Ten Hag’s Game Model Could Work But Probably Won’t.

United system in theory could work under ideal conditions but I have concerns about its sustainability and repeatability.

Some people think this United system is guaranteed to fail. Others have faith.

I think this United system in theory could work under ideal conditions but I have concerns about a few things, namely the system’s sustainability and repeatability.

In this article, I reflect on the ten Hag game-model as a whole as we enter another year of the project.

It feels like at its best final-form Man United could be something like Flick’s Bayern, ten Hag’s Ajax, or parts of Klopp’s Liverpool.

The biggest problem isn’t the theoretical system (at its best).

There are multiple other concerns I have.

At present there’s been a persistence from ten Hag to continue with this system.

Positives (and probably ten Hag’s rationale):
— players learn the system and improve in their execution of it through immersion.
— Repetition improves outcomes
— ten Hag has signings that need this repetition.

Negative:
— United are not good enough in their quality to win frequently doing so.
— I don’t think the current players all have the general ceiling to execute on these ideals (Sunken Cost Fallacy)
—I also don’t think all of these players are long term quality.

A lack of adaptability to player quality now may be explained by ten Hag’s need to stamp his personal identity on his team’s system.

This usually becomes the case by year 3.

Ole I feel, had similar issues he struggled with.

It would be personally difficult for ten Hag to reconcile with the fact that he did not get Man United to look like a ten Hag team if he were to get sacked.

I’m sure that plays a part in it too.

If ten Hag doesn’t show his game model and show it works, the higher ups will get rid.

Year 3 is often make or break.

There’s been numerous occasions in the first game where United have passed around the first line of pressure, found a midfielder facing forward (often Casemiro) who has over hit a pass for Rashford running in behind.

A better passer here gets Rashford in behind often.

That is an example of one part of the system’s intentions working in theory.

It’s the execution of the player’s resulting in it failing.

But those midfielders are a result of the transfer strategy and midfield selection of coach and club.

Transfer strategy has seemingly prioritised single valuable traits necessary for this system, rather than a global profile needed for this system.

What I mean by this is that— this system requires big space coverage from the CMs but also the ability to play long passes accurately whilst fatigued.

Ugarte solves problem 1, but does he answer problem 2 as well?

Continuing on from the previous point — United’s CB need brilliant, ingenuity and technical quality to create buildup solutions vs 1 vs 1 pressure consistently.

Lisandro and Yoro can do this.

But they’re also left 1v1 and exposed defensively.

Are they the best in this regard?

Which CBs have both the on ball genius and 1v1 superiority?

Klopp’s Liverpool had a ridiculous spine — VVD, Matip, Fabinho.

Flick had strong defenders in Boateng. Kimmich/Alaba did the technical CB thing for Flick and are good defenders.

You get the point.

Do United’s CB signings drive home similar confidence in both facets?

Perhaps Yoro but he’s young and injured.

Leaving yourself underloaded at the back requires a genius shot stopper — in long 1v1s and one that can build up well too.

United again have prioritised a brilliant buildup keeper but his long 1v1 shot stopper is suspect.

Klopp’s Liverpool had Alison. Flick had Neuer.

The system this ambitious could work but I have a few problems with the reliability of its success a la Flick.

It requires more specialised profiles that are harder to find in the market —

1) big space coverage midfielders who can play long passes accurately

2) CBs who are incredible technically but also brilliant 1v1 in counter defence situations

3) wide forwards who track back but then run in behind 30-40 yards, often.

4) fullbacks that have the intuition to invert and solve buildup problems by reading the game, relationally.

5) top ball-playing GKs who are over performers in long 1v1 situations

The implications?
— harder to sign these unique profiles
— harder for new managers to fit them into their systems

— relationism requires time/chemistry to develop, a sale/injury halts this progress.

EG. White, Odegaard, Saka // Salah, Trent, Henderson. When one of those three were out, the sub-unit struggled.

When Mane and Firmino left, the chemistry they’d built over years had to restart at 0.

— United’s very physical game model + relational game model means you need players to play often to develop relational understanding, but playing them often = more injuries.

Final thoughts.

Although this system can work in theory, and a perfect version of it would be exciting to watch — it is on the face of things far less reliable and repeatable particularly over the long term.

After heavy investment I still think player profiles signed lack part of the quality they need to succeed in the roles they’re being asked to do.

If every player in this game model was of the correct profile, it could work.

This game model introduces more variance (in performance and results) in the long term compared to systems Guardiola and Arteta deploy (which aim to minimise variance).

Umir.