How many crosses will we attempt against Arsenal?

Originally Posted by andyroo

We want to put the ball in the goal, not in the box. Putting it repeatedly into the box where Fulham were having no trouble at all in putting it straight back out again, and doing it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again* in spite of all evidence that it wasn't working is just perverse

Who said it wasn't working ? We scored twice from crosses and should have scored more. When United score twice at home that should be three points.

Use your noggin. Look at the defence. Two attacks two goals. The real problems are in front of your nose.

Yes Fulham defended with their lives, got lucky on a few occasions, couple of great saves from their keeper, lost of last ditch tackles on the ground from their centre backs too. United created dangerous situations.

Like I say, United scoring twice should win us the match. Howver those goals come - crosses, penalties, free kicks, own goals whatever. If we leak 2 goals at home from such soft situations we are gonna drop points. £#%&! all to do with the ( actually successful ) tactic of using crosses at the attacking end.

Originally Posted by zzalsar3

Whats people problem with crosses all of a sudden ?

No one complained when Beckham or Ronaldo or Giggs crossed for Hughes, Cantona or Ruud to score from.

Noone complained when Coppell or Hill crossed the ball either.

We want wingers and width and wide players...so long as they dont cross the ball into the box too much ?

Originally Posted by zzalsar3

Do you keep count ? Do you question the amount of crosses when United have won 6-0 in the past.

Or do you only question them when you are told that getting the ball in the box is suddenly a bad thing...after we concede two stupid soft goals from two attacks at the other end.

Not sure we should brainlessly let some newspaper statistic tell us NOT to put the ball into the box in a variety of ways that we did.

People cry out for width...but don't want the ball put into the box ? Cos some alcoholic journo does a spreadsheet ?
Both our goals came from...crosses.
We had other great chances from...crosses.
We conceded an early goal from...a cross.
We concede a late goal from a header inside the six yard box ( albeit from a parried shot than a cross )

I've read articles today that try to make that "success rate" sound bad when in fact its better than usual. Don't believe the hype.

Yet there will be £#%&!wits at the next match groaning if we dare to put the ball across the box after this £#%&!witted inability to cope with thinking for themselves about what happens in a football match.

The same £#%&!wits who moan when we play narrow stifled football.

When United score twice that should be 3 points against a team at the bottom of the league...if we defend properly. The fact that we cannot defend is £#%&! all to do with how many crosses we put in.

Question the defence far more than the fact that United are playing with width ffs.
Be very careful what you wish for.
And think for yourselves.

I can think of problems with crossing the ball nearly once per minute.

The first is that crosses have the best chance of success when some kind of interplay has forced or dragged at least one central defender out from in front of goal. Whipping in a cross the second you get the ball - which is the only way you can manage 80+ crosses in a game - means you're probably aiming for targets who are marked, by defenders who are comfortably in good defensive positions.

I'm not so sure what counts as a 'successful' cross either. Quite a few times we pulled balls back behind the runner, who had to check back to get a touch and just lay it back to a deeper player. That's not my real-world idea of a 'successful cross.'

There's also the Fulham-specific problem of crossing a million balls at a back four whose main strength - because of their level of play - is dealing with balls in the air, rather than tracking runners and disrupting clever combination play (which our front players are capable of). But don't take my word for it:

Former Darlington defender Burn said the aerial assault reminded him of his days in non-league football, adding: “I've never headed that many balls since [playing in] the Conference.”


“At the end of the day I'm happy for them to play like that. We knew that we were going to defend our box well. We were going to keep our back four quite narrow so that we were between the goal and the wingers were going to look after the wide men.

“We've been working on that in training. I thought it worked well."

Originally Posted by Grimson

I can think of problems with crossing the ball nearly once per minute.

The first is that crosses have the best chance of success when some kind of interplay has forced or dragged at least one central defender out from in front of goal. Whipping in a cross the second you get the ball - which is the only way you can manage 80+ crosses in a game - means you're probably aiming for targets who are marked, by defenders who are comfortably in good defensive positions.

I'm not so sure what counts as a 'successful' cross either. Quite a few times we pulled balls back behind the runner, who had to check back to get a touch and just lay it back to a deeper player. That's not my real-world idea of a 'successful cross.'

There's also the Fulham-specific problem of crossing a million balls at a back four whose main strength - because of their level of play - is dealing with balls in the air, rather than tracking runners and disrupting clever combination play (which our front players are capable of). But don't take my word for it:

Former Darlington defender Burn said the aerial assault reminded him of his days in non-league football, adding: “I've never headed that many balls since [playing in] the Conference.”


“At the end of the day I'm happy for them to play like that. We knew that we were going to defend our box well. We were going to keep our back four quite narrow so that we were between the goal and the wingers were going to look after the wide men.

“We've been working on that in training. I thought it worked well."

rarely anyone attacking the 6yd box ahead of a striker, and rarely anyone attacking the edge of the 18yd box from midfield, no-one on the penalty spot - shit movement and poor thinking from the players imo going unchecked from the sidelines apparently... strikers making the same runs, mata rarely attacking the back stick from crosses off the other side (unsurprisingly), no-one getting across the front man (a recurring theme that one is) - these are all pretty basic stuff that all footballers at any level should know and which are practiced over and over. moyes must be tearing his hair out at some of the basic errors his attackers are making, quite apart from sub-standard crossing, unimaginative passing and shoddy finishing that have been a feature of the season...

I wonder if they spend most of their time trying to drill the defence, hoping that with a bit of finishing practice the attack will take care of itself? maybe if so the manager needs to sack that off for the time being cus half his defence won't even be there come august anyway - just concentrate on keeping the back door shut and get that attack purring

try anyway

I would just add, since zzalsar's argument seems to be that not getting the 3 points is because we didn't defend, that that's a completely different argument. It might be true, but I think the attacking approach would be just as awful if we'd won 2-0. It was Fulham ffs.

Originally Posted by Grimson

I can think of problems with crossing the ball nearly once per minute.

In most matches the ball is in play for between 55-60 mins, so the ratio goes up. Then add that Utd had 75% possession and it comes to 82 crosses in around 40-45 mins.

It was like watching an extended training session or an exercise in self-parody. It used to crack me up when Valencia spent the whole game brainlessly thumping the ball towards the box, appears he was just the outlier.

Originally Posted by zzalsar3

Even this BS about "only 18 out of 82 reached a United player"...

Anyone stopped to think thats a very normal ratio ?

Some article about cross rations that reach a team mate from last year...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...st-season.html

This 18 our of 82 from Sunday would beat the top of that list of ratios and percentages ( 22% cross "success" ) and over half the PL teams have lower "cross success rates"

The only side that beats that was a team with Andy Carroll playing centre forward.

Pity RvP and Ashley Young didn't stick their chances away from these crosses.

And pity we can't defend and let in two goals from two attacks. Defend properly and those crosses win the match for us. Defend badly and you drop points.

Lets not get the ball into the box from wide areas ? Er what ?

Theres a case to be made that putting high balls into our players might have been a waste...but they weren't all big/high crosses - they were a variety - including fast low balls that zipped across...the sort that players like Rooney, van Persie, and Hernandez have scored plenty of goals from.

Don't believe the tabloid hype. The problem was we conceded two goals, not that we crossed the ball into the box - where the goals are scored from.

To be fair plenty moan when Valencia tries his low fast crosses instead of ariel balls. Now they moan when players don't do low fast crosses.

Originally Posted by zzalsar3

Who said it wasn't working ? We scored twice from crosses and should have scored more. When United score twice at home that should be three points.

Use your noggin. Look at the defence. Two attacks two goals. The real problems are in front of your nose.

Yes Fulham defended with their lives, got lucky on a few occasions, couple of great saves from their keeper, lost of last ditch tackles on the ground from their centre backs too. United created dangerous situations.

Like I say, United scoring twice should win us the match. Howver those goals come - crosses, penalties, free kicks, own goals whatever. If we leak 2 goals at home from such soft situations we are gonna drop points. £#%&! all to do with the ( actually successful ) tactic of using crosses at the attacking end.

there are two problems. one is that, without resorting to statistics, anyone could see that our attacks were uninventive and playing to fulham's strengths. we are poorly coached and we didn't mix it up enough. secondly, we were lucky only to concede twice, because part of the desperate overcommitment to crossing involved sending the fullbacks into adventurous positions from which they could not recover. with the possession we had, we should have scored 8.

Originally Posted by zzalsar3

Do you keep count ? Do you question the amount of crosses when United have won 6-0 in the past.

Or do you only question them when you are told that getting the ball in the box is suddenly a bad thing...after we concede two stupid soft goals from two attacks at the other end.

Not sure we should brainlessly let some newspaper statistic tell us NOT to put the ball into the box in a variety of ways that we did.

People cry out for width...but don't want the ball put into the box ? Cos some alcoholic journo does a spreadsheet ?
Both our goals came from...crosses.
We had other great chances from...crosses.
We conceded an early goal from...a cross.
We concede a late goal from a header inside the six yard box ( albeit from a parried shot than a cross )

I've read articles today that try to make that "success rate" sound bad when in fact its better than usual. Don't believe the hype.

Yet there will be £#%&!wits at the next match groaning if we dare to put the ball across the box after this £#%&!witted inability to cope with thinking for themselves about what happens in a football match.

The same £#%&!wits who moan when we play narrow stifled football.

When United score twice that should be 3 points against a team at the bottom of the league...if we defend properly. The fact that we cannot defend is £#%&! all to do with how many crosses we put in.

Question the defence far more than the fact that United are playing with width ffs.
Be very careful what you wish for.
And think for yourselves.

Do you think you could stop with this 'think for yourselves' stuff? You're not superior because you don't have a problem with the approach yesterday.

It's about variety. Yes, Giggs used to cross it for Hughes and Cantona, and later Ronaldo, and so on. But it wasn't all the team did. Those teams were so devastating because they had countless ways they could hurt you- one-twos between Scholes and Keane, Cole and Yorke, imaginative through balls from Eric, even - the horror - shooting from distance now and again.

The problem was that yesterday it was the only approach. It was the only way the team tried to get anywhere. Literally the second any player received the ball over the halfway line, he'd instantly look to give it to someone standing still on the touchline - note, standing still, not running at full pelt like Hill or Kanchelskis - who would then just loft the ball into the box without even looking.

You need to vary the play to keep the opposition on their toes, and this team is not doing it because, seemingly, they are being told not to. I see no imagination, no variety, just one tactic - cross it in. It's soul-destroying to watch. Ok, two crosses eventually led to two goals, but this is the bottom team we're talking about. Players like Van Persie, Rooney, Mata, Kagawa, Januzaj have the ability to destroy them. It should not be a case of chucking in 80-odd crosses and hope that 2 of them lead to goals so you can just about win against a team as shite as Fulham. It was criminally wasteful to resort to the same, repetitive tactic over and over and over again. Apart from anything else it's just £#%&!ing dull. Change it up ffs! Try something else.

I agree the defensive mistakes were to blame for the points being thrown away, but you cannot honestly compare that tedious cross-a-thon yesterday with the days of Kanchelskis and Giggs or Coppell and Hill flying at speed down the flanks. It's worlds apart ffs.

And by the way, Fulham's first goal wasn't from a cross.

I'd like to also say that although Fulham did defend the majority of what was thrown at them, they didn't really defend it particularly well and they didn't really have to. They constantly gave the ball back cheaply when better players would have been able to keep hold of possession and looked flustered at times which would have also been lessened against better teams, but due to the outrageously monotonous nature of the type of crosses being pumped into box it didn't really matter and they were comfortable for the majority.

It's all going to go off if we manage 96 crosses in a game....