If you watched the Arsenal game yesterday….

[The Jitty Slitter]

I think it would be asking too much of our central midfield pair to have them go up against any top side that fields three players in the centre.

This has been publically stated by Mourinho as key to the chavs success in the last 2 seasons. In other words if all other things are equal, 3 CMs beat 2.

IMO the flat 4-4-2 is a tactically naive formation, but great for over powering weaker sides. It's made worse where you play an English style which does not foucs on retaining possession.

The other thing people are doing here is discussing tactics in a vaccuum. It's all very well to say "442 suits us best so we'll play that" but if the other team is going to play quality players like Kaka, Gattuso and Pirlo through the middle - you can't just ignore that.

[Stud83]

I'm not buying that; in the last game we used a 4-5-1 it was a team effort that saw us go 1-0 up.

Seriously, you consider scoring 1 goal (and eventually losing) against a team that is 15 points behind us in the table, to be a major achievement and a reasonable justification for the formation?

[benni...]

And also hold onto the ball for minutes at a time ala Milan, Madridx4 have done to us in the past.

Stud, this is another thing Im basing this on.

We've been raped by Deportivo, Real Madrid, Milan, and even Porto. Those are results. What else would I need to base them on?

[The Jitty Slitter]

By mentioning Reading, Celtic, and Copenhagen you're clearly missing what I've tried to say. IMO those teams aren't what I consider to be superior opposition - hence, I'm totally FOR the 4-4-2. That's never been in question.

The big teams I'm talking about are Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool (when not in piss-poor form), and the European giants. In those games, there's hardly enough evidence to prove that we should use a 4-4-2 or rather that we shouldn't use the 4-3-3/4-5-1.

At Arsenal, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that 4-4-2 doesn't work against the best sides, and 4-5-1 does.

In knife edge games, risk management is very important.

[Stud83]

'Getting out when there are no arguments to support your position'

And then this.

Have you lost your mind?

Come on, DS, I thought you already knew that everyone who supports a different point of view from yours is crazy.

[benni...]

The other thing people are doing here is discussing tactics in a vaccuum. It's all very well to say "442 suits us best so we'll play that" but if the other team is going to play quality players like Kaka, Gattuso and Pirlo through the middle - you can't just ignore that.



Exactly!

I honestly wouldnt like to see Carrick and Scholes trying to contain Kaka and Pirlo.

[johno]

I'm not buying that; in the last game we used a 4-5-1 it was a team effort that saw us go 1-0 up. It wasn't individual brilliance on Rooney's part. And FWIW, I can't remember the last time when it took individual brilliance from Rooney or Ronaldo to help us win a big game. Whenever we have done so AFAIK, it has been a team effort.

You wouldn't call Giggs final 20 minutes individual brilliance? But anyway, that result aside, we've had virtually no good results with the 451 this season against even teams like copenhagen and celtic. The 451 when we were flying, when Ruud was injured relied almost soley on idividual brilliance and I will stand by that. We couldn't score unless someone did something special. We wouldn't concede, but we aren't Milan.

I'm leaving the rest alone because those other points are matters of opinion. I'm unlikely to shift you and you're very unlikely to shift me. ;)

[listen_up_fergie]

Seriously, you consider scoring 1 goal (and eventually losing) against a team that is 15 points behind us in the table, to be a major achievement and a reasonable justification for the formation?

So suddenly the game against Arsenal wasn't a big one?

I'm not just going by that goal...I think we did well overall in that game apart from our loss of concentration at the end. But the main point I was addressing was when johno said that we need moments of individual brilliance for us to see results using a 4-5-1. I'm just disagreeing with that, because I can't remember any such times.

[SirManchester]

We don't have the personnel for a 4-5-1 against big teams, and we don't have it for a 4-4-2 against top European competition. However, if we were to go in against top teams, I think it will be far less riskier to play something non 4-4-2, whether that would be a 4-5-1 or even a 4-3-3, and even if either means leaving out players like Rooney. With the 4-4-2 we risk really looking stupid, like against Arsenal (there's no denial we made a tactical fart and it was rather embarrassing).

Until we have the proper personnel to play our favored 4-4-2, we shouldn't just implement it in any game, thinking we'll just do out best with it, when another formation can clearly give us less riskier options.

[listen_up_fergie]

I'm leaving the rest alone because those other points are matters of opinion. I'm unlikely to shift you and you're very unlikely to shift me. ;)

True...

So we'll agree that on lesser opposition the 4-4-2 is the way to go.

We'll agree to disagree on using a more packed midfield against top sides that play with three (or four!) in the middle.

We'll agree that Rooney underperforms out on the left, but we'll agree to disagree on whether we should place him above the team when he's not in top form.

Well then, that's settled. :D :p

[johno]

By mentioning Reading, Celtic, and Copenhagen you're clearly missing what I've tried to say. IMO those teams aren't what I consider to be superior opposition - hence, I'm totally FOR the 4-4-2. That's never been in question.

The big teams I'm talking about are Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool (when not in piss-poor form), and the European giants. In those games, there's hardly enough evidence to prove that we should use a 4-4-2 or rather that we shouldn't use the 4-3-3/4-5-1.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too!

How can we fail to beat shite teams with formation A, that you tout so strongly and then clobber virtually all before us in formation B but you claim we cant use B, against good teams.

You need to base your formation based on what works, on some level. The 451 (with Rooney on the wing) HAS NEVER SUCCEEDED FOR MANCHESTER UNITED IN EUROPE. EVER.

I understand that we must modify the way we play, I'm all for it. I just don't like 442 being dismissed out of hand if the alternative is a "solution" that a, doesn't work and b, doesn't look pretty and c) forces 2 key players out of position.

Like I said, I'm all for 433/451 once we use our players properly. And, for the love of God, I don't want to make the post again.

[Stud83]

Stud, this is another thing Im basing this on.

We've been raped by Deportivo, Real Madrid, Milan, and even Porto. Those are results. What else would I need to base them on?

:confused:
WTF?

We played 4-5-1 against Milan and against Porto. And what Deportivo game are you talking about??? As far as Real Madrid, I already wrote in detail why we lost against them. But here is a hint - we had Barthez in goal, Silvestre, O'Shea and Brown in defense back then.

If that's the argument you were basing your position on, I surely hope that would change it, cause your facts are wrong here.

[listen_up_fergie]

You cannot have your cake and eat it too!

How can we fail to beat shite teams with formation A, that you tout so strongly and then clobber virtually all before us in formation B but you claim we cant use B, against good teams.

You need to base your formation based on what works, on some level. The 451 (with Rooney on the wing) HAS NEVER SUCCEEDED FOR MANCHESTER UNITED IN EUROPE. EVER.

I understand that we must modify the way we play, I'm all for it. I just don't like 442 being dismissed out of hand if the alternative is a "solution" that a, doesn't work and b, doesn't look pretty and c) forces 2 key players out of position.

Like I said, I'm all for 433/451 once we use our players properly. And, for the love of God, I don't want to make the post again.


Good question...
My reason why I think the 4-4-2 fails against better sides despite being successful against lesser ones: POSSESSION and TERRITORIAL ADVANTAGE.

Why does the 4-5-1/4-3-3 wane in comparison to the 4-4-2 against lesser opposition?
- Too narrow against bunker defences; aren't able to properly stretch opposition defences.
- An attacking player is sacrificed for a midfield donkey that is not really needed.

The above two points generally won't apply to top opposition that we might face.

[The Jitty Slitter]

Exactly!

I honestly wouldnt like to see Carrick and Scholes trying to contain Kaka and Pirlo.

nor would fergusson clearly.

This is what i don't get about Studs argument:

SAF, Wenger and Mourihno all support the view that 2CMs in a flat 442 won't do against elite sides playing 3CMs.

Yet Stud is supposed to be right.

:rolleyes:

[Stud83]

So suddenly the game against Arsenal wasn't a big one?

I'm not just going by that goal...I think we did well overall in that game apart from our loss of concentration at the end. But the main point I was addressing was when johno said that we need moments of individual brilliance for us to see results using a 4-5-1. I'm just disagreeing with that, because I can't remember any such times.

No-no, it was a big game, but all we did was score 1 goal. And lost it. Do you think we deserved to win it? I certainly don't. And I think a majority of the posters here would agree with me - Arsenal deserved a tie at the very least. And with all due respect to Arsenal, they had Senderos, Clichy, Eboue and Toure in defense. Not the greatest in Europe by any means. Despite it we couldn't score more than 1 and allowed 2. Why do think it would be easier against Barcelona or Milan?

[benni...]

:confused:
WTF?

We played 4-5-1 against Milan and against Porto. And what Deportivo game are you talking about??? As far as Real Madrid, I already wrote in detail why we lost against them. But here is a hint - we had Barthez in goal, Silvestre, O'Shea and Brown in defense back then.

If that's the argument you were basing your position on, I surely hope that would change it, cause your facts are wrong here.

Those four defenders were one of the best defenses in the league that season. We also won the league with that defense which had the best defensive record.

You dont remember the countless times before that we've played Deportivo and lost to them?

Thats not my entire arguement, you will find another piece of my arguement on this page somewhere, I posted it less than 15 minutes ago.

[Stud83]

This is what i don't get about Studs argument:

SAF, Wenger and Mourihno all support the view that 2CMs in a flat 442 won't do against elite sides playing 3CMs.


I am sorry, how many Champions League titles did any of these coaches win with this strategy?
And how well did WE perform in the CL under SAF lately with this strategy?

[johno]

Good question...
My reason why I think the 4-4-2 fails against better sides despite being successful against lesser ones: POSSESSION and TERRITORIAL ADVANTAGE.

Why does the 4-5-1/4-3-3 wane in comparison to the 4-4-2 against lesser opposition?
- Too narrow against bunker defences; aren't able to properly stretch opposition defences.
- An attacking player is sacrificed for a midfield donkey that is not really needed.

The above two points generally won't apply to top opposition that we might face.

You know, if we were sucking against Bolton and Citeh with the 451 I'd agree. But not FC Copenhagen. Hell we lost to relegation battlers as you rightly point out.

If we can't break down the bunker from WBA how in heavens name will we score on Milan?!?!

When we played Milan last, with our beloved 451 we lost the possession but our only moments of quality came as a result of individual brilliance by Ronaldo. Oh, we failed to score even one goal in 2 legs.

Again, I'll restate... I'm not against the 451, I'm against it with the wrong personnel, as long as were going to play at a disadvantage (451 w/ Rooney on left and Giggs in middle is a disadvantage) we should play 442.

[listen_up_fergie]

No-no, it was a big game, but all we did was score 1 goal. And lost it. Do you think we deserved to win it? I certainly don't. And I think a majority of the posters here would agree with me - Arsenal deserved a tie at the very least. And with all due respect to Arsenal, they had Senderos, Clichy, Eboue and Toure in defense. Not the greatest in Europe by any means. Despite it we couldn't score more than 1 and allowed 2. Why do think it would be easier against Barcelona or Milan?

Again, how did the formation contribute to the two late goals? I'm failing to see what you're trying to argue here.
Arsenal played very well, and were the home team lest I remind you. If we had nicked a 1-0 win or even a 1-1 that would have been a good result for us.
Whether a 4-4-2 would've seen us score more goals on them is a pure matter of conjecture - but I'm inclined to believe that Arsenal would've ripped right through us in the centre. But as it stands, you can't categorically say that the 4-5-1 did NOT work - it was working right up to the point where we had two defensive lapses.

[The Jitty Slitter]

I am sorry, how many Champions League titles did any of these coaches win with this strategy?
And how well did WE perform in the CL under SAF lately with this strategy?

So your argument is that having won the Champs League with 442, SAF lost his mind and started playing 451 for no reason?

Porto won the CL

Chelsea overcame Barca, before going out to pool with an injury hit side.

Last year they lost only to the champs as did Arsenal - all playing with 3CMS

You see Stud I've seen this all before. The gunners had a 442 to die for and tore most teams in the prem a new one. But in one off games against elite teams that are on a knife edge - it's too risky.

Which is exactly why SAF and Wenger dumped it.