Wrong Tactics

Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by Cheesy, Apr 30, 2012.

  1. Apr 30, 2012
    #1

    Cheesy Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    11,143
    Location:
    Scotland
    I've never been one for playing the blame game after a bad result but our tactics were all wrong tonight. We shouldn't have gone 4-5-1 and we shouldn't have gone out so defensive from the start like we appeared to do so.
  2. Apr 30, 2012
    #2

    ArmchairCritic No

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,402
    Can't win, the 6-1 was in his mind. If we lost with a 4-4-2 then SAF would be blamed for being too attacking. Need to refresh our midfield ASAP. There was nothing to suggest when Welbeck came on that playing a more offensive formation would have made a difference. I do agree we should have attacked more in hindsight as they looked quite nervous but the players didn't perform tonight.
  3. Apr 30, 2012
    #3

    Cina Jimmy Lumsden (Moderator)

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    36,132
    We should've gone 4-5-1, it's what we usually do in those games, and it works.

    Problem is that our midfield is quite frankly, rubbish.
  4. Apr 30, 2012
    #4

    Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber Thus says Kemo

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    41,771
    Location:
    Founder of IhateMakeleles.org and Gourcufffanboysa
    we need a midfield
  5. Apr 30, 2012
    #5

    WR Formerly Wayne_Rooney

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,595
    We don't have the personnel to compete against City - simple as that. Tactics made sweet feck all difference although I was disappointed not to see Valencia start.
  6. Apr 30, 2012
    #6

    Cantona07 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2002
    Messages:
    1,633
    Location:
    Most Games are played with ONE Ball but the REAL g
    We were very negative today. Obly 3 shots on goal. Wrong metality, no hunger, no desire.
  7. Apr 30, 2012
    #7

    vuc First Team Serb

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,600
    Location:
    Северна Страна
    I don't know why he left it so late to throw Valencia on, let alone start him.
  8. Apr 30, 2012
    #8

    Orton Ati-virus, keeps missing the n button

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Messages:
    14,562
    Location:
    bonnie wee Scotland
    This
  9. Apr 30, 2012
    #9

    Theon Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,483
    People on here are obsessed with 4-5-1 but we play far better football in a 4-4-2 and it gets the best out of our best player. Rooney was isolated tonight, in the first half only Park was round him most of the time.

    Dropping Welbeck cant be justified when he's in great form. 4-4-2 would have been better, we didn't have a shot on target for feck sake.
  10. Apr 30, 2012
    #10

    ArmchairCritic No

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,402
    I don't think it was a problem, men behind the ball and hit on the counter has served us really well in big games in previous years but the players just weren't good enough on the night.
  11. Apr 30, 2012
    #11

    Cantona07 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2002
    Messages:
    1,633
    Location:
    Most Games are played with ONE Ball but the REAL g
    That was the biggest disappointment for me too
  12. Apr 30, 2012
    #12

    Cheesy Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    11,143
    Location:
    Scotland
    I wouldn't even say it was going 4-5-1 that was the problem; it was the way we played it. You can go 4-5-1 and try to properly hit them on the counter, but with starting someone like Giggs you just couldn't do that. That's why we should have went with Valencia from the start. In the end, we weren't being wise playing a counter attacking 4-5-1: we were just being defensive. 3 shots and 0 on target tell a story, and it's not a good story at that. Our tactics made us look like we were playing for a draw.
  13. Apr 30, 2012
    #13

    Sam Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    21,703
    Location:
    Moyes Out.
    Fergie's had a poor season in regard to tactics, selection and substitutions.

    He;s got it wrong countless times. Sorry, but he has.
  14. Apr 30, 2012
    #14

    Beachryan Full Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    4,524
    Been saying it all season long, said it when the lineups were released and got fully lambasted on the match day forum.

    Fergie has been a master of getting a lot out of an injured, limited squad.

    But he has been shown up on a dozen occasions this season with his selection and tactics. And to be honest, about half of those have involved starting Ryan Giggs and Park Ji Sung together. Surely someone at the club should have the balls to say look Sir Alex, I know Parky and Giggsy were good a year ago, but they really haven' shown anything this season to merit a place in the starting XI?

    5 shots in a game we had to win. Pathetic.
  15. Apr 30, 2012
    #15

    Garethw Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,537
    Location:
    England:
    We don't have the personnel to successfully play a 4-5-1 or 4-3-3. Rooney is far to isolated.
  16. Apr 30, 2012
    #16

    Cantona07 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2002
    Messages:
    1,633
    Location:
    Most Games are played with ONE Ball but the REAL g
    True. With the players we have, our counter attack like previous ManU teams no where near as good.
  17. Apr 30, 2012
    #17

    Carl has permanently erect nipples

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Messages:
    36,419
    451 wasn't the problem. You can still attack with that system. To suggest otherwise is complete rubbish. The problem was the players. They simply were not good enough. End of.
  18. Apr 30, 2012
    #18

    Rado_N Grinner ruined my tagline

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    48,392
    Location:
    Manchester
    I don't understand playing Park.
    I don't understand not playing Valencia.
    I don't understand taking Scholes off.
    I don't understand taking Nani off.
    I don't understand leaving Giggs on.
  19. Apr 30, 2012
    #19

    Theon Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,483
    I think 4-4-2 would have been better, but I agree with the rest.

    If you want to play on the counter then get some pace on the left flank, I mean how are we going to counter with Giggs playing as kind of winger/centre mid hybrid. The only threat for a counter was Nani on the right or Rooney hopefully holding it up.

    If the idea was to play on the counter then we didn't do that in the slightest. Nani should have played on the left and Valencia on the right, get some proper pace on both flanks so we could counter attack properly.
  20. Apr 30, 2012
    #20

    Heardy Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    3,772
    Location:
    Looking for the answers...
    Not a single shot on target! Poor all round tonight!
  21. Apr 30, 2012
    #21

    Cheesy Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    11,143
    Location:
    Scotland
    I think a large part of why Rooney was so ineffective tonight was because he was up front as a lone striker. He thrives as a second striker who is allowed to drop deep and become more involved in the game. I've said it time and time again that you take a large part of our team away when you move him up front on his own. He can still score, but the invaluable overall impact he has on the team is reduced massively.
  22. Apr 30, 2012
    #22

    Raoul Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 1999
    Messages:
    44,693
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    3 attempts all game - 0 on target.
  23. Apr 30, 2012
    #23

    Heardy Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    3,772
    Location:
    Looking for the answers...
    Nani was atrocious tonight!
  24. Apr 30, 2012
    #24

    Cheesy Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    11,143
    Location:
    Scotland
    I said that myself earlier on. We could have played a counter attacking 4-5-1, but it just wasn't going to work when someone like Giggs was out on the wing. In the end, it just looked defensive as opposed to a dangerous counter attacking team.
  25. Apr 30, 2012
    #25

    Cina Jimmy Lumsden (Moderator)

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    36,132
    He was still more capable of doing something than a tired old 38 year old who had barely even got a touch of the ball.
  26. Apr 30, 2012
    #26

    Snow Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    18,651
    Location:
    Reykjavík
    Tactics weren't poor. Even though we changed them and brought on new players nothing changed for us.

    We needed some balance. We didn't have a proper left winger so little attack going on there. We had Jones at right back so no help for Nani there. No edge in the team because of that. I'm sure it would have been a better game for us with Rafael in the game. Only thing that Jones is better than Rafael at as a full back is defending set pieces and that's purely because of height difference and it matters so little overall.

    Jones' first touch vs Rafael. When you see Rafael with the ball he'll probably deliver it to the right winger or if that isn't an option he'll find Scholes or Carrick. Jones mostly passes back. And he's an awfully poor crosser. With the team set up like it was, playing Giggs and Park, Rafael really should have been starting. After we went under you can't really sacrifice a sub to change that position.
  27. Apr 30, 2012
    #27

    gooDevil Worst scout ever

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    18,776
    Location:
    The Kids are the Future
    I think the problem is not that we chose 433 but that we've played so little of it, and are missing the two midfielders best suited to it besides Scholes. I don't think you can expect a team to be great in a 433 unless you play it more than 4 times a year.

    We lived by Rooney and Welbeck, it would have been nice to die by it too.
  28. Apr 30, 2012
    #28

    gaffs Full Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    10,100
    Location:
    Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11
    We played for the draw. Always a dangerous game.
  29. Apr 30, 2012
    #29

    Carl has permanently erect nipples

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Messages:
    36,419
    Has Park EVER had a good game for us as a central midfield player?

    I'd love to see our record when both Scholes AND Giggs have started together over the last 2 seasons.
  30. Apr 30, 2012
    #30

    Raoul Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 1999
    Messages:
    44,693
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    3 shots all night - 0 on target.

    We played to contain them, not to win. That was a mistake.
  31. Apr 30, 2012
    #31

    AttackingFlair Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    9,323
    The problem is personnel not tactics. If we had played 442, people would be moaning saying that we should have played 451.
  32. Apr 30, 2012
    #32

    Rado_N Grinner ruined my tagline

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    48,392
    Location:
    Manchester
    That
  33. Apr 30, 2012
    #33

    Fletcher's Jilted Lover He's the man!

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    5,607
    Location:
    Paramore.
    Of course they weren't good enough. You can't just throw random players into a formation and expect them to perform. Jones came in at right back with a lack of games. Park came out from the wilderness and played. Giggs came in when hes been atrocious. Rooney left up top with no support. It was a disjointed line up and we got a disjointed performance.
  34. Apr 30, 2012
    #34

    Cheesy Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    11,143
    Location:
    Scotland
    Not many, and he certainly has more poor ones than good ones. People were arguing for him because he often delivers in big games, but that's when he's out on the wing. In the centre, he never really seems to deliver for us.
  35. Apr 30, 2012
    #35

    ArmchairCritic No

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,402
    We didn't play for the draw, we played a cautious game placing importance on defence first but our counter attacking was shoddy. We've played this way many a time before and it's worked. If Smalling didn't switch it may have worked again.
  36. Apr 30, 2012
    #36

    Amir Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2000
    Messages:
    19,099
    Location:
    Rehovot, Israel
    When I look at Fergie's errors, I've got no issues with his his team selection today at all. It's his dealings last summer, and the summer before that, and any recent transfer window. United have got ONE midfield player on top of his game, Michael Carrick. Alongside him we've got the ill and the injured and the ageing.

    We can't use 4-4-2 with two midfielders in their prime, we haven't got two. We get away with it a lot. Scholes being so good even at his age certainly helped, but even he is more restricted than in the past. He's not in his prime. But against top sides we always have issues in midfield, quite often being overran. It hasn't happened a lot this season because between our early exit from Europe and the lack of quality at the top of the PL - we haven't met may top sides. But we couldn't go to City with 4-4-2, we had to put on an extra midfield player just to hold on, and we we didn't have great options. Park was as good as any. He did an OK tactical job, but he's obviously has his limitations and the team suffers for it because for the extra man in midfield we pay with having one less true attacking player.

    If we haven't given away such a bad goal, we could have been sitting here quite happy with the score at least. To be fair, even when we went 4-4-2, we weren't particularly good and didn't create anything.

    It's not so much the tactics or the team selection, though I think Fergie gives too much credit to experience (no idea why we get such a great selection of wingers and still start Giggs in the big games). It's the transfer dealings. We gambled on Anderson and Cleverley and Fletcher and maybe thought about the future of Pogba and Morrison. The result is our midfield is still our major weakness. And until we get that right, the rest of the team selection will always mirror that.
  37. Apr 30, 2012
    #37

    Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber Thus says Kemo

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    41,771
    Location:
    Founder of IhateMakeleles.org and Gourcufffanboysa
    The center midfield was the problem. Too one paced to trouble city. Even despite having plenty of the ball.
  38. Apr 30, 2012
    #38

    Ash_G Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    6,436
    Yeah I think maybe not a proper 442 but a 4411 with Rooney dropping pretty deep when we were under pressure was the way out. I've said before but I just can't understand what Park offers us that can't be filled by other players now. In the past he was extremely useful because we needed to balance out Ronaldo who we knew wouldn't do anything, or when Nani was a bit more unreliable and we didn't have the options of Valencia/Young, but now we do, there's no reason for him to really start because each of them are hard workers and infinitely better attackingly. But more then that if he is going to play then don't put him in the middle of the pitch. I just can't understand it. It's exactly the same as when Jones plays there, yes they'll run around, but none of them are good/smart enough on the ball and because they're literally in the middle of all our moves they'll inevitably play a key role in a counter/attack and mess it up.

    Rooney could have played that role and offered so much more. Welbeck with his enthusiasm, athleticism and ability would have stretched them, giving Rooney and Scholes space to work with. I mean I can understand going 433 but not with like that.
  39. Apr 30, 2012
    #39

    CLK_FPC Fists of Fury

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    8,922
    Location:
    ★Live Good☆Look Good★
    I think we should have gone 442 and with Welbeck. Trying to match City with lesser players was always going to blow up in our faces
  40. Apr 30, 2012
    #40

    ArmchairCritic No

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,402
    Hindsight is a wonderful thing, we needed to freshen up the side and Park is not only a big game player but he's very fresh.

Share This Page