Marseille vs Manchester United 23/2/11 Champions League last 16 match thread

#15

flahavaj wrote: »

I'm just going by memory tbh. I think the 3 in midfield bacame regularly used in 2007?

Record since then:

2007 - Champions League Semi-Final
2008 - Champions League Winners
2009 - Champions League Final
2010 - Champions League Quarter-Final

Plus the longest unbeaten away record in the CL. Something like a 2 year stretch.

I'd rather the solid Euro performances of the last few years rather than the insanely annoying knockouts against Dortmund, Porto, Leverkusen and Madrid.
Utd had legitimate chances to win all those ties, and could have done so if they had done things a little bit differently.

Still though, the midfield needs something extra.

Nalz

Headshot wrote: »

I wonder if we had a young scholes and Keane would we be playing that formation these days ?

Just curious

Not a chance

kryogen

Did that performance surprie anyone?

parker kent

Pro. F wrote: »

Honestly I don't trust your memory of when we changed to 3 CMs. Also, why do you only go back to 2000 for how we did with 2 CMs? We had some good runs before that.

With the data that you give there, it could be interpreted as the rise of Ronaldo having an effect on results.

I'm not saying that you are definitely wrong, I just haven't seen any evidence for your theory that our results have improved since we moved to 3 CMs.

Veron began the move to a 3-man midfield. They bought him in 2001 so the 3-man midfield has been used pretty often since then. Ferguson is on record as saying the the defeat to Real Madrid in 2000 stemmed from United's tactical naivety and the formation change was a central part of his rebuilding process. He wanted 3 in the middle to make United more compact. The past few years have been evidence of the success of that as United now win in Europe due to their defence, not the naive "you score 3, we'll score 4" approach of pre-2001.

United have played 3 men in midfield in bigger games for most of Rooney's time at United. Look at the FA Cup Final against Arsenal as an example.

It should also be said that United have never really played a strict 4-4-2 under Fergie. He has mentioned this numerous times. Cantona played in a withdrawn role, as did Yorke and Sheringham. The main change has been to pull the guy in the hole far deeper and to push the wingers up further and wider.

As for "statistical" proof of the success of 3 men in midfield, 2 European Cup finals and 2 semi-finals with it and 1 European Cup Final and 1 semi-final with 2 central midfielders.

Warper

parker kent wrote: »

Veron began the move to a 3-man midfield. They bought him in 2001 so the 3-man midfield has been used pretty often since then. Ferguson is on record as saying the the defeat to Real Madrid in 2000 stemmed from United's tactical naivety and the formation change was a central part of his rebuilding process. He wanted 3 in the middle to make United more compact. The past few years have been evidence of the success of that as United now win in Europe due to their defence, not the naive "you score 3, we'll score 4" approach of pre-2001.

United have played 3 men in midfield in bigger games for most of Rooney's time at United. Look at the FA Cup Final against Arsenal as an example.

It should also be said that United have never really played a strict 4-4-2 under Fergie. He has mentioned this numerous times. Cantona played in a withdrawn role, as did Yorke and Sheringham. The main change has been to pull the guy in the hole far deeper and to push the wingers up further and wider.

As for "statistical" proof of the success of 3 men in midfield, 2 European Cup finals and 2 semi-finals with it and 1 European Cup Final and 1 semi-final with 2 central midfielders.

Yorke and Cole were the best strikeforce i can remember for Utd. They were a conventional 2 strikers playing and they were brilliant together.

parker kent

Warper wrote: »

Yorke and Cole were the best strikeforce i can remember for Utd. They were a conventional 2 strikers playing and they were brilliant together.

Yorke played in a deeper role most of the time. Ask Alex Ferguson, he'll agree. He even said so earlier in the season when asked about returning to playing 2 up top when Rooney was coming back. He said "we've never played 2 up top". Every decent strikeforce has one player who is more withdrawn than the other. That is why they work together, they compliment each other, not copy each other.

Dues Bellator

seriously Carrick :mad:

Warper

parker kent wrote: »

Yorke played in a deeper role most of the time. Ask Alex Ferguson, he'll agree. He even said so earlier in the season when asked about returning to playing 2 up top when Rooney was coming back. He said "we've never played 2 up top". Every decent strikeforce has one player who is more withdrawn than the other. That is why they work together, they compliment each other, not copy each other.

Yorke and Cole were strike-partners. Fergie is cute and will say whatever he wants to say. Yorke and Cole were the 2 of a 4-4-2 formation, just look at how they played and they were great together. I dont need to ask Fergie to clarify this for me, I have eyes.

parker kent

Warper wrote: »

Yorke and Cole were strike-partners. Fergie is cute and will say whatever he wants to say. Yorke and Cole were the 2 of a 4-4-2 formation, just look at how they played and they were great together. I dont need to ask Fergie to clarify this for me, I have eyes.

Look I am not saying Yorke played in midfield. I am not saying they were not strike partners. I am just saying that one of them was more withdrawn than the other. The same way Beardsley was more withdrawn than Lineker. Or the way Cantona was more withdrawn than Cole. Or the way all decent strike forces have one player more withdrawn than the other.

So since one player is in that space, it is not vastly different to pull them a little deeper and play a Scholes type instead of a more identifiable striker, as United did the season they bought Veron. Or at any stage since they played with a 3 man midfield. One of them will always occupy that space and support the central striker.

MisterAnarchy

#15 wrote: »

I'd rather the solid Euro performances of the last few years rather than the insanely annoying knockouts against Dortmund, Porto, Leverkusen and Madrid.
Utd had legitimate chances to win all those ties, and could have done so if they had done things a little bit differently.

Watching Utd away from home in the Cl over the last few years has been like watching paint dry.They are extremely negative and over cautious.
They used to play good attacking edge of the seat football ,something Utd were always renowned for.
They have betrayed that philosophy and now resemble Liverpool of ~2007 in Europe.Awful awful football.
I'd prefer them to have a go and play decent football and lose than resort to the ****e witnessed tonight.

Blatter

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Watching Utd away from home in the Cl over the last few years has been like watching paint dry.They are extremely negative and over cautious.
They used to play good attacking edge of the seat football ,something Utd were always renowned for.
They have betrayed that philosophy and now resemble Liverpool of ~2007 in Europe.Awful awful football.
I'd prefer them to have a go and play decent football and lose than resort to the ****e witnessed tonight.

There's a reason Arsenal haven't won anything in the last 5 years.

Look, if we had Barcelona's players then I would agree with you 100%. But we don't and the fact is that playing 442 away from home in the champions league does not end well alot of the time and we can not afford to lose games away from home in the KO stages. Things become very difficult.

I support Fergie's tactics 100% and prefer progressing in the champions league rather than bowing out to the likes of Porto, Benfica, Marseille etc.

enfant terrible

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

There's a reason Arsenal haven't won anything in the last 5 years.

Look, if we had Barcelona's players then I would agree with you 100%. But we don't and the fact is that playing 442 away from home in the champions league does not end well alot of the time and we can not afford to lose games away from home in the KO stages. Things become very difficult.

I support Fergie's tactics 100% and prefer progressing in the champions league rather than bowing out to the likes of Porto, Benfica, Marseille etc.

Funny United fan's talk about 5 years like its an eternity.

You can tell they weren't around when United failed to win the league for 20 years or so, talk about being living in a bubble.

bamboozling

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Watching Utd away from home in the Cl over the last few years has been like watching paint dry.They are extremely negative and over cautious.
They used to play good attacking edge of the seat football ,something Utd were always renowned for.
They have betrayed that philosophy and now resemble Liverpool of ~2007 in Europe.Awful awful football.
I'd prefer them to have a go and play decent football and lose than resort to the ****e witnessed tonight.

Like the time we beat Barcelona 2-1 at the Nou Camp that season. Awful stuff.
Or maybe even how we beat PSV 3-0 away that same year. Another putrid performance.

Seen as we're doing circa 2007 why not include 2008. A 2-0 and 1-0 win home and away against Inter.
The we have the famous 4-2 home win against Arsenal.
And also the 3-2 game against Chelsea. All great games bar the 1-0 away win at Inter.

Think I'll throw in 2009 while we're at it. 4-0 win at home to Real playing breathtaking stuff.
The 4-4 draw against Chelsea. Jesus that was a desperate game.

In case you are wondering all these games were in the knockout stages of the Champions league. You couldn't be more wrong if you actually tried. Liverpool played great football in Europe circa 2007. We weren't afraid to go forward and actually went trying to score goals.

In 2007 United played the 7-1 against Roma and the 3-2 win over Milan. would say United have not had one exciting match in the knockout stages since then.

Pro. F

p_larkin99 wrote: »

You make some good points and I reckon for me it maybe a mental thing. Sure we often dont play well with the 3 midfielders and often have less of an attacking threat but do you not think we generally look a lot more solid, are a lot less ragged since the days of 4-4-2?

Maybe we are kind of both right with our suggestions for the reason for the switch and its in fact a combo of both?

I find it hard to say whether we look more solid or not tbh. The prime of our four man midfields was late 90s. It's a long time ago and I've always thought that we never replaced Keane properly when he started to wear out and eventually left (I don't mean we should have found a direct replacement as good as he was).

For me a solid performance is one where we dominate possession and don't give away too many chances when the opposition have the ball. We have succeeded quite well with the second part but have struggled for years with the first bit (since Keane left). We have played very defensively in Europe on lots of occasions, both home and away. And I don't just mean the formation either - formations don't dictate strategy imo. That defensive play is something I loathe seeing United doing because of the principles that the club is meant to stand for.

I wouldn't disagree with you that five man midfields, or defensive displays have served us well at times. It's just not at all clear cut that it has improved our record in the competition.

flahavaj wrote: »

Well we definitely played it in 2008 when we won it, I just can't quite remember if we did for certain in 2007. I only stoped at 2000 vecause the list i was using to cut and paste only went that far. It certainly shows enough to indicate from our results in 2004-2006 that something drastic needed to change. We've challenged well at the very latter stages of the competition using that formation - weren't far from winning two in a row.

We had success with 4-4-2 onbiously in '99 but that team was very very kamikaze and dare I say naive in Europe at times. We look a very solid unit with the three in midfield and tbh i thibk that will get you a long long way in the cometition if you're string at home - which United usually are.

You are assuming that the we were playing four man midfields during the bad run of 04 to 06. But that is wrong.

#15 wrote: »

I'd rather the solid Euro performances of the last few years rather than the insanely annoying knockouts against Dortmund, Porto, Leverkusen and Madrid.
Utd had legitimate chances to win all those ties, and could have done so if they had done things a little bit differently.

United were well into the defensive era at that stage. We played defensively and with five midfielders in the home leg (2nd) and lost the tie because of it. Although to be fair, Porto were class.

parker kent wrote: »

Veron began the move to a 3-man midfield. They bought him in 2001 so the 3-man midfield has been used pretty often since then. Ferguson is on record as saying the the defeat to Real Madrid in 2000 stemmed from United's tactical naivety and the formation change was a central part of his rebuilding process. He wanted 3 in the middle to make United more compact. The past few years have been evidence of the success of that as United now win in Europe due to their defence, not the naive "you score 3, we'll score 4" approach of pre-2001.
...
It should also be said that United have never really played a strict 4-4-2 under Fergie. He has mentioned this numerous times. Cantona played in a withdrawn role, as did Yorke and Sheringham. The main change has been to pull the guy in the hole far deeper and to push the wingers up further and wider.

And what about the 04 to 06 stretch? What does that prove? I suggest that United have done just as shít (early exits), just as average (later exits) and just as well (competition wins) since the move to overly defensive tactics. There is an extra final appearance in there for the new defensive period's credit, but we have been playing defensively for almost twice as long as we spent playing attacking pre 2000. Until somebody actually analyses the records properly though we won't know which record is better.

And yes I know about the 4411.

parker kent wrote: »

As for "statistical" proof of the success of 3 men in midfield, 2 European Cup finals and 2 semi-finals with it and 1 European Cup Final and 1 semi-final with 2 central midfielders.

That is not a statistical analysis. It's not even an honest representation of the data. You think you can draw conclusions about which is the more effective strategy, but what you are not grasping is that interpreting the two sets of records is not so simple.

I just want to clarify, it's not the formation that I'm against. It's the overly defensive performances and the lack of ability and desire to hold onto and dominate possession that I see as a flaw. We probably were too attacking in Europe back in the early days, but I see us as being too defensive now and there is no evidence that our record has improved since the change. I believe that if we changed to a more balanced style and brought in some central midfielders who actually have the skill required of that position then we would do even better in the CL than we have done in previous years.

Pro. F

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

There's a reason Arsenal haven't won anything in the last 5 years.

That would be their poor quality of centre backs and goalies. They won loads and went unbeaten for an entire season playing their attractive football before that.

Mister men

Warper wrote: »

God, what a boring match, thank god its over, a team top of the league in England v a mid-table French team. Is this what soccer has become?

It was the worst game i've seen all season. The Glazers are doing a fine job in turning United into the worst footballing side the people of Manchester have seen in 30 years. Really bad to watch at present.

eZe^

Mister men wrote: »

The Glazers are doing a fine job in turning United into the worst footballing side the people of Manchester have seen in 30 years.

Le King

Mister men wrote: »

It was the worst game i've seen all season. The Glazers are doing a fine job in turning United into the worst footballing side the people of Manchester have seen in 30 years. Really bad to watch at present.

The side has obviously deteriorated but this isn't our worst side in 30 years. Not by a long shot.

jaykay74

Mister men wrote: »

The Glazers are doing a fine job in turning United into the worst footballing side the people of Manchester have seen in 30 years.

Thats just stupid.

That is the most OTT post I've read in my 40 years of reading boards.ie

SlickRic

that made Liverpool in Sparta last week look like a 5-star classic.

horrendous stuff.

Utd will still go through though, unless they somehow don't turn up again.

worst footballing side in Manchester for 30 years though? i'd like some of what you're smoking....

flahavaj

Pro. F wrote: »

I find it hard to say whether we look more solid or not tbh. The prime of our four man midfields was late 90s. It's a long time ago and I've always thought that we never replaced Keane properly when he started to wear out and eventually left (I don't mean we should have found a direct replacement as good as he was).

For me a solid performance is one where we dominate possession and don't give away too many chances when the opposition have the ball. We have succeeded quite well with the second part but have struggled for years with the first bit (since Keane left). We have played very defensively in Europe on lots of occasions, both home and away. And I don't just mean the formation either - formations don't dictate strategy imo. That defensive play is something I loathe seeing United doing because of the principles that the club is meant to stand for.

I wouldn't disagree with you that five man midfields, or defensive displays have served us well at times. It's just not at all clear cut that it has improved our record in the competition.



You are assuming that the we were playing four man midfields during the bad run of 04 to 06. But that is wrong.



United were well into the defensive era at that stage. We played defensively and with five midfielders in the home leg (2nd) and lost the tie because of it. Although to be fair, Porto were class.



And what about the 04 to 06 stretch? What does that prove? I suggest that United have done just as shít (early exits), just as average (later exits) and just as well (competition wins) since the move to overly defensive tactics. There is an extra final appearance in there for the new defensive period's credit, but we have been playing defensively for almost twice as long as we spent playing attacking pre 2000. Until somebody actually analyses the records properly though we won't know which record is better.

And yes I know about the 4411.


That is not a statistical analysis. It's not even an honest representation of the data. You think you can draw conclusions about which is the more effective strategy, but what you are not grasping is that interpreting the two sets of records is not so simple.

I just want to clarify, it's not the formation that I'm against. It's the overly defensive performances and the lack of ability and desire to hold onto and dominate possession that I see as a flaw. We probably were too attacking in Europe back in the early days, but I see us as being too defensive now and there is no evidence that our record has improved since the change. I believe that if we changed to a more balanced style and brought in some central midfielders who actually have the skill required of that position then we would do even better in the CL than we have done in previous years.

I agree that inability to hold onto the ball is the main problem. That doesn't really depend on tactics or formations it depends on having players with the balls to take the responsibility for trying to run the game.

What was the 04-06 tactic btw off the top of your head? I can't for the life of me remember.

parker kent

Pro. F wrote: »

That is not a statistical analysis. It's not even an honest representation of the data. You think you can draw conclusions about which is the more effective strategy, but what you are not grasping is that interpreting the two sets of records is not so simple.

I just want to clarify, it's not the formation that I'm against. It's the overly defensive performances and the lack of ability and desire to hold onto and dominate possession that I see as a flaw. We probably were too attacking in Europe back in the early days, but I see us as being too defensive now and there is no evidence that our record has improved since the change. I believe that if we changed to a more balanced style and brought in some central midfielders who actually have the skill required of that position then we would do even better in the CL than we have done in previous years.

How exactly is it not honest? It happened. United have been in more Champions League Finals and semi finals with a 3 man midfield than they have been with a 2 man midfield. It is a pretty simple point. I'm not a simpleton, I understand what you are saying. But the facts speak for themselves, the past number of years have been United's best in Europe in their history.

parker kent

For the pedants, here is is United's record in the Champions League since 1994. It is generally accepted that United played with 4-4-2 or similar variations such as 4-4-1-1 until 2000 when Veron was bought. But it should be mentioned that Fergie has used different formations at different times since the return to the European Cup in 1994. For example, in the Nou Camp demolition job in 1994, due to the 3 foreigner rule and to contain the game, the line up had only one recognised striker, which is as follows: Walsh, Parker, Irwin, Bruce, Butt, Pallister, Kanchelskis, Ince, Keane, Hughes, Giggs

As can be seen, United only had a brief period in the 90s/2001 where they were a genuine threat, starting in 1997 with the run to the semi final. There are 5 seasons where United used the traditional 90s approach which yielded 3 quarter finals, 1 semi-final and 1 Champions League victory. The losses to Munich and Mardid were the point at which Ferguson decided United were naive in Europe and led to the purchase of Veron and an attempt to be less open at the back.

Since the purchase of Veron, Ferguson has tinkered with the United formation consistently. There has been no single formation used consistently. For example, in the games against Madrid in 2003, 4-5-1 was used in the first leg. You can see this in this video of the game, the United line up appears at 55 seconds approx.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YTz-A_a5tU

In the second leg, United used a similar line up with Solskjaer on the right of midfield. Variations of that line up had been used in the previous season too on the run to the semi final. That line up was pretty successful, and should have got United to a final in 2002 where they were unlucky to lose in the semis due with wrongly disallowed Johnsen header in the away leg.

The season after the Madrid game saw Beckham leave and Ronaldo arrive. 4-4-2 and 4-5-1 were used at various points that season with Van Nistelrooy partnered by Forlan, Saha and Solskjaer at various points. The game against Porto saw and injury crisis and Scholes played behind Ruud in a 4-4-1-1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2004/mar/09/minutebyminute.porto

2005 was a transition year, where the 4-3-3 with Ronaldo and Rooney out wide would eventually be used. But United were a shambles, going out in the group stage amidst the Roy Keane exit controversy. Rooney had arrived that season and was mainly used as a striker until late in the season. The FA Cup Final loss is probably the best example of where the current formation saw it's birth.

Basically for that point on, Fergie has used the 4-3-3 regularly. I would view 2005 as the beginning of the current formation. Fergie was clearly happy with the performance against Arsenal. After 2005, United have had their best spell ever in Europe.

1994
1st Round - Kispest Honved 3-2, 2-1 (5-3)
2nd Round - Galatasaray 3-3, 0-0 (3-3) lost on away goals

1995
1st Round Group
Galatasaray 0-0, 4-0
IFK Gothenburg 4-2, 1-3
Barcelona 2-2, 0-4 (3rd place)

1997
1st Round Group
Juventus 0-1, 0-1
Rapid Vienna 2-0, 2-0
Fenerbahce 2-0, 0-1 (2nd place)
Quarter-Final - Porto 4-0, 0-0 (4-0)
Semi-Final - Borussia Dortmund 0-1, 0-1 (0-2) Line Ups in 1st Leg:

1998
1st Round Group
Kosice 3-0, 3-0
Juventus 3-2, 0-1
Feyenoord 2-1, 3-1 (1st place)
Quarter-Final - Monaco 0-0, 1-1 (1-1) lost on away goals

1999
2nd Qualifying Round - LKS Lodz 2-0, 0-0
1st Round Group
Barcelona 3-3, 3-3
Bayern Munich 2-2, 1-1
Brondby 6-2, 5-0 (2nd place)
Quarter-Final - Internazionale 2-0, 1-1 (3-1)
Semi-Final - Juventus 1-1, 3-2 (4-3)
Final - Bayern Munich 2-1
WINNERS

2000
1st Round Group
Croatia Zagreb 0-0, 2-1
Sturm Graz 3-0, 2-1
Marseille 2-1, 0-1 (1st place)
2nd Round Group
Fiorentina 0-2, 3-1
Valencia 3-0, 0-0
Bordeaux 2-0, 2-1
Quarter-Final - Real Madrid 0-0, 2-3 (2-3)

2001
1st Round Group
Anderlecht 5-1, 1-2
Dynamo Kiev 0-0, 1-0
PSV Eindhoven 2-3, 3-1 (2nd place)
2nd Round Group
Panathinaikos 3-1, 1-1
Sturm Graz 2-0, 3-0
Valencia 0-0, 1-1 (2nd place)
Quarter-Final - Bayern Munich 0-1, 1-2 (1-3)

2002
1st Round Group
Lille 1-0, 1-1
Deportivo La Coruna 1-2, 2-3
Olympiakos 2-0, 3-0 (2nd place)
2nd Round Group
Bayern Munich 1-1, 0-0
Boavista 3-0, 3-0
Nantes 1-1, 5-1 (1st place)
Quarter-Final - Deportivo La Coruna 2-0, 3-2 (5-2)
Semi-Final - Bayer Leverkusen 2-2, 1-1 (3-3) lost on away goals

2003
3rd Qualifying Round - Zalaegerszeg 0-1, 5-0 (5-1)
1st Round Group
Maccabi Haifa 5-2, 0-3
Bayer Leverkusen 2-1, 2-0
Olympiakos 4-0, 3-2 (1st place)
2nd Round Group
Basel 3-1, 1-1
Deportivo La Coruna 2-0, 0-2
Juventus 2-1, 3-0 (1st place)
Quarter-Final - Real Madrid 1-3, 4-3 (5-6)

2004
1st Round Group
Panathinaikos 5-0, 1-0
Stuttgart 1-2, 2-0
Rangers 1-0, 3-0 (1st place)
2nd Round - Porto 1-2, 1-1 (2-3)

2005
3rd Qualifying Round - Dinamo Bucharest 2-1, 3-0 (5-1)
1st Round Group
Lyon 2-2, 2-1
Fenerbahce 6-2, 0-3
Sparta Prague 0-0, 4-1 (2nd place)
2nd Round - AC Milan 0-1, 0-1 (0-2)

2006
3rd Qualifying Round - Debrecen 3-0, 3-0 (6-0)
1st Round Group
Villarreal 0-0, 0-0
Benfica 2-1, 1-2
Lille 0-0, 0-1 (4th place)

2007
1st Round Group
Celtic 3-2, 0-1
Benfica 1-0, 3-1
FC Copenhagen 3-0, 0-1 (1st place)
2nd Round - Lille 1-0, 1-0 (2-0)
Quarter-Final - Roma 1-2, 7-1 (8-3)
Semi-Final - AC Milan 3-2, 0-3 (3-5)

2008
1st Round Group
Sporting Lisbon 1-0, 2-1
Roma 1-0, 1-1
Dynamo Kiev 4-2, 4-0 (1st place)
2nd Round - Lyon 1-1, 1-0 (2-1)
Quarter-Final - Roma 2-0, 1-0 (3-0)
Semi-Final - Barcelona 0-0, 1-0 (1-0)
Final - Chelsea 1-1 won on penalties
WINNERS

2008
1st Round Group
Villarreal 0-0, 0-0
Aalborg 3-0, 2-2
Celtic 3-0, 1-1 (1st place)
2nd Round - Internazionale 0-0, 2-0 (2-0)
Quarter-Final - Porto 2-2, 1-0 (3-2)
Semi-Final - Arsenal 1-0, 3-1 (4-1)
Final - Barcelona 0-2

2010
1st Round Group
Besiktas 1-0, 0-1
Wolfsburg 2-1, 3-1
CSKA Moscow 1-0, 3-3 (1st place)
2nd Round - Milan 3-2, 4-0 (7-2)
Quarter-Final - Bayern Munich 1-2, 3-2 (4-4) lost on away goals

http://www.europeancuphistory.com/clubs/manutd.html

#15

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I'd prefer them to have a go and play decent football and lose than resort to the ****e witnessed tonight.

I wasn't referring to last night's performance.

I think everyone would prefer decent football rather than the stuff we saw last night.

I don't think last night's problem was the system - it was the players in the middle of the pitch. They would have struggled in any system last night.

parker kent

#15 wrote: »

I wasn't referring to last night's performance.

I think everyone would prefer decent football rather than the stuff we saw last night.

I don't think last night's problem was the system - it was the players in the middle of the pitch. They would have struggled in any system last night.

I agree with this. Carrick is always hit and miss and is more miss than hit these days. Fletcher's skills are not controlling a game or getting on the ball. Ditto Gibson, he can shoot and hit the odd nice through ball, but he is not a genuine central midfielder who can run a game. Scholes did make a difference in the last 15 minutes when he came on, you could instantly see what having somebody like him in midfield can do for the team.

MisterAnarchy

#15 wrote: »

I wasn't referring to last night's performance.

I think everyone would prefer decent football rather than the stuff we saw last night.

I don't think last night's problem was the system - it was the players in the middle of the pitch. They would have struggled in any system last night.

Last nights performance or attitude was no different to almost any I've seen over the last 3 or 4 years away from home in Europe.

Play 5 in midfield,clog it up with grafters in the middle,and hope you nick a goal from the limited chances created.
Its slow,laboured, pedestrian football ,where none of the central midfielders get forward .

In the past Ronaldo would pop up and do his thing and win matches single handedly for Utd in alot of matches.
He is gone now and there is no other player capable of beating a man or creating something out of nothing in the current squad bar perhaps Nani ,who blows hot and artic cold.
The midfield is bereft of creativity .Ferguson has failed time after time again over the last 15 years to buy a quality creative or combative midfielder.
Djemba Djemba,Kleberson,Veron,Hargreaves,Carrick,Anderson.
Ferguson also tried to stick the square pegs into round holes by playing players out of position and converting strikers into holding midfielders (Alan Smith for example).

Utd could have bought Ozil last summer,a genuine creative midfielder or Sneijder a few years back when Real were desperate to offload him but instead money was blown on Bebe .

Ferguson needs to realise you cant make a silk purse out of a pigs ear and he will have to look abroad for a creative CM,something he is extremely reluctant to do after his previous bad buys.

United just dont go out to attack teams any more. Any biggish team home or away, the strategy seems to be 10 men behind the ball.

Pro. F

parker kent wrote: »

How exactly is it not honest? It happened. United have been in more Champions League Finals and semi finals with a 3 man midfield than they have been with a 2 man midfield. It is a pretty simple point. I'm not a simpleton, I understand what you are saying. But the facts speak for themselves, the past number of years have been United's best in Europe in their history.

It's not honest because it doesn't take into account that the defensive strategy has been used in more campaigns than the attacking one was. Almost twice as many campaigns. You also don't mention that since the change over in 2000 United have had more early exits with the new strategy too.

I know you are not a simpleton, but anybody who says that there is a clear improvement in the record since the changeover to a more defensive strategy does not understand how difficult it is to properly understand a set of numbers like this. You need to take into account the two sample sizes, variation in the samples, outliers, likelihood of randomness or other factors as driving forces and all sorts of things like that.

I have not analysed the numbers (I think it would require a 2x2 square but I'm not certain and I couldn't be arsed learning how to do all that again), but I'm not resting any case on their interpretation. You and lots of other people are.

parker kent wrote: »

For the pedants, here is is United's record in the Champions League since 1994. It is generally accepted that United played with 4-4-2 or similar variations such as 4-4-1-1 until 2000 when Veron was bought. But it should be mentioned that Fergie has used different formations at different times since the return to the European Cup in 1994. For example, in the Nou Camp demolition job in 1994, due to the 3 foreigner rule and to contain the game, the line up had only one recognised striker, which is as follows: Walsh, Parker, Irwin, Bruce, Butt, Pallister, Kanchelskis, Ince, Keane, Hughes, Giggs

As can be seen, United only had a brief period in the 90s/2001 where they were a genuine threat, starting in 1997 with the run to the semi final. There are 5 seasons where United used the traditional 90s approach which yielded 3 quarter finals, 1 semi-final and 1 Champions League victory. The losses to Munich and Mardid were the point at which Ferguson decided United were naive in Europe and led to the purchase of Veron and an attempt to be less open at the back.

Since the purchase of Veron, Ferguson has tinkered with the United formation consistently. There has been no single formation used consistently. For example, in the games against Madrid in 2003, 4-5-1 was used in the first leg. You can see this in this video of the game, the United line up appears at 55 seconds approx.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YTz-A_a5tU

In the second leg, United used a similar line up with Solskjaer on the right of midfield. Variations of that line up had been used in the previous season too on the run to the semi final. That line up was pretty successful, and should have got United to a final in 2002 where they were unlucky to lose in the semis due with wrongly disallowed Johnsen header in the away leg.

The season after the Madrid game saw Beckham leave and Ronaldo arrive. 4-4-2 and 4-5-1 were used at various points that season with Van Nistelrooy partnered by Forlan, Saha and Solskjaer at various points. The game against Porto saw and injury crisis and Scholes played behind Ruud in a 4-4-1-1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2004/mar/09/minutebyminute.porto

2005 was a transition year, where the 4-3-3 with Ronaldo and Rooney out wide would eventually be used. But United were a shambles, going out in the group stage amidst the Roy Keane exit controversy. Rooney had arrived that season and was mainly used as a striker until late in the season. The FA Cup Final loss is probably the best example of where the current formation saw it's birth.

Basically for that point on, Fergie has used the 4-3-3 regularly. I would view 2005 as the beginning of the current formation. Fergie was clearly happy with the performance against Arsenal. After 2005, United have had their best spell ever in Europe.




http://www.europeancuphistory.com/clubs/manutd.html

I don't agree that 2005 marks the change of strategy or even a change to a regular 433.

The formation has been tinkered with continuously since 2000, the overall strategy was changed after that loss to Madrid and has been more cautious since then.

@ flah: yes I agree, the actual players we have had is a big factor too. I think that since Keane began to decline and eventually left we have not adequately replaced him. I think if we actually had enough central midfielders who could hold onto the ball properly then Fergie would play a more balanced game. I thought the team was trying to play more balanced the season after Ronaldo left, but then Fergie didn't manage to follow through on it and buy in a useful CM in the summer.

parker kent

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Utd could have bought Ozil last summer,a genuine creative midfielder or Sneijder a few years back when Real were desperate to offload him but instead money was blown on Bebe.

No they couldn't sign Ozil. He wanted to go to Spain and Real Madrid in particular. United never had a chance.

Paul Tergat

FWIW this is actually a decent debate for a change! Interesting to read some thoughts on it

parker kent

The current system of 4-3-3 has clearly started in 2005. Prior to that, variations of 4-5-1 and 4-4-2 were used whenever Saha, Smith or Forlan played with Van Nistelrooy. Scholes, Veron etc often played on the left. Whereas afterwards it was a pure 4-3-3 with 2 widemen who stayed wide. The FA Cup Final defeat to Arsenal is the birth of the Moscow and Rome Champions League Final teams.

What we can see though, is that United are a much more consistent team in Europe than at any point in the past. 2 finals in a row and a semi-final appearance not long before that are a sign that the current style is more successful than past formations.

Also, my theories are based on similar timeframes. I would favour comparing 1997-2001 and 2007-2011 as they are the same length and both feature a strong United using pretty much the same formations in each period. You are ignoring the 1994-1996 teams sides yet want to view the 2004-2006 teams. Both eras represent poor periods in Europe. United had poor performances in the UEFA Cup in the 1990s, again naive defending let them down.

flahavaj

I really don't think detailed statistical analysis or 2x2 tables or logistic regression or anything of that ilk is required to see that the 3 in midfield is claerly working well in Europe for the current squad of players. Could easily have won 2 in a row in 2008/9 and weren't that far off the standard last year (weren't that far off the final again).

parker kent

flahavaj wrote: »

I really don't think detailed statistical analysis or 2x2 tables or logistic regression or anything of that ilk is required to see that the 3 in midfield is claerly working well in Europe for the current squad of players. Could easily have won 2 in a row in 2008/9 and weren't that far off the standard last year (weren't that far off the final again).

Agree. The so-called need for "real statistics" is ridiculous. This is as far away a subject as is possible for genuine statistical and methodological accuracy given the variances in tournament qualification, participants (i.e. 4 strong teams from bigger leagues now as opposed to pre-1999) etc.

Also, it is as clear as the nose on Phil Thompson's face that the current system is working very well.

KeithAFC

I thought this was an amazing match. End to end attacking football near the end.

Blatter

KeithAFC wrote: »

I thought this was an amazing match. End to end attacking football near the end.

Come back with your trolling when you manage to win the champions league.

KeithAFC

I didn't buy into the whole boring thing. After seeing it. It was a great game imo.

Warper

flahavaj wrote: »

I really don't think detailed statistical analysis or 2x2 tables or logistic regression or anything of that ilk is required to see that the 3 in midfield is claerly working well in Europe for the current squad of players. Could easily have won 2 in a row in 2008/9 and weren't that far off the standard last year (weren't that far off the final again).

Ah come on now, Barca won the final easily in 2009.

But Utd are very hard to beat in Europe. Their record is up there with the best the past few years. Winners, Finalists, 1-4 finalists in the past 3 seasons. They mightnt be the prettiest to watch but in fairness they havnt got any good creative centre-midfielders bar Scholes.

shadowcomplex

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Last nights performance or attitude was no different to almost any I've seen over the last 3 or 4 years away from home in Europe.

Play 5 in midfield,clog it up with grafters in the middle,and hope you nick a goal from the limited chances created.
Its slow,laboured, pedestrian football ,where none of the central midfielders get forward .

In the past Ronaldo would pop up and do his thing and win matches single handedly for Utd in alot of matches.
He is gone now and there is no other player capable of beating a man or creating something out of nothing in the current squad bar perhaps Nani ,who blows hot and artic cold.
The midfield is bereft of creativity .Ferguson has failed time after time again over the last 15 years to buy a quality creative or combative midfielder.
Djemba Djemba,Kleberson,Veron,Hargreaves,Carrick,Anderson.
Ferguson also tried to stick the square pegs into round holes by playing players out of position and converting strikers into holding midfielders (Alan Smith for example).

Utd could have bought Ozil last summer,a genuine creative midfielder or Sneijder a few years back when Real were desperate to offload him but instead money was blown on Bebe .

Ferguson needs to realise you cant make a silk purse out of a pigs ear and he will have to look abroad for a creative CM,something he is extremely reluctant to do after his previous bad buys.

United just dont go out to attack teams any more. Any biggish team home or away, the strategy seems to be 10 men behind the ball.

Yea, Ferguson ? holding us back all these years:rolleyes:

shadowcomplex

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Last nights performance or attitude was no different to almost any I've seen over the last 3 or 4 years away from home in Europe.

Play 5 in midfield,clog it up with grafters in the middle,and hope you nick a goal from the limited chances created.
Its slow,laboured, pedestrian football ,where none of the central midfielders get forward .

In the past Ronaldo would pop up and do his thing and win matches single handedly for Utd in alot of matches.
He is gone now and there is no other player capable of beating a man or creating something out of nothing in the current squad bar perhaps Nani ,who blows hot and artic cold.
The midfield is bereft of creativity .Ferguson has failed time after time again over the last 15 years to buy a quality creative or combative midfielder.
Djemba Djemba,Kleberson,Veron,Hargreaves,Carrick,Anderson.
Ferguson also tried to stick the square pegs into round holes by playing players out of position and converting strikers into holding midfielders (Alan Smith for example).

Utd could have bought Ozil last summer,a genuine creative midfielder or Sneijder a few years back when Real were desperate to offload him but instead money was blown on Bebe .

Ferguson needs to realise you cant make a silk purse out of a pigs ear and he will have to look abroad for a creative CM,something he is extremely reluctant to do after his previous bad buys.

United just dont go out to attack teams any more. Any biggish team home or away, the strategy seems to be 10 men behind the ball.

Firstly the gung ho approach is the reason why united and alot of english teams werent successful in europe for a big part of the 90's, you just can't do that away from home in europe , even Barca dont do it.

Secondly Veron was a world class player he just didnt suit the system or the premier league the way it was then, he played better in europe and played better beside nicky butt instead of Keane, Hargreaves too was/is a very good player but how was ferguson to know what injury problems lay ahead, with regards carrick we have gotten to 2 finals with him.

Thirdly we tried to sign Ozil, he didnt want to play in england

MisterAnarchy

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Firstly the gung ho approach is the reason why united and alot of english teams werent successful in europe for a big part of the 90's, you just can't do that away from home in europe , even Barca dont do it.

There is a big difference between being "Gung Ho" and having a go in away matches.
Utd are too cautious away from home .They have gone from one extreme to the other.
Ever since Madrid embarrassed Utd at Old Trafford in 2003 ,Ferguson has become more and more cautious .

Secondly Veron was a world class player he just didnt suit the system or the premier league the way it was then, he played better in europe and played better beside nicky butt instead of Keane

That's highly debatable.Veron was a grossly overated player in many peoples minds,mine included.

Hargreaves too was/is a very good player but how was ferguson to know what injury problems lay ahead,

Hargreaves was injured when Ferguson bought him and he had a history of being injury prone.

Thirdly we tried to sign Ozil, he didnt want to play in england

Thats true ,but Ferguson had chances to sign other creative midfielders over the last few years and spurned them all.
The failure of buying a foreigner who isnt proven in the EPL ,like Veron is weighing heavy on Ferguson's mind.

parker kent

Warper wrote: »

Ah come on now, Barca won the final easily in 2009.

Surely getting to the final counts as almost winning?

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

That's highly debatable.Veron was a grossly overated player in many peoples minds,mine included.

Veron was the right player at the wrong time.

Bodhisopha

parker kent wrote: »

Surely getting to the final counts as almost winning?




Veron was the right player at the wrong time.

Does coming a distant second in the 100m sprint behind Usain Bolt count as almost winning too?

Pro. F

parker kent wrote: »

The current system of 4-3-3 has clearly started in 2005. Prior to that, variations of 4-5-1 and 4-4-2 were used whenever Saha, Smith or Forlan played with Van Nistelrooy. Scholes, Veron etc often played on the left. Whereas afterwards it was a pure 4-3-3 with 2 widemen who stayed wide. The FA Cup Final defeat to Arsenal is the birth of the Moscow and Rome Champions League Final teams.

What we can see though, is that United are a much more consistent team in Europe than at any point in the past. 2 finals in a row and a semi-final appearance not long before that are a sign that the current style is more successful than past formations.

Also, my theories are based on similar timeframes. I would favour comparing 1997-2001 and 2007-2011 as they are the same length and both feature a strong United using pretty much the same formations in each period. You are ignoring the 1994-1996 teams sides yet want to view the 2004-2006 teams. Both eras represent poor periods in Europe. United had poor performances in the UEFA Cup in the 1990s, again naive defending let them down.

There is virtually no difference between 451 and 433. You either have three CMs or you don't. You said yourself how Fergie said he changed things to be more defensive after the Real defeat in 2000. We have had many tinkerings with formations since 2000 and that includes post 2005, but the overall style, irrespective of formations, has been the same - a more conservative one.

Since 2005 we have not played exclusively with three CMs in the CL.
Some examples of when we played with two upfront:
06/07: Lille away
06/07: Roma home
07/08: Roma away (the group game)
07/08: Barca home
08/09: Villareal home

And before this supposed change in 2005 we played many games with 3 central midfielders.

Anyway, exact details of formations aside, the bottom line is that Fergie became more conservative in Europe after the defeat to Real in 2000.

As I said, our record in the CL since that change does not show a clear improvement to me.

I did not ignore the 94-96 teams, I included them when I looked at the records (even though it's a bit pointless looking at the 94 team). Up to the 2000 defeat by Real we had six seasons of CL football. Since the defeat and Fergie's change of strategy we have had ten seasons of CL football with good years, average years and bad years in both periods.

parker kent wrote: »

Agree. The so-called need for "real statistics" is ridiculous. This is as far away a subject as is possible for genuine statistical and methodological accuracy given the variances in tournament qualification, participants (i.e. 4 strong teams from bigger leagues now as opposed to pre-1999) etc.

I was not the one claiming that a comparison of the two records proved anything, yourself, Flah and P. Larkin were. If you want to compare the two records then you need to do it properly - that means using statistical tools. Now you are saying that a real comparison can't be done anyway. That's just more evidence against the record comparison's supposed proof of your theory.

flahavaj wrote: »

I really don't think detailed statistical analysis or 2x2 tables or logistic regression or anything of that ilk is required to see that the 3 in midfield is claerly working well in Europe for the current squad of players.

For this current group of players yes it is working I agree. Our CM options are too weak to get by without it most of the time. But it was your reference to an improvement in results over the days of regularly playing 442 that I was questioning. That change happened in 2000/2001.

flahavaj wrote: »

Could easily have won 2 in a row in 2008/9 and weren't that far off the standard last year (weren't that far off the final again).

It was a good spell of years recently, but lets not try to make it better than it actually was . We got hockied in the 09 final and we went out in the 2010 quarters.

kryogen

The Ronaldo factor really shouldnt be ignored when it comes to our recent success in Europe tbh.

Pro. F

kryogen wrote: »

The Ronaldo factor really shouldnt be ignored when it comes to our recent success in Europe tbh.

Plus the Rio, Vidic, Evra and VDS factors too. Pretty much the best defence in the world for a while.

Ush1

Pro. F wrote: »

Plus the Rio, Vidic, Evra and VDS factors too. Pretty much the best defence in the world for a while.

Still are. By some distance for me.

VW 1

Ush1 wrote: »

Still are. By some distance for me.

Cant think of a back 5 I would prefer to our current first choice

parker kent

There is a massive difference in the current system and the 4-5-1 played when Beckham-Keane-Scholes-Veron-Giggs was the midfield. Under the post-2005 formation, it has been people like Ronaldo, Nani etc have greater licence to remain forward when they team is defending. Under the old 4-5-1, there was greater emphasis on the third midfielder (usually Scholes or Veron) to support the striker in a similar position to what Peter Beardsley would have taken up. The other 4 played essentially as a normal midfield in a 4-4-2.

There is a big difference in then and now. There is a link between the different formations, but they are not "essentially the same thing".

Also, I do think that the formation plays a role in the defensive record. Sure Evra, Vidic and Ferdinand are excellent, but football is about more than 3 people. Michael Carrick's interceptions play a big role in the defensive record. Anybody that goes to OT will always notice how much he does in front of the defense. His passing and ability to dictate a game are average, but his interceptions are vital. Any new set of midfielders will need to replace that. Fletchers energy and hassling of the opposition is vital to the defensive record too.

I'm not taking away from the back 5 (VDS is a massive component of the defense), but they are not doing it all by themselves.

Dave!

One of the worst matches I've ever seen

Dues Bellator

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Does coming a distant second in the 100m sprint behind Usain Bolt count as almost winning too?

i take it theres just you and Usain Bolt running in this imaginary race:D

parker kent

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Does coming a distant second in the 100m sprint behind Usain Bolt count as almost winning too?

You do realise how ridiculous that comparison is?

Any sane person should be able to agree that getting to the final counts as nearly winning the Champions League.