Manchester United are known for attacking play and positive thinking. We are good on the break and we are known to play 4-4-2 or even 4-3-3 formations. We have got results with this formation and it has worked wonders for us. Fearing gaps in defence and a mini defensive crisis , Fergie is now going for 4-5-1 and even resorting to Rooney and Tevez playing out wide. This was evident as we struggled to maintain possession at the Nou Camp. Yes, we played defensively but we did not have any control over the game. Even the first half at Chelsea , the dictated the game . But we are the ones who play at a good tempo. Since Fergie changed his tactics in the second half and we pressurised chelsea , we sneaked a goal. Then again Anderson was subbed in for Oshea , a defensive player. What do we get ? A 2-1 scoreline. So we must stick to our strenghts and playing attackinf football , for what we are known for.
Discuss our Style of Play
Oh boy , you have no idea how much I agree with you......
the trouble is fergie is always nervous when it comes to europe , as this is his failing.
his negativity and nervousness transmits itself to the team in the latter stages., the poblem is it effects our league performances as well , eg chelsea in a title decider leaves his best players on the bench and tries to make a gifted team defend in order to save them for tuesday.
if he had played his strongest team like chelsea did , we would have beaten them and gone into the barca game very upbeat .
i think the emphasis on winning the champions league dictated his 4-5-1 formation , he thinks its best system to win in europe and uses it in away matches in the league.
AAABBSObloomingLUTELY!!! I see no reason why we should not dominate many games and hold our own in others.
This philosophy is based on an illusion of risk versus caution (no risk). Both tactics have risks attached to them. Defending deep and conceding possession has it's own risks as balls are frequently played into your box and you have few chances to score. It's also risky to try and score an away goal or try to win at the bridge. Risk in football is unavoidable , the choice is which kind of risk is best suited to your team and the situation. The idea that there is a choice between a risky approach and a cautious approach is false. The choice is between a passive approach and a pro-active approach. Both have risks , both have good points and bad points but one of them suits our players and one of them has got us where we are now.
For example Man United have lost more games than Chelsea or Arsenal but are sitting top because of a pro-active approach based on trying to win games and score goals. Chelsea , for all their hyped home record have taken 7 points less at home than United and have dropped points through draws not defeats. Has that been a risky approach for United or would it have been more risky to try and remain unbeaten at home? Is trying for an away goal more risky than not getting one or less risky?
I'm sitting watching the Arsenal match thinking "they are going to score in a minute" watching our players stand 5 yards away from their midfield looking like muppets while Adebayor wastes chance after chance. Will he continue wasting them , no of course he doesn't , so instead of putting those tackles in and knocking Arsenal out of their stride (eg - 4-0 FACUP) we let them play , let them pass , let them dominate , conserve energy and then have to use it all anyway trying to dig ourselves out of a hole of our own making. Boy did we get away with it that day!!! Why on earth Fergie didn't tell them to do exactly what they did in the FA CUP I don't know. It seemed to work before? But no , he prefered to allow the Arsenal midfield more time and space than they would get against Wigan. Did it work? - no ! They scored and we had to come to life 50 minutes later than we should have. Unbelievable! I could see what was going to happen , I bet you could. Fergie gave them instructions to not get within 5 yards of any Arsenal player thus giving a team that was low on confidence the chance to play their way into the game. Risky or what? Pundits have been saying for years that United are at their most effective playing a high tempo game. If we do the same against Barca their midfield will think it's Xmas come early. In football you have to do what the opposition don't want you to and I reckon Barca were scared of us at the Nou Camp and were grateful that we kept our gloves on. The Barca players and management did not seem at all phased by our tactics probably figuring (in a Rangers type way) that their best chance was at OT.
You see to me Fergie's current tactics seem safe and cautious because we forget the hidden risks involved and perceive adventure and attack as risky and defending as "clever". I think allowing Barca onto us at the noucamp and having no away goals is highly risky and letting Chelsea back into the title race is very risky. Fergie's current tactics are risk free and cautious but looked at in another way they are not. It just feels safer to defend and play cagey , but many teams have plotted their own downfall doing so , teams that are better at it than United are. To me Fergies tactics seem naive and fearful. It's as if losing having a go at it would be worse than losing by palying it cagey (which could easily happen).
So given the choice I would prefer United to take risks the United way rather than take risks the Chelski way. That way United can be true to themselves and and keep their fluency . If it all goes wrong then at least we can say we bought a ticket. Attacking more may be risky but so is defending your 18 yard line for 90 minutes.
You watch against Barca, at some point the game will come alive and release itself from this tactical nonesense and when it does United will be stronger than Barca. I just hope we don't have to wait for them to score before we finally get going. Does our season really have to hang by a thread before we return once again to the football that brought us here