Short Thread:

Simplifying tactical instructions in bigger games when you are the ‘underdog’ is wise. The second biggest reason why weaker teams struggle on the ball vs better teams — the first is execution of course — is due to complicated on-ball instructions.

A problem Solskjær has to solve vs PSG is his midfield pivot. If he starts Pogba he trades off-ball mobility and workrate for on-ball superiority. However, Pogba's skillset also forces the team to play in a more indirect manner, adding more variables to each possession.

Alternatively, if he starts with a Fred–McTominay pivot he trades on-ball proficiency for off-ball mobility and workrate. Is this a good trade off? Well, it can be. With Fred and McTominay, on-ball instructions will be simplified, creating less risk overall.

In the 3-1 victory two seasons ago, Solskjær's tactical plan was to bypass his own midfield, focussing directly on PSG's defensive line. There was a lot of variance in the outcome but his plan worked well in quite a few areas. Having ~10 injuries, in a way, was good.

Hypothetically, if we started with a 5-3-2 — the usual defenders, Telles on the left — with Fred and McTominay in a pivot, Fernandes ahead and, say, Rashford and James (hear me out) up top, there is a lot of simplicity behind that setup which will make it easier for them.

If we start the likes of Matic, Pogba, Mata and Martial, then whilst we gain technical ability we also have to add more variables to our attacking structure whilst losing out on the aforementioned defensive qualities. This allows PSG a bit more time to react to us.

However, the simplicity of the first setup, quite like the 3-1 victory two years ago, lessens PSG's potential to interrupt our attacks as there will be less option searching from us; the instruction will be very clear in terms of bypassing the midfield and playing more directly.

Now, Ole might have different ideas and that is OK. However, I feel the concept of simplicity should be understood.

End of Thread.