4-5-1, 4-4-2, or 4-3-3

[Motterman]

Which formation should United employ?

What would be your best XI with your choice?

[prk166]

For the prem, I still think the ol 442 is where it's at.

RvN - Saha / Rooney
Giggs - Scholes - Keane - CRon
Heinze - Silvestre - Rio - GNev
Howard

[Achtung]

For the prem, I still think the ol 442 is where it's at.

RvN - Saha / Rooney
Giggs - Scholes - Keane - CRon
Heinze - Silvestre - Rio - GNev
Howard

I also like that formation. The key thing though is whether Ruud should play ahead of Rooney, or as a strike partner. Ruud is really most effective on his own up top, and he's never been able to play that well with a partner, be it Solskjaer, Forlan, Saha, or now Rooney. I'd go more with a 4-4-1-1 style of attack, with Rooney just ahead of Scholes and offset, while Ruud goes up top (it's much easier to explain by doing it in Winning Eleven!).

If a team bunkers against us, I have no problem switching to a 4-3-3 though, to get more spread of the ball.

[50 Euro]

I like the 4-4-2, but the 4-3-3 has really clicked at times this year. In Ruud's absence any of the three healthy, in-form out of Giggs, Ronaldo, Smith and Rooney, and the midfield of Fletcher, Scholes and Keane was rock-solid. As for the future, still thinking that one over...I have my doubts about Ruud's ability in this formation, he's seems better suited for the good old 4-4-2.

Just a reminder, here's the lineup that made the Gunners cry at Highbury :cool: :

Gary-Rio-Silv-Heinze
Fletch-Keano-Scholes
Ronaldo-Rooney-Giggs

[johno]

I voted 4-3-3... for a few reasons... we can play Ruud as the target man as he is used to... we can allow Scholes to play attacking and not drop back quite as deep as he usually does in a 442 and we allow Rooney room to create...

here's my idea...

Rooney-----------Ruud-----------Ronaldo
-----------------Scholes
--------Keane----vvvvv----Fletch
Heinze----Tweety-------Rio----GaryNeville
-------------------GK

Giggs when in form or when others need rest will displace one of either Rooney or Ronaldo...

[Achtung]

I have my doubts about Ruud's ability in this formation, he's seems better suited for the good old 4-4-2.

Yeah but remember, Ruud plays the targetman in a 4-3-3 for Holland, and that worked out pretty well for them last summer. In fact he seems to be at his weakest in a pure 4-4-2, though I still voted for it because I think our team is overall best buited to that.

[50 Euro]

Yeah but remember, Ruud plays the targetman in a 4-3-3 for Holland, and that worked out pretty well for them last summer. In fact he seems to be at his weakest in a pure 4-4-2, though I still voted for it because I think our team is overall best buited to that.
True. His play for Holland never even factored into my post :rolleyes: . I was thinking purely from a Utd perspective, and comparing Ruud's style of play to those who have flourished in that role for Utd this season (Smith/Rooney). Perhaps I'm judging Ruud a bit too harshly and in light off his recent return from injury, and here's to him netting a few in that role tomorrow :) .

[Invincible]

I'd play a 4-5-1 like this:

----------------Ruud------------

----------------Rooney-----

--Giggs----Keane---Scholes---Ronaldo

---Heinze---Brown---Ferdinand---G.Neville

------------Howard-------------

[United Forever]

I actually voted other. In my opinion I still believe that we can play with three defenders at the back with a 3-5-2. Dont know if this is stubbornes not to give up on the idea or what.

[Mac_Howard]

The three figure formation doesn't do it these days, does it? This is the way I'd like to see it:


................................RvN

..............................Rooney

<<<Giggs.....................................Ronaldo>>>

..............................Scholes

..............................Keane

Henze..........Sivestre/Brown.....Rio...........Gary

..........................A. N. Other

We need to get Giggs and Ronaldo in behind the fullbacks. We seem reluctant to do that yet it's by far the best way of dealing with these two banks of 4 we constantly meet particularly at OT. By far our best chance against Milan was when RvN played Giggs in on the left and he hit the post. Yet nothing like it happened again.

I don't agree with those who say Keane and Scholes are insufficient cover for defence. Against Milan Ronaldo, Giggs and Rooney were marked out of the game and Roy and Paul were always up against 3 and sometimes 4/5 world class midfielders. Yet Milan only managed 3 shots on goal in the full 90 minutes. If they can handle Milan they can handle anything in the Premiership.

It's time that Utd get back to playing attacking football and putting the opposition to the sword. This "patient" stuff has had it's day. What's more it's failed abysmally. One commentator has said that since 99 Utd have only won one, repeat ONE, knockout tie in the CL. I don't know if that's true but it can't be far from the truth. And, of course, we're about to see a third Premiership go to another club (and If Arsenal hadn't bottled it it could have been 4).

The "more sophisticated" game Utd have played for 3 or 4 years now clearly hasn't been successful. Time to get back to Utd basics and start winning and entertaining the world as our reputation has it.

[johno]

good imput machoward however, remember that we tried to play a different game with the same players... had we brought in different players we would have been fine... however, its been the impatience and the fear of failure that makes all our experiements just that, experiments... we never stick to it, or rather never invest enough in it, be it time or funds, one of them is always lacking when we try something new...

I also believe that if we are going to play Rooney off of Ruud then Scholes can't be in the side if we really hope to beat great sides... Rooney is doing now what Scholes does best... if Scholes is going to play as deep as he has been we might as well play a player who can help Keane out more than he can defensively and does not desire to go forward as much... the problem with this is that that player must be a proficient passer with good vision and distribution... we need a Xabi Alonso, a Baraja or a Pirlo, someone who can influence the game from deep, we need a field general....

wow.. that was certainly long winded but you guys get my point I hope. Basically, to cover what I said.... we cant play Scholes as a stay at home CM, it makes him average so either we play Rooney on a wing or as a true partner to Ruud and we let Scholes fill the space behind the strikers... this is mainly dependent on the strength of our defence since Keane will be left all the work to do... we'd either need a young Keane or a good DM with a stellar partner for Rio.

[Dark Savante]

I have no idea what formation we should play. Fact is, in the league any system we choose should be sufficient because we are simply superior to most of our opposition. Keano could play on in the EPL for another 2yrs and still be a dominant force if he has young legs beside him.

The problem, as ever, comes when we are in Europe. There we are par or even sometimes up against superior 'artists; or at least opposition so good as to punish you for what seems to be nothing, in their own half. Not sure I can agree with a cavalier approach for Europe machoward. We played that way 'on our way up' out of quite a bit of naivete - we were more often than not the underdog against these 'super powers' and we played a very basic but devestating game because it was all we could do at the time.

You need a lot more about you to win the CL. Cavalier teams don't often win the thing and once we won it we became an accepted part of the hierachy and I believe it forced us to play a more sophisticated game. The way we used to play was exhilerating, enthralling and as a fan it was a pleasure to watch..but I bet it gave the manager and coaching staff nightmares. We'd ofen concede in the first 5 minutes and then just 'go for it' for the rest of a match. Even in Turin we were 2 down within 20minutes...it is understandable that a manager and his coaching staff would want to cut this kind of thing out. It's the stuff dreams are made of and it maks for legendary memories of a heroic team..when it works.. when it doesn't you look like a naive team who is way out of its depth.

Anyways, we defintely do not have the components to play a rampant 4-4-2 in Europe anymore. The midfield has to be full of energy, commitment and work-rate for it to work properly and our old legs simply cannot do that anymore..having Ronaldo in the 4-4-2 also makes it more vulnerable than a 24yr old Becham does. If you remember at the time, we had the fastest counter attack in Europe. No matter which side the ball fell on we had the means to get the ball to the opposition goal within 4-10seconds...and we had the most mobile strike-force United has ever seen! these are things we just don't have now and I think we have to accept that and try and make a breakthorough with another system - if you want a 4-4-2 in Europe we need new personnel (in the midfield), simple as. Our 4-4-2 in the late 90's was more like a 4-5-2... if it wasn't for Keane, we couldn't have ever played it like that and if we were to revert back to it we would again need a 2-in-one kinda guy a super-hero., if you will :)

If you look at the systems that are out there it is extremely rare to see an orthodox 4-4-2 in the latter stages of the CL. By the SF I bet there wont be a single one. If we want success in that competition again (fergie desperately does) then we will ave to conform OR become trail-blazers once more. *Having flash-backs to the movie 'The Incredibles' right about now :D

As a unit, Giggs-Scholes-Keane-other have seen their last hurrah in the CL with that 2-legged loss to Milan. Something has to give by this time next year. As I was just thinking about players who would make the orthodox 4-4-2 work as it did this instantly popped into my head:

-------------Ruud/Saha
------Rooney/Scholes
Giggs-Gerrard-Essien-Ronaldo
Hienze-Keane-Rio-G.Neville
---------Howard/other

..That aint never gonna happen. Seeing that brings home to me just how much energy you need in the middle for a 4-4-2 to work in Europe. Don't know how anyone else feels but I'm thinking with the current team, the 4-3-3 or some variant is our best option with the current squad, with a Fletcher or other extra man in midfield to help Keane and Scholes. I think Fergie's hand has been forced into that system this year, with good reason.

[Mac_Howard]

You guys are still siuffering from depression following our worst 4 days for many a long time ;) We went out to a superb side playing the Porto/Greece style but with superb players. There was no shame in going out to Milan.

What's more we played with an attacking formation that has only taken the field once before in the entire 2004/5 season. There was little cohesion - these players are still playing very much an individual game - and Milan recognised the danger in Ronaldo, Giggs and Rooney and saw to it that they were always double and even triple teamed. Add to that RvN is still far from sharp and you have the situation where Keane and Scholes just had nowhere to go when they received or won possession. That was the cause of much of their ineffectiveness in midfield.

I respectfully disagree with you johno on several points. We gave the 5 man midfield a great deal of time. A good three years so far. We also put some effort into it with RvN and Veron. It just didn't work. If the commentator was right, and I note no one has said it's wrong - then we've won only one head to head in Europe in 5 years. We did much better when we had a 4-4-2 attack. It may be that 4-4-2 wouldn't have done any better but it couldn't do very much worse :)

Scholes' best position hasn't been support striker for many a long year. He's a CM. And he's one of the best in the Premiership. He doesn't play well with his back to goal. He scores when he breaks into the box from midfield unseen from a relatively deep midfield position or when he runs onto a opposition box clearance or laid back pass from 20/25 yards. Don't be fooled by his scoring record. His goals are not from support striker role but from a superior scoring midfielder.

He's best when sitting in midfield, spraying the ball around, making himself available for passes out of defence, making himself available for midfield/attacking players in difficulty and taking part in little one-twos in and around midfield. When Scholes plays well the team plays well.

He didn't pass the ball well against Milan because his target players were always marked and he was hassled before he even received the ball. Superb Milan tactics.

The idea that Rooney can play Scholes' role is totally without evidence. He's a completely different player and I've seen nothing from him yet that says he's a creative midfielder. Unlike Scholes, Rooney is a support striker. He loves to mix it in the box and loves to run at the defence from around 30 yards out. He can work around RvN well and the little flick header that set up Ruud for his missed shot was a peach. We need more of that between the two.

But it takes time for strikers to gell and Rooney and Ruud have had virtually no time together.

The formation I show above has nothing to do with gung-ho attack. It has 6 men dedicated to defence. Another, Scholes, is expected to spend some significant time there and three others, Ronaldo, Giggs and Rooney expected to tackle back when needed.

In the main this will play against a single lone striker and four or five midfield players who will also have the problem of defending against Ronaldo, Giggs, Rooney and Scholes. We do not need another dedicated DM. That is the football of fear.

But currently we have not seen Giggs and Ronaldo operating in tandem at all. We have one of them switching from side to side and another DM - O'Shea, Neville - playing alongside Keane or the other. Having only one wide man reduces his effectiveness enormously because a single opposition midfielder can move and double team him with the appropriate fullback. It fails to stretch the opposition midfield. If you're going to play wide men then you really need two and only then can you stretch out the opposition midfield.

We just haven't done that this year except when chasing a goal because the 5 man midfield has failed to score or desperate to score as against Milan after our 1-0 loss at OT.

I also dispute your point, DS, that our problem lies only in Europe - that 5 man midfield had trouble scoring against a Crystal Palace devoid of any attacking ambition and many another team that didn't deserve to be on the same pitch. We've failed all season to score the goals we need. We've gone out of both the CL and Premiership title race in just two matches - and we only conceded one goal in those two matches.

In the last four matches we've scored just 2 goals - and both of those at home to Portsmouth.

Our problem is scoring goals!!!!! And it's a problem that comes with a five man midfield and an obsession with fitting as many DMs into the team as we can - how many against Palace? Three?

At Christmas, when the players started to come back, I said we would put six goals past some team soon. We haven't even remotely looked like doing that. In fact we've struggled to score two most of the time. Outside of the first fifteeen minutes we've either been hanging on or trying to batter down a nine man defence by pumping the ball hopefully into a packed central defence with just one man of our own in there. Hell, even though we have two of the best wingers in the Premiership, we're complaing that we're missing Gary Neville for his crosses into the box The truth is that our wingers are playiing too deep. When did you last see one of them take the ball to the byeline and pull it back into a retreating defence - the classic way to beat a packed defence? They're playing deep and always standing still whenever they receive the ball. They seldom receive the ball in full flight (Giggs against Milan was the exception and shows what happens when they do).

We have five first class strikers: RvN, Rooney, Saha, Solskjaer and Smith. If we don't intend to play two of those as strikers then we may as well cash in on some of them. To see two of those, Smith and Rooney, as possible midfield players is merely to cave in to the 5 man midfield obsession.

The story of our season comes down to this:

1) injuries robbing us week in, week out of our first choice team. in particular injuries to strikers - Solksjaer out all season, RvN for three months, Saha for easily an accumulated three months, Rooney for a couple of months (and 3 match supsension) and Smith occasionally. We've seldom been able to play 4-4-2.

2) the failure of our midfield signings from last pre-season. DjDj (now gone), Kleberson (where?), Miller and Bellion. Everyone a flop so far and little to suggest they'll do any better in future.

These have led to our problems this season. Team selection has been compromise after compromise. Hardly ever have we seen the same side take the field in two consecutive matches. We've seldom been able to field two of our strikers together. Keane and Scholes have borne the brunt of a heavy season with no worthwhile replacements to give them the breaks they need.

Yet we still almost matched Milan - arguably the best team in the World at this point. In the San Siro we played out best team - but for only the second time this season - against the masters of the 1-0 win. Nevertheless we held them to just three shots on goal and even had three reasonable attempts ourselves. That was not a disgrace and the hand-ringing that is taking part today is ludicrous.

I share the disappointment of the result and the elimination. I think we must look for a 'keeper (for once I agreed with Tommy Smyth when he said "Utd will never win anything with these 'keepers"), a DM and an A/CM. Not so much as to replace Keane and Scholes but to back them up, give them a break occasionally and give us options in midfield.

The scouting/transfer staff made a pigs ear of the midfield deals last off-season, we need to put that right this coming off-season.

And we need to use the rest of this season, with most players back now, to bring some consistancy into team selection, bring back some cohesion and return to our traditional style as an attacking team. We have the players to dominate all but a couple of teams in the Premiership. We need to do it! Forget the 5 man midfield and play two strikers! Forget trying to beat the AC Milan;s at their own game.

[Dark Savante]

The problem is: you only need to/get to play the Mian's once a season to know what needs improving in your own team. You get 2shots and you're out and back to the domestic familarity of the league.

I don't think we watched the same game vs. Milan. They surpressed us with attacking football and a CM/DM in Gatusso who had the legs on both Keane and Scholes for huge periods of the game. That simply points to age. Our central two could not cope with Gattuso's energy and it was painfully obvious. I don't buy the theory about Keane and Scholes. If that had been any other team we would have done just fine, but then, the problems would not have been highlighted and ignorance would be bliss. Milan did us a huge favour that no other team could've done imo.

In effect, Milan played us at our own game. They attacked us down the wings, they were extremely aggresive in the middle and they shut down avenues time and again because of the stamina of Seedorf and Gattuso. Cafu forced Scholes out for the double team on numerous occasion as well. I think we have no choice but to assess ourselves next to the standard-bare of Europe and not to the others(if we want to win it again). If that were the case we could naively say we are fine..until we met Milan next year and get knocked out again.

I agree with you about the league. Injuries have killed us there, but Europe is a whole other ball game and one for which we need an injection of energy at a similar quality level to what we have in our 1st team

[Mac_Howard]

The problem is: you only need to/get to play the Mian's once a season to know what needs improving in your own team. You get 2shots and you're out and back to the domestic familarity of the league.

And they had one shot on goal in the first game - thanks to a Carroll howler and three in the second game.

I don't think we watched the same game vs. Milan. They surpressed us with attacking football and a CM/DM in Gatusso who had the legs on both Keane and Scholes

You mistake the up-field pressing game fior attacking football.

The new midfield game, made effective by both Porto and Greece, presses the opposiion in their own half and in midfield. It's not the desperate defensive game we see so often from Premiership sides though the likes of Bolton and Everton are having some success with it.

Milan play it superbly. They used two DMs to double team Ronaldo, Giggs and Rooney when necessary and still had three CMs to Utd's Keane and Scholes. Not just CMs but superb CMs.

But it isn't attacking football. To play this way they have to play just one up front and that's why they only managed three shots on target.

If Keane and Scholes were so over-run and Milan played "attacking football" why do you think they only had three shots on target? Especially when Silvestre was giving the ball away like it was Christmas?

With three shots on target they were either not playing attacking football or they were playing it very badly.

They played an up-field pressing game that prevents the opposition playing. They play it all the time. I think it's six 1-0 wins now in seven games. That's not attacking football by anybody's standards.

Ronaldo and Rooney's inexperience and Giggs in another of his couldn't-give-a-******** games meant that Keane and Scholes had the Milan midfield to deal with themselves. I've never seen Scholes make so many "bad" passes but when I watched my recording of the game a second time (without the emotions of the first) I saw that Scholes was passing to players who were always closely marked and opposition players who turned passes into 50-50 balls.

>That simply points to age.

Take a look at the age of several of the Milan players and tell me that. Cafu was said by some to be man-of-the-match. How old? 34? Something like that. Maldini? Another one that's past it. Rui Costa?

Inexperience was as much the weakness of Utd here as age.

If that had been any other team we would have done just fine, but then, the problems would not have been highlighted and ignorance would be bliss

Not if you get beyond the scoreline when analysing matches. Our failure to mount an attacking game on Premiership teams is obvious when you go beyond the scoreline.

In effect, Milan played us at our own game.

Our game is currently the 5 man midfield. They're certainly much better at that than we are and ever will be. They play it week on week out in Serie A - some thing that Premiership fans, and particularly Man Utd fans, would never tolerate.

But in this game we went 4-4-2 thanks to our failure in the first leg and our need to score. We haven't played 4-4-2 all season. Ruud hasn;'t played for 3 months and is clearly out of touch. There was no cohesion nor could any be expected.

they were extremely aggresive in the middle and they shut down avenues time and again

Precisely! That is the "new" five man midfield game. Press, cover, deny the opposition any room.

Cafu forced Scholes out for the double team on numerous occasion as well

And how old is Cafu?

If that were the case we could naively say we are fine..until we met Milan next year and get knocked out again.

No one says we're fine. Our backups are too far a drop from the first 12/13. Only Keane and Scholes are quality midfielders. Ronaldo and Rooney are still wet behind the ears and don't have the experience yet to change the game when meeting the likes of Milan.

I agree with you about the league. Injuries have killed us there, but Europe is a whole other ball game and one for which we need an injection of energy at a similar quality level to what we have in our 1st team

It's a mistake to think you can play one game in the Premiership and another in the CL.

I read another piece of crap in the Guardian yesterday - English football will never produce the success of Serie A and La Liga clubs.

Tell that to Liverpool!

[Dark Savante]

And they had one shot on goal in the first game - thanks to a Carroll howler and three in the second game.


We're not talking merely statistics here though are we? Any neutral observer would have sworn we were the away team in both legs. We got swomped and overwhelemed. We had chances to score yes, but if we had've beaten them it would be easy to say we were lucky. Their one touch combined with the pressing and the wide play is what draws the conclusion not neccesarily the result.


You mistake the up-field pressing game fior attacking football.

The new midfield game, made effective by both Porto and Greece, presses the opposiion in their own half and in midfield. It's not the desperate defensive game we see so often from Premiership sides though the likes of Bolton and Everton are having some success with it.

Milan play it superbly. They used two DMs to double team Ronaldo, Giggs and Rooney when necessary and still had three CMs to Utd's Keane and Scholes. Not just CMs but superb CMs.

But it isn't attacking football. To play this way they have to play just one up front and that's why they only managed three shots on target.

Dude, unlike Porto and Greece, Milan were more then ready for a game of open attacking football. It was the strategy at OT and it worked because it was the last thing we expected from them. In no way were tey conservative. Cafu and Kaka were bombing into our box at every single opportunity. Pirlo sprayed the ball around like it was his home turf and Gattuso, whose brief it was to just get the ball, over-ran Keane and Scholes with the help of Seedorf. Milan have a variety of tactics and in these two games they attacked us from the off. No 'Italian style' accusations can be thrown their way in these 2games imo. In the end we were lucky they didn't score again after the Carroll blunder.


If Keane and Scholes were so over-run and Milan played "attacking football" why do you think they only had three shots on target? Especially when Silvestre was giving the ball away like it was Christmas?
Some of the balls that went wide, were narrowly so. Plus, it was Crespo out there not Sheva.


With three shots on target they were either not playing attacking football or they were playing it very badly.

They were unlucky not to score 3. They played a rock-solid game in both legs. We had our chances..against the run of play. Overall we were surpressed and forced to play in a way we didn't want or expect to.


They played an up-field pressing game that prevents the opposition playing. They play it all the time. I think it's six 1-0 wins now in seven games. That's not attacking football by anybody's standards.

Watch Milan over a season. You will see a variety of styles. Against lesser teams they actually play poorly doing just enough to win and nothing much-more. The bigger the team the more aggresive they are unless the situation requires catenaccio which they will most likely adhere to if they come up against another Italian side further in the competition. Against us there was a clear attacking intent.


Ronaldo and Rooney's inexperience and Giggs in another of his couldn't-give-a-******** games meant that Keane and Scholes had the Milan midfield to deal with themselves. I've never seen Scholes make so many "bad" passes but when I watched my recording of the game a second time (without the emotions of the first) I saw that Scholes was passing to players who were always closely marked and opposition players who turned passes into 50-50 balls.

Yes but it is us who have to make changes though isn't it? They beat us, so we are the ones that have to go away and reassess our game/tactics and personnel. Inexpereince was a massive factor as was Ruud's lay-off. But the fact remains that next year our player's will be a year older and it may be even harder for them to play at this level then it was in this year's competition.


>That simply points to age.

Take a look at the age of several of the Milan players and tell me that. Cafu was said by some to be man-of-the-match. How old? 34? Something like that. Maldini? Another one that's past it. Rui Costa?

I specifically pointed toward Keane(33)-Scholes(30) vs. Pirlo(25)-Gattuso(27-Seedorf(27). The fact is, 5years ago it would have been no problem whatsoever, but now it is not the same. Keane is more like a sweeper in midfield now and he needs a youthful pair of legs next to him running and harrassing men, he can then sweep up with consumate ease. This points toward a need for a 4-3-3. in a 4-4-2 Keane is naked. Especially in Europe against hugely technically gifted players with great 1touch ability.


Inexperience was as much the weakness of Utd here as age.
Rooney against such a backline - yes.
Ronaldo against Maldini - yes.

But there were 8 other outfield players there. In normal circumstances they would have thrown a smattering of their experience to the kid's, but in this game against such a level of opponent, everyone had their own game to worry about.



Not if you get beyond the scoreline when analysing matches. Our failure to mount an attacking game on Premiership teams is obvious when you go beyond the scoreline.
It could easily be said that that is because we haven't had a #9 on the pitch for most of the season. We'll see how it pans out from now until the end of the season.


Our game is currently the 5 man midfield. They're certainly much better at that than we are and ever will be. They play it week on week out in Serie A - some thing that Premiership fans, and particularly Man Utd fans, would never tolerate.

Milan play a 4-4-2 variant with both Crespo and Sheva on the pitch normally. I think what we play is more recognisable as a 4-3-3 then the 4-5-1 we attempted in the past few seasons.


But in this game we went 4-4-2 thanks to our failure in the first leg and our need to score. We haven't played 4-4-2 all season. Ruud hasn;'t played for 3 months and is clearly out of touch. There was no cohesion nor could any be expected.

Here is where I totally agree with you and it is here where you could possibly get the benefit of the doubt. I'm saying that Keane-Scholes are not getting any younger. And the older they get, the more of a risk a 4-4-2 with those two at the core, becomes. Also, the 4-4-2 is the most natrual game to most, if not all of our 1st team..some of what we saw was simply them being bettered..



Precisely! That is the "new" five man midfield game. Press, cover, deny the opposition any room.

:( Milan don't play a 5man midfield when they have Sheva match-fit. 'Press, cover, deny' comes with the legs to do so. We are past-masters of it and I'm saying that unless our 2 CM's don't get help in a 3man system from a Fletcher type. We will only get worse in Europe especially.



And how old is Cafu?
36. The guy is clearly an anomoly. Neither Scholes or Keane will be playing at 36.


No one says we're fine. Our backups are too far a drop from the first 12/13. Only Keane and Scholes are quality midfielders. Ronaldo and Rooney are still wet behind the ears and don't have the experience yet to change the game when meeting the likes of Milan.
This is why we need new legs in. A 4-4-2 with our current lot would work for 2more years in the league. In Europe you can forget it. The average age of the midfield of winning sides in the CL is 26. We are way past that already and it will only get worse(re:decline)



It's a mistake to think you can play one game in the Premiership and another in the CL.

Well, ask Arsenal, Madrid and Barcelona if it's a mistake! If you don't adapt you will be assimilated, borg style. What you can do/get away with in your league is poles apart from CL football. Only Juve and Munich..perhaps Chelsea as well, play an identikit league and CL game..because they have the components to do so, we do not. Also, note how all 3 of those sides could easily be deemed defensive.


I read another piece of crap in the Guardian yesterday - English football will never produce the success of Serie A and La Liga clubs.

Tell that to Liverpool!
:)

I'm more concerned with us and our path then anything any newspaper has to say. Liverpool already played a Continental style however. The best passing side of the era by far and extremely patient. They didn't really need to modify their game because it was already 'European'. Go figure.

[johno]

Well, ask Arsenal, Madrid and Barcelona if it's a mistake! If you don't adapt you will be assimilated, borg style. What you can do/get away with in your league is poles apart from CL football. Only Juve and Munich..perhaps Chelsea as well, play an identikit league and CL game..because they have the components to do so, we do not. Also, note how all 3 of those sides could easily be deemed defensive.

First of all... post of the year for making apt use of the phrase "You will be assimilated"

[johno]

I respectfully disagree with you johno on several points. We gave the 5 man midfield a great deal of time. A good three years so far. We also put some effort into it with RvN and Veron. It just didn't work. If the commentator was right, and I note no one has said it's wrong - then we've won only one head to head in Europe in 5 years. We did much better when we had a 4-4-2 attack. It may be that 4-4-2 wouldn't have done any better but it couldn't do very much worse :)

First of all, we did not put in the right personnel for the 4-5-1 you can't play a 4-5-1 with 442 players and one addition... it does not work like that... we had seasoned vets trying to learn a new system that they were not suited to... Remember I said we always failed to do what was necessary either failing to put in the right personnel or enough time.

Scholes' best position hasn't been support striker for many a long year. He's a CM. And he's one of the best in the Premiership. He doesn't play well with his back to goal. He scores when he breaks into the box from midfield unseen from a relatively deep midfield position or when he runs onto a opposition box clearance or laid back pass from 20/25 yards. Don't be fooled by his scoring record. His goals are not from support striker role but from a superior scoring midfielder.

Rooney is not a penalty box striker... he works deep and in the areas Scholes tends work when he is playing well... you will notice that few teams play a withdrawn striker and an attacking mid in the middle... Rooney is horrid off the ball and therefore needs the ball to be effective, Scholes also needs the ball to be effective but Rooney is often in Scholes' way so he is forced to sit much further back than he is effective...


He's best when sitting in midfield, spraying the ball around, making himself available for passes out of defence, making himself available for midfield/attacking players in difficulty and taking part in little one-twos in and around midfield. When Scholes plays well the team plays well.

I disagree with you on this... I think Scholes can pass the ball around in midfield but that's just a small part of his game... his game is moving off the ball in advanced areas... Rooney's wandering makes that hard.

He didn't pass the ball well against Milan because his target players were always marked and he was hassled before he even received the ball. Superb Milan tactics.

That's not so much his fault as it was brilliant play by Milan.... I guess we agree on this.

The idea that Rooney can play Scholes' role is totally without evidence. He's a completely different player and I've seen nothing from him yet that says he's a creative midfielder. Unlike Scholes, Rooney is a support striker. He loves to mix it in the box and loves to run at the defence from around 30 yards out. He can work around RvN well and the little flick header that set up Ruud for his missed shot was a peach. We need more of that between the two.

Of course Rooney can't be Scholes, but Scholes can't be Scholes with Rooney doing what he's doing... Rooney is aggressive where Scholes is passive... Roooney makes that chance at the top of the box where as Scholes waits for it to open up... they both thrive playing just outside the box... sure Scholes can knock the ball around midfield but in my opinion, he's reduced to an average or regular midfielder when he has to do that.

But it takes time for strikers to gell and Rooney and Ruud have had virtually no time together.

The formation I show above has nothing to do with gung-ho attack. It has 6 men dedicated to defence. Another, Scholes, is expected to spend some significant time there and three others, Ronaldo, Giggs and Rooney expected to tackle back when needed.

I can't really respond to this I don't know where u are going with it...

In the main this will play against a single lone striker and four or five midfield players who will also have the problem of defending against Ronaldo, Giggs, Rooney and Scholes. We do not need another dedicated DM. That is the football of fear.

But currently we have not seen Giggs and Ronaldo operating in tandem at all. We have one of them switching from side to side and another DM - O'Shea, Neville - playing alongside Keane or the other. Having only one wide man reduces his effectiveness enormously because a single opposition midfielder can move and double team him with the appropriate fullback. It fails to stretch the opposition midfield. If you're going to play wide men then you really need two and only then can you stretch out the opposition midfield.

We just haven't done that this year except when chasing a goal because the 5 man midfield has failed to score or desperate to score as against Milan after our 1-0 loss at OT.


We've played w/ 2 widemen often this season... very often... it just so happened that sometimes one of those widemen was Rooney and the other was either Giggs or Ronaldo... ROoney was playing the role of the winger in the 4-3-3... you see in that formation, he can still work outside the box and Scholes can also push forward into attack because Rooney is to oneside... if its Rooney's responsibility to stretch the defence and provide width when we get the ball and counter he can cut across the middle of the field and play as an AM if he desires and once we are in a more structured attack he will revert to being out wide.

Its unfair to say we played a 5 man midfield against Milan.. we were playing 4-3-3 the first leg but with Cafu constantly flying down the wing it pinned one of our wingers bck all the time... in addition we rarely could hold possesion so we rarely had them both in advanced positions...

[Mac_Howard]

We got swomped and overwhelemed.

That's absolutely right. Their game is to stifle the opposition and stop them playing. Again this weekend they won 1-0. That's six one nil wins in the last seven. The other was a 2-1 win.

Eight goals for in seven games and one against is the not the performance of an attacking team by any stretch of the imagination. It's the performance of a team that prioritises disabling the opposition's attacking game and grabs a goal through quality strikers like Shev or Crespo. The mentality is that we can stop the opposition scoring and we can always grab a goal.

If it isn't then eight goals in seven wins is abysmal attacking play!

You mistake possession for attacking play. They press and dispossess the opposition in their own half. But, even when they have the ball, their defensive mentality causes their midfield players to hold back and cover the opposition against a counter attack in case of losing the ball. Though flexible as to which, only three players are committed to attack which is ineffective against four defenders and a couple of midfielders.

Take a look at their goal against Utd. You'll see 6 Utd players in and at the edge of the box but only three Milan - one of those is even well outside the box.

You mistake possession for attack!

Their one touch combined with the pressing and the wide play is what draws the conclusion not neccesarily the result.

They have superb players but their mentality is "stop the opposition playing". Their wide play came as much from players covering Giggs and Ronaldo as any inherent attacking intent.

they attacked us from the off.

Then they played abysmally achieving just one shot on target in the first game and three in the second.

In truth they had much possession but did little with it because they commit far to few players to attack.

Plus, it was Crespo out there not Sheva.

Utd didn't have a central striker AT ALL in the first game (as johno says, Rooney is not a CS) and a half fit RvN is the second. Why are you prepared to make excuses for Milan but not Utd?

They were unlucky not to score 3.

Had their three shots on target gone in then that's true. But then, it is true that we've refused to buy a decent 'keeper, but we haven't yet taken the field without one.

They played a rock-solid game in both legs.

Absolutely rock solid! No dispute on that. It's what "rock solid" means where we differ ;)

We had our chances..against the run of play Overall we were surpressed

Precisely! That is what they do superbly. We escaped the shackles a couple of times. But we didn't take those cjances and that's what you have to do with Milan.

But we're not alone. They've allowed just one goal in their last seven games.

The bigger the team the more aggresive they are unless the situation requires catenaccio which they will most likely adhere to if they come up against another Italian side further in the competition.

And so Utd. With the Carroll goal from the first leg they didn't even have to search for the winner.

Against us there was a clear attacking intent.

If you really saw that then you must admit that it failed. With Ronaldo, Rooney, Giggs and RvN having their quietest game of the season, Silvestre making his usual blunders and, if you're to be believed, Keane and Scholes being overwhelmed, then three shots on target was a poor performance.

It wasn't a poor performance because it never happened as you saw it - there was no real commitment to attack.

Yes but it is us who have to make changes though isn't it? They beat us, so we are the ones that have to go away and reassess our game/tactics and personnel.

Every defeat does not mean that there has to be a revolution. Rooney and Ronaldo will gain experience and improve their off-ball performance. RvN will regain his sharpness. We do need another couple of quality midfielders - as I said the intake of midfielders last off-season has been a flop (DjDj, Kleberson (for whatever reason) and Miller). Keane and Scholes are our only quality midfielders and 60 plus matches a season demands we have alternatives beside eventual replacements.

No problems there. But let's keep a sense of proportion.

Inexpereince was a massive factor as was Ruud's lay-off.

That's three quarters of our attacking play. Stop writing it off so easily.

But the fact remains that next year our player's will be a year older

Two of them will have turned 20!

and it may be even harder for them to play at this level then it was in this year's competition.

I assume you weren't refering to those two ;)

This points toward a need for a 4-3-3. in a 4-4-2 Keane is naked. Especially in Europe against hugely technically gifted players with great 1touch ability.

Yet Keane, with a hopelessly inadequate defensive support in Scholes, managed to hold Milan, possibly the best team in Europe (certainly in the best three), to just three shots on target in the San Siro.

It really wasn't anything like the bad, overwhelmed performance you make out.

Rooney against such a backline - yes.
Ronaldo against Maldini - yes.

Both were wrapped up and showed their inexperience.

Incidentally it was Cafu that took care of Ronaldo. Maldini merely took care of him when he occasionally escaped Cafu.

But there were 8 other outfield players there.

You're ignoring the relevant facts: take Rooney and Ronaldo out of our attack and an awful lot has gone. Add to that another "unenthusiastic" performance by Giggs, a half fit RvN and Scholes pinned back in defence midfield and you don't have a lot left.

It could easily be said that that is because we haven't had a #9 on the pitch for most of the season.

Lack of cohesion from a season of ever changing lineups, not all Alex's fault this time, certainly didn't help. The team that took the field against Milan is certainly not firing on all cylinders. That attack of Giggs, Ronaldo, Scholes, RvN and Rooney has only taken the field once previously this season. It's currently an attack of individuals not a unit. We need a period of settled team selection before they become a unit. Even now the injury bug has hit us again with Giggs out.

Just because the players are back from injury in the main it doesn't mean that they will gell as a unit from the outset. There's a lot of understanding to be gained yet.

Milan play a 4-4-2 variant with both Crespo and Sheva on the pitch normally

Possibly. But that's not the Milan we played. We played a team with a 5 man midfield and one man up front.

I think what we play is more recognisable as a 4-3-3 then the 4-5-1 we attempted in the past few seasons.

As I said earlier, the use of three figured to describe formations these days is inadequate. When I posted the formation earlier I set it out in three different ways before posting. There's even a significant difference in attacking and defensive formations with the same players - Giggs and Ronaldo tackling back for example. Whether you include a support striker as as 4-4-2 or as 4-5-1 is little more than a matter of taste.

I'm saying that Keane-Scholes are not getting any younger

I think it's too early to call time on Scholes. I've seen nothing yet that says he's lost anything at all. His performance this weekend against Southampton was excellent and just the way i like to see Scholes play. But he can't play 60 plus matches a season and we do need other quality midfielders. Last years intake has been afailure for one reason or another. We're a year further on and no nearer to improving the midfield. We need to improve that situation.

But the quality players we currently have are mainly attacking players: RvN, Rooney, Ronaldo, Scholes, Giggs with Smith, Saha and Solskjaer not far behind. Only Rio and Heinze are quality defenders. You need to play a game that uses your best players so that means playing an attacking game. Dropping one of the first five of those in order to play a Phil Neville or an out-of-position john O'Shea merely drops the quality of the whole team as a whole. Of course you have to keep some sense of proportion but a single defensive midfielder is sufficient with a quality back four (we could do with something better than Silvestre admittedly). Yes you will concede more goals than we have been this year - only 17 so far in 28 games and zero so far in the FA cup - but you will score more as well. In our best season ever 99/00 we conceded 45 in 38 matches (but scored 97).

Our current goals/for against record illustrates that we have the balance wrong. We can afford to concede more and in order to improve our scoring. It's failing to score - it's the draws that have us down against Chelsea not losses - that is responsible for our relatively poor season.

Of course the injury situation is partly responsible for that but we have seldom set out to play a team of the park and until this weekend have never won at a canter. We've struggled against poor sides, hung on repeatedly to one goal leads, because we haven't been able to put the ball in the net often enough.

That is partly due to our repeated use of two DMs.

'Press, cover, deny' comes with the legs to do so.

Absolutely! Did you see Bolton's ten men this weekend?

But Milan have the quality ON the ball as well as off. You may have noticed we struggled with Bolton never mind Milan. That's why I don't agree with you that we needed Milan to point out our problems. They've been there for all to see all season if only fans cared to look. (But when I said as much following our failure against Spurs ("it's been on the cards for some time now" I said) I was called an Aussie Idiot :rolleyes: )

Our problem - not scoring goals - is as obvious in the Premiership as it was against Milan.

unless our 2 CM's don't get help in a 3man system from a Fletcher type. We will only get worse in Europe especially.

And we'll continue to fail to score. It wasn't just goals against column that beat us it was also the goals for column.

36. The guy is clearly an anomoly. Neither Scholes or Keane will be playing at 36.

And yet in the last disagreement we had you were telling me that Giggs at 34 will still be one of the fastest players on our squad. Where does this insight come from?

We have to go off the evidence that we have, not speculation. Keane isn't so much fading as has had a step reduction in his output after his injury. He's playing every bit as well now as he was immediately after his injury. There's been no further reduction. And Scholes has shown no sign of losing anything of his quality. And he's still a long way from 36.

We will need backups/replacement - I guess Alex thought he had it with DjDj and Kleberson - but it just hasn't worked out that way. We need to clear out the dross and bring something better in. I don't know that the board will make the funds available though.

Also, note how all 3 of those sides could easily be deemed defensive.

There's no question that defensive football has taken hold throughout Europe. It happens every time an international competition is won by a definable style. "Wingless wonders", "total football", "4-4-2", "wingbacks", 5 man midfields all became "essential" if a team was to win another competition. Currently it falls between the five man pressing game of Porto and Greece or the 4-3-3 seen more recently (in fact there's not a lot of difference between the two)..

Coaches, devoid of imagination and intelligence, jump on the bandwaggon.

It's silly nonsense. There's many a way this game can be played successfully. You need 15 outfield players to cover all positions and you can only use 10. That means that every formation and style has its weaknesses and there's always a formation or style to defeat it. It's crucial that you match the players and skills to the style you play - that's the crucial part. A formation or style itself never won anything.

What is happening now is that the 5 man pressing game, stifling the opposition's game, has become useful for inferior teams. By nullifying the skills of the superior teams these teams will have some success. At least in knockout competitions if not so successful in round-robin leagues. It's not done a lot for the game.

I'm more concerned with us and our path then anything any newspaper has to say. Liverpool already played a Continental style however. The best passing side of the era by far and extremely patient. They didn't really need to modify their game because it was already 'European'. Go figure.

No! They defined their own style and it certainly didn't correspond in any major way to anything they picked up from Europe. It had very strong elements of the English power game with players like Souness and Smith in the engine room, never short of physicality and very much depending on teamwork rather than highly skilled individuals. A major factor was that they could lose players without losing the quality of their play.

It was a style of their own not a question of playing the continentals at their own game and they certainly didn't change that style between Saturday afternoon in the first division and Wednesday in Europe.

Quality teams tend to be beaten, not by teams that play the same game, but by teams that play a style they're unused to. That's why British teams have so much trouble in Europe - we don't come up against that style of play too often and are therefore vulnerable to it. That's why Arsenal went so long without losing because their British opposition seldom met their style of play. Note their poor record, however, in Europe because their style was something well known and experienced.

On another but related subject - knockout competitions are not good for comparing the quality of teams. Chelsea are out of the FA Cup. No La Liga team has made it to the quarter finals of the CL. But I'm not ready to write off either Chelsea or La Liga as a result.

[Mac_Howard]

First of all......

No disrespect, johno, but having spent around an hour answering DS I'll pass up on answering your post in detail :)

Just to say that Scholes' performance on Saturday is where, I believe, he performs at his best - almost as deep as Keane but working the ball forward - and, I agree, Rooney is not a central striker who plays well up front.