The pundits are really fawning over this “Tottenham way” bollox. First we were told it’s a high line, intricate build up play & late runs into the box but I just watched them for 45 mins in a low block playing on the counter and the pundits still say they’re playing the “Tottenham way”.

Let City win. Come on now. You aren’t actually suggesting a title challenger throws a game against a rival just so City don’t win the title. That’s insane.

Title challengers play to win every game no matter who its against and its ridiculous to do otherwise. Unless, of course, you go down to 10 men when you’re 1-0 up at home against local rivals, that cant break down low blocks, and decide its better to lose playing a high line than try to win playing a low block. Then its ok to decide to lose apparently.

City win because they have the best manager in the world, the best team in the world, 400m sat on the bench every weekend & 115 charges that nobody wants to do anything about.

I honestly thought that having two hands on a players back was a universally accepted sign of a foul akin to challenging a goalkeeper with two hands on the ball or making a two footed challenge.

From watching football for the last 20 years, some things are just synonymous with a foul.

You cant tackle the keeper when he has two hands on the ball, you cant challenge someone from behind, you cant dive two footed into tackles, you cant “sissors” tackle someone and you cant put two hands on a players back. I honestly thought those were just universally accepted signs of a foul.

Betteridge’s law (of headlines) is an adage that states “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.” The sweeping generalization refers to the poor journalistic practice of writing sensational headlines in the form of a question in order to compensate for the author’s lack of facts.

I honestly thought Bruno could have got a retrospective ban for that challenge on Jorginho.

Off the ball, not in view of the referee, violent conduct, contact with the players head & with force. It has all the hallmarks of a retrospective ban.

I honestly thought there could be a review of Bruno’s challenge on Jorginho for violent conduct with a view to a retrospective ban. 3-2 is madness.

https://help.thefa.com/support/solutions/articles/7000039299-how-does-the-fa-decide-whether-to-retrospectively-charge-a-player-for-an-incident-not-seen-by-the-m

Downing tools is a collective effort made by the players to get the manager sacked. I don’t think that’s happened. It’s a bit suspicious how quickly some of United’s senior players have dropped off though.

I mean Bruno is clearly an inadequate captain but who would you pick instead? Let me play Devil’s advocate here for a second.

I remember at the time there were reports of a disagreement between DDG & Maguire regarding the captaincy which effectively split the dressing room. I wonder if Bruno was the prudent choice that allowed ETH to avoid taking a side in that argument.

Also, Bruno was probably one of very very few players in the team at the time that ETH imagined would be part his future at United. If he were to change captain now, ETH would have to be very careful who he’d chose because there is a clear sense that he has his favorites, as evidenced by the Sancho incident, and avoid falling into the same trap as Ole with Maguire or Mourinho with Pogba in that they picked a captain that was very much the manager’s captain rather than the team’s captain.

I do think in an ideal world captains are made in the team rather than brought in. Its players, and I dont mean one player, that set an example, are most fervent, espouse the manager’s belief on the field, are very sensitive to changes in game state and, ideally, are level headed. It’s extremely rare that one person has all that and I think United’s bigger failing is that there isn’t a clear unified group which fill the gaps in Bruno’s captaincy.