You’ve just had a taster of how we will go out of Europe this year. The formation, the tactics and the absolute lack of leadership in the captain being asked to implement these ideas on the pitch, will see us stuffed. We don’t have the personnel to play the way the manager seems to want for these big games. Tucking Giggs in and placing Rooney out on the flanks reduces not one, but four! of our best attacking players. Rooney is nowhere near as comfortable or effective out wide as he is in the ‘hole.’ Giggs cannot play through the middle in big games like the latter satges of the CL or big 4 PL games. I’ve said it on numerous occasion that we should put Giggs on the LW and use him for the 60-70 minutes he can contribute there rather than put him central, have him be half as effective whilst playing the full 90. There is no doubt we put Rooney out wide because of his stamina, pace/power and defensive abilities – he becomes an industrious player.. is that what we’d want Rooney to be? An industrious, reliable layman? I think not. He is a creator, an attacker, one who should be used to draw defensive players towards him and pull central defensive schematics all over the place – out wide he has no fantasy, he will run, he will work, he will cross and get the odd shot in, but he does not think like a winger and he does not have that forward-thinking/running a traditional winger has – one who is looking to take on his man and get further and further down the touchline – you’ll see Rooney do that maybe once a game, if you’re lucky. Note. None of this is a criticism of the player, he is a SS by trade, just as with 95% of players, using him outside of his nominal position will see his powers decrease – you wouldn’t pay £30m for Wayne Rooney the winger.. The same goes for Giggs in reverse. He is a winger, or a wing forward – he is an expert in both positions. If you play him at CM or SS you’re getting a decent player – you are not getting Ryan Giggs LOTW – what’s more not one, but two players become frustrated and restricted in the attacking sense. Rooney’s running in the middle is usually devastating. He has the positional and spatial awareness of a veteran.. through the middle of the pitch we can say this vis-a-vis Giggs and the flank. All this is sacrificed for the ‘legs’ a young Rooney has over Giggs to track back for the entire 90. I’d much rather see Giggs play hard for 60 minutes and come off than stay on for 90 and have nary a true run at a man – Giggs is not central dribbler so it’s rare to see him run straight through the heart of a team, we lose a lot of his cunning when he is played in the middle. He may no longer have the legs he once did and he’s not going to skin the fastest FB’s anymore, but what he can do when on the flanks is twist and turn and jink and cut in and out to his hearts content. After all, he is still incredibly hard to dispossess as his base flank dribbling skills are probably better now then they were in his prime. Writing this in text actually dulls some of the edge off of it… seeing this manifest on the pitch (for both of them) brings it home with a certain oomph, like being punched in the gut and winded. The other two players deeply affected in these big games when the tactics and formation we used yesterday are implemented are Ronaldo and the CF, in this case Larrson. As I said in the Run-in thread; Ronaldo is no conventional winger – every flaw in his game is exposed in games of this magnitude where he is used as one because of what’s at stake and the sheer attacking quality the opposing sides have in games of this calibre. Ronaldo does not want to work the wing for 90 minutes. He wants to interact with the central core, receive and cut infield or, go wherever he wants. He has and will never be a conventional winger, one who can run down the touchline and supply cross after cross like a Downing or Pennant etc will do. In any scenario where Ronaldo has the choice of running the flank and putting in a first time cross or running the touchline, cutting in-field and interacting with the central core or taking shot he will chose the 2nd option. A conventional winger will always look to work his flank first and foremost. A conventional winger will always look up whilst flying down the wing because his main (and in many cases, only) objective is to whip a cross in whilst the opposing CB’s are facing their own goal. A conventional winger will always support his FB in defence. This is what they’ve been taught since they were 8, 9 10 yrs old. It’s not even a point of being able to spot the dangers, rather, an automated response that has been coached into them – Ronaldo does not have this and he will frequently leave his FB exposed and isolated. Evra bore the brunt of this yesterday as many times Ronaldo could be seen jogging back when the dual wing-attack was on leaving Evra in all kinds of trouble and often resultant in a cross being flashed across our box – one of which Henry headed straight at our keeper where he should scored. None of these things are Ronaldo’s fault. We modified our game a great deal this season to allow him the freedom that has made him so unique, so much of a goal-scoring threat – there is no winger about to score 13goals in a league campaign that hasn’t even ended playing conventionally. – but in the big games PL or Europe respectively the creative licence and the freedom cannot be so readily afforded. If Ronaldo goes walkabouts in a big game we cannot recompense defensively. Our schematic and shape is momentarily comprised, which is why you will not see Ronaldo ‘all over the place’ in the biggest games unless we set the team up with him and that in mind to the point where a midfielder is his water carrier as is the case with Portugal. Basically Ronaldo is told to hold his flank. He is uncomfortable doing that as he was never raised as a winger, in turn this reduces his game to that of a cameo where we are used to Ronaldo of this season being everywhere and scoring all kinds of goals and being right in the thick of the action centrally it’ll be rare you see that Ronaldo in these big games unless we play a system with him as the figurehead. There is no doubt at all (for me) that in huge games Ronaldo must be used as a WF in a 4-3-3, with next to no defence responsibilities nor the paying of duty in having to hug a touchline. It is often stated that it is the pace of opposing FB’s that stuffs Ronaldo in such games. That is not the case. The conventions of trying to play as a traditional winger are aspects Ronaldo is simply not comfortable with and as he doesn’t want to ‘merely’ run the line and cross and frequently looks to interact with the over-lapper for him (the FB) to cross or for said over-lapper to receive and then give him back the ball as he (Ron) cuts in-field. If you put Ronaldo in a 4-3-3 and allow him to run free, many of these pace vs. pace scenarios don’t even take place because then the FB has to worry about him cutting inside a lot more, which forces the FB into positions he doesn’t want to be. In a pacey FB vs. Ronaldo playing as a conventional winger expected to supply crosses as his main objective, Ronaldo is linear and way easy to read than he is when free to do what he wants. This plays a huge part in why he can sometimes look ‘not at his best’ when used conventionally. And finally the CF. It doesn’t matter who it is, when we play our ‘big game system’ the CF will be isolated for huge passages of a game. Giggs doesn’t know how to support a CF for 90 minutes and Rooney being out wide a mile away from the central action means that our only player who really could support the CF is not in a position to do so. Yesterday Larrson was the fall-guy to this, he rarely got a sniff of the action. He had nary a shot on goal as he wasn’t supplied. And as you have not one but both of our flanks ‘flanked’ by wide men who aren’t comfortable playing conventionally, there are no crosses, at all. The Cf has nothing to feed off of. The opposing back-line can get very comfortable knowing that 8 times out of 10 there will be no cross coming in the immediacy of the first wave of attack. Our 2nd wave (the FB’s) are expected to supply the crosses – do you know how hard it is for them to overlap, get down the pitch and supply meaningful crosses in games where they have so much defensive responsibility? This goes for the FB’s on both teams. Next big game we play, just count how many times it is possible over the 90 as opposed to a smaller game where we can camp in the oppo half. The times it happens it usually means the first flanker has conceded space and allowed the FB to come on to him – either through tactical instruction, fear or a piece of brilliant play from the FB in question – it’s usually one of the first two…rarely the 3rd. Beings as we are an attacking team, one that is really not comfortable trying to hold out for a lead nor one who can switch well from our attacking instinct to one where we invite the enemy on to us, we rely on our attack firing and firing well in the big games. To do this they have to be optimised. Until we sort that out (which I don’t think we’ll do this season) we are going to get ‘surprisingly’ stuffed time and again. One of the ways to optimise is obviously our fabled 4-4-2, but this is never going to be used in these games – I refer you to To 4-4-2? people. Please don’t hold your breath waiting for our 4-4-2 in these games.. ironically we don’t have the personal for it, as strange as that sounds. This thread isn’t a knee-jerk to the game yesterday, nor is us going out of Europe something I’m saying out of the blue; I’ve been saying the same thing since the window closed. It’s more of an observation and a prediction of sorts… when we go out of Europe, I expect it to be because our attack misfires under these conditions and the lack of attacking impetus to give the oppo who beat us the platform to really get at our back-line. I also think this system we play will always suggest we’ll try to sit on a one goal lead and won’t hunt for the 2nd that kills the game. We don’t have the personnel to sit in our own half like that. What I suggest is that we use Fletcher, yes Fletcher in the next big game and sacrifice Giggs if we aren’t going to put him on the wing anyway. As per the Ronaldo paragraph, putting Fletcher (a runner) behind him will allow him to play ‘free’ and until we get our busy-body new signing (be it Hargreaves or whoever) who will do the same job, but better and with more oomph, Fletcher is perfect for these games, well, he’s certainly the most excitable and harrying of all the midfielders at the club. Just as Essien completely freed up Robben (who is an awful defender) last season for Chelsea and allowed him to attack as he wanted, we need to follow a similar template with the runner we have (Fletcher) as we really lack the energy in the midfield to drive hard in these games where we can’t dominate possession like we do against most teams outside the big 4, where we set-up camp in their half and take it from there.. We are one man away from being a complete side who can vary enough to take on all-comers. Right now, within camp, we may have the components, but whether they will be used right… I doubt it. I expect us to go out of Europe on the same principles as noted this season. If it helps us to win the league I won’t be too disappointed
I agree with you one hundred percent. I posted this on the match thread yesterday, Rooney played well enough to make the 4-5-1 look decent, but it's still a horrid formation. Yet SAF continues to use it in tough away and European games! Someone pointed out that we only win 30 percent of these matches. Rather than playing a 4-5-1, we should keep the 4-4-2 but use Fletcher, as you suggested. He has shown at season's start that he can be MUQ yet he's hardly had a sniff of playing time. He could be very important to our European aspirations.
Yep. I believe that our Champion's League experience is going to be short and not very memorable. If I had to describe the way the team played yesterday, it was like they were all planted on little islands and couldn't move. I thought Rooney was playing on the outside because while he's needed as that really good utility player your describe, he's giving the ball away too much to play centrally. Maybe SAF just feels he doesn't yet have the experience to play in that position against better teams. As I said somewhere else, Ronaldo didn't even try to cross in this game. Nor did he try in the last game that I remember. It seemed like he was reduced to 2 moves -- cut inside or pass back to Scholes. It seems like there's a conscious decision being made to not make Ronaldo the center of the attack. I think it was the last game we either tied or lost (forgot to who!) someone was complaining that we had no go-to guy for the case where we needed a last minute goal. I don't know that I wanted to see this much of Larrson. Not sure that this has helped anyone's confidence.... Saha hasn't started the last 2 games. Rooney finally scored a goal but has been played out of position for the last 2 games. Ronaldo went from someone who was considered one of the best players in the world to someone who got pulled when the going got tough in a big game. Defence is leaking like a sieve. Bleck. It might have been better to just lose the old fashioned 4-4-2 way.
After watching the game late last night on SKY, both commentators would agree that they too were confused over the Manu formation. However they were also saying that with only 7 minutes to go, the system had worked pretty well, given that we weren't exactly peppering VdS, and they couldn't see us getting back into the game. In the end it took 2 very good pieces of skill, and too deep defending by your back 4. To be honest I never understood why Fergie went from a very successful 4-4-2 to a 4-5-1 in Europe, but I guess he knows a little more than me Playing Giggs wide would have possibly allowed us more space. Our fullbacks are possibly the most pacy in the league, and relying on Giggs to track back all the time might have backfired on you. At present, Scholes form gets him a starting place, likewise Carrick. I'm not sure you can afford to play 4-4-2 with those 2 in the centre away against a top team.
Great post as usual, especially this last bit. For the life of me I couldn't understand why we'd use Rooney to do the same job we could use Fletcher to do while having Giggs do Rooney's job. It just didn't make sense. Hell, even Rooney deployed as a box to box CM in a 451 would be worth more than Rooney on the wing.
DS sums it up. This has been the story of the season. If we have a one goal lead & can't get a second one to kill off the game, we have a tendency to let the opponent ties the game (i.e. Chelsea). If the game is nil-nil, we have a tendency to give up a goal (i.e. Arsenal (H), Celtic (A), Copenhagen (A), West Ham). When they brought in Van Persie yesterday, I just have the gut feeling that the Arse are going to tie it somehow. Giving up a second goal in injury time just add to the pain and disappointment since this is the first time this season we let someone come from behind to beat us. The worst thing is there is no solution to this problem unless we buy someone. I don't think Europe is realistic this season. I just hope we can hold one to our lead win the PL. Also, this might sound very naive. I just hope SAF don't play Rooney or Giggs out of position for tactical reason. I can understand why he does that and we might give up a bundle of goals if we just go 442 vs. a big team. However, it is sooooo obvious we don't have the personnel to execute SAF's tactic. If we are going to lose, I rather we lose with our best formation. Rooney as SS and Giggs on LW.
Well, we probably would only have needed 45-60 minutes of Giggs exerting himself to the max before switching our tactics. We've got Park who can do that for 80mins and we've also got Fletcher who can play that role. Anyway, Giggs is still excellent at tracking back and he's got more awareness of what a Winger should do to assist his FB than any other winger on our team and probably most in the league. He filled in @ LB when Evra was off the pitch and he's also done that in the past. I agree w/ the Carrick/Scholes argument which is why we've either got to dominate on the counter using 2 wingers or try to consolidate the middle using Fletcher on the right.
But I think that Rooney wide is still a better player than Fletcher is. And maybe you'd get away with Giggs wide in a lot of games, but not away to Arsenal, when Fergie is trying to keep it tight. Maybe this is why you're after Hargreaves so much. He would allow you to play a 4-4-2 with just him and Scholes in the middle, and with his industry provide cover for when your wide players go missing.
You underestimate Giggs ability to cover. He's been used as a man marker against tough wingers as recently as 2005 but while he used to be able to do that and attack for a full 90, he can't any longer. Fergie loves Giggs and rightly so, but in trying to keep Giggs on the pitch at all costs he's compromising the team. As for Rooney out wide being better than Fletcher of course he is. However, the point is Rooney played in his position is worth 5 or 6 Ryan Giggs playing centrally. Lets assume players are fit and in form, this is the output we'd get from the various players relative to their skill and the position they're playing. a) Everyone nominal ----------------Rooney(9) Giggs(8.5) ----------------------Flether(7) b) Rooney and Giggs swapped --------------Giggs(5.5) ------------------------------------------Rooney(6.5) c) Fletcher accomodating --------------------------------Rooney(9) Giggs/Ronaldo (9)---------------------------------------------Fletcher(6) We're strongest in either c) which allows Carrick, Fletcher and Scholes to run the midfield and handle winning possession back and allows Rooney and one of Giggs/Ronaldo to supply the CF.
I suspect that Fergie wants to have Scholes, Giggs, Ronaldo and Rooney on the pitch at the same time, and therefore struggles to find a formation to accomodate them all. Of course, had your defence played a little higher up the pitch, you might have won the game 1-0 and you'd be praising Fergies tactics.
No, I wouldn't be praising his tactics. We were playing not to lose and we should never play like that. There's no point having all 4 on the pitch if 3 of them have their effectiveness reduced vastly. Its better to have 3 opperating at 100% than 4 running at 60% especially when you could always bring Giggs off the bench for extra attacking if needed late on.
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. Hey, I agree, I'm just trying to guess Fergie's mind, given that he's been right more often than wrong!
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
It was clear from watching the match that Rooney doesn't have a feel for the passing angles when playing wide. No fault to him, as its not his position, but the team never looked fluid going forward on his side. Also, Giggs doesn't have the proper sense when carring the ball through the middle. Again, not his fault. I agree with DS's suggestion that we sit Giggs if we are going to play this style. Fletcher in yesterday's match would have been great as I would have loved to have seen him harass Flamini and Fabergas. Oh well.
If it is not obvious to all already, Larson is v good but !!! I thought ManUtd's attack looked better when Saha came on , I look forward to the Ronaldo Saha Rooney partnership playing again next match. I hope trust and pray ?????????????????????? next post depending on Fergie. PS: 1-22-2007 still no positive transfer News.???? No matter what Chelsea say, they have missed chances to close the gap on ManU they keep on drawing now losing, and you know Liverpool will continue to draw, same goes with Arsenal.
Great post, repped. Its been repeatedley said. I agree to drop Rooney for Europes most difficult games.
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.
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...
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.