Interesting article in the Times this weekend. Missed it at first, but it's interesting reading. Marcotti calls our formation a fluid "4-6-0", with no out and out strikers and a front four who are constatnly changing positions. Do you think he's accurate in his assessment of our play?
Roma and United playing 4-6-0 formation
- Thread starter Chris H
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
I would probably call it 4-2-4 to be precise. But the article has a point. Our attack is so variable...I hope we don´t buy a classic striker for years to come.
It's true. Sort of.
And it puts an end to all this, 'Rooney is wasted up top' nonsense, like he just stands there waiting for the ball, when he quite clearly doesn't.
Personally, I really enjoy this system. It gives freedom to the players, especially Ronaldo, and as we can see, he as an individual, and us, as a team, thrive on it. As the article says, it's total football. And I hope it continues for years to come...
And it puts an end to all this, 'Rooney is wasted up top' nonsense, like he just stands there waiting for the ball, when he quite clearly doesn't.
Personally, I really enjoy this system. It gives freedom to the players, especially Ronaldo, and as we can see, he as an individual, and us, as a team, thrive on it. As the article says, it's total football. And I hope it continues for years to come...
Disengenuous, just because the striker isn't the same man all the time, doesn't mean both teams are playing without one. I've seen quite a few teams come to OT and play with no striker, in a deeply defensive formation just looking to gain a point. It's not something we want in the game
When Marcotti and McClaren are talking about tactics, I tend to switch off. Quite evidently neither knows what they're talking about
When Marcotti and McClaren are talking about tactics, I tend to switch off. Quite evidently neither knows what they're talking about
Beautiful football to watch aswell
Come on Brad, that's a totally different formation to the one we use.
They have a striker as obviously we do
I know it is, but that's what we're talking about when we're labelling a team with a formation that has no strikers. United are not playing 4-6-0, rather our front man will interchange throughout the game. So if Rooney drops out wide, Ronaldo will move to the centre forward position. Park was even up front on several occasions during midweek. But there was always a man to target. Now Marcotti might try and be a clever bastard and call it the 'strikerless formation', but it isn't
This 4-6-0 thing is ridiculous. Just a new 'cool' formation term that is being thrown about. Of course we play with a striker, as do Roma, they are simply used slightly differently.
A left-back overlapping his winger is still a left-back, and a striker not standing still is still a striker.
A left-back overlapping his winger is still a left-back, and a striker not standing still is still a striker.
Barca against Chelsea a couple of seasons back swapped the positions of Ronaldinho and Eto'o during the game (and toothy scored an awesome goal), that doesn't make it striker less, you can say we rotate strikers to a greater extent then any team but comparisons with Roma are false, they play a different type of football altogether
No, your right, it's not 'strikerless'.
But it's not having a set striker who sits up top throughout the match. One minute Ronaldo is the 'striker'. the next it's Rooney, then Tevez, and so on.
Rather than having a defined out and out striker, we have 3 or 4 players who rotate throughout the match. So I think that's what he means by the term 'strikerless'. Although, like you say, he could just be trying to be clever. Which, lets be honest, wouldn't be a shock.
Formations are not really supposed to rigid and are very open to interpretation depending on what you personally see. The labels we put on them such as 4-4-2, 4-3-3 etc are really just a guideline coaches use for the players.
When I coach I have a gameplan that may involve certain players doing certain jobs for me in certain positions. Yes some are out and out forwards/wingers/fullbacks etc but most (not all) are capable of doing varying tasks for you such as having a support striker and mids tracking back almost all the time like for example United do with great success!
Sometimes Ive played with a 4-4-1-1 that looked like a 4-6-0 because the other team has been pressing us up the field and we were relying on short intricate passes to create breakaways with runners from any midfield position, pretty much how Roma work now!
So like I said formations are just guidelines you really dont play as rigidly as the pre match formation board says you do and even less so at the minute as its proving effective for players to interchange positions during the game making it harder for the opposition to gameplan for them!
When I coach I have a gameplan that may involve certain players doing certain jobs for me in certain positions. Yes some are out and out forwards/wingers/fullbacks etc but most (not all) are capable of doing varying tasks for you such as having a support striker and mids tracking back almost all the time like for example United do with great success!
Sometimes Ive played with a 4-4-1-1 that looked like a 4-6-0 because the other team has been pressing us up the field and we were relying on short intricate passes to create breakaways with runners from any midfield position, pretty much how Roma work now!
So like I said formations are just guidelines you really dont play as rigidly as the pre match formation board says you do and even less so at the minute as its proving effective for players to interchange positions during the game making it harder for the opposition to gameplan for them!
To say both teams play 4-6-0 is an unbelievable simplification.
The way I see it is that Roma's system is much more pronounced when Totti is in the team. With Vucinic, it was a more traditional 4-2-3-1. There was less fluidity and Vucinic played the hold up role with Taddei and Mancini rigidly sticking to their wide roles:
Taddei--Pizzarro--Mancini
--------Vucinic----------
When Totti plays, the system could be more accurately described as 4-6-0 because Totti likes to vacate the centre forward position and operate in the hole. At this stage, Taddei and Mancini play more fluidly and make runs into the central position. It was noticeable that at times against us, the most advanced players were the wide men:
Taddei------------Mancini
------Pizzarro--Totti-----
---De Rossi---Aquilani----
United play nothing like that. There is always a discernable front man - the player in that role may be rotated throughout the game, but there is always someone there. One of the quirks of the Roma system is that sometimes there is no no forward at all.
--------Rooney------
Ronaldo--Tevez--Nani
With all the players effectively interchangeable.
Other than the fluidity of both teams systems, I cannot see much similarity to be honest. United always have recourse to a long direct out ball, whereas Roma are far more one dimensional in their approach - it has to be a methodical, sequential move - the Arsenal of Italy if you will.
The way I see it is that Roma's system is much more pronounced when Totti is in the team. With Vucinic, it was a more traditional 4-2-3-1. There was less fluidity and Vucinic played the hold up role with Taddei and Mancini rigidly sticking to their wide roles:
Taddei--Pizzarro--Mancini
--------Vucinic----------
When Totti plays, the system could be more accurately described as 4-6-0 because Totti likes to vacate the centre forward position and operate in the hole. At this stage, Taddei and Mancini play more fluidly and make runs into the central position. It was noticeable that at times against us, the most advanced players were the wide men:
Taddei------------Mancini
------Pizzarro--Totti-----
---De Rossi---Aquilani----
United play nothing like that. There is always a discernable front man - the player in that role may be rotated throughout the game, but there is always someone there. One of the quirks of the Roma system is that sometimes there is no no forward at all.
--------Rooney------
Ronaldo--Tevez--Nani
With all the players effectively interchangeable.
Other than the fluidity of both teams systems, I cannot see much similarity to be honest. United always have recourse to a long direct out ball, whereas Roma are far more one dimensional in their approach - it has to be a methodical, sequential move - the Arsenal of Italy if you will.
Surely you're not calling Park, or Tevez, "target men"?
I think it's very difficult to classify formations these days. Going forward we are very much a 4-2-4 but once we lose the ball Tevez and Rooney in particular drop a long way back to defend.
The concept of what he is saying is right, but to call it 4-6-0, is nonsense.
Really the formation is a denotation of the starting position a player is in. The formation is more relevant when a team defends than when they attack.
formations.
When the ball is won from the opposition where the players have been defending will dictate the early attacks from a team, that's why we were much more a threat when we switched to a 442, Rooney and Ronaldo could hold the ball up and build attacks without support
I think there are a lot of similarities between us.
I've heard Marcotti explain this on the radio a few times now and i reckon he has a point but um, that's me.
And we are making it work very well ineed for us, which with Louis' extended absences is just as well. I mean on the occasions when Saha has played for us this season, he too has taken up a deeper role at times, sort floating about the latter half/final third.
I've heard Marcotti explain this on the radio a few times now and i reckon he has a point but um, that's me.
And we are making it work very well ineed for us, which with Louis' extended absences is just as well. I mean on the occasions when Saha has played for us this season, he too has taken up a deeper role at times, sort floating about the latter half/final third.
Its fluid, its beautiful to watch and very deadly. Our new style of play is fantastic for football.
Lies.
I don't think so, our formation is a 4-1-2-2-1 / 4-5-1 that Queiroz first brought to SAF's attention, and is modeled after Barcelona's CL winning campaign, but tweaked to allow Rooney to drop deep and Ronaldo to push upfront (because he's been so deadly in front of goal this season).
And for the record Roma DO have a striker, it's Vucinovic (sp) and he is one-dimensional.
And for the record Roma DO have a striker, it's Vucinovic (sp) and he is one-dimensional.
Fergie was the first to throw that formation into the media. He said that about Roma last year on how to mark Totti.
Two things to differenciate : a team without striker doesn't mean the team does not attack. It simply means that on the paper, the movement is more unpredictable, because the midfield has to come and make the play upfront. Please don't misunderstand. I think Marcotti or McLaren got a point concerning United. We played that way often recently, and it was a 4/5 players always switching upfront.
Nonsense article.
We clearly play one player (usually Rooney) up top, with another in behind, but still ahead of the midfield. Rooney usually plays off the other team's centrebacks. Good players link up and play good football, and know how to manipulate space for themselves. That's entirely different to playing without any set strikers, which would be fecking stupid.
It's fluent when we play on the break, as we have scary pace, and players run into wherever the space is.
We clearly play one player (usually Rooney) up top, with another in behind, but still ahead of the midfield. Rooney usually plays off the other team's centrebacks. Good players link up and play good football, and know how to manipulate space for themselves. That's entirely different to playing without any set strikers, which would be fecking stupid.
It's fluent when we play on the break, as we have scary pace, and players run into wherever the space is.
... which is why I've maintained time and time again that SAF stratigically bought Tevez and snubbed Torres. I still cant believe people who think Torres would have joined Liverpool if United had wanted him - complete bollox.
Imagine a United led by Torres today. Yes, a classy classy player no doubt and he would have scored a bucket load of goals. BUT we would not be witnessing the miracle that is Ronaldo this season, nor would we be watching the new, beautiful, breathless and interchanging forward formation that we have the pleasure to witness. But this system requires a flexible creative player like Tevez, not the classical front man like Torres.
Normally respect what you write ... and do so too here, but I really think you have misread this one. In the 20+ years I followed United, this is an entirely new strategy we are deploying.
What you describe above is the way that Cantona/Hughes lined up in 93-95. In that system, our wingers were pure wingers. Our system is way different to that - as Giggs & Ronaldo have far freer and more expansive roles. And witness Rooney often playing out wide left.
so for me it is a 4231 with the front 4 keeping that formation but constantly interchanging.
This striker less theory is over-exaggerated. There is almost always a player acting as a striker inbetween the 2 centre backs.
Regarding what United play..
It depends on who we play against, usually at home against premiership teams outside the top 6 we play a standard 4-4-2 away from home against the same opposition sometimes 4-4-2 sometimes 4-2-3-1.
Against top 6 teams and European opponents, I've noticed it totally depends on what formation they play. If the opposition play a 4-2-3-1 we usually play 4-3-3 and press the oppositions 2 deep lying midfielder's from our own half and counter attack(done this against Roma away and Liverpool away who play the 4-2-3-1 system). But if the opposition play 4-5-1/4-3-3 defensively we play a very attacking 4-2-3-1 with an interchangeable front quadrant. Interestingly we also have a different approach to the 4-3-3 at home unlike Chelsea and more akin to Barcelona, where we usually end up playing something like a 4-1-2-2-1 system but the fullbacks act as wing backs, its very Brazilian and South American in style.
I cant get enough of the way we are playing at the moment and while i love SAF like we all do, i just cant see how he has the coaching methods and knowledge to make our team play this style of football. Carlos Queiroz has to take a fair share of the accolades not only for the style we play but his influence over the type of players we have purchased.
Regarding what United play..
It depends on who we play against, usually at home against premiership teams outside the top 6 we play a standard 4-4-2 away from home against the same opposition sometimes 4-4-2 sometimes 4-2-3-1.
Against top 6 teams and European opponents, I've noticed it totally depends on what formation they play. If the opposition play a 4-2-3-1 we usually play 4-3-3 and press the oppositions 2 deep lying midfielder's from our own half and counter attack(done this against Roma away and Liverpool away who play the 4-2-3-1 system). But if the opposition play 4-5-1/4-3-3 defensively we play a very attacking 4-2-3-1 with an interchangeable front quadrant. Interestingly we also have a different approach to the 4-3-3 at home unlike Chelsea and more akin to Barcelona, where we usually end up playing something like a 4-1-2-2-1 system but the fullbacks act as wing backs, its very Brazilian and South American in style.
I cant get enough of the way we are playing at the moment and while i love SAF like we all do, i just cant see how he has the coaching methods and knowledge to make our team play this style of football. Carlos Queiroz has to take a fair share of the accolades not only for the style we play but his influence over the type of players we have purchased.
We're not a team without a striker! We played 4 at the back, 3 central midfielders, 2 wide men and a striker. call it 4-5-1 or 4-3-3. The players simply interchanged positions, as players have done at United for years
This 0 up front talk is complete nonsense
Worth noting we switched to two up front to score the second n all
Disagree, Torres is mobile enough (more so than Tevez) to rotate in a fluid system. I also don't think Torres was snubbed by Fergie at all. He seemed to be a Liverpool fan anyway.
Sorry but i agree with sammsky regarding the mobility of Tevez being much more mobile than Torres, I agree 100% on this.
Torres only moves wide through the channels and doesn't drop off into wide areas of space like Tevez or Rooney. In all fairness i think Torres is one of the best if not the best out and out front man in world football at the moment, but his style of play is to get inbetween the two centre backs and use his pace to beat the offside trap. In this sense he is one dimensional and if the communication is good with the 2 CB's then he isnt going to suprise you or drag you out of position. His game relies heavily on counter-attacking football and quick support from midfield.
Torres only moves wide through the channels and doesn't drop off into wide areas of space like Tevez or Rooney. In all fairness i think Torres is one of the best if not the best out and out front man in world football at the moment, but his style of play is to get inbetween the two centre backs and use his pace to beat the offside trap. In this sense he is one dimensional and if the communication is good with the 2 CB's then he isnt going to suprise you or drag you out of position. His game relies heavily on counter-attacking football and quick support from midfield.
I think you're very astute in your observation here Cupid. I’m way too blinkered as a SAF loyalist to be able to see this ... but you make perfect sense. I have wondered on occasion how this old knackered Scots bloke managed to keep innovating and ahead of his much younger contemporaries, given innovation is a young mans game.
So you must be absolutely right.
Funny how there was such an anti and vocal CQ brigade a few years back moaning about 451 ... but it seems with the introduction of Ronaldo, Anderson & Nani and the evolution of 451 to 4231 that he is now the major strategic force within OT.
Of course, ultimately credit does have to go to SAF ... for finding CQ in the first place and then being able to 100% delegate responsibility in certain areas with no interference, even if he disagreed ... the dream boss that we all wished we had!!
.
what he said. 4-6-0 dear dear
I think that came about after Roy Keane publicly criticized CQ's methods and style of play he was trying to implement. If Keane wasn't so stubborn in his ways he could have played on much longer for United as part of a midfield 3. But Roy is a man of his own opinion and sticks to it, right or wrong.
I can confidently say this.. the next United manager will be foreign in both Nationality and method. Don't go putting your money on Hughes, Keane, ect. It looks very natural for QC or someone with the experience of the Latin style of football to takeover from SAF.
sorry but if you're going to argue torres is one dimensional because he "only" looks in behind then tevez is also one dimensional because he doesnt provide an option in behind due to his pace (lack of).....
The system's really not that different at all. People read too much into formations. 4-2-3-1, 4-4-2, 4-2-1-3...they're all basically the same thing. What makes the difference is the players.
Regardless of how you look at it, we clearly play with two front men, one up top and one in behind. It's either that or something between that and a 4-3-3. Either way we still have at least one set striker. The fact they interchange with the two wider players isn't down to formation, or tactics, it's down to having good players, who know how to use each other in order to manipulate space.
Rooney usually gets stuck on the left when Fergie's worried about someone doing enough defensive work over there. It's obvious and easy to spot when it happens, as suddenly Wayne Rooney isn't playing as a striker, which he usually does
sorry but if you're going to argue torres is one dimensional because he "only" looks in behind then tevez is also one dimensional because he doesnt provide an option in behind due to his pace (lack of).....
Tevez never looks to occupy the CB's unlike Torres, mainly due to his physique, he drops deep or looks inbehind. I think Tevez is a more likely to unlock a stubborn defence than Torres, due to the way he drifts into pockets of space unlike Torres who runs off defenders which makes him one dimensional in a sense but not in a bad way..
One of the characteristics which define Tevez is his pace and running inbehind, but mostly he also drops deep to create and unbalance teams. :insert smiley:
either way ... its fecking great isn't it? as good as I've ever seen anyway. Vs Villa we were just magnificent.