Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

flahavaj · 06-04-2010 01:37AM

Bukman13 wrote: »

Yes, but those still back up my point that we are playing a different style, which means Berbatov will get less assists.

He should also be getting more goals in that case, if more crosses are coming in from the wings?

/quite possibly irrelevant point.

redout · 06-04-2010 01:40AM

Bukman13 wrote: »

Yes, but those still back up my point that we are playing a different style, which means Berbatov will get less assists.

Its just as easy to say whatever player playing in that position would do the similar as regards assists I suppose if you look at it the way you have conveyed. He should also be increasing his goal tally with the service from the wings as Rooney has greatly benefited from this season. We need to change this 4-5-1 crap by buying some players that allow us to to have a 4-4-2 as the 4-5-1 leaves Berba as the odd man out. For a player in his peak years to be benched whenever we play top class opposition is absurd tbh.

Bukman13 · 06-04-2010 01:50AM

flahavaj wrote: »

He should also be getting more goals in that case, if more crosses are coming in from the wings?

/quite possibly irrelevant point.

Yep very true, Although he already is scoring more goals this season, he has 12 goals from his 25 starts almost a goal every other game.

Plus Berbatov is ****e in the air so whether or not he is in the box for a cross makes no difference

.

Bukman13 · 06-04-2010 01:57AM

redout wrote: »

Its just as easy to say whatever player playing in that position would do the similar as regards assists I suppose if you look at it the way you have conveyed.

Sorry... I can't really make out what your trying to say there?

He should also be increasing his goal tally with the service from the wings as Rooney has greatly benefited from this season. We need to change this 4-5-1 crap by buying some players that allow us to to have a 4-4-2 as the 4-5-1 leaves Berba as the odd man out. For a player in his peak years to be benched whenever we play top class opposition is absurd tbh.

Yea, completly agree with this, only problem is when playing against top teams, they usually go 4-5-1, so if we go with 4-4-2 it leaves the opposition with a free man inbetween our midfield and defense.

So unless we can dominate possession in those big matches we have no option but to play 3 in midfield.

flahavaj · 06-04-2010 02:08AM

Do any top teams play 4-4-2 anymore though? Is it a thing of a past?

United literally had to stop playing 4-4-2 in Europe as teams simply started overrunning them in midfield. Started happening almost immediately after they won the CL in '99. And bear in mind that was with as good a midfield 4 as you could possible ask for. Naively they persisted with the formation for a good few yers and European results steadily got worse and worse. It was only when United consistently started playing 4-3-3/4-5-1 in Europe 3-4 years ago that the good times started rolling again and they started consistently reaching the latter stages of the CL.

Is is possible 4-4-2 is simply not realistic anymore, no matter who the personnel available?

redout · 06-04-2010 02:13AM

Bukman13 wrote: »

Sorry... I can't really make out what your trying to say there?

I said that whatever player played in that position would have a similar performance going by what you said.

Yea, completly agree with this, only problem is when playing against top teams, they usually go 4-5-1, so if we go with 4-4-2 it leaves the opposition with a free man inbetween our midfield and defense.

So unless we can dominate possession in those big matches we have no option but to play 3 in midfield.

Like I said in the last post we need to buy players who will allow this. If you have players who are technically good at maintaining possession then 4-3-3 whilst employing the fullbacks would be the way to go. Better suited than 4-4-2 considering you had the players to do it. If we bought some quality like Banega and another equally good midfielder who could maintain possession and had Fletch DMF we could utilise Evra and perhaps Rafael more effectively.

..

Bukman13 · 06-04-2010 02:25AM

flahavaj wrote: »

Do any top teams play 4-4-2 anymore though? Is it a thing of a past?

United literally had to stop playing 4-4-2 in Europe as teams simply started overrunning them in midfield. Started happening almost immediately after they won the CL in '99. And bear in mind that was with as good a midfield 4 as you could possible ask for. Naively they persisted with the formation for a good few yers and European results steadily got worse and worse. It was only when United consistently started playing 4-3-3/4-5-1 in Europe 3-4 years ago that the good times started rolling again and they started consistently reaching the latter stages of the CL.

Is is possible 4-4-2 is simply not realistic anymore, no matter who the personnel available?

There is a great article from Johnaton Wilson, which talks about the decline in the box-to-box midfielder.

It talks about the shift from 2-3-5 to W-M to 4-4-2 and finally back to a 3 man midfield.

The article itself is too long to quote, but here is the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/apr/22/where-have-box-to-box-midfielders-gone

It pretty much expands on what you said there.

pierrot · 06-04-2010 02:33AM

Can`t think of a top European team who plays a traditional 442 regularly. Even Wenger has abandoned it. United last year maybe, but rarely in important games.

redout · 06-04-2010 02:34AM

pierrot wrote: »

Can`t think of a top European team who plays a traditional 442 regularly. Even Wenger has abandoned it. United last year maybe, but rarely in important games.

Didnt Roma employ a formation without any forwards a few years ago :eek:

flahavaj · 06-04-2010 02:37AM

Bukman13 wrote: »

There is a great article from Johnaton Wilson, which talks about the decline in the box-to-box midfielder.

It talks about the shift from 2-3-5 to W-M to 4-4-2 and finally back to a 3 man midfield.

The article itself is too long to quote, but here is the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/apr/22/where-have-box-to-box-midfielders-gone

It pretty much expands on what you said there.

Fascinating stuff, cheers.

flahavaj · 06-04-2010 02:39AM

pierrot wrote: »

Can`t think of a top European team who plays a traditional 442 regularly. Even Wenger has abandoned it. United last year maybe, but rarely in important games.

Its certainly the exception rather than the rule to my mind anyway.

pierrot · 06-04-2010 02:44AM

Much to my father`s dismay. A 442 purist, he couldn`t understand the idea of "Van Nistelrooy running around like a spare prick up on his own" on big European nights. Although in the important games, maybe `going for it` wouldn`t be such a bad idea.
The switch to the three man midfield seems to coincide with a change in attitude, i.e playing not to lose. Barca being the obvious exception. But they could play WM formation and still have 60% possession.

Pro. F · 06-04-2010 02:49AM

Liam O wrote: »

The team needed an outlet up front who would get into advanced positions and hold up the ball. While Berba can hold up the ball and pass well he never gets the return ball. He plays a ball forward and instead of getting up and supporting whoever he passes to he stops almost as if in self admiration at what he has done. Whenever Rooney is deep and plays a pass out to Val or Nani he busts his ass to get into the box. Berba just stands where he passed it from. It's sad because when he does get into the box his movement is very good.

He got into the box well enough on Saturday. It wasn't like it has been previously where the midfield were lookin to send it into the box and he wasn't there. What you are describing simply isn't what happened this time.

Liam O wrote: »

On Saturday Macheda would have stretched the defense which would have stopped Chelsea congesting the midfield which, let's face it, is something they were always going to do. Their weakness was on the flanks but United couldn't get the ball out their because they were being suffocated by Chelsea

But Rooney is way better at stretching a defence than Kiko and no matter how much of it he did against Bayern he couldn't make up for the shìtness of our midfield. A shìtness that was repeated against Chelsea who, in addition, are a better side. The reality is that we played 5 in midfield and Chelsea played 5 in midfield. Our midfielders played muck. If we'd had a enough skill and energy in our midfield we would have been able to build our attacks and get at their weak points.

redout · 06-04-2010 02:50AM

Article here on Berbatov and his ineffectiveness with analysis from Alan Hansen.

Pro. F · 06-04-2010 03:04AM

pierrot wrote: »

The switch to the three man midfield seems to coincide with a change in attitude, i.e playing not to lose.

Not really. Not at United - some of our most defensive performances have come in 442 - and not in football in general - countless blanced, positive teams have played with only one CF over the years and 442 is traditionally used by the most defensive Italian Catanaccio teams.

You just can't read strategy from formations.

Le King · 06-04-2010 03:09AM

redout wrote: »

Didnt Roma employ a formation without any forwards a few years ago :eek:

Yeah it was 4-6-0.

Totti the furthest man up the pitch. Linking play, waiting for a midfielder to make a run into the box. I remember Gab Marcotti saying it was genius at the time. And in many ways it was.

Then again a lot of people argued that Vucinic was the striker from the wing, when he played.

But it was just different tactics at the time from Spalletti. Really exploited the talents of Taddei, Mancini, Pizarro, De Rossi, Aquilani, Vucinic etc. They did play some beautiful stuff at the time too... and it worked most of the time too.

pierrot · 06-04-2010 03:13AM

Pro. F wrote: »

Not really. Not at United - some of our most defensive performances have come in 442 -

Which ones?

And don`t think catanaccio was 442 either.

Le King · 06-04-2010 03:19AM

Pro. F wrote: »

Not really. Not at United - some of our most defensive performances have come in 442 - and not in football in general - countless blanced, positive teams have played with only one CF over the years and 442 is traditionally used by the most defensive Italian Catanaccio teams.

You just can't read strategy from formations.

True Catenaccio teams used 1 Defensive midfielder, a playmaker, a side midfielder and a center mid.

It was like:

SW

CB

WB---

DMF

CMF

SM

AMF

SS

CF

Very weird formation. Ancelotti used it at Milan for half a season when Cafu was injured.

Pro. F · 06-04-2010 03:31AM

pierrot wrote: »

Which ones?

And don`t think catanaccio was 442 either.

Barcelona semi final 08. Both legs iirc.

catenaccio - when the sweeper was dropped and there was slightly less man marking they were 442. Imo the ultra defensive Juventus sides over the last 20 years were catenaccio and they often played 442. Also Trap was using catanaccio with the irish national team until recently based out of a 442, so it goes right up to present day

pierrot · 06-04-2010 03:42AM

Rooney was missing so if you count Ronaldo as one of the 2 up, yeah.

Pro. F · 06-04-2010 03:44AM

Osu wrote: »

True Catenaccio teams used 1 Defensive midfielder, a playmaker, a side midfielder and a center mid.

It was like:

SW
CB
CB
WB---
DMF
CMF
SM
AMF
SS
CF

Very weird formation. Ancelotti used it at Milan for half a season when Cafu was injured.

There it is: 4 defenders, 4 midfielders and 2 strikers.

Didn't know Ancelloti had used it...

Back on topic: I'm going to bed!

Edit: i don't sign up to the 'true catenaccio' idea. As far as i can tell there have been loads of interpretations and the above is only one.

Le King · 06-04-2010 03:52AM

Pro. F wrote: »

Barcelona semi final 08. Both legs iirc.

catenaccio - when the sweeper was dropped and there was slightly less man marking they were 442. Imo the ultra defensive Juventus sides over the last 20 years were catenaccio and they often played 442. Also Trap was using catanaccio with the irish national team until recently based out of a 442, so it goes right up to present day

The Catenaccio formation is not 4-4-2 though. This is the crucial point here. Juventus slowly adopted into a 4-4-2 over the years. But were never fully catenaccio. They were often compared because of the 1-0 results. But they never were fully Catenaccio IMO. Not in the last 20 years anyway.

Ireland definitely don't play a 4-4-2. Get video's of the AC Milan and Inter teams of the 60's. Catenaccio is dead today because the sweeper is mainly dead today.

Last team to use the Catenaccio formation properly was probably Italy in Euro 2000 IMO.

pierrot · 06-04-2010 03:53AM

In a roundabout way i agree (w/Pro F), defensive team is defensive. Barca and Bolton play the same formation on paper.
Regarding United in particular, I do feel that the switch to 451/433 has led to a more conservative approach. Not saying it's a bad thing.

Le King · 06-04-2010 03:58AM

Pro. F wrote: »

There it is: 4 defenders, 4 midfielders and 2 strikers.

Didn't know Ancelloti had used it...

Back on topic: I'm going to bed!

Edit: i don't sign up to the 'true catenaccio' idea. As far as i can tell there have been loads of interpretations and the above is only one.

It's not 4-4-2. Whether you believe or not. Catenaccio formations have to have a sweeper in them. Hence, "door-bolt"...=Sweeper.

Also, Ancelotti loves his diamond. He plays 4 Defenders, 4 Midfielders and 2 Forwards. Doesn't make it 4-4-2. That's 4-1-2-1-2.

But yeah this is going completely off topic now so it better be stopped!

Pro. F · 06-04-2010 04:02AM

Osu wrote: »

The Catenaccio formation is not 4-4-2 though. This is the crucial point here. Juventus slowly adopted into a 4-4-2 over the years. But were never fully catenaccio. They were often compared because of the 1-0 results. But they never were fully Catenaccio IMO. Not in the last 20 years anyway.

Ireland definitely don't play a 4-4-2. Get video's of the AC Milan and Inter teams of the 60's. Catenaccio is dead today because the sweeper is mainly dead today.

Last team to use the Catenaccio formation properly was probably Italy in Euro 2000 IMO.

edit: actually here's my response:
I don't buy that Juventus didn't play catenaccio and I don't buy that 442diamond isn't 442. It's just the typical over complication of semantics that comes with convoluted developement of tactics.

Also, Ireland have been playing 442, to say anything else is deluded.

3hn2givr7mx1sc · 06-04-2010 04:20AM

4-4-2 diamond is 4-4-2. Every 4-4-2 formation has an attacking, free-flowing player and one 'dirty' player who works like a horse, ala Scholes and Keane in the '90s. Diamond is just giving the attack-minded midfielder a more forward position and vice-versa with the defensive-minded one.

Mitch Connor · 06-04-2010 07:54AM

baz2009 wrote: »

4-4-2 diamond is 4-4-2. Every 4-4-2 formation has an attacking, free-flowing player and one 'dirty' player who works like a horse, ala Scholes and Keane in the '90s. Diamond is just giving the attack-minded midfielder a more forward position and vice-versa with the defensive-minded one.

Diamond formation doesn't have wingers.

pierrot · 06-04-2010 08:02AM

As far as I know, United have never really used a diamond anyway, it has always been 442, 4411, or 451.

PHB · 06-04-2010 09:49AM

lol, Berbatov's critics proven right because he was poor in a match that most of the United team was poor in.

PHB · 06-04-2010 09:50AM

For the last 3 years, with Ronaldo, we primarily played a 4-2-3-1, with two deep lying central midfielders, two wingers, and an attacking midfielder/striker/midfielder depending on the game.

This year we have shifted to a 4-4-2 until about Christmas time, at which point Fergie has shifted primarily to a 4-5-1.

Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Comments