Post Match United v Blackburn

[apotheosis]

This shit again. Christ. Constantly bemused at how so many of ye fail to grasp the basic concept of squad rotation. To keep a large squad of players fit/happy you need fringe players to START games, not come on for 20-30 minutes when the game is won. It's also incredibly naive to think that starting with your strongest team will inevitably result in us getting to a position to take our best players off. Fergie's been doing this for years, it's not exactly something he's experimenting with for a laugh.

This shit? What logic? Yes Pogue we are all perfectly well aware of the merits of squad rotation. but you don't rotate players from their usual positions and play them in unfamiliar roles when you are already struggling to put a side out. He gambled against Wigan and it paid off, he gambled again against Blackburn and it didn't.

Anderson was fit enough to play, so he was fit enough to start, and as a choice between the 2 Anderson is always going to be preferable to Rafael in a CM role.

Obviously, the Anderson decision was influenced by his (lack of) fitness but the point stands. This shit about starting your best XI players and subbing them off when we're three nil up at half-time is ridiculously out-dated.

Pogue generally your point is perfectly valid, but not in this instance. We are already severely depleted at the back and weakened in midfield as a result. So in that scenario you play a team that gives you the best chance of winning, not take unnecessary risks playing even more players out of their usual positions.

Anderson is a first choice midfielder, he was fit enough to play second half, so he was fit enough to play the first. That would have given the team better balance and more familiarity. We looked uncertain and unbalanced yesterday and considering the line up that was hardly surprising.

Those players were good enough to beat Blackburn at OT, but did the manager give them the best chance of doing so with what he had available?
I don't think so, he changed it back to something recognisable at HT, so why on earth did he think not to start the first half as he did the second.

Squad rotation does not explain the logic in starting with such a mish mash of a team, the first half performance reflected the uncertainty of the system and the unfamiliarity of the players within it imo. That cost us the game, we looked far more convincing second half with a more familiar look, and i would suggest had the first half performance mirrored the second we probably would have won. You cannot expect to have any organisation or understanding between players, when so many are being played out of position Pogue. He fecked it up mate, he takes the plaudits readily enough when his decisions go for us, surely then he should take the criticism for decisions that cost us points.

 

[Devilton]

Playing Rafael and Park in the middle of the park was a terrible idea.

I'm not a Gibson fan but what on earth has Rafael done in his united career that makes him a better option for that spot?

Baffling lineup by SAF and to be honest it showed a lack of respect for the blackburn side so in a way perhaps they got their reward by stealing the points.

 

[KM]

I understand Fergie's reluctance not to play Ando from start though, it could've easily gone very wrong.

 

[apotheosis]

I don't really know how's he's performed for those teams in that role but from what I've seen of him for united I would rather stick him wide, whether it be rb or on the wing then put him in central midfield. Rafael as a runner isn't ideal but that was the situation we were in. I don't see what extra creativity he would have added and we would have lost his crossing.

Well that's obvious Ash, if you have never seen him play through the middle you are obviously going to prefer him wide. But that does not mean he does not have experience at playing through the middle, because he has. He is actually quite good there the times i have seen him for Wigan, great on the counter.

We lost his crossing anyway, because he was playing full back. Second half we benefited from his crossing because he was not playing RB. My point was Rafael and Park are nowhere near as creative as Valencia through the middle, he carries more goal threat, pace and dribbling ability for a start.

As I said in the team Fergie put out I think it made more sense for Valencia to play right back and Rafael to play in the middle as you can utilise Valencia more. I agree that we looked better in the second half but that had nothing to do with Valencia playing centrally as he didn't play there.

Why did it make more sense, either in foresight or hindsight? It is far more important to the effectiveness of any team to have a soild, experienced midfield than a well utilised full back!

Rafael has never played CM in a 2 before, so how does that make more sense than playing Valencia, who has played there many times for both his previous club and country. Rafael is always going to be better at full back than in midfield. So what did we gain from that move that makes you think it made more sense to play Rafael there rather than Pogba, Anderson, Giggs or Valencia?

I don't know if he got it completely wrong. We don't fully know the situation with Rooney and Gibson so lets assume they were unavailable. So with the players that were left he could possibly have gambled with starting a youngster or Anderson. But either way the players that played showed in both the first half and second that they had enough to win and it was the sloppyness of the attacking players and the mistakes at the back that cost us. The team that was out there may not have been ideal and it may not have been the best use of our resources but either way it was good enough, the players let the team down more than Fergie did in his selection.

No i disagree completely, it is down to the manager to organise the team and give them confidence especially when we are struggling to put a team out. Did that team play like they had any confidence or understanding of what they were trying to do? Not in my view, Rafael looked totally lost, he and Park failed to boss the midfield and the rest of the team looked disorientated and uncertain. For me when you are already playing players like Carrick out of position, then you need to put out the best midfield you can to give him the best protection possible.

Was that the case? Would Giggs and Park, or Anderson and Park not have been better and had more control? Why not Giggs and Park first half, then Anderson Park in the second? Playing Rafael there makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, he did not look comfortable and nor did the team as a result. I'm sorry Ash, for me it was a feck up from start to finish, an unnecessary gamble which backfired badly and it cost us 3 points. Fergie has only himself to blame.

 

[BaldwinLegend]

I'm not a Gibson fan but what on earth has Rafael done in his united career that makes him a better option for that spot?

Not get hammered 48 hours before a game, apparently...

 

[apotheosis]

I understand Fergie's reluctance not to play Ando from start though, it could've easily gone very wrong.

Come on KM, how much wronger could it have gone? We lost 3 points against a second string Blackburn team who have had only 2 wins this season.

For me it went wrong because the team in the first half played pretty much as the line up would suggest they would play. With uncertainty, very tentative, lacking confidence and understanding in the main areas of the pitch and for me the play they produced reflected their mindset.

For me all that was down to the system SAF picked and the players he chose to employ within it. He did not give what we had the best chance of winning that game, that was his mistake imo. He gambled unnecessarily and it backfired badly.

 

[BaldwinLegend]

Come on KM, how much wronger could it have gone? We lost 3 points against a second string Blackburn team who have had only 2 wins this season.

For me it went wrong because the team in the first half played pretty much as the line up would suggest they would play. With uncertainty, very tentative, lacking confidence and understanding in the main areas of the pitch and for me the play they produced reflected their mindset.

For me all that was down to the system SAF picked and the players he chose to employ within it. He did not give what we had the best chance of winning that game, that was his mistake imo. He gambled unnecessarily and it backfired badly.

I think he means Anderson could have got injured, which worries me too. We can't afford to take risks with any players right now, least of all CMs.

Coming back from a long time out is a dangerous time - PL football is played at twice the pace of any training session and that's when you pull a muscle or something when you first come back.

I think Fergie wanted Rafael and Park to block off the middle of the pitch, and let Nani, Valencia, Berbatov, Hernandez and Welbeck do the damage.

Bearing in mind it was a home game against the lowest team in the league, at a time when United appeared to have found their form again, you can see why Ferguson was prepared to gamble. Also, if he had disciplinary issues, he might not have had a choice...

Anderson might not have been risked at all if we'd been able to get ahead in the game...

 

[Eirik Raude]

What I don't understand is why Valencia played right back and Rafael central midfield. Valencia would be a much better option in central midfield, and I believe he's more comfortable in that position as well, since he's played it a lot in the national team.

 

[apotheosis]

I think he means Anderson could have got injured, which worries me too. We can't afford to take risks with any players right now, least of all CMs.

Coming back from a long time out is a dangerous time - PL football is played at twice the pace of any training session and that's when you pull a muscle or something when you first come back.

I think Fergie wanted Rafael and Park to block off the middle of the pitch, and let Nani, Valencia, Berbatov, Hernandez and Welbeck do the damage.

Bearing in mind it was a home game against the lowest team in the league, at a time when United appeared to have found their form again, you can see why Ferguson was prepared to gamble. Also, if he had disciplinary issues, he might not have had a choice...

Anderson might not have been risked at all if we'd been able to get ahead in the game...

I appreciate all that BL, but has Rafael not been out for even longer than Anderson? How many games has Rafael had back before being handed a midfield start?

The way i see it we were forced to use Anderson because he inexplicably decided to rest Giggs. When we have so many problems already with people playing out of position, imo SAF simply compounded that problem by adding to it unnecessarily.

His decisions took away the confidence that had been gained over the last 2 games by the sheer unfamiliarity of the line up and the players within it. I am pretty surprised that more people do not seem to think the lineup was indicative of the performance we produced.

After seeing that team, it would have been more of a surprise to me had they played well as a team, because there seemed to be very little there that was conducive to a positive and confident team display.

Fergie is a genius, he has proved it time and again. But he can still get things wrong and for me yesterday he got just about everything wrong apart from changing the team back to something recognisable at HT.

He fecked it up on the day imo, it should not be considered taboo to point that out. There is nothing wrong with telling the truth, there are undoubtedly many ways some posters will attempt to justify the decisons he made, but for me he gambled too irresponsibly and unnecessarily. It smacked of arrogance to me and the options or lack of them on the bench can only really support that view.

 

[CentreForward]

I think he means Anderson could have got injured, which worries me too. We can't afford to take risks with any players right now, least of all CMs.

Coming back from a long time out is a dangerous time - PL football is played at twice the pace of any training session and that's when you pull a muscle or something when you first come back.

I think Fergie wanted Rafael and Park to block off the middle of the pitch, and let Nani, Valencia, Berbatov, Hernandez and Welbeck do the damage.

Bearing in mind it was a home game against the lowest team in the league, at a time when United appeared to have found their form again, you can see why Ferguson was prepared to gamble. Also, if he had disciplinary issues, he might not have had a choice...

Anderson might not have been risked at all if we'd been able to get ahead in the game...

exactly what I was thinking. Just would like to add, that had we not been so careless in defense, it would have paid off. Also we needed everyone to be top of their game, but instead we had too many players have an off day

 

[BaldwinLegend]

I think it was established earlier in the thread that Rafael is quite a lot further along the road to fitness than Anderson. He's played at least 1, possibly 2 reserve games recently and made the bench several times. Clearly he was seen as less of a risk than Anderson.

 

[BaldwinLegend]

He fecked it up on the day imo, it should not be considered taboo to point that out. There is nothing wrong with telling the truth, there are undoubtedly many ways some posters will attempt to justify the decisons he made, but for me he gambled too irresponsibly and unnecessarily. It smacked of arrogance to me and the options or lack of them on the bench can only really support that view.

I don't think he's above criticism at all - far from it - but I don't see that he had any other options for the bench.

In terms of arrogance, playing Berbatov, Nani, Valencia, Hernandez and Welbeck can't really be seen as underestimating Blackburn, can it?

Add it all up - the injuries, the disciplinary problems etc and you realise there's not a whole lot he could have done differently, in fact.

 

[apotheosis]

I don't think he's above criticism at all - far from it - but I don't see that he had any other options for the bench.

In terms of arrogance, playing Berbatov, Nani, Valencia, Hernandez and Welbeck can't really be seen as underestimating Blackburn, can it?

Add it all up - the injuries, the disciplinary problems etc and you realise there's not a whole lot he could have done differently, in fact.

Apart from not playing people in the right positions and leaving Giggs out of the squad when you have loads of injuries and alleged disciplinary problems.

Listen BL, i am not saying SAF had loads of options, what i am saying is out of those he had he took the riskiest options possible. Would he have played that team had it been Newcastle or Everton coming to OT? If not then he had other options he chose not to take because it was Blackburn and not a stronger team.

That is my beef, he took too many risks. Risks he would not have taken against better opposition. I doubt Giggs would have been left out of the squad had it been someone better than Blackburn. Therefore it cannot be deemed as the best team we could muster despite our problems.

He took risks because it was Blackburn that he would not have took against stronger opposition in the very same circumstances. He gambled unnecessarily when he had other options and we paid for that with the result we got. That is my gripe.

 

[Utd heap]

Apart from not playing people in the right positions and leaving Giggs out of the squad when you have loads of injuries and alleged disciplinary problems.

Listen BL, i am not saying SAF had loads of options, what i am saying is out of those he had he took the riskiest options possible. Would he have played that team had it been Newcastle or Everton coming to OT? If not then he had other options he chose not to take because it was Blackburn and not a stronger team.

That is my beef, he took too many risks. Risks he would not have taken against better opposition. I doubt Giggs would have been left out of the squad had it been someone better than Blackburn. Therefore it cannot be deemed as the best team we could muster despite our problems.

He took risks because it was Blackburn that he would not have took against stronger opposition in the very same circumstances. He gambled unnecessarily when he had other options and we paid for that with the result we got. That is my gripe.

Good points and post.

 

[johnmufc]

Chicharito should not start unless all other options are injured. Technically, he is so far behind almost any other United player.

I am a fan of de Gea, but he cost us yesterday. Fergie is wrong to constantly change the goalkeepers, it is further unsettling an already shaky defence. Either de Gea or Lindegaard needs to be selected as a permanent fixture.

 

[Ash_G]

Well that's obvious Ash, if you have never seen him play through the middle you are obviously going to prefer him wide. But that does not mean he does not have experience at playing through the middle, because he has. He is actually quite good there the times i have seen him for Wigan, great on the counter.

We lost his crossing anyway, because he was playing full back. Second half we benefited from his crossing because he was not playing RB. My point was Rafael and Park are nowhere near as creative as Valencia through the middle, he carries more goal threat, pace and dribbling ability for a start.

I don't think we lost his crossing fully, he was still able to get forward loads, not as much as at right wing but still enough. We've seen him do well in that position numerous times and considering we knew we would be on top it was likely he would get forward lots which he did. Like I said I haven't seen him for Wigan but from what he's shown in his united career thus far I don't really see how he would have offered much more in the middle. We weren't playing on the counter or anything. We were trying to break through their entire team. Had it been a case where we played on the counter a lot I could see the benefit of Valencia in the middle as he would have had pace to exploit. But the middle was tight and I think he would have struggled to have much of an attacking impact there.

Why did it make more sense, either in foresight or hindsight? It is far more important to the effectiveness of any team to have a soild, experienced midfield than a well utilised full back!

Rafael has never played CM in a 2 before, so how does that make more sense than playing Valencia, who has played there many times for both his previous club and country. Rafael is always going to be better at full back than in midfield. So what did we gain from that move that makes you think it made more sense to play Rafael there rather than Pogba, Anderson, Giggs or Valencia?

Tbh I don't think Rafael is a player who is limited to just playing right back. He's not limited in footballing ability and I'm sure he could adapt to most positions. Now I'm not saying he should play central midfield but in an occassion like that I don't think it's an insane idea. It's not like we struggled to keep or win the ball, we struggled to put in a telling delivery. We got in behind them countless times but the choices and the crosses in were poor. Added to that Hernandez was in and out of the game. Park and Rafael weren't ideal and they weren't really creative but we still did enough on the ball to have won.

As I said I too would have preferred us to try a young player out and have a more natural team. My argument though is that in the team that Fergie did select I can understand why we went for Valencia at right back and Rafael in the middle.

No i disagree completely, it is down to the manager to organise the team and give them confidence especially when we are struggling to put a team out. Did that team play like they had any confidence or understanding of what they were trying to do? Not in my view, Rafael looked totally lost, he and Park failed to boss the midfield and the rest of the team looked disorientated and uncertain. For me when you are already playing players like Carrick out of position, then you need to put out the best midfield you can to give him the best protection possible.

I didn't think they looked that lost, the use of the ball was poor particularly in the final third something that has happened before regardless of the midfielders. We had plenty of the ball and as I've said managed to get in behind the blackburn defence time and time again. Had the ball in been better or the set pieces taken well I think we would have scored earlier. Park and Rafael weren't great but had the likes of Nani, Welbeck and Hernandez done better when they did get the ball it wouldn't have been an issue. We weren't being overrun and we enjoyed the majority of the possession.

Was that the case? Would Giggs and Park, or Anderson and Park not have been better and had more control? Why not Giggs and Park first half, then Anderson Park in the second? Playing Rafael there makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, he did not look comfortable and nor did the team as a result. I'm sorry Ash, for me it was a feck up from start to finish, an unnecessary gamble which backfired badly and it cost us 3 points. Fergie has only himself to blame.

Well if Giggs was fit then I agree it was a poor decision not to use him. Although I can see why Ando didn't start, I again agree that if he was ok to play the second half he was surely ok to play the first half. However as I've said if the players out there had used the ball better in the first half I think we would have scored and changed the game. If in the second half the defending hadn't been so terrible for blackburns goals, or the players not switiching off once they got level then again I think we would have won. As I said at the end of the day Fergie may have been able to make different choices that might have helped but for me the players out there showed they had enough to win and it was through their own sloppy play and mistakes that we didn't.

 

[sammsky1]

I understand Fergie's reluctance not to play Ando from start though, it could've easily gone very wrong.

That still does not explain playing a young inexperienced right back feeling his way back for a fairly lengthy injury in one of his first games back in a position, indeed department he has never ever played for the club before.

Esp also the decision to play Valencia at RB. Why not Rafael at RB and Valencia, who is also known to be able to play in central midfield in the middle?

Would be great to get an insight into SAFs thinking on these things because he Im sure he had his reasoning and it was logical and made sense to him, but Im baffled by it!

 

[Stack]

Ok you have to be kidding here, must be a wind up and Im missing it.

Chicharito should not start unless all other options are injured. Technically, he is so far behind almost any other United player.

 

[Jacob]

Ok you have to be kidding here, must be a wind up and Im missing it.

Nah I kind of agree with him, Hernandez' first touch is poor. I will stick my neck out claiming hthe only sides to his game are his runs and positioning in the box. Sure it can be argued he's quick and all, but so far I haven't seen him utilize it properly by e.g. outpacing defenders. Also, his relative footballing inteligence is somewhere closer to our team's average. Not his biggest fan, but his personality make me like him much more. Bottom line, good striker, not someone I'd want as our long-term regular striker though.

 

[moses]

Personally with hindsight it's obvious that Anderson should have started? He played 45 minutes chasing a game, surely that is much more strenuous on a player than starting at home against the weakest team in the league. There are no rules about how long a player is out and how he should be reintroduced; there is an ideal, but that goes out the window when your squad is ravaged.

 

[apotheosis]

Nah I kind of agree with him, Hernandez' first touch is poor. I will stick my neck out claiming hthe only sides to his game are his runs and positioning in the box. Sure it can be argued he's quick and all, but so far I haven't seen him utilize it properly by e.g. outpacing defenders. Also, his relative footballing inteligence is somewhere closer to our team's average. Not his biggest fan, but his personality make me like him much more. Bottom line, good striker, not someone I'd want as our long-term regular striker though.

Doesn't matter about his first touch really, he does the job we expect of him and he does it well. Horses for courses again when you want touch and technical ability pick Rooney or Berbatov. When you want someone to run in behind defences or poach you a goal, then Hernandez is your man.

None of that means any one is better or more valuable than any other, you simply pick the player with the attributes required to perform the role you need at any given time.

 

[Jacob]

Doesn't matter about his first touch really, he does the job we expect of him and he does it well. Horses for courses again when you want touch and technical ability pick Rooney or Berbatov. When you want someone to run in behind defences or poach you a goal, then Hernandez is your man.

None of that means any one is better or more valuable than any other, you simply pick the player with the attributes required to perform the role you need at any given time.

Why do you reason with me like Im a child? That aside, it's not only this or that as you illustrated it. You can potentially have both, as we do in players like Rooney and, hopefully within a few years, Welbeck to an extent.

 

[apotheosis]

Why do you reason with me like Im a child? That aside, it's not only this or that as you illustrated it. You can potentially have both, as we do in players like Rooney and, hopefully within a few years, Welbeck to an extent.

Did i reason with you like a child? I certainly didn't intend to. I was merely explaining the situation as i see it.

In the case of Welbeck for instance, you have someone who potentially has every attribute you can want in a striker. But being a good all rounder is only sometimes beneficial. As is being exceptional with certain attributes as we see with Hernandez. His movement and goalscoring instinct is exceptional even if his all round game is not.

If we had to stick on a sub to grab us a goal, despite his alleged poor first touch and technical inadequacies, i would suspect most would put their faith in Hernandez to best fulfill that particular requirement.

As i said horse for courses, each has his own merits which will be of more benefit to the team than others, in different situations.

 

[Sean_RedDevil]

The last time we've lost a game in which we've scored two goals?

Date: 01/02/2006
Opponent: Blackburn away
Result: 3-4

 

[Varun]

This shit again. Christ. Constantly bemused at how so many of ye fail to grasp the basic concept of squad rotation. To keep a large squad of players fit/happy you need fringe players to START games, not come on for 20-30 minutes when the game is won. It's also incredibly naive to think that starting with your strongest team will inevitably result in us getting to a position to take our best players off. Fergie's been doing this for years, it's not exactly something he's experimenting with for a laugh.

He's not the only one either. You look at all managers with big squads. They do the same thing. They don't start every game with their best XI players. They START fringe players when they've got easy fixtures. Fixtures like the bottom team in the league at home.

Obviously, the Anderson decision was influenced by his (lack of) fitness but the point stands. This shit about starting your best XI players and subbing them off when we're three nil up at half-time is ridiculously out-dated.

Squad rotation isnt actually about playing players out of position when you're already short of players at absolutely vital positions like CB and CM either. Had we had even close to our first team available, he would have got away with rotation, doing that yesterday when we already had just 1 CB and no CMs fit was a mistake. No 2 ways about it.

that said, as i've already said, he didnt really have much of a choice. the only thing he could have done better was to start ando with park at CM. He put out the best possible team out other than that.