well, we deserved that

Originally Posted by Whalefish

Fergie and man management - he gots a lot of credit for this but his handling of Rooney is bordering on mismanagement. After a confidence boosting 90mins against Croatia midweek he returns to OT to find himself shunted out wide (again) despite earlier comments from Fergie that he was perhaps being unfair to the lad. It's not as if we lacked options, three players were on the bench who could have been used in that position to allow Wayne to play where he plays best. If he went up to Fergie after the match told him to £#%&! off and chinned him I wouldn't blame him. In fact I'd applaud it.

Fergie either needs to come up with a new system to fit them all in - something I'm not sure is even possible, at least not in matches where you're not going to dominate possession - or accept that one of them is going to sit on the bench. To try to shoehorn three strikers into an orthodox 4-4-2 is just stupid. I don't think it will really best exploit the qualities of Ronaldo when he comes back either - for me, it will ask a lot more of him defensively than he is accustomed to, and not give him anything like the flexibility he enjoyed last season in the attacking phase either.

Originally Posted by MUFC One Love

I said to my old man about 5 minutes after we scored (and we started giving it away) "We've scored to early it could cost us".

Said the same thing.

Originally Posted by Whalefish

That was at OT.

that's why i stick to cookery threads. my drug addled, rage infused memory is no longer capable of total recall

Originally Posted by Serenity Now

Fergie either needs to come up with a new system to fit them all in - something I'm not sure is even possible, at least not in matches where you're not going to dominate possession - or accept that one of them is going to sit on the bench. To try to shoehorn three strikers into an orthodox 4-4-2 is just stupid. I don't think it will really best exploit the qualities of Ronaldo when he comes back either - for me, it will ask a lot more of him defensively than he is accustomed to, and not give him anything like the flexibility he enjoyed last season in the attacking phase either.

Good post.

Originally Posted by Camel

if i was your father i'd wash your £#%&!ing mouth out with soap and water for that

Don't know what I was thinking writing that :shakehead:

Absolutely shocking.

They were there for a real £#%&!ing.They're a poor team and we've just given their whole season a big £#%&!ing boost.Where was the leadership?Where was the substitutions of substance?I couldn't believe Giggs came on and not Nani.It showed a real lack of intent.


Van Der Sar was like a £#%&!ing schoolboy.
Brown was mentally £#%&!ed after the goal and went to pieces.
Anderson was ok in parts but, I agree, he has a lot to learn.But he will get there.

I thought Rio was good.Evra too.And I thought at least Rooney tried.


After we scored, I said to my old man 'This could be embarrassing for them'.Turns out, it was us that were embarrassing.

Howard Webb was their twelfth man though.Not being bitter, it's a £#%&!ing fact.Gave them £#%&!ing everything.

Originally Posted by El Calafate

thought he played quite well first half. i think scholes is the problem. (i'll get shit for saying that. )

nft.

i doubt it. scholes has been a fantastic servant to the club, but i don't think he can cut it for 90m against the top sides anymore. still a great player but just doesn't have the legs. tbh, i was surprised when he managed to get back at macherano (?) when he gave the ball away cheaply and they broke and it looked like he was going to get an easy run into our box.

scholes and anderson partnership was superb at the start of last season. but we really needed some mettle in there today. yes, carrick is underated as a tackler but fletcher or hargreaves from the start was what was needed.

Originally Posted by The Watcher

Don't know what I was thinking writing that :shakehead:

quit it with the 'defense' stuff too or i'm going to the bathroom for that bar me laddy

Concerned today, we just looked like didn't want it after our goal. We looked very tired. First half we were OK, I though twe edged it but we just didn't go up a gear in the second halfl, Liverpool did and played us off the park. Have to say Scholes was poor today.
Although was really pissed off at the love in from Gray, Redknapp and Souness at the end. You'd have thought the dippers had won the league.
Ah well, work is going to be a bit of a pain this week.

Can anyone explain why Webb kept his cards in his pocket after the challenge on Nani right at the final whistle. He'd just given Vida a second yellow for a lot less?

Webb's a homer. Always has been.

Originally Posted by Elsey

Can anyone explain why Webb kept his cards in his pocket after the challenge on Nani right at the final whistle. He'd just given Vida a second yellow for a lot less?

Because the Liverpool fans didn't want him to.

Originally Posted by MJ Ramone

Because the Liverpool fans didn't want him to.

Originally Posted by MJ Ramone

Because the Liverpool fans didn't want him to.

that about sums it up.

Mascherano is allowed to run around and kick the shit out of whoever he likes. But the minute a united player challenges for a 50/50 there's 40,000 people screaming "eeeeeeerrrrrrggghhh meeeeuuurrrrrdddeeeerrr!"

It is Ronaldo and 2 out of the other 3.

No way can we play all 4 and keep a shape to the team. If Scholes plays he needs 2 other CM players to help him these days, Carrick/Scholes/Hargreaves with Ronaldo/Berbatov and Rooney probably getting the first chance as a combo.

First choice team is a myth though. With Rotation, injuries, suspensions, fatigue, the on paper strongest 11 will rarely play together.

you know what's funny. we're all quite honest about how shit we were, about how they played better and showed a lot more appetite and hunger than us. I don't think anyone on here would argue that we deserved to get beat.

But if it was the other way around, and it was them who lost, they'd be coming out with all sorts of %@#$&!s about how they didn't deserve to lose and we only won because of luck etc, etc.

I think that's the difference. We're realists and they've always had their heads up their arses.

Originally Posted by Serenity Now

Hopefully that's the last we see of the "stick all the big names in and cross your fingers" plan. The way we were set up just seemed to be completely incoherent, particularly for a match of this type. Although in fairness, I actually thought we started very brightly, looking like we could grab another goal or two with some great movement and very slick football.

However, as soon as their goal went in they really seemed to up the intensity and aggression of both their pressing and their tackling, and we couldn't cope with it at all (Carrick's injury didn't help here either). So the minute the ball got into the feet of our midfielders they were there snapping away, and in the end we just started bypassing our CMs completely, resorting instead to hopeful punts from the back for Berbatov to contest. Extremely poor.

The substitutions really didn't make much sense at all either. Bringing Giggs on for Carrick when we were still level and looking fairly comfortable? When Anderson and Scholes have shown repeatedly that they don't work as a pair? And then taking Anderson off, just when were imposing ourselves on the game a little bit again, and replacing him with Nani? Bizarre decisions. They just seemed to be repeated invitations to let them dominate the midfield.

However, for all their territorial dominance, they still shouldn't have scored those goals. For players as experienced as VdS and Giggs to make fundamental mistakes like that is very disappointing.

Basically you'd have to say it was a disaster in every respect - perhaps the worst we've played since the San Siro? And at least then we had the excuse of the huge problems with our defence!

Agree strongly on both points. Ahead of this game I was worried about how we could fit all these players in without completely unbalancing the side. So the first ten or fifteen minutes were a very pleasant surprise. However, after their equaliser and by the end of the game I was back to being very concerned about how Fergie is going to make it all fit together.

I think you're actually being generous with your analysis of the substitutions. I thought Anderson was doing a decent job in the first half and his role in the side was important, so I thought moving him and bringing Giggs in on the left was disruptive. I'd sooner have seen Hargreaves on as a straight swap for Carrick. I would probably also have taken Berbatov off after an hour for Nani and moved Rooney central. But those are just personal choice. Bringing Nani on for Anderson, after Scholes had aready come off, and leaving Hargreaves pretty much on his own in central midfield was a change of such ridiculous proportions it has scared the living hell out of me.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

you know what's funny. we're all quite honest about how shit we were, about how they played better and showed a lot more appetite and hunger than us. I don't think anyone on here would argue that we deserved to get beat.

But if it was the other way around, and it was them who lost, they'd be coming out with all sorts of %@#$&!s about how they didn't deserve to lose and we only won because of luck etc, etc.

I think that's the difference. We're realists and they've always had their heads up their arses.

cheers, i'll sleep better for that

let's not get carried away with identifying fundamental flaws, eh. we were shite at the start of last season as well, remember.

for me our fitness levels don't look right. we're slow to the loose ball and weak in the tackle. maybe it's not an accident and we're looking to peak later in the season, but it seems clear to me.

it wasn't so much the formation today, i think (though i don't think it worked), nor is it fundamental issues of an x can't play with y type. we were slow, sloppy and lethargic all round. our build up play was terribly slow and our play in general lacked urgency. the defence was shaky pretty much the whole game and we were second best in 50-50s. i certainly don't agree that we looked comfortable at the back: they had a number of good shooting chances, got a few very dangerous balls across the box and got behind both of our full backs very easily.

i think the main problem today wasn't the system or the particular players picked, but just poor performances from individuals right through the team. we looked shite against zenit (completely different formation) and we looked shite against the @#%&!s today. put simply, it's not formations or tactics imo, it's just a shockingly low level of performance from the players as individuals and as units. we're not out of the starting blocks yet and we've got no form whatsoever to speak of. poor against newcastle, poor against zenit, awful today: this has been coming, if we're honest.

the only plus i can think of is that this might be the spark to ignite the hunger in the team. i think we'll see a different level of intensity against villarreal and chelsea. i £#%&!ing hope so anyway.

Originally Posted by borsuk

let's not get carried away with identifying fundamental flaws, eh. we were shite at the start of last season as well, remember.

for me our fitness levels don't look right. we're slow to the loose ball and weak in the tackle. maybe it's not an accident and we're looking to peak later in the season, but it seems clear to me.

it wasn't so much the formation today, i think (though i don't think it worked), nor is it fundamental issues of an x can't play with y type. we were slow, sloppy and lethargic all round. our build up play was terribly slow and our play in general lacked urgency. the defence was shaky pretty much the whole game and we were second best in 50-50s. i certainly don't agree that we looked comfortable at the back: they had a number of good shooting chances, got a few very dangerous balls across the box and got behind both of our full backs very easily.

i think the main problem today wasn't the system or the particular players picked, but just poor performances from individuals right through the team. we looked shite against zenit (completely different formation) and we looked shite against the @#%&!s today. put simply, it's not formations or tactics imo, it's just a shockingly low level of performance from the players as individuals and as units. we're not out of the starting blocks yet and we've got no form whatsoever to speak of. poor against newcastle, poor against zenit, awful today: this has been coming, if we're honest.

the only plus i can think of is that this might be the spark to ignite the hunger in the team. i think we'll see a different level of intensity against villarreal and chelsea. i £#%&!ing hope so anyway.

worst post on this thread. wrong even from the first sentence.

we weren't crap the start of last season.

we weren't soft in tackles today. but we we're slow to the ball when they had possession.

some of our passing and movement was immense in the first quarter of the game. maybe it is fitness that we lost it on but more likely formation, player choice and tactics.

the formation was debatable, but to say x doesn't fit into y is naive. rooney was sidelined literally. i only remember seeing him switch once to the left as well. you shouldn't try to put square pegs in round holes. rooney is only played on the wing because none of the other options track back as well.

how you can refer to a team as units is a bit contradictory too. a team should be more than the sum of its individual parts.

Originally Posted by Camel

worst post on this thread. wrong even from the first sentence.

we weren't crap the start of last season. remind of how we started again?

we weren't soft in tackles today. but we we're slow to the ball when they had possession.i beg to differ. i think we lost out on a lot of 50-50s.

some of our passing and movement was immense in the first quarter of the game. maybe it is fitness that we lost it on but more likely formation, player choice and tactics.again, disagree. we were good for the first 20 or so but then we were dominated, if we're honest. i don't think the formation was correct, as i said, but we have put in very similar performances now in three of the four games we've played, playing in different formations. i think we look chronically short of form and not yet up to speed, irrespective of the formation. sloppy and lacking in energy.

the formation was debatable, but to say x doesn't fit into y is naive. rooney was sidelined literally. i only remember seeing him switch once to the left as well. you shouldn't try to put square pegs in round holes. rooney is only played on the wing because none of the other options track back as well.what i said was it's less a case of 'x can't play with y' - i.e. anderson and scholes won't work etc. i think it's more a case of players playing well below their level, for whatever reason. rooney is utterly wasted on the wing, agreed. especially when he's asked to play as an orthodox right-winger and not even on the edge of a front three.

how you can refer to a team as units is a bit contradictory too. a team should be more than the sum of its individual parts.the reference to units meant, for example, defensive unit (i.e. back 5). what i meant was our back 5 is unchanged and has always been very solid, but has looked actually quite shaky this season. putting all questions of formation aside, i think we've simply got too many players playing well below their level atm.

.