If you watched the Arsenal game yesterday….

[benni...]

How about a 4-3-3 in which Rooney and Ronaldo can operate alongside a CF such as Larsson upfront. Neither would have any defensive responsibilities or would have to strictly apply themselves onto the flanks.

Of course for the midfield portion of this formation, we'd need another CM alongside Carrick and Scholes that would work much harder than anyone else on the pitch. The problem with this may just be that we'll lack neccessary width, and would have to mainly rely on our fullbacks.

Thats basically the same Idea as above but with Rooney and Ronaldo AND Scholes. Carrick and Hargreaves (just picking him as the other CM) would cover for the fullbacks when they provide the width. I wonder if Rooney can graps that role.

[50 Euro]

I'm glad someone started a thread on yesterday's tactics, so they can be discussed outside of the nonsense of our match threads...

Agree with the general consensus, on an aside I thought the bench selection was also quite telling.

As I mentioned pre-match, Fergie didn't even select Silvestre and KRich for the travelling squad (it appears he got something right yesterday ;) ), so outside the starting 11 he selected:

TomK (a given)
Brown
Heinze
Fletcher
Saha

leaving Ole, Park, O'Shea to watch from the stands.

Some people yesterday questioned omitting Ole and/or Park, and I think it could be argued that even O'Shea should've been on the bench (:eek: I know) at the expense of both Brown and Heinze. While I rate both higher than JOS, he could slot in anywhere among the back four in case of injury, or could have been subbed on to toughen things up in midfield, maybe challenge Fabregas physically, etc.

Saha was the only attacking threat on the bench, yet there were two defenders...leaving SAF severely limited in possible changes that could be made (at least in Europe we're given seven, but there still appears to be an unwillingess to make changes as well).

With the lovely powers of hindsight, IMHO this would've been the ideal bench
TomK
JOS
Park/Fletcher
Ole/Fletcher
Saha

Looking at the lineup before the match, one might have thought, SAF is gonna be aggressive, but a look at his bench proved otherwise. And yet, as Miles Brasher has pointed out, Utd were on course for three pts late in the match, though I'd say that was in spite of the tactics employed, rather than as a result of them.

I blame CarlosQ myself...:D

[johno]

Ok, let me rephrase that, you wouldn't be criticising them. What lost you the game is the way you started defending with 10 minutes to go. As for playing not to lose, remember you were much more 'gung ho' at Old Trafford and although the score was only 1-0 the difference between the sides was greater then than yesterday.

No, even when we win - as long as we look bad there are a few people who will criticise our play or our tactics. I'm not always one of them, but I can assure while the match was going on I was screaming at the tele and (because I didn't see the bench and figured Park or Fletcher was on it) I was bellowing for Park or Fletcher to be brought on in place of Giggs, allowing Rooney to play in support of Larsson who was i.....so......la......ted.

[Stud83]

Carrick and Scholes in central midfield.

When was the last time we tried to play them together in Europe in a 4-4-2 and failed?

[StrikerCW]

I wish I had time to read so much about football. :(

[SirManchester]

When was the last time we tried to play them together in Europe in a 4-4-2 and failed?

You think Carrick and Scholes in central midfield without support from our wingers against the top teams in Europe?

[lynne]

You think Carrick and Scholes in central midfield without support from our wingers against the top teams in Europe?

I'd like to think that this was part of a grand plan to get the team ready for the next Champion's League game. Far too optimistic, I know, but thinking that so much preferable to thinking that we got outplayed and outcoached in the same game!

[433tom]

With the personel we have. We should be playing a 4-4-2 in the League and in Europe. We screwed around with the 4-5-1 and 4-3-3 in the group stage and lost matches we should have won. We went back to the 4-4-2 against Benifica, looked good and won 3-1. At least with the 4-4-2 will play attractive attacking football. I would rather see us get knocked out playing good football than playing a 4-5-1 and looking dismal. In fact, against Arsenal, that was probably our best showing using the 4-5-1... and it was still dismal.

[433tom]

You think Carrick and Scholes in central midfield without support from our wingers against the top teams in Europe?

You play with the personnel you have. Most of our players are more suited to the 4-4-2 and more comfortable playing that formation. That's the formation they play and practice with throughout the season. Every time we play something other than the 4-4-2 we lose or draw. Its that simple. I am of the opinion we can win in Europe with the 4-4-2. There are a lot of tactical variations of the 4-4-2 that can be used. You don't have to have two players playing entire matches as traditional wingers. But we do need two strkers up top.

[433tom]

Good post DS.

I agree with most people on this thread, that once we encounter a better team in Europe the 4-4-2 that serves us so well against the lesser Prem teams just isn't going to have the midfield control that we're going to need.

The shambles of a formation that SAF tried yesterday is also a no-no, lacking the attacking sting we usually have, it should at the very least have allowed us to keep more ball control in the middle of the park and see out a 1-0 victory. It failed.

At the moment Alex seems to be making the same mistake as the England national side when it comes to playing the better teams in Europe/Premiership. He obviously isn't comfortable with the 4-4-2 but is also unwilling to leave out any of his big name players. So all you get is the 'square pegs in round holes' scenario. Sometimes you must sacrifice one of your better player to get a scrapper/workhorse into the team to do the dirty work.

I honestly think that if we're going to compete in the midfield Rooney or Scholes need to be sacrificed (Remember this wont be for every game, mainly for difficult away fixtures and teams with powerful midfielders). If we look at two of the better sides in Europe you can see they have at least 2 players in the middle of the field who harrass the opposition.

Barcelona

---------------Valdes

Belleti-----Puyol----Marquez-----Bronckhurst

------Edmilson------------Xavi
-----------------Deco

Messi--------------------------Ronaldinho
----------------Eto


Chelsea

-----------------Cech

Bhoulorouz---Terry---Carvalho-----Cole

----------------Makele
--------Essien----------Lampard

Cole----------------------------Robben
----------------Drogba


Now I understand that we have nowhere near the players or resources of these to teams, but Both show the need to control the midfield and allow your forward 3 to do the majority of the damage. I think SAF should at least give thought to trying a similar tactic.

Man United

-----------------VDS

Neville----Ferdinand----Vidic-----Evra

---Fletcher/O'shea--------Carrick
------------Scholes/Rooney

Ronaldo--------------------Giggs/Park
------------Saha/Larsson

I don't think we have the personel to pull it off. Look at the midfield line-ups you posted for Barca and Chelsea and look at ours. We lose two of the three midfield match-ups (personnel wise) against either side and lose that match. If we are going to play a 4-3-3 against teams in Europe, we need to bring in different personnel. With the personnel we have, we need to play to our strengths. Play a 4-4-2 (with some tactical variations), and try to pin them back with our attack. At least if we lose, we go out playing good football.

[SirManchester]

You play with the personnel you have. Most of our players are more suited to the 4-4-2 and more comfortable playing that formation. That's the formation they play and practice with throughout the season. Every time we play something other than the 4-4-2 we lose or draw. Its that simple. I am of the opinion we can win in Europe with the 4-4-2. There are a lot of tactical variations of the 4-4-2 that can be used. You don't have to have two players playing entire matches as traditional wingers. But we do need two strkers up top.

You're implying that our players aren't versatile. You do realize that the 4-4-2 with the personnel we have doesn't work against certain teams and it will work even less against the big teams in Europe. Why then should we continue to repeat errors, we'd look plain stupid doing it.

Now, I know we're something like one or two players away from being able to compete in Europe but in the meantime wouldn't it be best to try to correct our problems and make the best of what we have? I just don't think bringing our domestic 4-4-2 into Europe is the best option. It wouldn't have hurt to try a 4-3-3 in the group stages, that's all.

[Stud83]

You think Carrick and Scholes in central midfield without support from our wingers against the top teams in Europe?

What was my question which you didn't answer?



You're implying that our players aren't versatile. You do realize that the 4-4-2 with the personnel we have doesn't work against certain teams and it will work even less against the big teams in Europe. Why then should we continue to repeat errors, we'd look plain stupid doing it.

Which teams doesn't it work against? The only way we'd look plain stupid if we ever use this unimaginably ridiculous 4-5-1.
Arsenal, Reading, Celtic, Copenhagen, Arsenal - if we played 4-4-2 in all of those games, I think we would've gotten at least 10 times more points than we did.
If we can't beat Reading, Celtic or Copenhagen with that formation, and can't even manage a draw in 2 games against an inferior Arsenal side with that formation, how the hell is it gonna work against Europe's best? 4-5-1 is essentially a prayer for a goalless draw for us. It will never work against teams that do it for living. 4-4-2 in effect opens up spaces, forces an opponent to stay back deeper, allows for much faster and smoother attacks, and gives us a chance in every game.

The only player who does not play worse in a 4-5-1 is Ronaldo. Everyone else is pretty much forced to do something they are not accustomed to and something they are NOT best at. Giggs is great, but only if used exclusively on the wing in a 4-4-2, Rooney is capable of playing on either flank, but he's not at his best there, Scholes cannot function in such a tight space - his options are very limited and long passes are often out of the question. Whoever is playing up front is reduced to having to try to win aerial battles and push the ball back to sustain posession - Larsson was actually very good at it, too bad he had no support.

The reality of the situation is that this year in 35 (?) games we had exactly ZERO goalless draws. And out of our 25 (?) victories we had just 2 that ended 1-0 in our favor, last time it happened - in September.
We are just not built for goalless draws or 1 goal games. It's as simple as that, and everything points to it. How many times do we have to burn because of this formation until we realize it just can't and won't work with the players we have?
I don't want us to be scared. We are on pace to score 85 goals in the premiership - we haven't scored this many goals even in our best years in the late 90s-early 00s. If we go down attacking all the way, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Who/what is there to be scared of? Might as well go down swinging - and I have more confidence in our ability to score in a 4-4-2 against any defense than not allow any goals in a 4-5-1 even against inferior opponents. Considering our relative health, there is simply no excuse to not use 4-4-2 the rest of the way.

[SirManchester]

What was my question which you didn't answer?

I can't recall the exact last time, but you obviously seem to believe that a Carrick/Scholes midfield can cope, even succeed against the top teams in Europe. I don't think it has looked convincing in any of our group games so far this season but feel free to disagree.


The only way we'd look plain stupid if we ever use this unimaginably ridiculous 4-5-1.

agreed. That's no way to go on and win games.


Arsenal, Reading, Celtic, Copenhagen, Arsenal - if we played 4-4-2 in all of those games, I think we would've gotten at least 10 times more points than we did.


I don't think we would have been better off in any way against Arsenal with a 4-4-2. Larsson being isolated wasn't the only problem. Against that type of team, the Scholes-Carrick midfield was incapable of closing their players down, too many gaps were left to exploit. Also, I don't want to knock the two players but can we really rely on a deep lying playmaker and a rather old and clumsy tackles to enforce our midfield against teams like Barca and Milan? I'm sorry I just don't see that happening. For Europe I think we need at least one more midfielder, one who can really do the dirty work, and will run tirelessly, thus enabling Carrick and Scholes to do what they do best.

P.S. I'm not in favor of a 4-5-1, I got the impression that you believe I'm in favor of replacing our 4-4-2 with that 4-5-1. I'm not. All I'm saying is that the 4-4-2 you have in mind simply won't work against certain teams; one is Arsenal which I believe reflects more of the rest of the top European teams. And since we don't have the Hargreaves type to slot into our 4-4-2, we might as well experiment with formations to work better in Europe. I just don't think we'll be able to perform, nevermind stay in the competition the way we've been playing there this season.

[johno]

I can't recall the exact last time, but you obviously seem to believe that a Carrick/Scholes midfield can cope, even succeed against the top teams in Europe. I don't think it has looked convincing in any of our group games so far this season but feel free to disagree.

I think the bottom line has to be that it can't be any worse than the results we've achieved with the 4-5-1.

[Stud83]

I don't think we would have been better off in any way against Arsenal with a 4-4-2. Larsson being isolated wasn't the only problem. Against that type of team, the Scholes-Carrick midfield was incapable of closing their players down, too many gaps were left to exploit. Also, I don't want to knock the two players but can we really rely on a deep lying playmaker and a rather old and clumsy tackles to enforce our midfield against teams like Barca and Milan? I'm sorry I just don't see that happening. For Europe I think we need at least one more midfielder, one who can really do the dirty work, and will run tirelessly, thus enabling Carrick and Scholes to do what they do best.


I am not saying we don't need another midfielder, because we clearly do, and Scholes-Carrick partnership is far from ideal, but here is the thing:
Our main strengths come from 4-4-2. That's the most important thing. Anything else with the players we currently have could potentially hide some of our weaknesses at the expense of our strengths and I just don't see any circumstances where it could help us.
Barca and Milan are good teams but by no means unbeatable and can be scored upon. That's what we have to look at. We will most likely lose in a tight defensive battle against them, but if we take our chances, be in attacking mode and try to play our kind of game instead of adjusting to theirs, we'll have a much better chance. Of course, with that there is always a risk of losing the way we did against Madrid last time. But I'll take it - after all, I think our defense is better than it was back then, and our attack is better.

[Karloski]

I don't think we have the personel to pull it off. Look at the midfield line-ups you posted for Barca and Chelsea and look at ours. We lose two of the three midfield match-ups (personnel wise) against either side and lose that match. If we are going to play a 4-3-3 against teams in Europe, we need to bring in different personnel. With the personnel we have, we need to play to our strengths. Play a 4-4-2 (with some tactical variations), and try to pin them back with our attack. At least if we lose, we go out playing good football.

I have already stated that our midfield players on paper are not as good as the top European teams, but to say the 4-4-2 is the only formation we can use, would show Man Utd up to be tactically naive.

They need to be able to adapt to situations and teams or the top coaches will simply identify the danger areas and weaknesses of Man United and exploit them every time.

You say we should play the 4-4-2 and pin them back by attacking, great in theory. What happens when the slick passing sides like Barcelona and AC Milan play around the middle of the field tireing out Scholes and Carrick and forcing Ronaldo and Giggs to fall back to try and help regain ball possesion. The advantage of the 4-4-3 is that the 3 in the midfield deal with regaining possesion and ball retention, leaving the 3 up front to work the flanks and centre, pinning back the fullbacks for large chunks of the match and giving the 3 central players options for the counter. Remember Arsenal found great success when converting to their interchangeable 4-3-3/4-5-1 system in last years CL.

I'll probably get slaughtered for this next suggestion, but does anyone think that in a 4-3-3 formation, Park could act as a scrapper/ball winner with Carrick and Scholes. I know this contradicts my earlier statement of square pegs in round holes, but with his massive stamina could it help us pressure the opposition more?

[johno]

I think he's better off there than Giggs, except that he really wouldn't aid in possesion retention because he's too easily knocked off the ball even on the flanks.

I'd rather Rooney play that role than on the wing. I know its heresy to play both Rooney and Scholes in midfield but I'd try it before I put him on the wing again.

[omar_mufc]

well ji gave an excellent performance in the centre, during the pre-season friendly against seville, but it was a pre-season friendly though...

[listen_up_fergie]

I'm feeling lazy so I didn't read through your entire post, DS. Anyway, I got the impression that you were giving a number of reasons why we'll probably fail in Europe, citing examples from the Arsenal game. Just thought I'd add that this is actually a problem we'll face not only in Europe, but also in the big games.
Quite frankly, we've been tactically naive in the "big" games this season and we need to do something about it. Against Chelsea they played piss poor but we allowed them back into it, we didn't protect our left flank well enough and we suffered. Against Arsenal, again, our left flank was where we suffered the most damage from. I'm not pointing the finger towards our leftbacks, but rather to our shape and formation when trying to deal with sides that are on the offensive. We weren't able to counter tactical moves made by both Mourinho and Wenger and for that we suffered.
Essentially, we're seeing that the games in which we are struggling in are ones where the opposition, like us, play with a high passing completion rate and are able to keep possession of the ball. Against lesser teams our style of play is extremely effective, but it wanes against teams that play possession football.

[Dark Savante]

I have no idea wy this has turned into a formation discussion. I've said all I'm going to say aboput formations in the 4-4-2 thread. To sum up - you have to be superior by some way to succeed in a DW4-4-2.

We aren't superior to a number of teams in Europe. All the huffing and puffing in the world won't change that.