You;re on a roll, mate. That's the second top-class post I've read from you this morning. Nice work
it must be the coffee.
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
it must be the coffee.
Agreed. No chance Fergie instructed them to sit back. That would have been suicidal.
We were forced back for a number of reasons. In no particular order;
-Everyone (but especially Ron/Nani) getting increasingly careless in possession.
-Anderson doing his usual second-half Liam Miller impression
-Lyon upping their game
-Evra and Brown being forced deep when their opposite numbers started getting a bit more adventurous
don't think you read his post, mate
wasn't at the game and didn't even see it until the morning after
couldn't believe what all the feckin moaning was about - excellent performance and tactics. The only thing missing was the finish, which is unusual for us. Well, usually unusual. Admittedly, there's a lot more angst watching live and all the mistakes are magnified but there were some excellent performances out there, SuperFletch, Wes, Vidic and some merely very good performances. Even Rooney had a good game, it's just a pity his final touch has deserted him. On another day that would've been 4-0. Thin line. They never looked likes scoring. Even the one hat hit the post, VDS would've probably saved. We've yet to peak.
a treble is a tall order but we're lookin good.
Halle-fecking-lujah. In the league you face 3 good teams a season - all the rest you've got a clear superiority over. CL is different, there are at least 10 good teams out there and 20 dangerous ones.
Most teams don't get tight like that until the last 20 minutes, we sat back for the entire second half, thats management.
With Rooney of late? As one wag commented, he could not shoot through a barn door. We saw what he did yesterday.
Of course the formation affects it. For instance if we play 4-3-3 we are not going to have that same width we would have when we play 4-4-2. And if we do try and use that width in a 4-3-3, then we end up with an isolated striker up front. Playing with 2 wide men and 2 up front is what Ive grown up with as being the 'United way'. I don't undertsand how people can't see the difference in the way we play when we have a 5 man midfield with one up front or a 4 man midfield with 2 up front. Plenty of times Ive seen us play 4-3-3 and carelessly cross balls into the box when we only have one red shirt in there.
Not only that, but because the results in single games have a much bigger impact in CL than in the league, teams play with much more caution and are far more tactical.
Nonsense. I'll bet he sent them out and asked for 45 minutes of the same. Sloppiness on the ball and an improvement from Lyon contributed to the change more than anything else.
Worked well for us so far hasn't it...
That never happens, not since Milan away, or Roma, or every other fecking champions league match
And Lyon stopped our fullbacks getting on the ball.
I doubt it, he's negative in Europe, tries a containing game which isn't our forte
Sloppiness due to a lack of passing options
How did they do it, and why couldn't they in the first half?
He probably said at half time something of the lines of:
- Keep the concentration, no stupid mistakes
- Keep possession
- Be patient
They did in the first half, after about 20 mins.
How they did it? They got tight on our fullbacks every time our fullbacks had the ball, forcing us to play out through Rio and Vidic.
Sloppiness in finishing too, as well as the final pass, even though options existed
Often tight with more than 1 player as well. Their central midfielders were drifting outwards, and when their wingers got the ball, they then cut in.
A lot of managers are negative in Europe. Coincidentally they are also the managers with sustained success.
Your Barcelona's and United's will have the odd year when it all goes perfectly, and its great for football, but more often than not they find themselves dumped out by a more tactically shrewd team.
Thats nonsense, we were overwhelmingly in control for that first half, a very good performance
Don't see much of a problem playing out through Rio or Vidic, we were too deep and not enough players were going forward, that was the problem
I agree, it was a very good first half.
But, they did start marking our fullbacks after about 20 mins. That's not up for discussion.
The problem playing it out through Rio and Vidic is that our game is very much based on including our fullbacks when we attack, to create room and space on the flanks, and two vs one situations against the opposition's fullbacks.
It does confuse me slightly when on here you see success equated with 4-4-2. When we play 4-4-2 against the weaker teams, it is not the formation that is the key factor in us battering them, it is the strength of the opposition. Even when we do play two up top, it very rarely stays that way for any length of time, as the policy at the club does seem to be to promote fluid, versatile football.
We play this 4-2-3-1 in Europe because we cannot simply batter teams like Lyon, as we do with Premiership lightweights like Fulham and Newcastle. This lessens the chances of us over committing, and by association, of losing. That is what Europe is all about. Have one bad leg, and you're gone from the competition. Simple as.
It's too big a risk to leave our midfield exposed, and potentially overrun, by only playing 4 in there. Modern teams know how to expose the gaps that such an attacking mindset leaves, particularly in Europe. Cheap goals are the antithesis of clever play at this level, and down through the years, that is what our use of 4-4-2 has visited upon us. Cheap goals conceded. Admittedly it has also brought wonderful victories too, but we won the Champions League once with this formation. Once. Is there any other team top-tier team who have dominated their own domestic league so comprehensively, yet failed to translate this to European success.
I am a United fan, and while I love to see good football played, I love to see a victory over top class teams even more. That's how it is for me. Beating Newcastle by 5 or 6 is bollox. It's a nothing game against a nothing team. Good to watch, but filler until we play a game of real significance. When the stakes are high, you play the percentages ie a more conservative formation.
We play this 4-2-3-1 in Europe because we cannot simply batter teams like Lyon, as we do with Premiership lightweights like Fulham and Newcastle. This lessens the chances of us over committing, and by association, of losing. That is what Europe is all about. Have one bad leg, and you're gone from the competition. Simple as.
It's too big a risk to leave our midfield exposed, and potentially overrun, by only playing 4 in there. Modern teams know how to expose the gaps that such an attacking mindset leaves, particularly in Europe. Cheap goals are the antithesis of clever play at this level, and down through the years, that is what our use of 4-4-2 has visited upon us. Cheap goals conceded. Admittedly it has also brought wonderful victories too, but we won the Champions League once with this formation. Once. Is there any other team top-tier team who have dominated their own domestic league so comprehensively, yet failed to translate this to European success.
I am a United fan, and while I love to see good football played, I love to see a victory over top class teams even more. That's how it is for me. Beating Newcastle by 5 or 6 is bollox. It's a nothing game against a nothing team. Good to watch, but filler until we play a game of real significance. When the stakes are high, you play the percentages ie a more conservative formation.
Exactly. And it amazes me how rarely people draw comparisons between our results/formation/tactics against the Champion's League teams who also play in the the Premier League and those we play in Europe.
Whenever we play against Arsenal, Chelsea or Liverpool, the game is almost always decided by the odd goal, in a tense, scrappy match, with neither manager thropwing caution to the wind. That's what happens when two decent teams go up against each other.
Obviously, you get the odd game where we absolutely hammer someone (like our 4-2 win over Arsenal or the 6-1 against Roma) but these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Good teams almost always cancel each other out. In case nobody noticed, pretty much every world cup final for the past 40 years has been fairly grim viewing. Two quality sides, playing against each other in a game with high stakes - it's never gonna be a feckin' basketball match, now is it?
The only reaosn people whinge so much about our efforts in the Champion's League is becaus ethey're bracketing teams like the reigning French Champion alongside the likes of Fulham and Newcastle. And anyone who does that is a fecking idiot.
They didn't do a very good job then as it was Browns cross that worked its way to Ronaldo
We changed our approach in the second half and we were worse for it, Fergie got it wrong
I agree, they failed when we scored. Obviously. All goals comes as a result of the opposition makes a mistake.
What did Sir Alex get wrong?
Are you saying theres never a goal scored due to good play, only mistakes?
Sitting back in the second half
If the defending team do every thing right, the attacking team should not score.
How do you know that Sir Alex set out to sit back in the second half?
The difference being we played two striker in theat game meaning Smith did not get isolated as Rooney did last night.
By watching the game then making a judgement based on it
You obviously didn't, seeing as you failed to notice that they closed our fullbacks down...
How do you know that it was Sir Alex's instructions to sit back in the second half?
Possibly the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. When Everton last got a CL berth they didn't even progress into the group stages. Would Everton or Villa in 2 consecutive seasons topped a group with Real Madrid? They may not be what they were 2 or 3 years ago without Malouda and Essien but definately would be clearly ahead of Villa or Everton and might even beat Liverpool in a league setting.4-4-2 post-Keane leaves us more open to getting dominated in MF. If we're dominated in the centre, then no matter how good of a night our strikers have they can be easily isolated. Then just one player with an off night means there is the chance of four wasted players with two strikers forced to come into MF for the ball and have their backs to goal while our MF is shackled. That is a recipe for potential disaster.
Conversely, 4-3-3 does not necessarily mean disaster with the current bunch. Those refusing to recognise that our ability to play in a more 'European' style has significantly changed as our squad has changed and matured in the last couple of years are just being blind.
We had a stack of players with 'poor' nights last night. With a 4-4-2 against a 4-3-3 they may well have had the ball more often and further up the field. That would have meant an exponentially greater chance of them nicking one - especially if Scholes had started and coughed up a free kick in Juninholand. Imagine us if we were suddenly being forced into panic mode with 15 minutes to go had they scored at 0-0 to lead the tie.
It used to be that 4-3-3 meant we were much more likely to panic, less likely to score, and more likely to be pushed backwards and unable to effectively get through a crowded midfield. But our squad was simply not as good, as versatile or as suited to the occasional 4-3-3 than it is now.
Ruud was less mobile than Rooney or Tevez; Ronaldo was much weaker then than now (ditto Fletcher); Keane was the shadow of his old self towards the end; we had less quality options from the bench to adjust to injury or change it up if we needed to; Heinze wasn't as good attacking as Evra is; Rooney was often on the LW because of the 'need' to play Ruud, resting Giggs or not having the players to put him elsewhere; Silvestre was a bit soft compared to Vidic while Howard/Carroll were shaky at times, thus even if subconsciously, causing our defenders and our CMs to play a tiny bit deeper and be more concerned about losing posession in a packed MF; and our squad had a real tendency to put their heads down when things went off schedule.
Our squad is a lot more suited to being able to succeed in adjusting tactics, and aren't forced to play in a way that doesn't necessarily suit the opposition we're facing merely because we can't do anything else. While we now rise to the occasion when pushed, why put ourselves in a position to be more likely to have to come back if we are perfectly capable of protecting ourselves and getting the wanted result against top quality opposition while still attacking but having a different shape?
They're the Champions Of France for SIX CONSECUTIVE YEARS. If we don't adjust our tactics to show them a bit of respect as well as an awareness of the state of the tie, then we are being just silly.
It isn't the ubersexy football that we put on against the likes of Newcastle, but Lyon are ten times better than Newcastle.
Most of the 4-3-3 complaints in the last two years basically boil down to bitching about 4-3-3 no matter how we played when we don't win, and pretending we played 4-4-2 no matter how we played when we do. And for all the complaints, our 4-3-3 still looks miles more attacking than Chelsea's 4-4-2.
Last season, we were similarly 'unconvincing' against Lille. When we play teams of this type it is always difficult because of they way they set their stall out. We never looked in danger yesterday IMO and it was a frustrating game because Lyon were lacking in intent.
The standard of performance will be a higher against a better team because they let you play more.
The standard of performance will be a higher against a better team because they let you play more.
A team with higher standard will of course let you play less, unless they're totally ineffective in defense ! The thing is, some of the top teams are so pushed upfront that they sacrifice some defensive tasks in order to score more but football is more than simply scoring. Yes you need to score, but occupying the field rationally is priceless. We were not convincing, true. It only means that french teams are quite good in defense, and good in general.
They didn't though, as Browns cross demonstrates
Since you asked me that before I'll ask you how do you know Fergie didn't tell them to sit back?
Mozza is right, we spent second half defending our lead sitting back. Fergie hoped that we would get a second on the counter but we wasted all counter attacks, that resulted in a angry Fergie after the game.
Great post. A whole lot of reading but a great post nonetheless.
Arguably the definitive post on this whole silly formation bun-fight.
That is an excellent post!
I'd also like to point out that with Fletcher-Carrick-Anderson 4-3-3 will be less likely a disaster. Defensively and controlling the midfield those 3 players are very good. They seem to have an excellent understanding of each other, especially Carrick and Fletcher, and it all depends on our 3 offensive players. If they have a good night then the team will play ubersexy football. Last night Rooney and Ronaldo didn't have the best game but still we created enough chance to kill the game off.Also I'm pretty sure Ronaldo got a knock after Ben Arfa's foul and he wasn't the same afterwards. Next, Evra was nullified in the 3rd minute after he got the yellow card so he had to be a lot more careful. Last, our players are quite good at football guys and most of them have a pretty good vision and they can all link up quite well. The players that played yesterday are all mobile and very good passers and they have the footballing brain to create and play sexy football, it was just that Rooney and Ronaldo had a bit of an off day.
Agree about not being in danger. The pleb of a commentator kept banging about the tie 'being on a knife edge'.