A rookie CB next to Jones, no thanks. Defensively the CM was fine, we didn't really cede it at all but going forward we lacked craft and had no one to control the tempo in the middle. We lost the game in the end due to lots of individual errors from players which all happened to occur from set-pieces.
SAF this season
- Thread starter marjen
- Start date
Still reckon he got it wrong though. To answer your question, I'm not sure Valencia would have done much better, but Carrick in midfield would have been better I reckon. The hindsight thing's not really relevant, otherwise you could never criticise the manager after the game. When I saw Park and Rafael in CM, I thought we were going to get overrun through the middle, and we were.
So answer my question - is there any truth in this stuff about Rooney and Gibson being canned for disciplinary reasons?
Im surprised you needed hindsight to see it wouldn't work Pogue, for many of us foresight seemed more than sufficient.
Overrun? Set-pieces apart I'm struggling to remember how many chances Blackburn created in the First-Half, as SAF said we missed Carrick's craft in CM more than anything. Defensively the midfield was fine but going Forward you could tell they weren't natural CM's.
Carrick's craft is keeping the ball, we kept losing it and had trouble getting it back, it looked like we were playing a proper side at times.
Playing Park and Rafael in CM means basically not having a CM. That's why we don't play them in CM. Not because it's uncreative.
I know but I don't think we were overrun at all, they aren't CM's but they were still postioned Centrally, for me Blackburn offered very little going forward in the First Half which is the only time we can judge this duo. What let us down was our final ball in the First Half. Park has played centrally for us before and Rafael to be fair has the attributes to play centrally. By my reckoning Full-Back's and CM's have to the most well rounded players in a team. Once Anderson came on we had someone with more experience and craft in the middle and we played much better going forward. The goals were more down to poor individual defending from the backline rather than the midfield being overrun. Rafael and Park weren't good as a duo but that was more down to the lack of direction offered by them as the midfield rather than defensive weaknesses.
The inability of us to recover the ball was more down to lack of confidence between the Midfield and Defence, there were too many players playing out of position for us to press high. This for me can be attributed more to the makeup of the backline then anything else. Jones' inexperience coupled with Carrick and Valencia's unfamiliarity meant the Defence probably sat deeper than it needed to.
I'm not convinced. CM is 75%* about positional play and Rafael, much as I love him, is shite positionally even in his own position.
Fans always think players with a bit of skill or versatility or general oomph can play in centre mid. Rooney, Alan Smith, Rio Ferdinand. I've been guilty of this in the past. It's bollocks...it's an incredibly difficult position and unless you're Ryan Giggs you need years playing there to work out where to put yourself, who to pass to, how to work space, when to speed things up or slow them down, etc.
*made-up number
I don't really accept the distinction. Controlling midfield is about keeping the ball, and we couldn't. That invited pressure and gave Blackburn more and more confidence as the half went on. We were also slow at winning it back.
Well, quite.
, well yeah I thought that about Jones but he has done a pretty good job in CM so far but I guess it depends on the partner more than anything. Playing next to Carrick means your shortfalls mught not be as obvious, unfortunately the same is unlikely to be true when playing next to Park.Very true, keeping the ball is the best way to defend.Plechazunga said:
We had 63% of the possession* and 73% territorial advantage (whatever that means). Not exactly indicative of a side losing the ball and struggling to get it back. We also had 17 corners to 3 and 18 shots at goal to their 8.
We definitely looked bereft of ideas in the final third. I would put this down to Nani having a poor game, Hernandez being absolutely dire and Welbeck not being a winger. Blackburn also defended well, to be fair. Despite all this, we still scored two goals. Which should have been enough to win the game, if it wasn't for terrible defensive errors.
People are so obsessed with central midfield in general (and the team selection for this game in particular) it always gets the blame if we fail to win a game. When you get as much possession/territory as we did against Blackburn I think people need to look a bit harder for a scapegoat.
*almost identical in the first and second-half, which sheds an interesting light on the theory that starting Anderson would have made an enormous difference
Anderson brought direction though, he controlled the tempo much better than either Rafael and Park did. We had plenty of the ball but I do think we struggled to win it back as quick as we could have, however my recall might be blinded by the desperation of wanting us to get the ball back and score. I don't think Park and Rafael did that bad all things considered but it was clear to me at 1-0 down we need something more from the middle, final ball was very poor but rejigging it and putting Valencia out wide should have saved us in the end.
Putting Valencia out wide made a huge difference. The change to our personnel in central midfield didn't make that much difference at all. As per my * above, we actually didn't see any more of the ball when Anderson was on the pitch than we did when he was on the bench.
Other than Valencia's positional change, the biggest difference between the two halves was the fact that bringing on Anderson meant subbing off Hernandez, who was having an absolute shocker and single-handedly blunting most of our attacks.
Other than Valencia's positional change, the biggest difference between the two halves was the fact that bringing on Anderson meant subbing off Hernandez, who was having an absolute shocker and single-handedly blunting most of our attacks.
Anderson coming on meant we had much better balance with more players playing in their natural positions, starting him would have achieved that too. Obviously we couldn't foresee Hernandez's poor performance but had we Ando started at least we'd have 2 natural wingers and full-back's. That said it was a risk to start him. I agree though we lost because of defensive errors rather than the selection, SAF righted any wrongs at HT and we still came up short.
Which is the whole point really, Pogue seems to be suggesting everyone is overly obsessed with midfield, which in most cases i would agree with. But in this instance that would surely be the main focal point as that is where the most radical change from the norm occurred, and in such a key area. To then accommodate that change, Valencia then also had to be played out of position, alongside an already out of position Carrick.
I am not suggesting Rafael/Park did anything wrong on their own, or that other options were significantly better. But like you i believe the more balanced a side with as many players as possible playing in their natural positions, simply creates a much better basis for them to then deliver a good individual and subsequent collective performance.
My beef was with so many changes in and around an already makeshift CB pairing. I just felt SAF took too many risks with the way he chose to set up the team, and to me it seemed blatantly obvious from the start, that such a disjointed and unfamiliar looking team would more than likely deliver an equally unbalanced and uncertain performance, which it did.
Fair enough if that was the possession. It felt like they had it for much more of the time than crap away sides usually do at OT, but if they didn't, they didn't.
As you say, we scored two goals, which ordinarily would have been fine against this opposition, so I don't really see how the attack was the problem. What went wrong was that we shipped three... I'd be surprised if playing Park and Rafael in front of Jones and Carrick didn't contribute to that. It wasn't just the errors, they looked dangerous much too often for comfort.
And no-one's answered my question about Rooney and Gibson. If Gibson was an option and we played Rafael, that really is a massive feck-up.
How are we supposed to know more than you? If you go along with what's widely reported then yes, they were both dropped for disciplinary reasons.
I dunno, all I've seen is one headline, I thought maybe there'd been a statement or something.
Fergie gets plenty of praise for his man-management and all the decisions that lead to success. If we lose at home to the bottom club, while playing a centre midfield of Park and Rafael, it's fairly natural for people to wonder whether he made an error in that instance. I don't see it as 'looking for a scape-goat' at all.
Fergie gets plenty of praise for his man-management and all the decisions that lead to success. If we lose at home to the bottom club, while playing a centre midfield of Park and Rafael, it's fairly natural for people to wonder whether he made an error in that instance. I don't see it as 'looking for a scape-goat' at all.
I don't think anyone has praised Fergie's team selection against Blackburn either - people have just pointed out the circumstances that led him to pick it.
Yeah I know they haven't praised his Blackburn selection. The contrast I'm drawing is between the praise he gets when we win and the criticism that's frowned on as '20/20 hindsight' or 'scapegoating' when we lose.
And if Gibson was available to play, then the 'circumstances' were very different - and much of the problem was of Fergie's own making. Sometimes you have to swallow your stubbornness and adapt to the situation.
And if Gibson was available to play, then the 'circumstances' were very different - and much of the problem was of Fergie's own making. Sometimes you have to swallow your stubbornness and adapt to the situation.
Not quite true, because you don't know the circumstances which led to his decisions.
Pointing out facts is one thing, speculating on why he did it is something else entirely. Let's not forget Rooney was supposed to be out with a niggle, until it was reported that he had been axed.
I don't know if that is true or not, but someone is wrong somewhere.
One thing we know for sure, SAF picked an experimental line up in front of a makeshift back four with players playing out of position. He then changed to something resembling normality at HT. We lost 3 points at home to a Blackburn team which had only 2 wins out of 19 this season, and had only Yakubu, Pedersen and Samba from their regular first team line up.
Anyone ask yourself honestly if it had been Liverpool coming to OT instead of blackburn, on the same day under exactly the same circumstances, would so many key players still have been unavailable? and if so would the team have still lined up as we did against blackburn?
If you believe everything would have been exactly the same then fair enough, we will have to agree to disagree. If however you have doubts as i do, you would possibly have expected more key players to have been available and even if that were not the case, i find it difficult to accept that Rafael and Park start that game centrally with Valencia at RB.
Call me cynical if you wish, but it was the feeling i got from the minute i saw that line up. It had a real Carling cup feel about it as Marcus Agrippa suggested earlier, almost a case of any team will do, as there are bigger fish to fry just around the corner.
Pure speculation on my part i admit but that is what it felt like to me.This is why i am so frustrated by the line up, i felt it was an arrogant line up because i felt we would have done more with what we had, had someone much stronger visited OT that same day, and under exactly the same circumstances.
Even if he only had the players available in the squad he selected (which we pretty much know isn't the case), he could still have stuck Carrick in midfield, Rafael at full back, Valencia on the wing and had Fryers (a defender) fill in as a defender, which would have allowed Welbeck or Hernandez to play up top with Berbatov.
That would have meant one person out of position (Park, in midfield), as opposed to the five we ended up with (Park, Rafael, Welbeck, Valencia, Carrick)...and even then he could arguably have started Anderson in the middle.
There was no real need for the cluster feck of a team selection he came up with. It made a probelmatic situation into a desperate one.
He seems to get daft stubborn ideas in his head at times and the latest one seems to be that he can just throw people into different positions and they'll somehow not only still perform well, but form into a cohesive unit. It surprisingly doesn't work.
As already stated, you can add Anderson to the list.Fair enough if Giggs was injured, swap him for Valencia in one of the halves.
Anything wrong with the rest of my scenario or was that the only thing you could pick out Bryan?
This is my main gripe, and I'm frankly astonished people like Pogue doesn't see this.
De Gea
Rafael-Jones-Fryers-Evra(or the other way around with Fryers as a full back)
Valencia-Carrick-Park-Nani
Welbeck-Berbatov
This side looks much, much more cohesive than the side we put out, and I'm actually quite condifent we wouldn't have lost against Blackburn at home with that starting eleven.
The only reason they won set-pieces and countered quite well was our midfield getting overrun. Fryers/Jones would've handled Yakubu quite well if we had a stranglehold of midfield, and offered some protection.
Absolutely spot on. I have been saying exactly the same for the last 48 hrs with very little support really. I cannot understand how people can look at that line up and think not only was it an acceptable line up, but also that it had little or no bearing on the result.
It was unnecessary and reckless imo and when all said and done it cost us 3 points, in what should have been our easiest home game of the season.
The thing is marjen, you are still acting under the premise that all the players who were said to be unavailable were actually unavailable. Do you think if Chelsea were due at OT that same day under similar circumstances, we would have played the same team with so many players out of position?
I certainly don't. Players who will be back for the Newcastle game would suddenly have become available had the opposition been stronger.
SAF imo, picked a Carling Cup team for an injury ravaged Blackburn team's visit to OT. He thought it would be good enough, however he chose to set it up and he would have been able to rest most of his key players for the trickier games ahead.
He was wrong and in effect we threw 3 points away because of the decisions he made. Anyone can make a mistake of course but for me that selection was way too risky,a nd tbh i cannot ever remember him putting a team out like that for a PL match before, unless the league was already won of course.
Well I agree that dropping Rooney and Gibson was the right decision if it's true what's been reported. So that rules them out.
What's not acceptable IMO is not using Giggs, assuming he was availbale for selection. This was not the game to rest him in, what with us having just one fit centre back and one fit central midfielder.
However, even using only those players who were deemed fit enough/smart enough to be in the matchday squad, I think we'd have won with the side I suggested. Surely the beneficial thing to do would be to play as many players in their natural positions as possible, rather than playing people in funny positions for the sake of it?
Jeez, you guys are still going round in circles days after the result.
Giggs is 38 and was saved for the Newcastle game - Smalling and Rio weren't available.
I don't understand why, given the City result, you can't just deal with it and move on. You can't expect Ferguson to win every game for us, and you've turned him into a scapegoat by questioning the integrity behind his disciplinary decision and his not selecting of other unfit players. Isn't it more likely that his hands were genuinely tied in terms of who he could pick, and he did the best job possible? I'm sure he'd liked to have picked a stronger CM or central defence if he'd been able to...
Giggs is 38 and was saved for the Newcastle game - Smalling and Rio weren't available.
I don't understand why, given the City result, you can't just deal with it and move on. You can't expect Ferguson to win every game for us, and you've turned him into a scapegoat by questioning the integrity behind his disciplinary decision and his not selecting of other unfit players. Isn't it more likely that his hands were genuinely tied in terms of who he could pick, and he did the best job possible? I'm sure he'd liked to have picked a stronger CM or central defence if he'd been able to...
He was able to, simply by virtue of the starting line-up!
I'm not questioning his handling of the diciplinary issue, but even ignoring Anderson on the bench, who had to play 45 minutes either way simply because our CM weren't functioning, and Fryers who could have done a job with only two defenders on the pitch - he could still have played Rafael as a LB and Evra in defence, allowing Carrick to play with Park and form a stronger partnership in CM.
He was obviously hoping he wouldn't have to use Anderson.
As already mentioned, Giggs was unavailable for selection.
As already mentioned, Giggs was unavailable for selection.
This is the madness in all of this to me.
We've been arguing the toss for ages about minor changes he could or could not have made. Taking a punt on a Fryers-Jones combo in central defence in order to play Carrick in the centre, taking Valencia off the flank to help out in central midfield, maybe risk an injury to Anderson by starting him (and possibly having to play the full 90 minutes.
There are pros and cons to each of these decisions. It's definitely not black and white. But they key thing here is we weren't playing "someone much stronger". We were playing a Blackburn side in free-fall, missing half their team through injury. People can piss and moan all they want about playing the strongest team possible in every game (and God knows they will) but the fact is, with a large squad and a long season Fergie will not do this. If this annoys some of our fans they need to live with it. It's the approach he's used throughout the most succesful era in the history of the club. He'll keep doing this until the day he retires.
He will always pick fixtures where he thinks he can take a few risks with his selection because he figures an under-strength United side will be too good for a very poor opposition. If that Blackburn side didn't constitute very poor opposition than no other team in the league does. In a game coming just a few days after spanking Blackburn with a weakened team (again, no Wayne Rooney) after our best away performance of the last two seasons against Fulham, I think he was absolutely entitled to go with his instincts and take a few punts with his team selection, in the assumption that we'd still be too good for them. Obviously, you disagree with this. You always do. Ho hum.
Then play Fryers in defence, Carrick in CM, Valencia at RM and Rafael at RB - one player out of position(Park), as opposed to 5. It's staggeringly obvious really.
Point being: If you think you're getting away with resting Giggs for Blackburn at home in free fall; why not play Fryers in defence so you only have ONE player out of position, as opposed to FIVE? Surely that has to be better? Don't you agree?
If it's true that our goals were a result of personal mistakes and being vulnerable to set pieces, what difference would Fryers partnering Jones have made?
I assume you're in the 'Fergie was unprofessional' camp too then?
I'm in the "he set his team up in a stupid way"-camp. Professionalism doesn't come into it - IMO, in this isolated match, he got it horribly wrong.
It would probably have made us even weaker in defence.
I don't know if you've been paying much attention to Fryers in the last few games he's played but he's looked raw as anything after his promising debut.
For all that Carrick struggled, feck knows how sticking young Zeki Fryers up against Yakubu (with Jones making his usual kamikaze runs upfield) makes any kind of sense.
You're ignoring the obvious positives of having Valencia in his most dangerous position the whole match, a Carrick pulling the strings in CM, Rafael in his full-back position, and Welbeck up front alongside Berba, for the potential struggles Fryers would have against Yakubu, ignoring the fact that one of Yak's goals came because of a big mistake from the man Fryers would've replaced in defence?
I think you're a bit off in this one Pogue. IMO, play as many players as you can in their natural positions. Resting people isn't the issue, experimenting with players in crazy positions is.
Who was rested?
Giggs and Anderson. Now stop ignoring what I say. Don't you agree that playing as many players as possible in their favoured positions is more likely to produce a good enough performance than fecking about needlessly with players positions?
If you still think Giggs was rested then you're ignoring what I say.
In addition, as already posted, Fergie clearly thought Anderson was unable to start the match as opposed to being rested.
Yes, but we're not privvy to the reasons why he didn't or couldn't.
One thing is for certain though, it wouldn't be because he was fecking about needlessly.
Fergie's comments on Giggs suggests he wasn't rested. Anderson was obviously deemed too big a risk to start the game having just returned from a two month absence.
If you can't understand why Fergie wanted to avoid partnering Fryers and Jones in central defence then god help you quite frankly.
If you can't understand why Fergie wanted to avoid partnering Fryers and Jones in central defence then god help you quite frankly.
As I said, even with the 11 players who started, we could've significantly reduced the number of players out of position.
With Fryers in, we could've played 1 player out of position.
I'm of the opinion he cocked up on this particular occasion. And it showed with the way he throwed in Anderson for the start of the second half, he wouldn't have done that if he was happy with the way it worked.