Oh £#%&! off with your 4-2-3-1 Rooney on the wing

One of the worlds best left wingers - play up front

One of the worlds best strikers - play him at left wing.


Does that make sense to anybody?

Originally Posted by dodger

One of the worlds best left wingers - play up front

One of the worlds best strikers - play him at left wing.


Does that make sense to anybody?

Yes,if they interchange regularly ,as they did.

Makes them harder to mark.

That Striker scored from the right wing too.

Who would have thought this crazy kind of total footballs wash poshible?

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

It clearly came very close to working. Poor defending cost us that result, not the formation. The gameplan looked to be working perfectly for 83 minutes.

um.... poor defending cost us because arsenal were putting us under pressure.... and, more importantly, we weren't putting them under any pressure. we might as well have played without a striker.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Had Arsenal been putting United under good amounts of pressure, or had van der Sar been keeping up in the game - I might agree with you.

As it was, we were extremely confortable until some poor defending (and a foul on Scholes) led to their equalier and we fell apart at the back again for the winner.

the goals were coming. arsenal were positive where we sat back.


with the players we have available, we should be playing 4-4-2 with giggs wide left, ronaldo on the right and rooney in the centre. giggs is more disciplined than ronaldo to cover evra (or heinze) and rooney is wasted on the wing.

the real problem, though, is that we don't have a player who can play just behind scholes and carrick to fill the gap in front of the defence that deep-lying quick strikers can use. hargreaves would have been worth £20mio yesterday and 4-1-4-1 (or whatever) would have been just fine.

if fergie wants to £#%&! around with silly formations, he should make sure we have the players to fit them.

Originally Posted by Lazarus

Yes,if they interchange regularly ,as they did.

Makes them harder to mark.

That Striker scored from the right wing too.

Who would have thought this crazy kind of total footballs wash poshible?

Mmmmm yes, it was very effective. We were an irresistible attacking force and we kept it nice and tight.

Originally Posted by Lazarus

No offence but some of you lads have reached the point where you seem to believe that 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 can't lose.. You seem to forget that we've been torn apart away from home playing it before and had good results away to the top sides with the dreaded 4-5-1/whatever you call it.

Now I don't like it and I thought it was patently a mistake to play it at home to the likes of West Brom but we had some significant away results with it.

Can anybody remember the last time United won away from home against a very good side in a 'must win' game with Fergie's current 'tactics'. I am struggling to come up with any in the last couple of years. But still he persists. He should trust his players and play them in their best position. Football is a simple game, complicated by coaches who see problems where there are none.
Yesterday was a no-lose opportunity to go nine points clear and deal a potentially mortal blow to Chelsea (and anyone else). 30 minutes to go and 1 up with Arsenal struggling. Should have gone all out for the second goal. Reckon we would have scored at least once more and certainly not lost the game.

Good tactics yesterday. Very good performance from a fair few of the shirts. Excellent screen by Carrick. Well played Rooney on the right of a rapier-thrusting counter-attacking formation.

Pity the passing wasn't as sharp as it can be, particularly in the centre with Scholes and Giggs.

We were £#%&!ing cruising against a sophisticated team who'd resorted to pumping long balls up onto Vidic and Rio's head ffs.

Then both Scholes and Evra went to ground, lost out, and the trap was sprung.

Both teams looked a bit dodgy from the low crossed ball. Pity some of the fine openings we made early doors were wasted with poor service from Evra, who was otherwise very good.

Originally Posted by Hank Scorpio

Can anybody remember the last time United won away from home against a very good side in a 'must win' game with Fergie's current 'tactics'. I am struggling to come up with any in the last couple of years. But still he persists. He should trust his players and play them in their best position. Football is a simple game, complicated by coaches who see problems where there are none.
Yesterday was a no-lose opportunity to go nine points clear and deal a potentially mortal blow to Chelsea (and anyone else). 30 minutes to go and 1 up with Arsenal struggling. Should have gone all out for the second goal. Reckon we would have scored at least once more and certainly not lost the game.

Maybe there's some truth in that but if we'd gone all out for the second goal and conceded we'd have no doubt had a thousand complaints about defenders being too far out of position and not marking properly.

This is what happens when you lose or draw.It's very easy to be wise after the event.

We don't have a particularly stellar away record to Arsenal,its never been a fantastic fixture - I seem to remember being at some nasty 3-0 spankings playing 4-4-1-1.

None of us can honestly say what would have happened. Yes,it would have been nice to try to attack with a bit more thrust and really go for the killer goal but that fact remains that it very nearly was a great win at one of the hardest away grounds,against a team right in top form.

It was less about tactics and more about human error ,a drop in concentration levels (and a foul not spotted/given by a bald bastard)

If the performance had been shocking I'd agree that we'd £#%&!ed it from the start ..but we played well.

My only real disappointment with the lads was their mental reaction to conceding the first - they didn't respond with a gear change up and clearly settled for a draw,this handed too much initiative to Arsenal.

Originally Posted by Lazarus

My only real disappointment with the lads was their mental reaction to conceding the first - they didn't respond with a gear change upand clearly settled for a draw,this handed too much initiative to Arsenal.

Lack of leadership or someone to force them on. Add that to the fact that Giggs and Scholes had little left in the tank and you see why we we drop deeper and deeper in these away games.

Still surprised that Saha did not start. Larsson was nice and tidy, but we never posed a physical threat to Arsenal with Giggs and Larsson up front.

Agreed.

That formation almost sent us out of Europe this year too. I'm sure he'll use it in the knockout stages.

Originally Posted by dodger

Mmmmm yes, it was very effective. We were an irresistible attacking force and we kept it nice and tight.

Ok,well I can be childish too and the next time we lose playing 4-4-1-1 (as we don't ever actually play 4-4-2 like some people seem to think) and Rooney doesn't score - like he did yesterday - I'll post 'Mmmmm yes, it was very effective. We were an irresistible attacking force and we kept it nice and tight.'

EDIT: Tiberian. I agree on both points : a captain Keane at his peak would have had the players concentrating on seeing the game out and keeping their discipline....and I believe Saha should have started with Larsson our secret weapon on the bench.

Originally Posted by Lazarus

the next time we lose playing 4-4-1-1 (as we don't ever actually play 4-4-2 like some people seem to think)

We either play a variation of 4-4-2, or we play a variation of 4-5-1. Whatever the exact formation, that's the most significant difference by far. Which is why we use those formations as shorthand.

Originally Posted by Lazarus

None of us can honestly say what would have happened. Yes,it would have been nice to try to attack with a bit more thrust and really go for the killer goal but that fact remains that it very nearly was a great win at one of the hardest away grounds,against a team right in top form.

I think we all agree that we would rather lose playing adventurous, entertaining football than lose trying to contain an adventurous, entertaining side.

we can't say what would have happened; but we can say what did happen. and that therefore something else would have been preferable and might have worked.

if we'd have kept them under pressure, would their fullbacks have been putting in crosses?

the real difference in the teams - allowing for our players not playing their best positions, not playing at the top of their form (merely doing a job in the main), individual errors and the ref being a bent @#%&! - was that arsenal looked hungry for a goal long before they scored. you could see what they were trying to do. they were positive. we never looked like getting a second. to be honest, we never really looked like getting the first. ronaldo's pass and evra's run and cross were excellent, but we created very little apart from a couple of long shots and our attacks looked disjointed.

there is no such thing as playing it safe for united. apart from anything else, we are cack at it. fergie should know this by now.

Originally Posted by jem

there is no such thing as playing it safe for united. apart from anything else, we are cack at it. fergie should know this by now.

Very well said. Couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by Tropical

We either play a variation of 4-4-2, or we play a variation of 4-5-1. Whatever the exact formation, that's the most significant difference by far. Which is why we use those formations as shorthand.

I'm sorry,I don't agree. I don't classify 4-4-1-1 as a variation of 4-4-2 at all;it is a formation in its own right.

We have always played split strikers. One out and out goalscorer and a man behind in the hole linking the play between midfield and attack. This role has been key to our greatest successes and has been filled by the likes of Cantona,Yorke and Sheringham.

It's an important distinction because the man in the hole often moves into the midfield to help with defensive duties or to drop off his marker and create more effectively. This can mean that at certain times in the match the team's actual formation is 4-5-1.

Now,that may well be a very different kind of 4-5-1 to the one we've played the last few years that involves three central midfielders and Rooney on the left. However,it is,technically, a 4-5-1. This is why people do need to be precise when discussing formations.

The truth is that we have played 4-5-1 many times during our glory era. Plenty of times Cantona would retreat into the midfield,likewise Yorke and Teddy. This is why when people say '£#%&! 4-5-1' I want to clarify what they mean. 4-5-1 where the link man plays in the hole and moves between attack and midfield in tight games...or the 4-5-1 that involves one striker receiving support from the wings?

Also,we played the former kind of 4-5-1 the season we won the European cup. The link man often came into the midfield and stayed there for prolonged periods of play..even if it was just to deny the opposition space. Away to Inter and Juventus Ferguson also put Scholes on the bench and played Keane and Butt for a more combative,destructive midfield duo.

I don't do it to be pedantic,or win internet battles,there genuinely are hugely different implications to a formation and it is sometimes important to remember that going more defensive
by changing the formation and personnel is not something alien to United. Great United sides have done it.

I sometimes think we slighty over romanticise the old days of 4-4-1-1 and forget that we were also flexible in those days too.

One of the great things about the Yorke/Cole combination was that they interchanged roles very well, both could play as the target man or the deeper lying striker, gave them a real fluidity and unpredictable style.

Originally Posted by Tiberian

One of the great things about the Yorke/Cole combination was that they interchanged roles very well, both could play as the target man or the deeper lying striker, gave them a real fluidity and unpredictable style.

I think Andy is the most criminally underrated player in United's history.

When we played the 4-4-1-1 with the deeper striker, I never remember the furthermost striker being as isolated as Larsson was yesterday.

As anyone who knows anything about football, leaving a striker with no one within 25 yards of him is suicide. That is the problem with the way we are currently playing 4-5-1

Originally Posted by Lazarus

I'm sorry,I don't agree. I don't classify 4-4-1-1 as a variation of 4-4-2 at all;it is a formation in its own right.

Sorry, that's %@#$&!s.

If we have 4 defenders, 4 midfielders and two strikers (whether one is withdrawn or not) then it is 4-4-2. 4-4-1-1 is just a more detailed description of the formation.

4-2-3-1 anyway.

whatever, it's %@#$&!s.

We were £#%&!ing cruising, and against the long ball as well, until Scholes and Evra contrived to let Arsenal in by going to ground and losing the ball.

Tactics yesterday were 100% spot on.

Passing wasn't though; better passing and ball retention would have probably seen us see out the game easily - and probably score a second.

When people finally understand this then they can start talking about the pros and cons of various formations. Doesn't matter what formation you play if you give the ball away cheaply with UNFORCED errors.

Well played Wayne Rooney, though. Looks like the young scouser might finally be close to sussing it out.