2nd

Third realistically, but it might well be 4th next season when United have made some new crazy-money signings. That's just a thought experiment though. Football isn't played on paper. If it was, City and Guardiola would be running away with the league now.

There are three clubs in the country we can't outdo economicallly; that's just an inescapable fact. So we need to find other means to do it. Frankly I don't think the club is interested in finding a way though, and the appointment of any future managers will reflect that fact.

We are finishing 2nd-4th with basically one game-tactic, questionable defensive coaching, unclear player roles and suspect man management (like lack of rotation, keeping playing players in poor form, under-utilising players like Perez, Gibbs, Ospina). Of course it is not guaranteed that a new top manager would get us a title (I don't think guarantees are possible in this league with such competitive top4-6), but I think it would be reasonable to expect a much more serious title challenge.

We will never know.

Given the continuity and quality of the team, I see no reason we couldn't challenge for the title this season(and last)- under a different manager of course.

In terms of quality and depth, we certainly can be 1st. I put us on par with City, because of their weak defence.

The rest don't have this amount of depth.

I think at times we fall into the trap of over rating our players quality based upon technical ability, rather than football ability.
In terms of quality within the squad I'd currently rate us 4th behind ManU, Citeh & CFC.
I'd rate both LFC & Spuds above us as well in terms of functionality, but our quality currently enables us to sit above LFC and our functionality at the start of the season enables us to sit above ManU. That said I expect ManU to pass us on current form, and LFC to recover form and bounce back sooner than later.

IF we saw a change of coaching & tactics where our training and play matched the team in terms of suitability & quality I'd rate us as good as any. However I believe this would also need a change in shape to better accommodate the current players, as IMO we have too many incomplete / square peg players in our current shape & roles. A change in shape could help to minimise many of those concerns every bit as well as Conte's change at CFC.

Clrnc wrote:

In terms of quality and depth, we certainly can be 1st. I put us on par with City, because of their weak defence.

The rest don't have this amount of depth.

Huge depth is overrated and pointless  IMO. It's better to have a core of high quality, reliable players who can be moulded into a unit and few players to come in at times when 1 or 2 players need rest. That's essentially what our invincibles squad was like (Barcelona tend to go for that approach too) and I'd take that squad over this any day of the week. 

The current squad is bloated with average/decent players (only have about 2 high quality players) and it lacks balance too. I'd trim it down and bring in some high quality players.

I put first. Talent-wise, all the top 4 teams are pretty busted. They can't compare to the Spanish teams and even our hosts next Wednesday. All these top 4 teams are very faulty. With that said, amongst this group, we do not have a big drop-off in quality. This isn't like the first few years after we disbanded the Invincibles and had to make do with a Denilson-Song midfield. Most of our squad would be able to find starting roles in other top 4 clubs. The personnel are good enough. As much as I would like a Conte or Kante, Chelsea would appreciate a Bellerin or a Koscielny, etc.

1, 2, 3, or even 4 is thus much of a muchness for once. The only thing that matters is the immovable object in management.

I think we've the best back 4 in the league individually. Yet we look like fucking mugs defending. That's coaching.

I think Mustafi would get into all the other top 4 sides.

In terms of the squad on paper I would say:
City
Arsenal
Utd
Chelsea
Liverpool
Spurs

But in terms of management it's:
Chelsea
Liverpool
Arsenal
City
Spurs
Utd

Ray wrote:

In terms of the squad on paper I would say:
City
Arsenal
Utd
Chelsea
Liverpool
Spurs

But in terms of management it's:
Chelsea
Liverpool
Arsenal
City
Spurs
Utd

So is it pure luck that has lifted Spurs to second in the league? They've played their hard games already as well

The table only matters at the end of the season.

Anzac wrote:

I think at times we fall into the trap of over rating our players quality based upon technical ability, rather than football ability.  
In terms of quality within the squad I'd currently rate us 4th behind ManU, Citeh & CFC.
I'd rate both LFC & Spuds above us as well in terms of functionality, but our quality currently enables us to sit above LFC and our functionality at the start of the season enables us to sit above ManU.  That said I expect ManU to pass us on current form, and LFC to recover form and bounce back sooner than later.

IF we saw a change of coaching & tactics where our training and play matched the team in terms of suitability & quality I'd rate us as good as any.  However I believe this would also need a change in shape to better accommodate the current players, as IMO we have too many incomplete / square peg players in our current shape & roles.  A change in shape could help to minimise many of those concerns every bit as well as Conte's change at CFC.

in a nutshell!

And how many times have we been saying that since 2009? :angry: