Originally posted by Murt:
<strong>
we lost 9 games last season, in 7 of those we started with 4-4-2.
Canb you explain to me, how 4-5-1 can be responsible for us loosing the league when we lost 7 games playing 4-4-2?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Murt, aren't you being a bit selective with the facts.
I think we should master 4-5-1 because we need to be flexible but it didn't come that easy to us last season -
LIVERPOOL (CS) Lost
FULHAM - struggled, conceded 2
BLACKBURN - ditto
VILLA - struggled, got a point after changing system
EVERTON - Cole/Yorke up front, and won comfortably.
NEWCASTLE - Scored four with two strikers - a defeat, but very poor defensively
LILLE - struggled
IPSWICH - two strikers, 4-0 win
DEPORTIVO - defeat
SPURS - 3-0 down at half time! Game changed by Fergie's own admission when OGS came on
OLYMPIAKOS - goal scored by sub. Cole
LEEDS - Losing, till reversion to 4-4-2, when we had so many chances we could have won the game.
LILLE - 4-4-2 draw
LIVERPOOL - awful 4-4-2 defeat, and first real pairing of OGS and Ruud.
LEICESTER - 4-4-2 win
BAYERN - good away performance, proving that it is handy to have a different system
ARSENAL - 4-5-1 defeat
CHELSEA - 4-4-2 defeat (By this time, I don't think the players themselves knew what they were supposed to be doing)
BOA VISTA - 4-4-2 win
WEST HAM - 4-4-2 defeat
DERBY - excellent 4-4-2 win
BORO - 4-4-2 win
SOTON - 4-4-2 win
EVERTON - 4-4-2 win
FULHAM - 4-4-2 win with Giggs in a striker's role
NEWCASTLE - excellent 4-4-2 win
VILLA - losing the game till we changed to 4-4-2
SOUTHAMPTON - 4-4-2 win
BLACKBURN - 4-4-2 win
LIVERPOOL - back to 4-5-1, and look what happened
I can't be arsed to go thru the rest of the games, but you can't say that 4-4-2 lost us the league.
We need to be good at both.
