day. Perhaps United will pull several rabbits from the hat and Solskjaer will be able to select a dramatically improved XI for the trip to Newcastle in two weeks’ time. Perhaps United will be so concerned with transfers that Solskjaer’s position won’t even be considered.
But yesterday wasn’t good enough. On the rare occasions that pundits are pressed on precisely how Solskjaer “knowing the club” helps, it usually comes down to some fairly vague notion about “understanding the standards that are required at Manchester United”. Ultimately, it’s a results business, and losing 6-1 at home against your predecessor is very much not the requisite standard.
??