City and Chelsea were poor, the fact that one goal and errors or moments of class decided each game summed up why we are 12 points clear. Not many first XI's can deal with what you've outlined, granted we could deal with it a lot better.
Fergie's obsession with picking old players in midfield
- Thread starter noodlehair
- Start date
Fair enough Rowem, i respect you as a poster and decline a reply, but i would ask you to privately ponder why i don't believe it can be attributed to individuals alone.
Why despite the quality of players we have do we perform so poorly in general? Are all our individuals just plagued by inconsistency for no reason? For me a system should be employed with the intention of getting the best out of players and doing that will then surely result in better performances.
Our system doesn't do that and it doesn't do so regularly. We can get by for the most part relying on the individual quality of our players, but in the big games where that quality is evened out it comes down to what those individuals can produce as a team. In the big games at the business end of the season we keep on falling short.
Madrid, City at Ot, Chelsea home and away, we didn't win a single one of them and didn't deserve to either imo. If it was a one off then i would agree with your assessment, but when you are second best repeatedly in a succession of big games, then the question needs to be asked:
Are we just not good enough despite employing the best system for us? Or are we not playing a system that allows our team a reasonable chance of competing against quality teams who employ 3 man midfield's? For me it's the latter.
The "silly sarcastic point" was actually extremely pertinent, with the thread that's in it.
You and a hundred other caftards have been portraying our midfield as completely non-existent on the night. With loads of 'hilarious' comments about Fergie's demented decision to pair Carrick with a pensioner against City's three in midfield.
Now you're also claiming that a) Phil Jones didn't have much to do and b) made a dog's dinner of what little he did have to do.
Now I'm really struggling to tally your version of events with what actually happened. How the feck did David De Gea have such a quiet game if we were getting completely overwhelmed in the centre of the park and one of our two central defenders was running around all over the place like a headless chicken, making a string of defensive errors?
My personal take on things is that our midfield was nowhere near as poor as you seem to think it was and our defence (all of them) did a pretty good job of protecting our goal. Unfortunately, our front four were a little flat and created very little (against a very solid City defence, admittedly) and a moment of magic from Aguero was the difference between the two teams.
Now, you may not agree with how I saw the game but at least it fits with what actually happened on the pitch. Or did City actually create a load of chances that I've somehow wiped from my memory?
how though AC, without changing our system? We cannot press effectively because our midfield 4 are to far apart. We cannot keep good possession for the same reason.
so if we cannot impact upon our opponents spells of possession and we cannot keep the ball when we do have it, you have to question what we are actually looking to achieve in those games.
Our unluckiness against Madrid is overshadowing our inability to keep the ball or prevent the opponent from enjoying lengthy spells of possession imo. We have stuck to the same system in the games since then and have struggled in every single one.
Why is it that when we play these games it is always our opponents key players who produce and ours do not?
There are only 2 possibilities in my view. We are simply not as good as either chelsea or city, which i do not accept. Or more realistically our system regularly gives the opportunity for the opposition to dominate in midfield and therefore control the games better. Surely we would have a far better chance if we go 3 on 3 in midfield or simply employ a narrower formation.
If 'deserved' should have any meaning in discussions about football, it would be in the context of bad refereeing decisions.
Which makes the notion that we didn't deserve to win against Madrid at OT that much more fatuous.
Surely, both games against Madrid are an example of the system working, rather than not.
I think that's a pretty fair assessment Pogue. the midfield did as well as could be expected considering they were outnumbered. The problem was that when you concede possession you need a regular threat on the counter. Had our strikers made better decisions on the few occasions we did have good chances to counter then we may have fared better.
but that should not detract from the suggestion that playing 2 men against 3 in midfield does not really give us the best chance of realistically competing in that area. It hands the initiative to our opponents and offers an advantage to them from the get go. It also limits our attacking threat to an occasional counter, when we have the players to compete and overcome these opponents in my view.
I dont believe its a case of 3 vs 2 in big games tbh. Rooney plays too deep enough in such games to be classed as a striker. He's certainly not further forward than an Ozil is in Real's big games. We havent played a proper 4-4-2 in big games for a while.
For me, its how we're used to playing it out wide and now that we're trying to mix it up, we're not as good at it as it obviously will take time. We're not as good at closing teams down as some other teams too which obviously hinders our attempts at winning the ball back. Far too often, we drop deep and try to get the ball back close to our own D rather than pressing as a unit up high. Hence the opposition keeping the ball more comfortably.
Regarding our own possession, at times, i feel we are too direct in our approach. far too many hoofs to RVP in the last game for my liking. Most of the time, it wouldnt get to him and when it did, City immediately had 3 players on him. Giggs in particular was guilty of this.
We need to move towards a shorter game and with the likes of Clev and Kagawa becoming more regular features in the side next season, am sure it'l happen.
I always think the personnel is far more important than the formation (which is fairly fluid anyway). Both Young and Welbeck are excellent defensively and would have been expected to tuck in/track back and help out with the dirty work. I think they did this quite well, which is why City created very little.
Unfortunately, Ashley Young was probably the only attacking player who did himself justice going forwards. Add that to City defending very well and we ended up creating very little ourselves. In a way, the two teams cancelled each other out. Which looked like it might cause a decent enough result for us. Right up until Aguero's brilliance/Jones' brain fart.
fair enough.I'm trying to appease the naysayers who think if I say "he was awful" in a particuar game, it means I have it in for him and think he's an awful player. I tried to back down a bit because Pogue scares me.
He wasn't awful every time he got the ball or did anything, but ultimately his two main contributions to the game were missing an open goal from less than a yard out, and costing his side an important goal late in the game by being a thoughtless clown.
When you being in the team means +2 goals for the opposition, that's not good. He got away with the open goal miss, but through no redemption of his own doing.
I only made one comment about our midfield I think, but yeah, it wasn't very good. I haven't really criticised Fergie for it because when I saw the line up I thought "well, Cleverley was really poor against Chelsea, and Anderson plays like he's older than Giggs" So I wasn't really sure there was an obvious better alternative. It just highlighted yet again that it's an area we need to address.
I don't think your assessment of the game really fits in with the pattern of it. I thought City were quite toothless in possession and most of their best work was off the ball in denying us space to either gain control of possession or play on the break. When they had it themselves they looked devoid of any spark and made it quite easy for us to shut them out.
Certainly didn't think our midfield played well. defensively it was ok (apart from when Giggs decided to backheel himself out of the game in his own half), but we conceded the middle third of the pitch to City and then distributed the ball poorly when we got it. It was a home game against a team we were 15 points clear of, and we had less control over or in possession than when we were away to Real Madrid...a game in which we deliberately sat off.
As for the actual defence. It was ok for the most part, but at the same time we conceded two cheap goals despite having six (often more) of our outfield players goal side for pretty much the entire night. The first goal was a stupid error from someone who should know better, and the second a rash error from someone who maybe you can understand making those kind of misjudgements. That coupled with us being no kind of threat going forwards, made for a somewhat limp performance. One that we're definitely capable of doing a whole lot better than, midfield issues or otherwise.
As for Phil Jones...I'm not denying he's a great prospect, and I really like him as a character. But, when Phil Jones commands the team defensively, doesn't allow Aguero to score by just running in a stright line past him inside the area, and heads Van Persie's freekick into the back of the net, instead of into Vincent Kompany's skull, then people can bang on about his "amazing" performance and I'll agree with them. Until then he's a young player with great potential. This season for me we've used him too much to patch over weaknesses in other areas (e.g. fullback), and it's affected his performances and confidence. Had he even played at centreback this season before the City game?
I'm almost positive I remember at least one sliding challenge by Jones that stopped what would have been a very good chance for City but I don't remember the exact circumstances. Jones did make a mistake on the Aguero goal but it wasn't that huge of a mistake, I'd put it down to individual brilliance by Aguero more than anything. He did do his best to stop us from scoring off the RvP free kick though.
Other than that I mostly agree with Noodlehair. Basically, just because DDG wasn't all that troubled doesn't mean our midfield wasn't poor. I think that had more to do with City's ineptitude than anything else. They always looked the more likely to score and eventually they did.
Other than that I mostly agree with Noodlehair. Basically, just because DDG wasn't all that troubled doesn't mean our midfield wasn't poor. I think that had more to do with City's ineptitude than anything else. They always looked the more likely to score and eventually they did.
A couple of times in the carling cup? I can remember one really good performance anyway.
Don't actually disagree with a lot of what you said there. Which is kind of boring...
Don't actually disagree with a lot of what you said there. Which is kind of boring...
Yup 1:25 in the video Brwned posted on the last page.
Shame for him that he followed it up with poor defending for the 2nd goal, but he'll learn from it. He's got the tools to become a formidable defender.
Difference there though Varun, is that Madrid play with 2 defensive minded players behind Ozil, while we don't. Only Carrick is an effective defender in our midfield, which is why i feel we struggle impacting upon a quality opponents possession. We have 2 attackers attempting to help Carrick fulfill the defensive duties, which is surely not as preferable as having say, a moutinho, alongside Carrick behind Giggs or rooney.
I would have agreed had it not been for the fact that at the start of last season. Due to TC and Ando playing as a pair they carried the ball much farther forward which brought our attacking players closer together. This directly led to some of the best football we have seen in a long time from many of the same players we see struggling so often today. The only difference between that 4-4-2 and our current one, is where the forward players were when they received the ball and how many options they had simply because of how close together their proximity to goal had brought them. So they are capable of it without question in my view.
Personally i attribute that to the space between our players. If teams press us high you have 3 men in the middle pressuring our 2 midfielders, somewhat forcing the CB to play the ball long more often than is beneficial. A narrower system would allow us to have more men central and make the potential passing distance far shorter, which then makes it far harder to close off passing options.
Well you are more optimistic than me Varun! I see no evidence we are doing anything to better control midfield. SAf seems to make it as hard as possible for our central midfield, leaving them often outnumbered and with the positions so stretched they often have to make 20-30yard passes out wide or up front as their best options.
To narrow the formation we have to play players comfortable coming inside. Our wingers don't even ever swap positions during a game, nor do they make regular diagonal runs inside the FB and CB. When RVP makes a run, who runs into the space he has created? the wingers? the midfield? no-one is usually the answer, which is why whoever plays up front for us either waits for crosses from the wings, or becomes isolated.
We need either 2 defensively competent mids freeing a midfielder to break forward, or we need more men centrally to better compete, and players out wide who can come inside occasionally to make numbers up and increase options.
Staying as we are with no real pressing game and no-one running past opposing players in midfield, we will continue to struggle keeping the ball and also getting it back against quality opponents.
Only if you believe the match was won after 60mins. Many seem to be assuming being in a good position to win, somehow equates to definitely would have won.
i have little doubt personally that as the game went on, Madrid would surely have upped the tempo and put us under more pressure. When you work as hard as we did off the ball yet still have little impact upon how much ball the opposition has, that will tell in the end.
Not saying madrid would have won or lost, who knows? Only that as the game progresses generally the defending team gets deeper and more tired and the team enjoying the majority of possession get more space. It's how we win a lot of our matches by grinding the opponents down until some space is created or an error is exploited.
Had we continued looking as effective in any of the games against Chelsea and City or even Sunderland then that would have been good evidence of a system that was worth persisting with. Instead we have looked second best in the big matches, been beaten, struggled for any semblance of control in any of the matches and even ended up hanging on for a narrow win against struggling Sunderland!
in my view it doesn't work because we are struggling regularly to perform even against lesser opposition. The players don't produce anywhere near what they are capable of so i don't see how anyone can suggest we are seeing a benefit. The telling factor for me is that our performances simply do not reflect the quality of player that we have, and that in my view can only be down to the system we are employing them in.
If this is a system that suits our players then we simply cannot be as good as City or Chelsea, which i personally do not accept.
I suppose terseness is just not your thing. When you do a 'Gish Gallop' like that, I just don't know which thread to pull on.
And you top it all off in your last sentence by introducing a ridiculous false dichotomy.
They looked absolutely clueless at 60 minutes in. We had them under lock. How you go from that to asserting that they would have put us under more scrutiny, is something I don't understand.
Because it happens time and again in games. FFS did you not see the CL games over the past 2 days? Malaga looked to have it all locked up too, and with considerably less time than half an hour to see it out!Did you really expect us to simply coast through the rest of that game without Madrid throwing caution to the wind or making a substitution at some point to affect the pattern of the game, and put us under more pressure?
Games turn round all the time in the latter stages. Conditions and mindsets change for both teams in relation as to how the game progresses.
I'm genuinely surprised at your conviction that the result of any close game at this level or any other, can be so confidently predicted after only an hour, irrespective of how either team has performed upto that point.
Do you not recall 99?
i'm greedy, id pull em all!
We were bossed in all those games mate! All the better performers were in the opponents teams. It was 11 v11. what reasons do we have why in these big games our opponents dictate the play and reduce us to occasional counters?
Like i said wrong system for me. chelsea and city played systems against us that gave them their best chance of controlling midfield, and allowing their key players time and space on the ball. I don't think our system gave us much chance of combating theirs, and ultimately we couldn't and unsurprisingly lost.
Decent post, this.
Our game is too reliant on wing play. Having all our wingers off-form has highlighted our lack of alternative methods. As Varun says, if we can move away from slinging balls into the box it would give us more variety going forward.