Sir ALEX FERGUSON- Rooney has been misused

Majestic16

Always thought that formations described the defensive shape of the team with no regard to the attacking movement of players. Therefore my answer would be 4-3-3.

I don't think the 4-6-0 should be bothering you that much. It certainly isn't accurate since there will always be a player further up the pitch than the rest of his team-mates. Its just a way of differentiating between a Rooney/Totti and a Drogba/Torres playing that role.

Mozza

Rooney is up top leading the line, that is why

He mentions the 7-1 drubbing of Roma as the turning point, that was the day Fergie decided to go with the 4-6-0, how does that make sense? We saw their formation destroyed (with Totti playing, he wasn't missing as the author says) with us playing a 442 with a battering ram of a center forward leading the line

Brad

4-6-0 is a depiction that is all about describing the attacking nature of the team, given the definition of there being no one specified striker. I agree with you, a formation effectively represents how a team sets themselves up in a defensive situation; but also how they represent the balance between defence and attack

If anyone is astute and has it correct in all this, its Slaven Bilic in his assertion that "Systems are dying... It's about the movement of 10 players now" (Which makes Wilsons last sentence, given he appears to agree with this sentiment, all the more puzzling). The thing with formation depictions is, they're handy to get an immediate grasp of how a team has generally set themselves out. But beyond that, they are relatively empty concepts. Teams have always interchanged players, or altered their formation in different given circumstances, or had no one recognised player in a position etc

As soon as you're depicted the formation of an extremely attacking team, where there is nearly always at least one forward, as 4-6-0... its redundent as a useful concept

Mozza

I don't think Fergie wants to play like Roma, he was trying to buy Berbatov last season and he still want's him despite our sucess last year, I think he found by August he wasn't going to get him and copied an idea that was successful with similar players. If Saha had been available all year I'm in no doubt that he would have played more games then Tevez.

Majestic16

Not so sure about the bold part. For example, Chelsea's 4-3-3 is totally different from Barca's 4-3-3.

Like you said, formations are there to get a simple idea about how the team sets itself up. Thats why I wouldn't dismiss 4-6-0 as redundant. It does sound ultra defensive, I even used it myself to describe us at the Camp Nou last season. Maybe 4-x-x-0 is be a bit more accurate (or maybe a bit more muppet-like). Either way, I find the '0' as a nice way of depicting a team that doesn't have a traditional outlet waiting up the field.

Brad

Well I put it to you that putting six players in the midfield section of the formation, whilst putting zero in the forward section, is nonsense. Owen Hargreaves and Wayne Rooney are categorised together, when one spends the majority of his time leading the line, while the other sits in front of the defence. Has is that satisfactory, when you agree a formation is a quick general outlook of how a team sets out

Tha part you don't agree with, I'll explain. A formation respresents, in my opinion, more how a team sets up in a defensive formation. So why would a team play 4-3-3? That's not a particularly effective defence, only leaving 4-7 men back. The three may drop back, showing the redundancy of the formation as a useful tool of analysis. But equally, when the team wins the ball back, the formation shows how they are arranged in order to most effectively launch an attack of their own. Thus, it's the balance between attack and defence

Simon Adebesi

If 4-6-0 is useful then why not 0-10-0 - or just 10 for short? After all, our wing backs have the freedom to get forward, Rio sometimes comes forward with the ball, our midfielders sometimes have to interchange with the defence... why only apply that freedom at the front of the pitch when it exists all over?

"What formation do you expect to see us play today then?"
"10, I reckon."

Itll never catch on cause its just some pretentious twat trying desperately to say something original so that one day, when he is dead, people will remember him for something - as a innovative football strategist.

Well fuck that. I refuse to remember.

Pogue Mahone

All descriptions of formation, be it 451, 442, 460, whatever, are inherently flawed because, as someone recently pointed out, they only describe formation in one dimension (i.e. don't differentiate between "chalk on his boots" winger, or Ronaldo, cutting in so much, he's almost a striker) and because I doubt very much that managers limit their tactical advice, to "right lads, 451 today, off you go"

What they do provide, is something for footy fans to bore the tits off each other, a useful tempate for the Sky Sports graphics guy to plug into his lap-top and something for 442 luddites (like Mozza) to cling to with all the grim certainty of members of the Flat Earth Society in the 16th century.

Majestic16

Thats why I said that a 4-x-x-0 template which the author often used, seemed to be more accurate. 4-6-0 seems like the general concept, the term Perrera came up with that led to these articles about strikerless formations. We ourselves deployed a a few varieties of it. The 4-2-4-0 Wilson used to describe us most of last season seems like a very good reflection of our team, not only the player's relative positions to each other, but it also takes the defensive line of the opposition as a reference; the area where no one specific plays.

I totally agree with that. Its actually why I thought that teams that play without the traditional outlet waiting up the field, do deserve a concept of their own when it comes to formations.

Any suggestions better than the 4-x-x-0 ???

Striker10

People talk about formations but it's also the players

If you've an attacking midfield, obviously it won't be as strong as if you've defensive minded players there

A 4-3-3 can be defensively ok

It depends on how ambitious you are

You have to handle your opponents and sometimes change won't happen so you have to rely on the fact you've better players, or harder working players etc

I would say Rooney does a job for the team and because he doesn't make a noise Sir Alex tends to put him out wide if we need that solidity.

Misused as in not getting the most out of his talent, not so much where his position is because 9/10 he is in the hole or up top anyway.

In his earlier days he was shunted to the wing more but it didn't hinder him and for the last two years maybe three his roles been pretty much as you'd expect.

In the champions league final, he worked hard and at the end of the day we got a result but he's improving aspects of his game all the time and it was really only last season his finishing wasn't what you'd expect

I'd say not so much misused as overused and the injuries haven't helped his development. What is it 3/4 in the last 3 years? Quite heavy injuries too but I don't think he's been misused so much because when he's on the wing, wherever he is he's putting in a shift that's important to get the right result

Oldham

I think this is our strongest lineup:
---------VDS
Gary/Brown Rio Vidic Evra
Hargr. Carrick Scholes
Tevez Rooney Ronaldo

Where the front three swap positions and Hargreaves runs around like a headless chicken and covers infinite area of the pitch

Brad

Exactly. No one defending the ridiculous 4-6-0 concept has been able to answer the total football question I set earlier either

I agree its journalists trying to make a name for themselves, trying to appear clever, innovative and 'astute'. It's clearly enough to fool some folk anyway

Pogue Mahone

Dunno about fooling anyone but it's certainly got you cnuts talking. I would say the journos referred to above would consider it a job well done.

robthered

I've got a question for you formation enthusiasts.

Why do you call it 4-6-0? Surely it's just 4-6?

FlawlessThaw

I don't agree with the 4-6-0 idea, it is evident that we play with striker. Question is sometimes, we play 1, 2 or even 3.

Brad

Thing is Pogue, you can use that to defend the most gutter of garbage. It's like the 'public has a right to know' defence the press use when they seek to defend an invasive article

The reason we're talking about this is not because of the article itself, which I believe was made some time ago. Rather, because some people on here are actually picking up and running with it. At the point where people start pedalling a myth or mis-truth, obviously it leads to a repost from those who disagree with it. Most people commenting here are dismissing it entirely, thats not the sign of a truely provocative, thoughtful piece

Pogue, why haven't you had a crack at my total football question?

Pogue Mahone

I kind of answered that question above, when I said that any description is inherently flawed, if it tries to break down a team's formation to 3 (or four) numbers, describing supposed lines of defence, midfield, attack, without taking into consideration all the subtleties of width and positional changes that happen over time.

All of which means that a lot of the arguments on here last season - about the formation United used - with people entrenched in 442 or 451 camps, were about as meaningless as describing the Dutch side of the 70s as 460 or 253.

Brad

And this is the point. A formation depiction generally describes how a team will set out. What it doesn't tell us are the subtleties that occur within the managers tactics. Your 4-6-0 idols aren't recognising this, and are trying to incorporate those subtleties. The formation we played last season was arguably 4-5-1 or 4-3-3. But our forwards players were often not fixed to a set position. Ronaldo was given an almost free lincence, bar times where he played furthest forward; Rooney would lead the line but also drop wide; Tevez would run around like a little ratter maniac and also drop deeper. What we never did at any point was have no-one up front. Now the use of those latter formations with a description of this 'unspecifity' is fine, and is what people have always done with regard to formation. We've had wing backs in the game for years, full backs at United can spend as long in the opposition half as their own - yet they're still included in the defence section of a formation depiction

What your journalists have done is misunderstand the concept of the formation, and tried to be too clever for their own good

Pogue Mahone

So, what you're saying is, you wouldn't have as much of a problem if they had described the formation as simply 4-6, instead of 4-6-0?

I'm guessing the "0" is only there to stick with the convention of usually decribing formations with 3 digit numbers.

Brad

That's absolutely not what I'm saying Pogue. 4-6 would still be deeply unsatisfactory, because beyond the other problems with it, you'd have Hargreaves grouped in with Rooney, playing entirely different positions - Hargreaves usually sat in front of the defence, Rooney rarely far from the opposition penalty area. It would become an even more redundent concept than it already is

What I'm saying is that a formation depiction tells you the general organisation of a side. It doesn't tell you how say a midfielder may drop into a full back position when the natural full back roams forward; equally it has no business describing how a 3 man attack rotates with no player occupying a given set position. United will have at least one player up front all the time, even if its not always the same player. So a formation depiction, to capture this, would require a '1' up front

The only time 4-6-0 could be used as a satisfactory formation depiction is when issued to a team that comes to Old Trafford and sets up camp, playing for a draw. It would have to be a deeply defensive formation

jasonrh

Since when have I advocated Rooney being best off on the wings or as a line-leading striker?



Oh, nevermind, it was just Gus naming me as his arch enemy during his meltdown due to my infracting him for muppetry.

PMSL?

Bilbo

Talk of formations is stupid & always has been. Unless of course your trying to describe to someone your ideal table football set-up.

It could easily be argued that every team plays 442 of some description, and also that every team plays a variation of 451. Nobody can win the argument conclusively, because quoting any particular formation doesn't contain nearly enough information. Players move.

The link with our style and the Roma system pioneered by Spaletti is somewhat correct though.

Alex

Formations mater less, than the players you put on the field. If you have a good gk, solid defense, a midfield that can control the ball, and good attackers who can put the ball in the back of the net, you will usually be successful regardless of formation

Brad

But you can have 11 brilliant players on a pitch, who flop unless they are well organised and understand exactly what every other players role is as well as their own

Formation depiction doesn't matter, it just allows Andy Gray to move little heads up and down on a pre match graphic for our 'education' and amusement. Organisation does matter. What these journalists are doing is trying to describe this organisation into a static formation depiction, and it simply doesn't go

Striker10

it depends what you call a brilliant player though. For me someone that is technically great AND had a smart head on his sholders makes things work.

additionally, smart players that understand their role in the team and are good are top players. Makelele for example, was never an exceptional footballer but he was brilliant at what he did for the team

Ronaldo used to play for himself much to much and he was great up to a point. Now he's smarter he's a better player and I think obviously there's less chance of teams flopping if they have the right things going for them

Brad

I cite the galactico era of Madrid. There's no arguement, Zidane, Ronaldo, Raul, Makalele, Cassilas, Hierro, Roberto Carlos... all brilliant players. But for the time Zidane was at the club, a good five years, they won just one domestic title. They didn't have the right balance, they didn't have good management. And of course they had big ego's, but thats the job of the manager to tackle. Now had they been organised effectively by a great manager who could keep them in check, they'd certainly have improved on that trophy haul