Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread - Read Mod Warning in OP 7/1/15

TheDoc

bangkok wrote: »

we had this argument before, I listed all different tactics etc he used, how he adapted his style to change with the modern day footballer, how he left wenger miles behind with his reluctance to change.

As a matter of interest, why do you think fergie was not good at tactics?

I actually don't think you listed them at all, or I missed your post.

While I don't think he was bad, I wouldn't call him genius. I think his pretty poor record against Mourinho was one example showing how he couldn't think of anything to combat the compact style Chelsea used in those years.

And I also think the teams and squads at his disposal frequently under performed at Champions league level, where he was tactically outdone on numerous occasions.

I also think your putting glitter on a very basic principle under Ferguson.

we played 4-4-2 utilizing width in wingers, and against tough opposition used a 4-5-1 hoping a quick counter or break would score a goal. It wasn't genius in any shape or form.

People are way to quick to forget that throughout the 90's we were in the position to buy basically the best players domestically, with little or no rivalry. Since the arrival of Chelsea and City, while we have still signed well on occasions, we have no floundered on plenty of occasions.

Ferguson was very clear in how he was setting out for a new vision and style of play, that was completely abandoned and somehow no questions were asked about why, and the negative impact it had leaving a disjointed squad.(Which Moyes inherited).

i'm a big a fan of Ferguson as anyone, but I'm not really buying into calling him genius for playing a width based 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 counter in tough matches. My Da was doing that with his under 15's team to win the Brendfor D league, and there isn't a statue of him in Swords over it.

TheDoc

Julez wrote: »

To be fair Fergie didn't claim to be a tactical genius, he gave the likes of Carlos Queiroz a lot of credit for how Uniteds tactics evolved. A strenght with Fergie was that he obviously wasn't afraid to take on that advice and make changes.

Queiroz suggested using a 3-4-3 domestically that was used in one match and then abandoned.

He then heralded a new style of United that would revamp the club and make us compete for champions league trophies year after year. That plan got dumped about 3 months in leaving a horrendously disjointed squad.

In fairness there is a certain amount of don't fix what's not broke I'd imagine, but it left a club and squad and a mentaility that as we can see now, can't cope outside of playing 4-4-2.

bangkok

TheDoc wrote: »

I actually don't think you listed them at all, or I missed your post.

While I don't think he was bad, I wouldn't call him genius. I think his pretty poor record against Mourinho was one example showing how he couldn't think of anything to combat the compact style Chelsea used in those years.

And I also think the teams and squads at his disposal frequently under performed at Champions league level, where he was tactically outdone on numerous occasions.

I also think your putting glitter on a very basic principle under Ferguson.

we played 4-4-2 utilizing width in wingers, and against tough opposition used a 4-5-1 hoping a quick counter or break would score a goal. It wasn't genius in any shape or form.

People are way to quick to forget that throughout the 90's we were in the position to buy basically the best players domestically, with little or no rivalry. Since the arrival of Chelsea and City, while we have still signed well on occasions, we have no floundered on plenty of occasions.

Ferguson was very clear in how he was setting out for a new vision and style of play, that was completely abandoned and somehow no questions were asked about why, and the negative impact it had leaving a disjointed squad.(Which Moyes inherited).

i'm a big a fan of Ferguson as anyone, but I'm not really buying into calling him genius for playing a width based 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 counter in tough matches. My Da was doing that with his under 15's team to win the Brendfor D league, and there isn't a statue of him in Swords over it.

no mention of 4-2-3-1 to beat barca in the cup winners cup final, or the use of the 4-3-3 from 2008-10, or the false no9 with Ronaldo rooney and tevez all interchanging and playing without a recognised striker?

Will I Amnt

TheDoc wrote: »

I actually don't think you listed them at all, or I missed your post.

While I don't think he was bad, I wouldn't call him genius. I think his pretty poor record against Mourinho was one example showing how he couldn't think of anything to combat the compact style Chelsea used in those years.

And I also think the teams and squads at his disposal frequently under performed at Champions league level, where he was tactically outdone on numerous occasions.

I also think your putting glitter on a very basic principle under Ferguson.

we played 4-4-2 utilizing width in wingers, and against tough opposition used a 4-5-1 hoping a quick counter or break would score a goal. It wasn't genius in any shape or form.

People are way to quick to forget that throughout the 90's we were in the position to buy basically the best players domestically, with little or no rivalry. Since the arrival of Chelsea and City, while we have still signed well on occasions, we have no floundered on plenty of occasions.

Ferguson was very clear in how he was setting out for a new vision and style of play, that was completely abandoned and somehow no questions were asked about why, and the negative impact it had leaving a disjointed squad.(Which Moyes inherited).

i'm a big a fan of Ferguson as anyone, but I'm not really buying into calling him genius for playing a width based 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 counter in tough matches. My Da was doing that with his under 15's team to win the Brendfor D league, and there isn't a statue of him in Swords over it.

There's a blast from the past. We came 3rd last in the Brenfer D League, for some reason we were asked to play a 4 game group to decide what league we would go into the following season, won every game by at least 8 and ended up in the B League... and won it.
Such a mad setup :pac:

Rayne Wooney

Teams playing with 10 men behind the ball against us can't be used as an excuse, I think Van Gaal has mentioned it 2 or 3 times already

90% of teams will do that against us so you either find a way to open them up or you're just not the man for the job

ericzeking

bangkok wrote: »

no mention of 4-2-3-1 to beat barca in the cup winners cup final, or the use of the 4-3-3 from 2008-10, or the false no9 with Ronaldo rooney and tevez all interchanging and playing without a recognised striker?

I saw you post this the other day....will you post the formation as I'm struggling to see where you got a 4231 out of a midfield of Ince, Robson, Phelen and Sharpe....McClair was up front with Hughes and he dropped deeper in later years but at that stage he was a conventional enough striker.

Now I was fecking 9 years of age when I was watching that game so I didn't notice to many tactical nuances regarding the formation but I do know what type of player each of the above listed was....and a 4231 I simply cannot see...... what I see is a standard 442 or at a push 4411, in fact with Phelen being a defensively minded right sided player with Irwin on the overlap.... in fact SAF used this conservative on one wing, attacking on the other very recently..... I'll have to watch the game again.

Rayne Wooney

Also Fergie was no fool when it came to tactics, he was good but not as tactical as Mourinho and even Van Gaal in his stints at other clubs. As an all round manager he was better than the lot though

The Moldy Gowl

Fergie was good at tactics. You can't be bad at them and win so much.

But he was no innovator in the last 10 years. It looked like he kept things simple.

Heralding him a tactical genius fr switching Rooney tevez and Ronaldo and giving them freedom isn't exactly pushing the boat on tactics.

bangkok

ericzeking wrote: »

I saw you post this the other day....will you post the formation as I'm struggling to see where you got a 4231 out of a midfield of Ince, Robson, Phelen and Sharpe....McClair was up front with Hughes and he dropped deeper in later years but at that stage he was a conventional enough striker.

Now I was fecking 9 years of age when I was watching that game so I didn't notice to many tactical nuances regarding the formation but I do know what type of player each of the above listed was....and a 4231 I simply cannot see...... what I see is a standard 442 or at a push 4411, in fact with Phelen being a defensively minded right sided player with Irwin on the overlap.... in fact SAF used this conservative on one wing, attacking on the other very recently..... I'll have to watch the game again.

"In the Cup Winners' Cup final in 1991, when United beat Barcelona, Ferguson fielded something that today would probably be regarded as a 4-2-3-1: Mark Hughes was the out-and-out centre-forward, with Brian McClair playing deep behind him — in part, presumably, to try to disrupt Ronald Koeman, who set the tempo for Barca from deep. Mike Phelan and Lee Sharpe provided the width, with Paul Ince and Bryan Robson sitting in front of the back four."

TheDoc

Just to be clear, I'm not insinuating that he was bad or even average at the tactical side of the game. I just think "genius" is a stretch.

There is nothing actually wrong with keeping it straight forward, my god what I'd give for a bit of obvious simplicity right now.

But I just don't buy this genius stuff.

ericzeking

I had a think the other day...3 at the back could work if we played Carrick as the central centre back, with a free-ish role....Blind, Herrerra and Di Maria(or Mata) in a trio in front of that (in an 'easier' game, remove Blind and play both Mata and ADM), Raf and Shaw on the wings with 2 strikers. Fellaini on the bench for a plan B.
The idea being that instead of a centre back being at the base of our attacking play, it would be Carrick taking it from DDG or the other Cbs and bringing it out.

bangkok

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Also Fergie was no fool when it came to tactics, he was good but not as tactical as Mourinho and even Van Gaal in his stints at other clubs. As an all round manager he was better than the lot though

what has mourinho done to make himself a "tactical genius"?

Pro. F

The reason people think Fergie wasn't particularly good at tactics is because of two things imo.

First, people think tactics are only concerned with defensive adjustments, either before or in games. But that is just a misunderstanding of the concept. The fact that Quiroz gets lauded as a tactical innovator for introducing a more defensive style shows how there is far too much emphasis on one side of the game when people talk about tactics.

Quiroz's defensive style worked while we had Ronaldo and before Barcelona reached their peak. Fergie moved on to a more attacking style when it became obvious that the defensiveness wasn't so useful without Ronaldo to take advantage of the counter attacking space gained from defending deep. But no, changing tactics to suit your own players rather than thwart the opposition is seen as naivety.

Fergie was more attacking minded by nature, so that's where you see more of his tactical genius manifest.

Look at all the games he won with attacking adjustments. Look at the innovation - which has still barely been acknowledged, let alone copied - of pressing high and forcing the game near the end of each half; combining the effective pressing which had been seen in a particular Brittish school of tactics with a focus on possession, and doing it in well timed bursts, so the players would have achievable targets to win games.

The other reason people don't recognise Fergie's tactical abilities is because he gave very little away about what he was doing. Unlike other managers who talk up their tactics, Ferguson mostly kept it under wraps.

ericzeking

bangkok wrote: »

"In the Cup Winners' Cup final in 1991, when United beat Barcelona, Ferguson fielded something that today would probably be regarded as a 4-2-3-1: Mark Hughes was the out-and-out centre-forward, with Brian McClair playing deep behind him — in part, presumably, to try to disrupt Ronald Koeman, who set the tempo for Barca from deep. Mike Phelan and Lee Sharpe provided the width, with Paul Ince and Bryan Robson sitting in front of the back four."

Where did you get that? As I said I'll have to watch it back but my memory of Mike Phelen as a player does not stretch to him "providing width".

The word "probably" would also be a concern.......

Spazdarn

bangkok wrote: »

what has mourinho done to make himself a "tactical genius"?

Fergie had a terrible record against Mourinho. I would consider Mourinho brilliant tactically. Fergies ability to get the best out of limited enough players is what sets him apart from the rest.

keane2097

bangkok wrote: »

"In the Cup Winners' Cup final in 1991, when United beat Barcelona, Ferguson fielded something that today would probably be regarded as a 4-2-3-1: Mark Hughes was the out-and-out centre-forward, with Brian McClair playing deep behind him — in part, presumably, to try to disrupt Ronald Koeman, who set the tempo for Barca from deep. Mike Phelan and Lee Sharpe provided the width, with Paul Ince and Bryan Robson sitting in front of the back four."

That's his standard 4-4-2 tbh. Cantona used to drop deep as well.

bangkok

Spazdarn wrote: »

Fergie had a terrible record against Mourinho. I would consider Mourinho brilliant tactically. Fergies ability to get the best out of limited enough players is what sets him apart from the rest.

that's not a reason!!

that's like saying tony Pulis is tactically better than arsene wenger down at stoke

bangkok

Pro. F wrote: »

The reason people think Fergie wasn't particularly good at tactics is because of two things imo.

First, people think tactics are only concerned with defensive adjustments, either before or in games. But that is just a misunderstanding of the concept. The fact that Quiroz gets lauded as a tactical innovator for introducing a more defensive style shows how there is far too much emphasis on one side of the game when people talk about tactics.

Quiroz's defensive style worked while we had Ronaldo and before Barcelona reached their peak. Fergie moved on to a more attacking style when it became obvious that the defensiveness wasn't so useful without Ronaldo to take advantage of the counter attacking space gained from defending deep. But no, changing tactics to suit your own players rather than thwart the opposition is seen as naivety.

Fergie was more attacking minded by nature, so that's where you see more of his tactical genius manifest.

Look at all the games he won with attacking adjustments. Look at the innovation - which has still barely been acknowledged, let alone copied - of pressing high and forcing the game near the end of each half; combining the effective pressing which had been seen in a particular Brittish school of tactics with a focus on possession, and doing it in well timed bursts, so the players would have achievable targets to win games.

The other reason people don't recognise Fergie's tactical abilities is because he gave very little away about what he was doing. Unlike other managers who talk up their tactics, Ferguson mostly kept it under wraps.

spot on, you also have to look at the amount of late goals we used to score under fergie, that wasn't luck

brinty

Jesus everyone seems to be in p155y form today and for the last week

We could be worse lads?? Could've been beaten by lower league opposition in the cup...

Whilst all is not rosy right now, could we all please get behind LVG... do we want to become Chelsea and Citeh... all everyone spoke about last season was lets not become one of those teams and sacking managers for not bringing instant success or "we're United we don't sack managers" and yet people are calling for Van gaals head if we don't get top 4 this season... Chill the fudge out lads will ye.

LVG will get us into the CL, he'll then cut the remaining chaff thats still in the squad in the summer and we can work with a team that he wants and go for the title in 15/16

In the Iron Tulip we trust... All hail the Czar of Aalkmaar

bangkok

ericzeking wrote: »

Where did you get that? As I said I'll have to watch it back but my memory of Mike Phelen as a player does not stretch to him "providing width".

The word "probably" would also be a concern.......

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/may/08/sir-alex-ferguson-tactics-evolution

Nalz

ericzeking wrote: »

Where did you get that? As I said I'll have to watch it back but my memory of Mike Phelen as a player does not stretch to him "providing width".

The word "probably" would also be a concern.......

You don't remember how he spelt his name anyways! :-)

Pro. F

The differences between 442 and 4231 are negligible anyway. 4231 is certainly no innovation, despite the way it gets talked about.

Spazdarn

bangkok wrote: »

that's not a reason!!

that's like saying tony Pulis is tactically better than arsene wenger down at stoke

Don't be so dim.

Read between the lines, I've already stated I thought Fergie was an unbelievable manager so getting the best over one of the best on a regular basis obviously implied some tactical nous.

Tactical nous doesn't always come down to just formation, deploying certain players to mark others to stifle their attack or picking out a weakness in the opponents and exposing it is equally important...

homerjay2005

brinty wrote: »

all everyone spoke about last season was lets not become one of those teams and sacking managers for not bringing instant success or "we're United we don't sack managers" and yet people are calling for Van gaals head if we don't get top 4 this season... Chill the fudge out lads will ye.

nobody on here wants "instant success". we do however want people playing in the right positions, football that doesnt resemble Wimbledon or Stoke in their hayday and a bit of appreciation from the "LVG is king" brigade that he so far for the money spend, has done a disappointing job. he does however deserve some leeway as he still can get us top 4 - if he keeps going as he is though, we wont get it.

Fellaini on the right wing the last night with Adnan playing in the 10 role!? absolute madness and Wilson was really poor and should have been off at half time.

this s*it is happening in almost every game, his decisions and tactics are baffling and the end result? our football and attacking game is shambolic.

Spazdarn

Agree with the above, he's been there quite a few months now, he should by now surely know the capability of his players, and where they should and should not be playing.

Manutd_4life

The story of Dragovic seems to be picking up pace. A couple of outlets saying that a fee of 20 mil has been confirmed but nothing official as of yet

Cantona's Collars

Manutd_4life wrote: »

The story of Dragovic seems to be picking up pace. A couple of outlets saying that a fee of 20 mil has been confirmed but nothing official as of yet

He's playing Wednesday night,talk in the meeja that we'll have scouts there.

Manutd_4life

zerks wrote: »

He's playing Wednesday night,talk in the meeja that we'll have scouts there.

It's getting a bit late for scouting if we are going to make any signings in this window.

Cantona's Collars

Manutd_4life wrote: »

It's getting a bit late for scouting if we are going to make any signings in this window.

Maybe they are just checking none of his legs fall off before deadline day,it'd be handy to have a defender who doesn't end up crocked every 2nd week.

Manutd_4life

zerks wrote: »

Maybe they are just checking none of his legs fall off before deadline day,it'd be handy to have a defender who doesn't end up crocked every 2nd week.

That is true and quite essential. :pac: I was really wishing at the beginning of the season that our defenders would step up and prove to everyone that they can be the next vidic or stam but none of them have done that. I have lost hope in evans, smalling just doesn't cut it for me, jones at times can be amazing and other times he can be the most retarded person on the pitch and rojo seems to be getting on well but still early days to make decisions on him