Louis van Gaal's expensively assembled Man United have issues

MANCHESTER, England -- "All the weeks you have waited to put this question," Louis van Gaal said, "the moment I have same points as David Moyes."

It was a query that doubled as an insult. Twenty-one league games into his reign, following a record spend of 152 million pounds, Manchester United have the same number of points as they did at the equivalent stage of his predecessor's reign.

They had just lost at home to Southampton for the first time in 27 years and had failed to record a shot on target, something that last happened on home turf in 2009. Progress, Van Gaal's inquisitors wondered, what progress?

Progress, like beauty, can be in the eye of the beholder. Van Gaal has a unique take on almost everything. After spending hugely on new signings, his side now trail Southampton, the Premier League club to post the biggest profit in the summer's trading.

No one is nostalgic for Moyes' harrowing reign, but it is legitimate to wonder why United were so insipid and ask why their "Gaalacticos" were so ineffective and the supposed genius of a manager was outwitted by his apprentice-turned-adversary, Ronald Koeman. Dusan Tadic procured the points. United felt he pilfered it.

"[Southampton] came for a draw, and they got away with a victory," Van Gaal said disparagingly.

But at a time when questions persist about his ability to configure a defence, Koeman's was expertly drilled, and if anything, his midfield was organised better. James Ward-Prowse was on sentry duty, patrolling Michael Carrick while Victor Wanyama towered over Juan Mata.

Only United's captain proved elusive. "The movement of [Wayne] Rooney was difficult for us," Koeman admitted.

Even Van Gaal, his sentiments clouded by idiosyncratic logic, imperfect English and typical obstinacy, conceded United created little. "The fact is we make a lot of wrong choices in the third or fourth phase of our attack," he said.

Perhaps, too, he made wrong choices in the construction of his attack. A 3-5-2 shape is hardly ideal for wingers. United made a wide man the most expensive player in the history of British football by paying 59.7 million pounds for Angel Di Maria.

However, on Sunday, he was crowbarred into a system that scarcely suited him. His running power might have been effective in midfield, but the Argentine was out of sorts as a centre-forward. His willingness to risk losing possession in a bid to create is a boon when he is at the top of his game.

When he is not, though, he simply gives the ball away. His status as a striker was part of Van Gaal's institutionalised unorthodoxy, his reluctance to conform to received wisdom. Meanwhile, Rooney began in midfield, when a job swap would have been more logical, while another specialist attacker lingered out of sight, somewhere in the executive boxes.

Louis van Gaal's Manchester United have taken just six points from the past 15 on offer.

It is axiomatic that a player's reputation improves when he is omitted and his side loses. Radamel Falcao has justified neither his billing nor his wages in his time at Old Trafford and did not merit a place in the starting 11.

Yet Tyler Blackett, Paddy McNair and Jonny Evans, centre-backs all, were on the bench, and Falcao was not. Van Gaal argued he wanted the speed of James Wilson in reserve, only to bring on midfielder Ander Herrera for Robin van Persie. It was perplexing.

The United manager responded to a Colombian critic in great detail, while deflecting the issue altogether, by citing the need to replace the returning Luke Shaw and Daley Blind who, because of Van Persie's ankle injury, completed the 90 minutes away.

The more damning detail was that even before the game, he had decided Marouane Fellaini represented Plan B. Or, as Koeman implied, the last resort. "They play long balls," he said.

Both managers hail from the land of Total Football. This was almost tantamount to abandoning principles, and for once, Van Gaal completed a press conference without mentioning his much-vaunted philosophy.

But if United were star-struck when they recruited the semi-fit Falcao, celebrity matters less than merit. If many of Van Gaal's formations and selections have been inventive, his personnel choices have been limited by injuries. This was an occasion when they weren't. It was arguably the Dutchman's strongest side to date and United's most ineffectual display for months.

"We were the dominating team," Van Gaal said, but it was a strange definition of domination. He claimed the result involved luck for Southampton and, inventing a word, unluck for United.

Yet the 63-year-old had already conceded his side were fortunate to win at St Mary's last month, and but for David de Gea's season-long heroics, their points tally would be fewer. The Spaniard afforded Van Gaal an easy ride during an 11-game unbeaten run, when they surged from 10th to third. Now they are fourth, with Koeman suggesting Southampton can stay ahead of United.

But as he argued beforehand, a side that spends as much as United ought to be in title contention. With his intelligent tactics and cheeky asides, the younger Dutchman is subtly increasing the pressure on his rival.

What, he was asked by a persistent Colombian, did he make of Falcao's absence. "Maybe it is a good question to Mr. Van Gaal," he replied. But Mr. Van Gaal, it transpired, wasn't in the mood for questioning of his methods and modus operandi.