-3.png)
What Is Actually Going Wrong with Manchester United?
Two games, two defeats, seven goals conceded and just one goal scored, but the real concern is how little Manchester United have looked like the team Eva Olid wants them to become.
The Red Devils could hardly have imagined a more difficult opening to the 2026/27 Women's Super League season, facing a new-look London City Lionesses’ side, title favourites Chelsea, and Arsenal.
A 2-1 opening day defeat against London City was followed by a brutal 5-0 dismantling by Sonia Bompastor’s side where the score line arguably flattered the Reds.
The numbers are alarming: zero points, one goal scored, seven conceded and a minus six goal difference after just two matches. United currently sit rock bottom of the WSL; to put it into even more context, their city rivals sit firmly at the top.
But the league table is not the most interesting part of this story. The bigger issue is that the performances have exposed a team caught between footballing identities.
New manager Olid has arrived with the intention of creating a more possession-oriented, proactive and attacking Manchester United, yet the team currently does not appear comfortable enough in possession to control games, nor compact enough without the ball to survive when opponents take control.
Additionally, the side are also yet to showcase any real attacking threat, producing just six shots across the two games, recording the fewest shots taken by a non-newly promoted team. The last team to do that? Leicester City last season who suffered relegation.
Whilst we may only be two games into the season and must remain patient as the players adapt to Olid’s system, the manner in which they have suffered these defeats are the real concern.
Lack of Control
Olid's comments after both opening defeats are revealing.
After the London City loss, she admitted that United had not looked like the team they had worked on in training. At half-time, she demanded greater confidence and to show a willingness to take the ball.
After Chelsea, the message was similar: United needed to keep the ball for longer, avoid cheap turnovers and use possession to create attacking transitions.
However, the problem is that possession football isn't simply about having players who are technically capable of passing, it requires a repeatable structure around the ball.
The player receiving the ball needs a safe option behind her, a supporting option inside, a forward option, width, and, crucially, players positioned to react if possession is lost.
United haven't consistently provided those solutions.
Against London City, they had just 40% possession, barely looking comfortable when holding the ball with transitions seemingly rushed and therefore disjointed and unthreatening.
Against Chelsea, the problem became extreme as the Blues held 63% possession, producing 25 shots, 11 on target, whilst United managed just two attempts and continuously looked panicked when on the ball.
Build-up is too easy to disrupt
Olid has inherited a side that is supposed to build through possession, but Chelsea demonstrated how fragile that build-up currently is.
United's basic 4-2-3-1 provides a double pivot in front of the centre-backs. On paper, that should give the team a good platform for progressing the ball from the backline in order to progress up the pitch.
In reality, there is a potential problem. If the opposition can occupy the two central midfielders and simultaneously prevent the centre-backs from finding the attacking midfielders, United's build-up becomes predictable. This was very evident against Eder Maestre’s side who pressed with intensity and boxed in the midfield duo of Julia Zigiotti and Hinata Miyazawa.
The ball went: centre-back → full-back → wide player → backwards.
Or simply: centre-back → midfielder → turnover.
That second scenario was particularly damaging against Chelsea.
The Blues didn't need to spend the entire match throwing bodies forward or chasing the ball endlessly, they could press selectively, close central options and wait for United to lose the ball. Chelsea could circulate possession, move Olid’s midfield horizontally and then attack the spaces that appeared.
United, meanwhile, struggled to get their own midfielders facing forward and therefore saw very little of Jess Park and Elisabeth Terland in their most prolific positions.
The issue isn't simply Chelsea had the ball; it’s Chelsea had the ball in the areas that mattered. The Reds produced 47% of their passes in their own third with just 17% coming in the Blues' end.
Once that happened, Bompastor’s side had space to attack and catch United out at the back, leading to five goals from five different goalscorers.
Disjointed Pressing
The other side of the problem is what happens when United don't have the ball.
A modern high press is simply not just about forwards running towards defenders, it’s about pressuring the opposition into errors and creating traps.
For example:
The striker presses the centre-back.
The winger blocks the full-back.
The attacking midfielder blocks the opposition's pivot.
The double pivot moves up behind the press.
The team squeezes up the pitch.
The opponent is forced into a predictable pass.
United win the ball close to goal.
However, in doing so, it requires synchronisation and for every single player to be on the same page but at present, the Red Devils often look caught between pressing and retreating. One player goes. Another stays. The midfield line doesn't always move with the front line and therefore creates too much space for the likes of Keira Walsh and Sjoeke Nusken to play in and dictate.
Chelsea were particularly comfortable once they got through and when United's ‘half’ press failed, the team was forced to run backwards, looking all out of shape. This also creates the visual impression of a team that has lost confidence and/or don’t know exactly what to do in these moments.
Isolation in Attack
There is another problem at the opposite end.
Despite reiterating her attacking style of play, United just haven’t created enough sustained attacking pressure and opportunities so far this season.
Against London City, they managed only three shots in total. Against Chelsea, only two. This isn't a side missing five or six good chances every week, something that could be rectified throughout the season, they just aren't generating enough attacks in the first place.
The forward line is therefore being asked to make something happen from isolated situations and limited service. Against Chelsea, Terland had just 21 touches, with her average position sitting on the halfway line.
When the ball eventually gets into the final third, United don't have enough players arriving in the box.
That creates a vicious circle: Poor build-up → fewer entries into the final third → isolated forwards → turnovers → opposition attacks → deeper defensive positioning → even poorer build-up. That's the cycle Olid needs to break rapidly. The problem, whilst it may seem it now, isn’t necessarily the amount of goals scored, it's the one goal scored.
Defensive problems can sometimes be repaired relatively quickly. You can lower the defensive block, protect the centre, ask the fullbacks to be more conservative, simplify the pressing structure, but if your attack isn't generating chances, you eventually have to take more risks.
But taking more risks exposes the defence. That's the tactical trap United currently find themselves in.They can't simply decide to become more attacking because the structure behind the ball isn't yet reliable enough.Equally, they can't sit deep indefinitely because their attacking output is already minimal.
Olid therefore has to find a middle ground.
Change Isn’t Instant
This is where the analysis needs some context.
Olid inherited an incredibly difficult situation, having just three weeks to implement her style and ideas before the opening fixture with Marc Skinner departing the club after five years.
Meanwhile, United lost seven players during the summer and made only four additions, with some arrivals coming very late in the window.
That matters tactically.
A new coach cannot simply announce, "we're going to play attacking football," and expect it to work immediately within a short space of time after the team had played such a different style of so long.
Players have to understand all the little details of when the full-back goes, when the midfielder drops, who covers, where the 10 receives, how the winger rotates, and where the next pass is going before the first one is played. Those relationships take time.
United are trying to change their football whilst simultaneously replacing a manager who had been there for so long and that is a huge amount of change.
Recruitment Strategy
There is also a bigger structural question that has an impact into the team’s performance. United's squad-building strategy has seemingly shifted towards younger players and academy development, following several experienced players departing this summer.
However, there is a danger in trying to execute a tactical revolution without enough experienced players to stabilise it, particularly late in the game.
Whilst the regular starting lineup features plenty of experience, an injury to the likes of Miyazawa or Zigiotti could see an academy product sit in the pivot and face intense pressure. When the game becomes chaotic, experienced players can slow it down. When the press breaks, they recognise the danger. When the team loses possession, they know whether to foul, drop or counter-press.
When a young player receives the ball under pressure, an experienced teammate knows where to position herself. United currently look short of those stabilising mechanisms besides from their first xi.
What Should Olid Change?
The answer isn't necessarily to abandon her philosophy, especially not this early into her reign after showing it can be very successful with Hearts. Instead, United need to simplify it early on.
1. Create a more stable, slower build-up
This would give United a better defensive structure and reduce the number of transition opportunities opponents receive.
2. Stop forcing central progression
If the opposition blocks the middle, United can't repeatedly attempt to force passes through it and therefore lose possession. Move the opponent, use the goalkeeper, recycle through the centre-backs, switch sides, then attack the space created.
3. Make the press more selective
United don't need to press every single Chelsea-style possession, they need to know their pressing triggers whether that’s a bad touch, a backwards pass or a receiver facing her own goal, those are moments when the team can spring forward together and as one.
4. Protect the fullbacks
United cannot simultaneously ask their fullbacks to provide width, overlap constantly and defend huge transition spaces; this evidently didn’t work against Chelsea. There needs to be asymmetry where the likes of Anna Sandberg stays back for protection whilst Jayde Rivere goes and joins the attack.
5. Get more players around the striker
United need to improve their occupation of the final third. If the striker is alone against two centre-backs, the attack is too easy to defend and therefore need Toone, Park, and Monica Jusu Bah to offer support and an extra option around the box, otherwise crosses and cutbacks have nobody to attack them.
The Arsenal Test
United's next league fixture doesn’t get any easier as they travel to the Emirates to face Arsenal, a side they’ve often gone toe-to-toe with. However, there’s no denying it’s an extremely difficult fixture, considering the form Olid’s side bring into this, but tactically, it could be useful.
Arsenal will test the exact things that Chelsea exposed and knowing they have quality players, they will look to do the exact same thing for a result.
The objective shouldn't simply just be to "get a result" and whilst it is always the main focus, United need to start looking like a coherent team because by doing so, the results will then also follow.
Even a narrow defeat with improved structure would provide more encouragement than another performance in which the midfield disappears and the forwards become spectators.
It would be premature to declare the Olid project a failure after two games, but it would also be naive to dismiss the opening two matches. Two games are not enough to judge a new manager but two games can reveal structural problems and United have revealed plenty.
Against London City, they were second best territorially and struggled to impose their possession and attacking game. Against Chelsea, those problems were only amplified to an alarming degree.
The problem is that, at the moment, the destination is clearer than the route, Olid wants a team that controls games through the ball, and produce exciting attacking football but in order to get there, they first need to become a team that can survive without it.
Until they can defend transitions, maintain compactness and build reliably under pressure, possession will remain something they have to chase rather than something they can use to control the match.
That is why the next few weeks matter so much. The Chelsea defeat wasn’t just a bad afternoon; it was a stress test (for the fans too…) and United's current structure failed it.
The task now is not to panic, it’s to rebuild the structure quickly and effectively.
Comments