Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by Cheesy, Apr 30, 2012.
I completly agree with you. If Cleverly had been match fit then he should have started but the boy hasn't played a full game in 6 months, it would've been cruel to throw him in.
We were as negative at Chelsea against Barca.
At least Chelsea had a few shots on goal.
Saying Fergie picked the wrong tactics implies too much of an internal locus of control for some posters
IMO we did about as much as we could do with the players at our disposal and those against us. It's against Everton, Blackburn and the like at home that we did not do what our potential allowed to. Last season we did not drop one single point against the bottom 16 teams at home ffs!
So we are playing a sole player for the sole reason of helping against one part of an oppositions game?
PArk hasnt started a game for a long time too. Clev has not been making many appearances recently because Scholesy has been brilliant, not due to fitness issues.
Had match fitness been a concern, Park shouldnt have been in manchester let alone starting the game.
Nani Carrick Scholes Valencia
Not a bad front six.
That's what happens when you face a better team than yours
I'm afraid some posters are a bit deluded about how our injury-wrecked squad compares with that of City
Again, completly agree on Park.
Not bad at all, but it'd pitch Carrick and Scholes vs Barry and Toure at the middle of the park. 9 times out of 10 at the Etihad, there will always be 1 winner.
As usual, the importance of controlling the middle of the park being overlooked i feel. You cant simply have 4 attacking players and throw them high up the pitch if you cant control the middle of the park.
Not deluded. Just play your strongest team, thats all.
You know whose fault all this is? Glazer's. The fecking bastard.
It's very well going for experience in these games, but you also need energy, and pace of youth. Losing is part of the game, however, it's the manner in which lost. Dropping Valencia with all his pace, strength and energy was the biggest clanger of the night, along with starting Giggs and Scholes in the same team.
We had more possesion and more territory. City had far fewer chances to score than Barca did against Chelsea and nothing like their overall dominance.
It was a scrappy game with few chances at either end. Which can happen when the stakes are high. De Gea made one save in 90 minutes. Was that because City were as negative as Chelsea?
Really? Anderson has not proved himself. We have seen short runs of form from him.
Fletcher we miss, but Fergie has known for a long time that he has this bowl problem.
And Cleverly is not much more than a prospect at the moment.
Have we come to rely on these players?
Yep, nothing wrong at all in trying to take someone like Toure out of the game, sadly we dont have the personnel to do that though, certainly not PArk.
Most have issues with our starting 11, the squad is probably the best in the league or joint best with City.
At least Chelsea had a game plan and stuck to it. We just did nothing. We didn't defend well, we didn't retain possession well and we created naff all.
Can someone get stats on our results when Park has started in midfield please? I'm sure it won't be peasant reading.
If any of them had been fit and in form they'd have been a far better option than Park. For various reasons (some predictable, some less so) they weren't. Which hurt us.
Carrick > Barry
We didn't defend well? Like I said, De Gea made one save in 90 minutes. Did City really attack that poorly? We certainly protected our keeper far better than Chelsea did theirs.
I posted this earlier
Football365: "United had lost eight of the last ten games Ji-Sung Park had started, and all of the last four in which he had started in tandem with Ryan Giggs. "
No need to bring his class into this.
Totally agree with what you said above btw tho it is easy to be wise after the fact. If we had scrapped a draw with that performance it would have been justified, though it is a tacit admission of our inferiority. But having lost, in retrospect you would rather have gone out all guns blazing. And indeed I was one of the many people advocating a much more attacking lineup than the one we played. Tbf I dont think anyone suggested a lineup quite as negative as the one we played. Not that I saw anyway.
After the Everton fiasco it's not hard to see why Fergie decided to tighten things up a bit.
That's because Scholesy has lost his legs to compete in a 2 man midfield against a packed midfield.
A bollocking and a warning to maintain concentration levels was all that was needed following the Everton game. That wasnt down to a fundamentally flawed formation.
We've consistently got our tactics wrong this season. Wonderful habit we've acquired.
We set up against a team that are very hard to get the better off when they go a goal ahead by setting up completely to defend. Awful awful tactics. If you asked City that they'd need to beat United to win the title and that too do it having all of the ball and United camped in their own half with Rooney dealing with two giant defenders, they'd have bitten your hand off without blinking.
We shot ourselves in the foot with our tactics yet again. Title decider, the biggest game in ages, and we set up like a bunch of timid turds. Hardly surprising that we had a shot on target. We basically pinned all our hopes of Nani doing something special against an extremely solid defense.
I think that we would have played three in central midfield regardless of the Everton result.
We defended well but we attacked limply. Rooney was truly terrible, Jones was extremely poor going forward and Nani could not get in the game. We lost the battle of midfield and thus spent most of our time in two banks of four.
Although Carrick was probably our best player we saw last night why he is not in the same bracket as a player like Toure. Carrick does his job very well but can not impose himself on or influence the game like Toure can. Scholes is 37 now and, in my opinion, we need a midfielder that can dominate a midfield at the very top level if we are to progress.
I can't see City going anywhere except forward next year. If they do take the title this year, as is likely, then we need to up our game next year.
My point is, we cant rely on these players to be fit or on form. Were talking about unproven or injury/illness prone players here.
Since Barca gave us the run around in Rome 3 years ago, we have not been the same side. Fergie said we were on the passing merry-go-round. What have we learned since - nothing. Have we improved - no. Now we have a team in our league who can do the same to us and we dont have the players to be able to cope with it. Therefore, we have to play in a negative way.
I think its simple - we dont have the quality to be able to go toe to toe with City.
It was down to all round poor defending. Hence Rafael got dropped and Fergie will have been apprehensive about our ability to keep the score down if the game went helter skelter and end to end.
As always after a defeat, a lot of people are being wise after the fact. There's dozens of examples of us going to difficult grounds in CL games, setting out as a 451 and getting the result we need. Which was exactly what was needed last night. If he'd gone with just Carrick and Scholes in the centre and City overran us in midfield he'd be getting even more stick on here. At the end of the day, they scored direct from a corner and the only save De Gea made was an effort from their left back, from the edge of our box.
We definitely lacked composure at times (I thought Chris Smalling used the ball really poorly - which repeatedly handed the initiative back to City) and didn't retain possession as well as we can. Despite this, we had just under 55% possession in the second half and the game was won and lost on very fine margins. If Kompany's header had been 12 inches or so higher - and key players like Rooney and Nani had been a little sharper - Fergie would be getting all the plaudits for winning the tactical battle and nullifying a team with the best home record this season in the history of the Premier League (at least I think they have, right?)
See this is the kind of hyperbolic bullshit that really grinds my gears after every defeat. City had 54% territorial advantage. We were hardly camped in our own half. As per my last post, we actually had more of the ball than them after half-time.
Ofcourse he is but is scholesy as mobile as he once was? Certainly not. Could those 2 compete with Toure+ Barry? Not for me. Not with Silva and Tevez/Aguero dropping deep too.
Ofcourse. Which is why 3 in the middle was the correct call, just not the personnel to do it with.
Dont disagree with much of that, said something vaguely similar in post 183. But it isnt really how most of us want to see United play.
You are right though, when we lose a game there will be a lot of wisdom around here from people who would have done things very differently. At the end of the day we did what we did and it is over.
All I want to see now is investment in the team and progress from the young players so we can compete next year. Because City are, man for man, much better than us and winning it this year will make them stronger and more experienced next year.
1 point out of the last 9 - I think it's more of a mental capitulation this time around. SAFs approach was getting brilliant results out of a limited squad before that.
We did nothing with it. Their forwards consistently linked up and moved the ball well. There was some interplay between their attacking players. We were playing on hope rather than any real pattern of play. It was completely negative. Hardly surprising that once we rung the changes we started to get on the ball more and created more space giving Rooney some support.
Also, I've tried to put you on ignore but I can't because you're a mod so just ignore my posts yourself. Thanks.
I'm not deluded about it at all. I'm the first Man United fan who can accept that City have a better side than us and that it was always going to be hard for our current side to topple them. I even thought that when we were 8 points clear.
It wasn't impossible for us to stop them in one game though, as we did 11 vs 11 in the Community Shield game. If they had a tactical genius like Mourinho in charge, I'd accept defeat with ease, but it's Mancini. He's not the hardest to beat at a tactical game, and it's clear we could have approached some things differently yesterday.
When City have their best players fit and available - and we don't - I agree.
It's not easy competing against a side that cost half a billion quid. All it takes is one or two injuries to key players and we can look very much the poor cousin. Losing Vidic was a blow. Losing the central defender who we've relied upon to take his place compounded that problem.
In central midfield, we could have done with at least one of Fletcher or Anderson available. Like I said, we were up against a team with every one of their best XI players available. Without the same luxury available to us, it was always going to be tough.
I don't agree that we would have done much better with Anderson or Fletcher last night. Fletcher would've given it his best shot at stopping Toure, but it would've been a hard ask. I don't see what Anderson would have added. He's more attack minded if anything, and all of City's midfielders are quite easily better than him. He would've been as equally hopeless as Park when it came to tracking Toure.
There is no way that Anderson would have been worse than Park. Ando is strong, young and better on the ball. I am not saying that he would have made a significant difference because that would involve ignoring historical evidence.
Not read the whole thing thread but I feel that the tactics weren't the problem but more so the personal. I'm not generally a fan of playing Giggs and Scholes in the same starting 11, and I think playing Park was a massive mistake. An odd one selection too as he's not featured recently and his performance showed that.
I'd have either played with Welbeck and Rooney but with Rooney dropping deep, or Rooney/Welbeck on the left with the other leading the line.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but as soon as I saw the team sheet I wasn't optimistic.
I still think the draw against Everton was the one that did the damage, not just in the lost points but also I feel it give Man City something and showed they had a chance. Had we beat Everton like should have then I think the Man City game would have been totally different, has would our attitude going in to it.
Still not given up yet but it's obviously heavily in Man City's favor now.
Separate names with a comma.