The first half performance yesterday

[amolbhatia50k]

Great result and all, but I'm interesting in understand our thinking behind setting up the way we did in the first half yesterday.

We seemed to just sit deep and stand off Spurs when they had the ball to the extent that we weren't really even pressing their central midfielders. Forget their centre backs or fullbacks, but even Sandro and livermore had time to take touches under no pressure and decide their next course of action. It was really strange to see 11 united players in their own half everytime spurs got the ball. Putting the result aside, what was the point of this exactly? And they didn't stand off us in return. They pressed us. Which resulted in them doing all the attackkng and us doing none.

 

[Denis' cuff]

Great result and all, but I'm interesting in understand our thinking behind setting up the way we did in the first half yesterday.

We seemed to just sit deep and stand off Spurs when they had the ball to the extent that we weren't really even pressing their central midfielders. Forget their centre backs or fullbacks, but even Sandro and livermore had time to take touches under no pressure and decide their next course of action. It was really strange to see 11 united players in their own half everytime spurs got the ball. Putting the result aside, what was the point of this exactly? And they didn't stand off us in return. They pressed us. Which resulted in them doing all the attackkng and us doing none.

fair enough but I also noticed that when United were in possession they too, usually had every man behind the ball and as a result, in the 1st half esp, it wasn't a spectacle because both teams stifled each other.

 

[Shimo]

Fergie took blame for that. Said got our tactics wrong in that we sat back and invited them on to us.

 

[Nathan]

It looked strange because in the first 15 minutes we looked in control and then Spurs gradually influenced the game more.

But we got the result which we hoped for.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

fair enough but I also noticed that when United were in possession they too, usually had every man behind the ball and as a result, in the 1st half esp, it wasn't a spectacle because both teams stifled each other.

Didn't see it that way. While they didn't press in full tilt, they were doing it while we just sat back. It just seemed a bit pointless and counterproductive give we needed the win more than them.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Fergie took blame for that. Said got our tactics wrong in that we sat back and invited them on to us.

Quotes?

If so, I'm interested in the thinking behind those tactics. Doesn't really make any sensed to me.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Didn't see it that way. While they didn't press in full tilt, they were doing it while we just sat back. It just seemed a bit pointless and counterproductive give we needed the win more than them.

We played like the away team. They played like the home team.

Both teams wanted the win as badly as each other. A draw would have been a better result for us than it would for them.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

We played like the away team. They played like the home team.

Both teams wanted the win as badly as each other. A draw would have been a better result for us than it would for them.

Like a mid-table away team maybe.

Why would a draw would have been a better result for them? Aren't they quite comfortable with respect to a fourth place finish despite Arsenal threatening their 3rd place position?

I'm actually not angered by the display or anything like that. I'm genuinely interested in knowing what the thinking behind it woud be. I think we rarely see us ever camped in our own half the way we were unless we're up against a team like Barcelona who have the kind of quality to destroy teams if they are adventurous but it didn't seem to make sense against Spurs. Fergie sems to have admitted he got it wrong (as per the post above) so I'm wondering if he did get it wrong, what was the initial thinking. Did we overestimate Spurs? Hard to believe given we usually get the better of them.

 

[Stack]

Thats simply setting up your defense with an intention to counter attack. Teams dont simply counter attack by being quick on the break, they actually have certain things they do when not in possession that enables counter attacking football.
Drop off, dont press the opposition defenders, let them play the ball. Once the opposition enter your own half you then "encourage their play to the flanks or central so that you can then "trap" the opposition players in a confined area with the ball and then attempt to win it. For fans who havent worked out whats going on it can be frustrating. Fans will not understand why the team wont press and see the other team with tons more possession and able to pass the ball around happily. If you ever see utd with low possession stats its often a case of Fergie setting the teams defensive patterns up with a view to counter.

Great result and all, but I'm interesting in understand our thinking behind setting up the way we did in the first half yesterday.

We seemed to just sit deep and stand off Spurs when they had the ball to the extent that we weren't really even pressing their central midfielders. Forget their centre backs or fullbacks, but even Sandro and livermore had time to take touches under no pressure and decide their next course of action. It was really strange to see 11 united players in their own half everytime spurs got the ball. Putting the result aside, what was the point of this exactly? And they didn't stand off us in return. They pressed us. Which resulted in them doing all the attackkng and us doing none.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Thats simply setting up your defense with an intention to counter attack. Teams dont simply counter attack by being quick on the break, they actually have certain things they do when not in possession that enables counter attacking football.
Drop off, dont press the opposition defenders, let them play the ball. Once the opposition enter your own half you then "encourage their play to the flanks or central so that you can then "trap" the opposition players in a confined area with the ball and then attempt to win it. For fans who havent worked out whats going on it can be frustrating. Fans will not understand why the team wont press and see the other team with tons more possession and able to pass the ball around happily. If you ever see utd with low possession stats its often a case of Fergie setting the teams defensive patterns up with a view to counter.

Interesting. That makes a lot of sense.

But then having sat back and knicked the ball off them when they commit, shouldn't we be breaking with pace and urgency? We seemed to pop it about very slowly when we finally got the ball. In fact, Scholes and Carrick in central midfield in my mind seems more suited to possession football than counter attack football because neither of them is going to make up an extra man driving forward in the counter.

 

[Stack]

Well both Scholes and Carrick are capable of long range passes to breaking strikers or wide players so both those players are complete all round players.
Another point is that when you set up your defensive duties with a view to counter attacking all players have their own roles.
When the opposition win the ball at the back or maybe the keeper has it you will see strikers drop off quickly. The reason for this is you want the keeper to play it to one of his defenders. This gives the defenders passing options in their own half and as the rest of our team drops away the opposition all move forward as a team. 2 benefits here, firstly we have drawn the opposition forward and created spaces behind and often out wide to exploit once we win the ball. the other benefit is that play becomes compressed in our half with most players being in that half. This means that there are less spaces to pass in to that are not under immediate pressure.
Im not sure why we werent breaking faster but sometimes when setting up to counter attack you dont want to counter attack everytime you win the ball in your own defensive third. that would be predictable and easy for the opposition to prepare for. Sometimes you have a trigger which the entire team knows as a reason to charge forward. it may be that a key opposition defender has been dragged forward past a certain point or has been dragged across to one side beyond a certain point. Lots of other triggers can come into play.

 

[Beachryan]

I was thinking the same thing while watching tbh. As much as you say we were set up to counter, that wasn't defensive as much as suicidal. When we play Arsenal we set up on the counter and they tend to create nothing because we're organised and composed - but Spurs really should have been well ahead by half time imo.

It was interesting that we didn't really press in the first half at all. It was a stark contrast to the big game Saturday when Liverpool were all over Arsenal - who could barely string 3 passes together til the 35th minute. And yes, I know the result in that game, but an ounce of finishing ability and the Scousers should have been home and dry with 3 points. I know we don't really want Scholes and Carrick chasing midfielders around as neither is very mobile, but you wonder if a more dynamic player could have put the Spurs' midfielder under some pressure. Because we shouldn't look that bad against Sandro and Livermore.

What is also true is how often in the past we've been on the other side of that dynamic. We dominate play for 89 minutes, but often concede off 1 or 2 chances from the opposition. I wonder if there is strange psychology of teams that create fewer chances taking a higher proportion of them.

 

[Ish]

Frustrating performance, but job done I guess.

These type of performances were actually reminiscent of some of our away performances last year - we've come up against a younger, hungrier, pacier side whos pressed us from the back and we concede possession too easily.

The only difference is, this season we have some match winners (Nani, Rooney, Young) and our defence is in a much better state (Evans, Rio) so we are able to do what potential champions must do - get the points when you're being outplayed.

I also honestly don't think SAF got the tactics wrong - he is not responsible for our players hopelessly giving the ball away in our own half when pressurised. We lacked composure on the ball, especially in the first half IMO. For all their possession, I struggle to recall more than 1 or 2 half chances (and a couple of shots from outside the box) Spurs created.

(Though I really had the feeling that we were always only playing in 2nd gear and if we had to concede we could have upped it a level or 3.)

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Well both Scholes and Carrick are capable of long range passes to breaking strikers or wide players so both those players are complete all round players.
Another point is that when you set up your defensive duties with a view to counter attacking all players have their own roles.
When the opposition win the ball at the back or maybe the keeper has it you will see strikers drop off quickly. The reason for this is you want the keeper to play it to one of his defenders. This gives the defenders passing options in their own half and as the rest of our team drops away the opposition all move forward as a team. 2 benefits here, firstly we have drawn the opposition forward and created spaces behind and often out wide to exploit once we win the ball. the other benefit is that play becomes compressed in our half with most players being in that half. This means that there are less spaces to pass in to that are not under immediate pressure.
Im not sure why we werent breaking faster but sometimes when setting up to counter attack you dont want to counter attack everytime you win the ball in your own defensive third. that would be predictable and easy for the opposition to prepare for. Sometimes you have a trigger which the entire team knows as a reason to charge forward. it may be that a key opposition defender has been dragged forward past a certain point or has been dragged across to one side beyond a certain point. Lots of other triggers can come into play.

Well, not really. They do very specific jobs. They both sit deep and spray passes about. Surely, for good counter attacking football you need a lot of energy and legs in addition to the ability to think and play a pass quickly. Just having the latter just leads to a lot of static play which ends up being slow possession (which isn't wrong but goes against the way we set up). Personally I see the combination of Carrick and Scholes completely suited to possession football.

As for "triggers", it's an interesting point. But from what I've seen, triggers to counter attack generally open up through a certain level of intensity and quick interchanges. You usually two or three quick and precise meaningful passes and they open up space to work with. I don't think it just happens on it's own and it didn't yesterday hence we didn't really counter.

 

[Siorac]

Thats simply setting up your defense with an intention to counter attack. Teams dont simply counter attack by being quick on the break, they actually have certain things they do when not in possession that enables counter attacking football.
Drop off, dont press the opposition defenders, let them play the ball. Once the opposition enter your own half you then "encourage their play to the flanks or central so that you can then "trap" the opposition players in a confined area with the ball and then attempt to win it. For fans who havent worked out whats going on it can be frustrating. Fans will not understand why the team wont press and see the other team with tons more possession and able to pass the ball around happily. If you ever see utd with low possession stats its often a case of Fergie setting the teams defensive patterns up with a view to counter.

That would be a nice theory, except we did almost no counter-attacking in the first 65 minutes or so. We were just camped in our own half, constantly harassed and hassled, not allowed to ever settle on the ball, not being able to assert ourselves in any way or form.

Spurs' woeful defending and the excellence of Ferdinand, Evans and De Gea "saved us". I feel we'd have been better off with Bale starting for Spurs as with a Modric-Sandro/Livermore central pairing they couldn't have overloaded Carrick and Scholes the way they did. As it was we barely got a kick and more often than not ended up losing the ball before getting even to the halfway line. Spurs seemed to have numerical advantage in every single area of the pitch except our own 16-yard box.

 

[Stack]

Yes really. Dont be sucked in to thinking there is just one way to counter attack and that it only involves players bombing forward. Dont be sucked in to thinking that players are only suited to one type of play. The modern era doesnt allow players to be one dimensional.
Scholes and Carrick are perfect for counter attacking, as would be a younger Scholes when he used to arrive late into the penalty box.

Counter attacks can be launched from a direct dribble through the middle or from out wide, they can be launched from a switch of play to an exposed flank, they can be launched from a direct ball to a forward sitting attacker who in turn might lay it off and then attack space leaving a defender in 2 minds as to what to cover, they can be launched from a deep defense splitting pass or 2 and 3 players racing forward interchanging. Counter attacks can be launched while employing any formation. All those details all depend on the managers playing model.

Triggers are not as restrictive as you describe them. triggers can be just about anything. A key player out of position, an overload of players, a reaction to an opposition overlapping fullback. They are as the name implies a signal that now a reaction happens.

Well, not really. They do very specific jobs. They both sit deep and spray passes about. Surely, for good counter attacking football you need a lot of energy and legs in addition to the ability to think and play a pass quickly. Just having the latter just leads to a lot of static play which ends up being slow possession (which isn't wrong but goes against the way we set up). Personally I see the combination of Carrick and Scholes completely suited to possession football.

As for "triggers", it's an interesting point. But from what I've seen, triggers to counter attack generally open up through a certain level of intensity and quick interchanges. You usually two or three quick and precise meaningful passes and they open up space to work with. I don't think it just happens on it's own and it didn't yesterday hence we didn't really counter.

 

[Stack]

As I mentioned above counter attacks dont have to happen every time a team wins the ball back and a professional team might just be waiting till the time is right.

That would be a nice theory, except we did almost no counter-attacking in the first 65 minutes or so. We were just camped in our own half, constantly harassed and hassled, not allowed to ever settle on the ball, not being able to assert ourselves in any way or form.

Spurs' woeful defending and the excellence of Ferdinand, Evans and De Gea "saved us". I feel we'd have been better off with Bale starting for Spurs as with a Modric-Sandro/Livermore central pairing they couldn't have overloaded Carrick and Scholes the way they did. As it was we barely got a kick and more often than not ended up losing the ball before getting even to the halfway line. Spurs seemed to have numerical advantage in every single area of the pitch except our own 16-yard box.

 

[Siorac]

As I mentioned above counter attacks dont have to happen every time a team wins the ball back and a professional team might just be waiting till the time is right.

Come on. It was a backs-to-the-wall effort, we were dominated all over the park, it certainly wasn't part of some subtle tactical plan. Two well-executed set-pieces - with horrible defending from Spurs - gave us the cushion that we needed to grow into the game.

We did basically no counter-attacking for over an hour, you're having a laugh if you think that was intentional or "waiting for the right time". That's not how Sir Alex Ferguson teams work: not choosing to attack at White Hart Lane where we always win.

Why you feel the need to dress it up into something it wasn't?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Yes really. Dont be sucked in to thinking there is just one way to counter attack and that it only involves players bombing forward. Dont be sucked in to thinking that players are only suited to one type of play. The modern era doesnt allow players to be one dimensional.
Scholes and Carrick are perfect for counter attacking, as would be a younger Scholes when he used to arrive late into the penalty box.

Counter attacks can be launched from a direct dribble through the middle or from out wide, they can be launched from a switch of play to an exposed flank, they can be launched from a direct ball to a forward sitting attacker who in turn might lay it off and then attack space leaving a defender in 2 minds as to what to cover, they can be launched from a deep defense splitting pass or 2 and 3 players racing forward interchanging. Counter attacks can be launched while employing any formation. All those details all depend on the managers playing model.

Triggers are not as restrictive as you describe them. triggers can be just about anything. A key player out of position, an overload of players, a reaction to an opposition overlapping fullback. They are as the name implies a signal that now a reaction happens.

You're giving all these apparent alternative ways to counter attacking but the problem is that none of them were implemented.

And that last paragraph doesn't make sense to me. So a team that sets out to counter attack waits for an opportunity to counter attack and if it doesn't see an obvious sign just decides to play the exact opposite tactic of possession of football instead? So what, the manager gives his team talk and states that 'we're going to counter attack against this lot, guys, because they're susceptable to it, but only do it those rare times someone is out of position. So really, I'm just telling you to play possession football with the odd surprise counter attack.' Sorry, genuinely trying to understand the logic of that.

 

[Stack]

OK there are crossed wires here.
I was trying to explain that how we were sitting deep and under the cosh could have been because we might have been defensively set up to counter attack and i mentioned that Fergie "often" sets up this way.

I also did mention that you may not counter attack everytime you win the ball back and I did try and explain that might be because you dont want to be predictable.

What is happening here is I try to explain a question of yours but Im not meaning it is neccesarily in the context of our game on the weekend, im trying to explain some principles of counter attacking in general. So we end up in circular arguments.

For example re the crossed purposes...

I was trying to explain that there are many different ways to counter attack and that different types of players can counter attack in different ways and that also players are not one dimensional and can use different methods. That was in response to your comments about Scholes and Carrick and wasnt in response to the game on the weekend.

Maybe we werent set up to counter attack, maybe we were. I simply started by explaining why it might be that we were sitting back. From there we have got to crossed purposes.

You're giving all these apparent alternative ways to counter attacking but the problem is that none of them were implemented.

And that last paragraph doesn't make sense to me. So a team that sets out to counter attack waits for an opportunity to counter attack and if it doesn't see an obvious sign just decides to play the exact opposite tactic of possession of football instead? So what, the manager gives his team talk and states that 'we're going to counter attack against this lot, guys, because they're susceptable to it, but only do it those rare times someone is out of position. So really, I'm just telling you to play possession football with the odd surprise counter attack.' Sorry, genuinely trying to understand the logic of that.

 

[Stack]

Ok, this is not with respect to the game just played.

If you set up defensively with a view to counter attack and win the ball but the opposition havent been sucked in to presenting the right chance you will still try and attack but you wont use the method you have practiced.

For example if defensively you set up to draw the opposition forward and then squeeze them across to the right side before pressing and winning the ball you are probably looking to switch the ball quickly to the left side and counter attack from there. However if the opposition havent been dragged across enough when you win the ball and you see that option isnt open enough you probably will instead just play whats in front of you.

So a team that sets out to counter attack waits for an opportunity to counter attack and if it doesn't see an obvious sign just decides to play the exact opposite tactic of possession of football instead? So what, the manager gives his team talk and states that 'we're going to counter attack against this lot, guys, because they're susceptable to it, but only do it those rare times someone is out of position. So really, I'm just telling you to play possession football with the odd surprise counter attack.' Sorry, genuinely trying to understand the logic of that.

 

[Brophs]

Sometimes you just get things wrong. Not a major crime given that Spurs usually play very much on the front foot with the pace they have in that team.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I don't think anyone could really have predicted the pressure and rate of closing down that Spurs would do yesterday. I might be wrong, but I don't remember them playing that aggresively in any recent games, and they certainly weren't like that against Arsenal.

Sometimes you just can't predict what the opposition will do and yesterday was one of those games. Ultimately our players were good enough without the ball nullify Tottenham's threat in the main, and we were effective enough with the ball in the second half to win the game comfortably.

 

[apotheosis]

Ok, this is not with respect to the game just played.

If you set up defensively with a view to counter attack and win the ball but the opposition havent been sucked in to presenting the right chance you will still try and attack but you wont use the method you have practiced.

For example if defensively you set up to draw the opposition forward and then squeeze them across to the right side before pressing and winning the ball you are probably looking to switch the ball quickly to the left side and counter attack from there. However if the opposition havent been dragged across enough when you win the ball and you see that option isnt open enough you probably will instead just play whats in front of you.

You have come up with lots of different scenarios explaining how and why certain forms of counter attacking can be used, and how triggers can be used to activate them.

The problem being we did none of those things yesterday. Whatever tactics were employed are redundant when we give the ball away so often. For me, Sandro targeted Scholes to stop him dictating our play, this forced us further and further back and isolated our attackers. It's as simple as that for me.

Rio and Evans were superb and kept us in it until Rooney's header demoralised Spurs just before half time.

In regards to amolbhatia's initial question, i felt that SAF thought it would be an open game of football, and the passing skills and ability to keep possession of both Carrick and Scholes would be enough to give us the edge. Especially with Parker and Bale both out. Spurs pressed us really well and didn't allow us time on the ball, and our gameplan suffered as a result, until Rooney's goal.

 

[kps88]

You know its going well when we beat the third placed team despite getting it completely wrong tactically.

 

[King_Eric]

For games like yesterday's, I wish we would go back to the good old 4-5-1. Our midfield was just overrun yesterday. He could have taken Welbeck off for Giggs or Anderson and moved Rooney a bit more upfield.

I'm still not sure this 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 is ever going to work against good opposition. Especially away from home.

 

[mariachi-19]

We've done it a couple of times against Arsenal in the past. Drop off, and then hit them on the counter until we get a foot hole in the sense of a goal or otherwise and then exert dominance from there.

 

[King_Eric]

We've done it a couple of times against Arsenal in the past. Drop off, and then hit them on the counter until we get a foot hole in the sense of a goal or otherwise and then exert dominance from there.

The Emirates-games between 09 and 11 are the best examples of that 4-5-1 in my opinion. But also a lot of the Champions League away games last few seasons, mainly in the knock-outs. For example the game at the San Siro two years back. I was always extremely confident with those line-ups.

I said it last year after the 1-0 loss at the Emirates as well. I didn't understand why Fergie would change his proven tactic for that game. He obviously wants to change back to a 4-4-2 system in general, but maybe he should still make the exception in the big games to go for the 4-5-1 until the 4-4-2 is working a bit better.

Yesterday we had a man short in the middle and in the mean time, the extra man we had up front was wasted because there was no supply whatsoever.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

For games like yesterday's, I wish we would go back to the good old 4-5-1. Our midfield was just overran yesterday. He could have taken Welbeck off for Giggs or Anderson and moved Rooney a bit more upfield.

I'm still not sure this 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 is ever going to work against good opposition. Especially away from home.

Thing is, Spurs were playing a 4-4-2 as well... so on that basis, there was nothing wrong with us also going 4-4-2 (or 4-4-1-1 to combat it).

The problem came from the intensity of their closing down from their front 6 (which was surely unexpected... fecking Adebayor worked harder off the ball then I have seen him work for a long time)... and the fact that Modric would drift inside (ala Park vs. Chelsea last season) to almost give them 3 against our two (and we didn't really use Nani and Jones well enough to combat this).


On paper though, there was nothing wrong with our formation, and I don't think anyone was complaining at the start of the game when Nani - Carrick - Scholes - Young squared off against Lennon - Livermore - Sandro - Modric... obviously from a tactical standpoint as the first half progressed it was clear that Tottenham were getting the better of us.

 

[RedDevilCanuck]

We miss Fletcher in games like this.

 

[King_Eric]

Thing is, Spurs were playing a 4-4-2 as well... so on that basis, there was nothing wrong with us also going 4-4-2 (or 4-4-1-1 to combat it).

The problem came from the intensity of their closing down from their front 6 (which was surely unexpected... fecking Adebayor worked harder off the ball then I have seen him work for a long time)... and the fact that Modric would drift inside (ala Park vs. Chelsea last season) to almost give them 3 against our two (and we didn't really use Nani and Jones well enough to combat this).

On paper though, there was nothing wrong with our formation, and I don't think anyone was complaining at the start of the game when Nani - Carrick - Scholes - Young squared off against Lennon - Livermore - Sandro - Modric... obviously from a tactical standpoint as the first half progressed it was clear that Tottenham were getting the better of us.

As you say, Modric was constantly drifting towards the middle, effectively making Spurs play with a midfield 3. I'm not sure if that was Redknapp's plan or it's just Modric' inability to play as a real winger, but it made it very difficult for our midfield.

I'm not saying I disagreed with the formation on paper before the game, but I was a little frustrated during the game that Fergie didn't do anything to try and change things a little (or at least that's how it seemed). Maybe by dropping Rooney further back towards midfield, I don't know.

But you're right in saying that Spurs really did an excellent job closing us down and putting pressure very high up the field. To be honest, I didn't think they would last the whole game, and in the end they didn't. But if they'd scored one or two in that first half, the game would've gone very differently. We were quite lucky to go into half time 0-1 up. We mainly have Ferdinand, Evans and De Gea to thank for that. They did an immense job yesterday.

 

[apotheosis]

We miss Fletcher in games like this.

Really? Don't get that one. Sandro keeping close attention on Scholes and denying him the room to dictate our play, how would Fletcher's presence have changed that?

 

[apotheosis]

But you're right in saying that Spurs really did an excellent job closing us down and putting pressure very high up the field. To be honest, I didn't think they would last the whole game, and in the end they didn't. But if they'd scored one or two in that first half, the game would've gone very differently. We were quite lucky to go into half time 0-1 up. We mainly have Ferdinand, Evans and De Gea to thank for that. They did an immense job yesterday

Spot on.

 

[Red Devil 26]

Spurs clearly had a game plan, which quite easily could have worked. I remember Harry saying something in his post match interview, about training preparations, with particular reference to closing Scholes and Carrick down. It's definitely a problem with that midfield duo in particular, as they both aren't very mobile. Obviously not every team are accomplished in enough to carry out, and maintain such pressing jobs throughout the majority of the game, but when they do we struggle. Think the Norwich game was an example of this too.

Liverpool usually do it very well against us, especially at Anfield. Which is why I was surprised they gave Scholes and Carrick all the space in the world to dominate proceedings, like they did a few weeks ago.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

As you say, Modric was constantly drifting towards the middle, effectively making Spurs play with a midfield 3. I'm not sure if that was Redknapp's plan or it's just Modric' inability to play as a real winger, but it made it very difficult for our midfield.

I'm not saying I disagreed with the formation on paper before the game, but I was a little frustrated during the game that Fergie didn't do anything to try and change things a little (or at least that's how it seemed). Maybe by dropping Rooney further back towards midfield, I don't know.

But you're right in saying that Spurs really did an excellent job closing us down and putting pressure very high up the field. To be honest, I didn't think they would last the whole game, and in the end they didn't. But if they'd scored one or two in that first half, the game would've gone very differently. We were quite lucky to go into half time 0-1 up. We mainly have Ferdinand, Evans and De Gea to thank for that. They did an immense job yesterday.

Aye, I see where you're coming from... but we do have hindsight on our side, and it's difficult to know what he really could have done about it at the time(bar brining on an extra midfielder, though is that really a first half option?). Wayne was droppoing deeper and deeper as the game progressed, and he still ended up really helping out from a defensive standpoint until we score the 3rd. Also, he probably also thought that Spurs wouldn't keep it up for the entire half, and whilst they weren't overly troubling us offensively (bar an Adebayor shot and the disallowed goal) he might have just wanted to keep it the same, thinking we'd grow into the game as the half wore on.

Ultimately I think we should could maybe used Nani better. When Modric came inside, he perhaps could have done as well... or we could have moved the ball out to that wing quicker on getting the ball and try to use both Jones and Nani to exploit the space that Modric left. I reckon that's easier said then done mind as Modric was working very hard for most of the game.

 

[Ash_G]

I think we should have moved Rooney deeper to help scholes and carrick out. I don't think them not dealing with the pace of spur's midfield is a particular problem, we've done it to arsenal many times when they've had very talented players, I just feel we didn't handle it well. If rooney had dropped deeper then we could have had an extra option for them to pass too. Also Modric kept drifting inside which helped them to outnumber us.

In hindsight Giggs would have been the better choice given his mobility but then if Bale had played he would have stayed wide which would have opened up space for our midfielders. At the end of the day I think we should have got Rooney to drop deeper and also we just have to say that a few of our players had an off game. Attackingly a lot of the players were very wasetful in possession which invited the pressure back on us, and I think both the fall backs were quite poor in their distribution, which again led to them just getting the ball back.

 

[Ray Peterson]

I thought we were wasteful when we had the ball and the passing/rhythm of the team just couldn't get going. We were hassled and harried when we had the ball and we didn't put them under enough pressure when they had it.

It's the worst I've seen us since we lost to Newcastle, but we won and that's the most important thing.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I think we should have moved Rooney deeper to help scholes and carrick out. I don't think them not dealing with the pace of spur's midfield is a particular problem, we've done it to arsenal many times when they've had very talented players, I just feel we didn't handle it well. If rooney had dropped deeper then we could have had an extra option for them to pass too. Also Modric kept drifting inside which helped them to outnumber us.

In hindsight Giggs would have been the better choice given his mobility but then if Bale had played he would have stayed wide which would have opened up space for our midfielders. At the end of the day I think we should have got Rooney to drop deeper and also we just have to say that a few of our players had an off game. Attackingly a lot of the players were very wasetful in possession which invited the pressure back on us, and I think both the fall backs were quite poor in their distribution, which again led to them just getting the ball back.

Rooney had started dropping quite deep in the first half in fairness, mainly to help when we didn't have the ball though (and in fairness, we did generally play quite well when we didn't have the ball), the problem was that he too wasn't really having his best half of football, and his touch/passing was seemingly also letting him down, and he was just as guilty as Scholes and Carrick for wilting under the constant Spurs pressure... I'm not sure dropping him so deep that we became a typical midfield 5 would have combatted it totally (though may have helped slightly).

As I said, I think we needed to use our wingers better and more effectively (particularly Nani), as well as switch the play across the pitch lot quicker then we were doing. Another thing was that Carrick and Scholes' long passing wasn't anywhere near as good as it has been in the past few weeks (against Norwich they completed 12 out of 14 long passes or something like that) and we seemingly were very slow to switch play across the pitch, often taken 3 or 4 passes to do so, in which time Tottenham had closed us down quite effectively and stolen possession.

 

[Ash_G]

Rooney had started dropping quite deep in the first half in fairness, mainly to help when we didn't have the ball though (and in fairness, we did generally play quite well when we didn't have the ball), the problem was that he too wasn't really having his best half of football, and his touch/passing was seemingly also letting him down, and he was just as guilty as Scholes and Carrick for wilting under the constant Spurs pressure... I'm not sure dropping him so deep that we became a typical midfield 5 would have combatted it totally (though may have helped slightly).

As I said, I think we needed to use our wingers better and more effectively (particularly Nani), as well as switch the play across the pitch lot quicker then we were doing. Another thing was that Carrick and Scholes' long passing wasn't anywhere near as good as it has been in the past few weeks (against Norwich they completed 12 out of 14 long passes or something like that) and we seemingly were very slow to switch play across the pitch, often taken 3 or 4 passes to do so, in which time Tottenham had closed us down quite effectively and stolen possession.

Yeah fair point, the bigger issue probably was that the likes of Rooney didn't make best use of the ball but whilst he did drop deep, I dunno I felt like he didn't do it to as good a level as he has in the past, as you said though that could have been because of his (and others) poor use of the ball.

I agree we didn't get the ball out to the wingers well enough or when we did it was in bad positions, Nani for example was always having to come towards our goal and not being able to turn to face theirs. Like I said though I think the problem there was the poor use of the ball by the fall backs and the likes of Rooney and Welbeck who were having off games.

I think mostly we let spurs set the speed of the game and it wasn't too our favour. We needed to slow down the game. It was similar to how we sucked chelsea in to playing at top speed against us. We weren't at our best and then trying to play quick was a mistake, especially where they had two very powerful strikers up top.

Still it was a tough game and although they dominated the ball they didn't really create too much, which is good.

 

[Shimo]

Quotes?

If so, I'm interested in the thinking behind those tactics. Doesn't really make any sensed to me.

In his post match interview.

Fergie up for the challenge | Sky Sports | Video | Football | Premier League | Manchester United

Right at the beginning of the video talks about it.