Van Gaals Manchester United philosophy is a great mystery By Richard Jolly Philosophy is one of the most commonly misused terms in football at the moment and there is no greater purveyor of it than Louis van Gaal. The Manchester United coach believes he has a philosophy. He doesnt like to mention it more than once a sentence, but he will make exceptions. The most important thing is my philosophy and when you stick by your philosophy you can do that because every player has played in that philosophy, he said after Decembers win over Liverpool. It was a typical Van Gaal statement. Improve and the Dutchman says it is because of the philosophy. Fail to impress and he will say they are not implementing the philosophy well enough. But six months after his arrival at Old Trafford, some arent entirely sure what his philosophy is. Others simply dont have a clue. Because at times it seems a meaningless, catch-all word Van Gaal uses to excuse, explain or justify. It is little wonder many are confused. As recently as last April, the suggestions were that Van Gaal was wedded to the Dutch system of 4-3-3. Yet he has used six shapes at United, but never 4-3-3. Or, for that matter, the regulation 4-4-2 he deployed in 23 successive games when Bayern Munich won the Bundesliga on his watch. He came as the man who won the Champions League with a largely homegrown team at Ajax. He has overseen the biggest summer spending spree in the history of English football at Old Trafford, paying £152 million for six players, and smashing the British record to fork out £59.7 million for Angel Di Maria. He has a reputation as a serial winner but so far he has been out- performed, and on Sunday he was outwitted by Ronald Koeman, his protégé turned enemy. He appears to like quick players but has selected some slow sides. He came as the man with an evangelical faith in youth but, while Tyler Blackett and Paddy McNair have been given surprise chances, James Wilson produced more in Ryan Giggs brief spell in charge, while Adnan Januzaj, Uniteds brightest young prospect in years, seems to have disappeared from contention, and Danny Welbeck was sold to make way for Radamel Falcao. It is a decision United could come to regret. He is a supposed apostle of passing football, but Uniteds default Plan B is to lump long balls at Marouane Fellaini. Imagine the criticism David Moyes would have received if he had adopted the same approach. Van Gaal, a manager who touts purist principles, was decidedly pragmatic in the World Cup when the Netherlands often played without the ball. The 63-year-old was supposed to be a high priest of attacking football, yet his United have only scored two more goals than West Ham. Their £270 million team did not record a single shot on target against Southampton on Sunday. They are not the great entertainers many imagined when the five Gaalacticos – Di Maria, Falcao, Robin van Persie, Wayne Rooney and Juan Mata – were united. Nor are they parsimonious at the back. Opponents have mustered 83 shots on target against United – more than against Everton, who have the second worst defensive record in the division – but, because of the superb form of David de Gea, they have only scored 21. With an inferior goalkeeper – and that doesnt necessarily mean a poor one – United would be at least six points worse off. Possibly 10. Imagine the league table then. As it is, they have 37 points from 21 games, the same return the much-maligned Moyes managed at the start of his reign. The least that would be expected from a man of such strong opinions would be clarity of thinking. Yet, while injuries are one explanation, Van Gaal has used the most players in the Premier League, a remarkable 31. He has changed formation eight times. He has picked players out of position, leading to the remarkable sight of Di Maria, the man of the match from central midfield in the Champions League final, lost and wasted as a striker against Southampton. If he had simply wanted a quick striker, it would have been much cheaper to sign Danny Ings. Van Gaal has brought a bloody- minded conviction he is always right. He has got more from Ashley Young, Antonio Valencia and Fellaini than Moyes managed to, but that scarcely amounts to proof of an ideology or an ethos to reinvent United. So far, he has not brought Johan Cruyff-style attacking football or a Pep Guardiola- esque passing game. A reign of contradictions does not exactly suggest a philosophy is flowering. Especially as Van Gaal has never quite defined it to English ears. The Dutch understanding of his beliefs is that he wants players to have an understanding of their positioning in relation to team-mates, opponents, the ball and the space. The Spanish would say his possession game at Barcelona enabled his players to interchange positions with enviable ease. The Germans noted his one-touch football at Bayern but, Paul Breitner argued: There was no real rhythm or pace. After half an hour, everyone at the Allianz Arena would be yawning at this display of constant passing. But United dont monopolise the ball. His time at Old Trafford has shown he likes multi-functional players, as he describes the versatile, to suit his current fondness for tactical flexibility, and he is no fan of one-dimensional footballers (which was not good news for Javier Hernandez, for instance). He is almost obsessive in his keenness to have balance and, in particular, a left-footed central defender. He wants footballers who can pass the ball out from the back. He dislikes selfish players. But is that really a philosophy or just a set of preferences? Because there are clubs in the Premier League – Southampton, Swansea, Everton, Burnley, even Manchester City – with clearer-defined philosophies than Van Gaals United. Another of his old underlings rarely even uses the word philosophy. He doesnt need to. Jose Mourinhos philosophy is winning.
Posted on: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:04:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015