Fergie's tactical masterstroke

Marcus

Full Member
Joined
Oct 3, 1999
Messages
6,427
Switching Silvestre into the middle and O'Shea out left midway through the game.

1) Won us the game.
2) May persuade Silvestre to sign as he will at times get to play in the middle?

:D
 
I haven't watched the game. Has O'shea played poorly at the centre?
 
Originally posted by uranushk1:
<strong>I haven't watched the game. Has O'shea played poorly at the centre?</strong><hr></blockquote>

He got stripped a few times just before he was switched, Silvestres extra pace was needed in the middle but JohnO still had a good game.
I thought the switch from 451 to 442 was the masterstroke, they couldnt cope with the sudden presence of an extra striker.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Murt:
<strong>

He got stripped a few times just before he was switched, Silvestres extra pace was needed in the middle but JohnO still had a good game.
I thought the switch from 451 to 442 was the masterstroke, they couldnt cope with the sudden presence of an extra striker.</strong><hr></blockquote>

we haven't seen 4-5-1 played against bigger teams this season, i still have doubts if it will work. But 4-4-2 certainly leaves more room for our opponents to attack us.

if we go 4-5-1 against liverpool this weekend and again against Arsenal then we'll now find out if 4-5-1 is better or 4-4-2 is better against bigger teams in EPL and CL.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Murt:
<strong>

He got stripped a few times just before he was switched, Silvestres extra pace was needed in the middle but JohnO still had a good game.
I thought the switch from 451 to 442 was the masterstroke, they couldnt cope with the sudden presence of an extra striker.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmmm, but I thought Ole was still on the right wing? He delivered the cross to ala Beckham from the right wing. It looked like 451 to me still.

But yes, O'Shea was stripped for pace by their Argie strike-force and Fergie made the switch.

Thought that we should praise Sir Alex when he does well instead of slagging him off when things don't go to plan.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Marcus:
<strong>

Hmmm, but I thought Ole was still on the right wing? He delivered the cross to ala Beckham from the right wing. It looked like 451 to me still.

But yes, O'Shea was stripped for pace by their Argie strike-force and Fergie made the switch.

Thought that we should praise Sir Alex when he does well instead of slagging him off when things don't go to plan.</strong><hr></blockquote>

we have played well throughout the CL seasons over the years. I think SAF has got that one figured out - atleast he knows how to get to the quarters every year.

Everyone has given him credits for that.

But he hasn't played the team in the way they know best - which is 4-4-2 with wings wide out. He did it practically for the first time (eventhough with 5 first team out injured) - kept Ole out wide - and we scored 5 goals. After having gone 14 games scoring just 18 goals. Everyone gave him credits for that too.

To conclude, we didn't slag him off because things didn't go as plan, we slag him because he clearly hasn't played us in our usual style that usually gets us the goals and the wins in the EPL.

although it does help to keep thinkin that SAF has a master plan in his mind and is insisting on certain tactics to make sure we realize the full potential.
Click to expand...
 
All credit to Fergie for being able to sort the defensive problem out quickly. I thought Brown and not O'Shea was struggling a bit at the start. Then O'Shea was outstripped by one of their strikers which precipitated the switch. JOS then did very well at LB (is there any position he can't play ?).
On the downside I'm sorry the Brown/O'Shea partnership didn't appear to work, or at least that it had to be abandoned so quickly. I'm not sure about Silvestre at CB although he played well there last night. If Blanc is unfit for Sunday then you can see SAF keeping the same re arranged back four and this could be our achilles heel. Gary could come in for Phil though.

Last night didn't do much for settling JOS in a CB role I'm afraid.
 
I've never thought of O'Shea as slow before, quite the opposite though clearly Silvestre and Brown are exceptionally fast - and maybe there forwards were very pacy. It was a bigger problem that our midfield was too porous and putting the centre backs under pressure, and since we played quite far up the pitch we were getting caught on the break. I thought our left wing was much worse last night than on Saturday as O'Shea didn't offer much penetration and Giggs was AWOL again. But our makeshift team managed to only concede the one deflected goal, against a very attacking team which put 3 past Liverpool - so that indicates that they did very well. That tackle of Mickey wasn't a penalty, and was vital, I'm just glad the ref saw it that way - many wouldn't. The defence looked a bit unorganised to me, with poor positioning, but thats to be expected and was compensated for by fast strong tackling. To call the switch a masterstroke though is going over the top.
 
Originally posted by giggzy:
<strong>agreed.. credit to SAF..he got it spot on!!!!


the man's a genius. ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>


One of the best tactical decisions he's made in a long time imo.
Click to expand...
 
The Brown/O'Shea central partnership is a bit too inexperienced in Europe at the moment.

Saying that, I think Basel would have caused many a defence trouble last night.
 
They put 4 past Valencia remember. Ayala was so much in a twist he got sent off.
 
Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>I've never thought of O'Shea as slow before, quite the opposite though clearly Silvestre and Brown are exceptionally fast - and maybe there forwards were very pacy. It was a bigger problem that our midfield was too porous and putting the centre backs under pressure, and since we played quite far up the pitch we were getting caught on the break. I thought our left wing was much worse last night than on Saturday as O'Shea didn't offer much penetration and Giggs was AWOL again. But our makeshift team managed to only concede the one deflected goal, against a very attacking team which put 3 past Liverpool - so that indicates that they did very well. That tackle of Mickey wasn't a penalty, and was vital, I'm just glad the ref saw it that way - many wouldn't. The defence looked a bit unorganised to me, with poor positioning, but thats to be expected and was compensated for by fast strong tackling. To call the switch a masterstroke though is going over the top.</strong><hr></blockquote>

i was also quite surprised JOS was switched, but i read in some United news that JOS was somewhat in a Blanc's mould - which is not very fast. Luckily he can play different positions, so it's not likely he'll be dropped in games against fast forwards or attackers. Give him time and i'm sure he'll be able to handle them with ease.

btw, TV replays showed that it wasn't a deflected goal, Himinez (sp??) did it delibrately. He stuck a knee out on purpose with his eye on the ball. Great goal that was for Basel IMO.
Click to expand...
 
Brilliant move. Funny to see how in the match thread everyone is slagging it though (mind you, I was also worried at losing his attacking play while badly needing a goal). It was a risk that paid off and taking such risks is what makes all the difference between a great and a mediocre manager.

On 4-4-2, I didn't really see it that way. Ole crossed for the first. In the second I remember thinking "now that Ruud is out wide, who the feck will he cross the ball to?". I think that was partly why he went for the shot. The third was counter-attacking from midfield, the fact that Ole was further up (although in midfield) doesn't really make it 4-4-2 does it?
 
Originally posted by antohan:
<strong>Brilliant move. Funny to see how in the match thread everyone is slagging it though (mind you, I was also worried at losing his attacking play while badly needing a goal). It was a risk that paid off and taking such risks is what makes all the difference between a great and a mediocre manager.

On 4-4-2, I didn't really see it that way. Ole crossed for the first. In the second I remember thinking "now that Ruud is out wide, who the feck will he cross the ball to?". I think that was partly why he went for the shot. The third was counter-attacking from midfield, the fact that Ole was further up (although in midfield) doesn't really make it 4-4-2 does it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When we have the ball the players have license to roam, and Ruud has often gone wide to drag the defenders with him. You often see the formation better when we don't have the ball and you see which zone they mark.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>
When we have the ball the players have license to roam, and Ruud has often gone wide to drag the defenders with him. You often see the formation better when we don't have the ball and you see which zone they mark.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Neil, I do understand they have license to roam and that Ruud going wide and fighting for the ball was excellent, I mentioned I though that in terms of who on earth would be on the receiving end (obviously not him).

My point is we didn't react thanks to switching to 4-4-2, I think Ole only moved up front after we reacted as they went forward and left the space for him and RVN to spearhead a counter. Could you say it was thanks to 4-4-2 or the fact that they had to go forward desperately to get an equaliser leaving us the space to kill off the game?

You can't talk 442 or 451 after Forlan came on, he's all over the place with and without the ball. At times it looked like 4-6-0 <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by antohan:
<strong>

Neil, I do understand they have license to roam and that Ruud going wide and fighting for the ball was excellent, I mentioned I though that in terms of who on earth would be on the receiving end (obviously not him).

My point is we didn't react thanks to switching to 4-4-2, I think Ole only moved up front after we reacted as they went forward and left the space for him and RVN to spearhead a counter. Could you say it was thanks to 4-4-2 or the fact that they had to go forward desperately to get an equaliser leaving us the space to kill off the game?

You can't talk 442 or 451 after Forlan came on, he's all over the place with and without the ball. At times it looked like 4-6-0 <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure it was 4-6-0 at the end of the Newcastle game too! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>
I'm sure it was 4-6-0 at the end of the Newcastle game too! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

it's very strange how our midfield and offence seem to be blending in with each other this much. so far this season only Ruud has been an out out striker - everyone one else has had a run in midfield.

at times we go 4-4-1-1, then 4-5-1, then 4-3-3, then 4-2-2. then now it seems as though we could even play 4-6-0 as you suggest! this is strange indeed! how much concentration should we give to midfield?
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by RUnited:
<strong>at times we go 4-4-1-1, then 4-5-1, then 4-3-3, then 4-2-2. then now it seems as though we could even play 4-6-0 as you suggest! this is strange indeed! how much concentration should we give to midfield?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Which shows the odd number change discussion is bollocks. Teams and players must be able to adapt throughout the game doing things the way it is better for them and not just being paranoid about where they are meant to be standing and what they are meant to be doing.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by antohan:
<strong>

Which shows the odd number change discussion is bollocks. Teams and players must be able to adapt throughout the game doing things the way it is better for them and not just being paranoid about where they are meant to be standing and what they are meant to be doing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

that is true. i agree.

but it doesn't mean players shouldn't play in their natural positions if possible. if Ole can play that well out wide, so i think Becks can do much much better. But becks is not playing out wide (SAF influence? or himself? - tis not known)

just an example.. i still think players in their own favourite positions will work the best for any team.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Murt:
<strong>I thought the switch from 451 to 442 was the masterstroke, they couldnt cope with the sudden presence of an extra striker.</strong><hr></blockquote>You convinced me.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by RUnited:
<strong>but it doesn't mean players shouldn't play in their natural positions if possible.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agreed, that's why I say the tactics discussion is bollocks. My view on the whole 442-451 discussion is that the disruption is not from the tactics but playing out of position.

People say "we switched back to 442 with Scholes in midifeld and turned the game around". It's not switching 451 for 442, it's sending Scholes to midifield were he belongs that makes the difference! Scholes in midfield showing up on the edge of the box out of the blue is UNMARKABLE. That's what makes him great.

Giggs as a second striker or link up player when he is arguably the best fecking winger in the world...

It's not the tactics are wrong, it's just that we currently have players to play a lot better in a different way.

A conscious decision was made to change our style to something better suited for Europe but it takes time for the personnel to adapt. Ole has been fantastic, others might never get around it.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by antohan:
<strong>

Agreed, that's why I say the tactics discussion is bollocks. My view on the whole 442-451 discussion is that the disruption is not from the tactics but playing out of position.

People say "we switched back to 442 with Scholes in midifeld and turned the game around". It's not switching 451 for 442, it's sending Scholes to midifield were he belongs that makes the difference! Scholes in midfield showing up on the edge of the box out of the blue is UNMARKABLE. That's what makes him great.

Giggs as a second striker or link up player when he is arguably the best fecking winger in the world...

It's not the tactics are wrong, it's just that we currently have players to play a lot better in a different way.

A conscious decision was made to change our style to something better suited for Europe but it takes time for the personnel to adapt. Ole has been fantastic, others might never get around it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

agreed.

It was such a beautiful sight, Ole crossing and meeting with RVN's header. If only it had been Beckham doing it week in week out we'd know that our players are being used to the best of their abilities.

I have no problem adapting in the CL games, but clearly there's no real use for that in the EPL.
Click to expand...
 
I just hope Micky doesnt get used to it and expect to become first-choice CB, because thats not going to happen. I would hate to see Micky leave on a free because of this silly little want to play in a position which we are well covered by. He is one of the best left-backs in the business and he cant be allowed to waste his talents as a back-up centre-back for another club.
 
Originally posted by Gazza:
<strong>I just hope Micky doesnt get used to it and expect to become first-choice CB, because thats not going to happen. I would hate to see Micky leave on a free because of this silly little want to play in a position which we are well covered by. He is one of the best left-backs in the business and he cant be allowed to waste his talents as a back-up centre-back for another club.</strong><hr></blockquote>

that's true.

it's a wonder how a player playing well on the left craves to play in a position he's never really been good at. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Gazza:
<strong>BTW - people on this forum hailing SAF as the tactical king? I never thought i'd see the day! ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Heh heh, if he does well of course he should be given credit. That was the entire point of this post.

:)
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by antohan:
<strong>

Agreed, that's why I say the tactics discussion is bollocks. My view on the whole 442-451 discussion is that the disruption is not from the tactics but playing out of position.

People say "we switched back to 442 with Scholes in midifeld and turned the game around". It's not switching 451 for 442, it's sending Scholes to midifield were he belongs that makes the difference! Scholes in midfield showing up on the edge of the box out of the blue is UNMARKABLE. That's what makes him great.

Giggs as a second striker or link up player when he is arguably the best fecking winger in the world...

It's not the tactics are wrong, it's just that we currently have players to play a lot better in a different way.

A conscious decision was made to change our style to something better suited for Europe but it takes time for the personnel to adapt. Ole has been fantastic, others might never get around it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, that's just exactly what I think. Some people think I'm a 100% 442, but I'm not. I never object the idea of 4-4-1-1 (a withdrawn striker). What I disagree is that we can't keep putting players in unfamilar/unsuitable positions. Scholes as forward is a complete failure, for example.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.