"Negative Tactics" in Europe

Wes

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
9,955
Location
Dublin, in the Irish Republic
Bilbo said:
Thats not necessarily true, and paints a picture that Scholes loiters around the centre circle or something. What Scholes has lost from his game is the knack of getting beyond the strikers, or being around the penalty spot when a cross comes in. Anderson doesn't give us that either. Not yet.

Scholes is the best passer of the ball at United. When he is playing well, United play very well. Everything goes through him and he is the hub of the team. Anderson doesn't give us that. Not yet.

Then again, I'm one of the minority on here who think Anderson isn't the second coming of Christ. Not yet, anyway. He has frightening potential, but Scholes is still a much better player.
Click to expand...
Well, you'd have to say that he's very deep. I accept Anderson can't dictate a game, i've not seen it from him anyway, but Carrick can, hence he plays when scholes doesnt. The statement about Scholes being the hub of the team is true, but Carrick does that job very well, albeit less consistently than Scholes.

I don't think Anderson is god either (no way can he surpass Wes Brown on that front :lol:), but its his drive and agression as well as his ridiculous pace that make me wanna start him every game.

Going forward, Scholes won't be part of this team, thats also a factor here.
 

Bilbo

TeaBaggins
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
14,438
WesBrownIsAGod said:
Well, you'd have to say that he's very deep. I accept Anderson can't dictate a game, i've not seen it from him anyway, but Carrick can, hence he plays when scholes doesnt. The statement about Scholes being the hub of the team is true, but Carrick does that job very well, albeit less consistently than Scholes.

I don't think Anderson is god either (no way can he surpass Wes Brown on that front :lol:), but its his drive and agression as well as his ridiculous pace that make me wanna start him every game.

Going forward, Scholes won't be part of this team, thats also a factor here.
Click to expand...
I'm wary of rushing Anderson, or Nani for that matter. He still has a lot of moments in games where you realise how raw he still is. He makes a lot of incorrect decisions still, but that's only natural, and he is in great hands.

Anderson is definitely the future, but there is still some gas left in Scholes's tank, and if Anderson turns out to be as good a player as Scholes we'll be lucky to have him.

I could be a little biased, I adore Paul Scholes and think he is still probably the most gifted Englishman playing today.
 

Wes

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
9,955
Location
Dublin, in the Irish Republic
Bilbo said:
I'm wary of rushing Anderson, or Nani for that matter. He still has a lot of moments in games where you realise how raw he still is. He makes a lot of incorrect decisions still, but that's only natural, and he is in great hands.

Anderson is definitely the future, but there is still some gas left in Scholes's tank, and if Anderson turns out to be as good a player as Scholes we'll be lucky to have him.

I could be a little biased, I adore Paul Scholes and think he is still probably the most gifted Englishman playing today.
Click to expand...
yeah, the two of them are quite raw alright, its even more noticable with Nani, but the only way to get that out of their systems is by playing them. They don't need to be rushed, but the two of them have played well enough to deserve the chances they've had, and Anderson's form up till Christmas meant I thought he'd be first choice for a while. Alas, with this rotation i've no idea where anyone stands, which has gotta be intentional.

Anderson looks like he will play a big part in the future of the club, and Carrick should emerge with first choice status due to his emmense passing ability, best bar Scholes.

For every Anderson lover, theres plenty of people around who reckon Paul Scholes not playing from time-to-time is sacralige, but its gonna happen more and more. Personally, i'm looking forward to a settled 'new' team, where Scholes and Giggs play the odd game here and there, rather than relying on the two of them to carry us to the title (next season).
 

Feedingseagulls

Full Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
11,825
Location
Beyond Good & Evil
Bilbo said:
Because you could take a snapshot at any time to prove a theory. Teams don't have to stand in their pre-conceived formation at kick off time.
Click to expand...
I'd agree (and so should ps) - but the point is that the picture was posted because ps made a claim based at least partly on the line-ups at kickoff:

peterstorey said:
Well yeah it's not a criticism or an analysis it's just a straightforward observation. I remember wondering how you were going to set up at Arsenal and at KO I looked over and saw lines of 4231 across the pitch.
Click to expand...
In other posts, whilst making a general claim about the formation probably based on watching the game as well, ps once again reckons he can bring in evidence from the kick-off. The pic is an attempt to show that the positions at kick-off stuff ps has posted looks suspect.

peterstorey said:
No, you're the one talking bollocks you played 4231 in all those games.
Click to expand...
peterstorey said:
No you didn't. At Emirates it was as clear as day even the way you lined up for the kick off; Back 4 - then Anderson & Hargreaves very deep - then a line of three Ronaldo Tevez Giggs - then Rooney. Front 4 moved around a bit from time to time with Giggs coming through the middle and Rooney pushing left to let Tevez through the centre. Same formation as last season at Emirates except with Larson up front and Rooney left (and very isolated on that occasion)
Click to expand...
Whose analysis of the formation is correct is not really at issue when people are criticising the poor sod for posting the picture at all - it was in direct response to a couple of particularly inane remarks by ps - and to that extent justified. The ridicule etc. is unnecessary and based on an error.
 

Julian Denny

Full Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
4,203
Location
South Africa
Bilbo said:
Thats not necessarily true, and paints a picture that Scholes loiters around the centre circle or something. What Scholes has lost from his game is the knack of getting beyond the strikers, or being around the penalty spot when a cross comes in. Anderson doesn't give us that either. Not yet.

Scholes is the best passer of the ball at United. When he is playing well, United play very well. Everything goes through him and he is the hub of the team. Anderson doesn't give us that. Not yet.

Then again, I'm one of the minority on here who think Anderson isn't the second coming of Christ. Not yet, anyway. He has frightening potential, but Scholes is still a much better player.
Click to expand...
He showed against Fulham that he has not lost that ability. In games where he has say Carrick and Hargreaves holding the midfield, there is no need for him to be dropping back the whole time. He can then do what he does best further forward, including getting the odd goal as well.
 

loki

Full Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
1,027
Location
Broke 1000 posts 5 years ago. Slow going since
Did no-one else think Ferguson was re-using his tactics from the Arsenal match with the main big differences being Ronaldo on for Park and Carrick on for mmm was it Hargreaves it think, plus at least one other better player added for an inferior one. Basically using the set-up that worked so well against a top side to give a 4-0 win, with superior players.
 

Pogue Mahone

Swiftie Fan Club President
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,683
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Anyone else hoping against all hope that we revert to our "negative" European tactics tonight, to get the result that will see us top our group?

I can't shake a nagging fear that we're gonna turn up and play 442 (just like we did in the Emirates) and end up getting turned over (just like we did in the Emirates)

Am I the only 'tard on here who is hankering for the days of Rooney wide left, with an absolutely rock-solid defence and midfield behind him? Not in every game, obviously, but if ever a fixture called for a more cautious approach, then tonight is that fixture.
 

Lot 49

Doom
Newbie
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
1,711
We won't get beat tonight if we play 4-4-2 Pogue. Trust me.
 

Bilbo

TeaBaggins
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
14,438
Pogue Mahone said:
Anyone else hoping against all hope that we revert to our "negative" European tactics tonight, to get the result that will see us top our group?

I can't shake a nagging fear that we're gonna turn up and play 442 (just like we did in the Emirates) and end up getting turned over (just like we did in the Emirates)

Am I the only 'tard on here who is hankering for the days of Rooney wide left, with an absolutely rock-solid defence and midfield behind him? Not in every game, obviously, but if ever a fixture called for a more cautious approach, then tonight is that fixture.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say I was hankering for it, but its certainly a system thats proven to bring results our way.

I think we have a far better chance of retaining the trophy if we do.
 

Bilbo

TeaBaggins
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
14,438
Lot 49 said:
We won't get beat tonight if we play 4-4-2 Pogue. Trust me.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on our form.

What is certain is that we have a bigger chance of losing tonight playing 442.
 

Julian Denny

Full Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
4,203
Location
South Africa
Pogue Mahone said:
Anyone else hoping against all hope that we revert to our "negative" European tactics tonight, to get the result that will see us top our group?

I can't shake a nagging fear that we're gonna turn up and play 442 (just like we did in the Emirates) and end up getting turned over (just like we did in the Emirates)

Am I the only 'tard on here who is hankering for the days of Rooney wide left, with an absolutely rock-solid defence and midfield behind him? Not in every game, obviously, but if ever a fixture called for a more cautious approach, then tonight is that fixture.
Click to expand...
It does depend on who's available. My view is not so much about negative tactics but rather ensuring we have a solid midfield which can cover in defence but push forward on attack. Hargreaves was bought precisely with this type of game in mind. A ball winner who can sit in front of the back four but who can also provide for the creative elements of the midfield. Sadly he's not there. Fletcher, certainly and maybe Anderson can do the job. This releases Carrick and Anderson (if Fletcher plays) to create things for a flexible front three of Rooney, Ronaldo and Berbatov. I have no idea who is available tonight though and it could be if the latter two are out we may indeed be negative and resort to the ghastly 4 5 1 - with Rooney the sole striker.
 

Lot 49

Doom
Newbie
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
1,711
Bilbo said:
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on our form.

What is certain is that we have a bigger chance of losing tonight playing 442.
Click to expand...
:confused:

That's not certain. It's an opinion. One you're entitled to of course but I don't see how you argue it's 100% we're more likely to lose playing 4-4-2 than some other system.
 

Brophs

The One and Only
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
50,716
Pogue Mahone said:
Anyone else hoping against all hope that we revert to our "negative" European tactics tonight, to get the result that will see us top our group?

I can't shake a nagging fear that we're gonna turn up and play 442 (just like we did in the Emirates) and end up getting turned over (just like we did in the Emirates)

Am I the only 'tard on here who is hankering for the days of Rooney wide left, with an absolutely rock-solid defence and midfield behind him? Not in every game, obviously, but if ever a fixture called for a more cautious approach, then tonight is that fixture.
Click to expand...
Nope. In fact, I've been singing that tune more or less all season. The only good reason I can see to play 442, is getting Rooney's form sorted. Right now, he's not exactly playing out of his skin, and that's in his favourite position. So let's go back to the formation that worked so well for us, and make ourselves hard to beat again. In all of the years when we tried to just outscore teams in Europe, we have on EC to show for it. Playing the way we did last season would win us a few more in the same time period, I have no doubts about that.

Whether that makes me boring, or negative or whatever, I'm not bothered. Very few of the top teams play two strikers up to any more. There's a very good reason for that.
 

Bilbo

TeaBaggins
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
14,438
Lot 49 said:
:confused:

That's not certain. It's an opinion. One you're entitled to of course but I don't see how you argue it's 100% we're more likely to lose playing 4-4-2 than some other system.
Click to expand...
Because we are a more open side to play against when playing 442. Our midfield is bypassed with less difficulty, and more chances are created against us.

Logical that we are more likely to lose playing this way. Its also logical that we are more likely to win, but that wasn't the question.
 

Pogue Mahone

Swiftie Fan Club President
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,683
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Julian Denny said:
It does depend on who's available. My view is not so much about negative tactics but rather ensuring we have a solid midfield which can cover in defence but push forward on attack. Hargreaves was bought precisely with this type of game in mind. A ball winner who can sit in front of the back four but who can also provide for the creative elements of the midfield. Sadly he's not there. Fletcher, certainly and maybe Anderson can do the job. This releases Carrick and Anderson (if Fletcher plays) to create things for a flexible front three of Rooney, Ronaldo and Berbatov. I have no idea who is available tonight though and it could be if the latter two are out we may indeed be negative and resort to the ghastly 4 5 1 - with Rooney the sole striker.
Click to expand...
You've completely lost me with that post.

You start going on about how you would like to see a specialist holding midfielder, sitting behind two more creative CMs and a flexible front 3, then conclude by calling 451 "ghastly" :confused:

You are aware that 433 and 451 are, to all intents and purposes, the same formation, right?
 

Crustanoid

New Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
18,511
Pogue Mahone said:
Anyone else hoping against all hope that we revert to our "negative" European tactics tonight, to get the result that will see us top our group?

I can't shake a nagging fear that we're gonna turn up and play 442 (just like we did in the Emirates) and end up getting turned over (just like we did in the Emirates)

Am I the only 'tard on here who is hankering for the days of Rooney wide left, with an absolutely rock-solid defence and midfield behind him? Not in every game, obviously, but if ever a fixture called for a more cautious approach, then tonight is that fixture.
Click to expand...
Arse was a fixture which called for that approach

I think we'll see a three man midfield tonight
 

CnutOfAllCnuts

Bald Boring Cnut
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
29,997
Pogue Mahone said:
Kin ell. I doff my cap to you, sir.

You must be the only punter in the world who made money on the PL last weekend.

Where's your money going tonight?
Click to expand...
Got £30 on a 0-0 draw between Villareal v United.

£20 on Aalborg, Real Madrid and Villareal all to win.

And £20 on a massive accumulator for today and tomorrow, on: Real, Atletico Madrid, Bayern, Arsenal, Liverpool and Inter.
 

lynchie

Full Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
7,068
I reckon we'll go 3-2-5 and win 8-7. That'd be an awesome match.
 

Julian Denny

Full Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
4,203
Location
South Africa
Pogue Mahone said:
You've completely lost me with that post.

You start going on about how you would like to see a specialist holding midfielder, sitting behind two more creative CMs and a flexible front 3, then conclude by calling 451 "ghastly" :confused:

You are aware that 433 and 451 are, to all intents and purposes, the same formation, right?
Click to expand...
Wrong ! 4 3 3 and 4 5 1 are completely different. Try reading what I said again. 4 5 1 may be the formation if Ronaldo and Berba are both out. Not for one second am I propagating a negative approach like that.
 

Mozza

It’s Carrick you know
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
23,353
Location
Let Rooney be Rooney
Pogue Mahone said:
We didn't play 442, away from home, in any of the CL games, last season, apart from the final (which was on neutral ground).
Click to expand...
It's still far from a home game, in fact it was the biggest game against a team who's midfield was bigger, stronger and quicker who'd also beaten us just a few weeks earlier, we still played 2 against their 3.

Defending is about more then the number of players in the center of the park, we can defend well playing 433 and 442, we are almost always abysmal going forward playing a 433
 

Pogue Mahone

Swiftie Fan Club President
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,683
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Mozza said:
It's still far from a home game, in fact it was the biggest game against a team who's midfield was bigger, stronger and quicker who'd also beaten us just a few weeks earlier, we still played 2 against their 3.
Click to expand...
So you accept this was the only European "away" game where we played 442?

Mozza said:
Defending is about more then the number of players in the center of the park, we can defend well playing 433 and 442, we are almost always abysmal going forward playing a 433
Click to expand...
Our away record against the big four, this season (442) compared to last (433), would seem to indicate that a change in formation hasn't made us any more prolific but has caused us all sorts of problems, defensively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.