Still blambing the 4-5-1!!!!!1

Murt

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
16,988
Location
Dimmer than Welsh Red
Today and yesterday ive bneen amazed to see that ppl are still blambing the 451 formation for our poor performances over the past 1½ yrs!
This is insane.

Since thew start of last season weve lost 11 games and 9 of them have been with a 442 formation.

Our last 3 games have been
442 scrappy 1 all draw with villa
451 equally scrappy 2:1 win vs the Saints
442 even scrappier 442 last saturday.

Blambing the 451 formation when it has only cost us 2 losses out of 11 is imo both ignorant and unresearched.
 
Originally posted by Murt:
<strong>Today and yesterday ive bneen amazed to see that ppl are still blambing the 451 formation for our poor performances over the past 1½ yrs!
This is insane.

Since thew start of last season weve lost 11 games and 9 of them have been with a 442 formation.

Our last 3 games have been
442 scrappy 1 all draw with villa
451 equally scrappy 2:1 win vs the Saints
442 even scrappier 442 last saturday.

Blambing the 451 formation when it has only cost us 2 losses out of 11 is imo both ignorant and unresearched.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not sure whether or not you can tell the difference between 4 4 1 1 and 4 4 2 ! Fergie says he never plays 4 4 2. So who's the more confused you or him ? !!
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Julian Denny:
<strong>

I'm not sure whether or not you can tell the difference between 4 4 1 1 and 4 4 2 ! Fergie says he never plays 4 4 2. So who's the more confused you or him ? !!</strong><hr></blockquote>

4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 whatever you want to call it is nothing more than a play on 4-4-2, with 4-3-3 and 5-3-2 being the only other true formations. I've said this before, but am mainly disagreed with.

It makes me laugh when people think that playing 4-4-2 means that the defence, the midfield, and the attack should all move backwards and forwards in perfectly straight lines, like toy soldiers on a tabletop battle field.

I think some people played table football (you know the one where you spin the players on metal rods around and around) far too much as children.
Click to expand...
 
When SAF says that he has never played 4-4-2, he means just that he has never played a team that look like they are on a table connected to rods.
 
Didn't Solskjaer played on the right most of the time last weekend?
 
Blambing the 451 formation when it has only cost us 2 losses out of 11 is imo both ignorant and unresearched.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Disagree. The city game was clearly not 4-4-2. Ole was wide right and Giggs was all over the place. The formation was shambolics, and it can justifiably be called 4-5-1 called Ruud was all alone by himself and falling all over the place.
 
Originally posted by Lion:
<strong>Didn't Solskjaer played on the right most of the time last weekend?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Arguably we had a 433 last Saturday with Giggs pushing up on the left but id call it 442 because we played with 2 natural strikers.
Weastey is right. With 442 the only players who should be close to simetric are the centrebacks when we have the ball and the whole back line when we dont. Other than that the 2 strikers have to go in opposite directions to deshape defences and the midfield are all over the shop.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Murt:
<strong>

Arguably we had a 433 last Saturday with Giggs pushing up on the left but id call it 442 because we played with 2 natural strikers.
Weastey is right. With 442 the only players who should be close to simetric are the centrebacks when we have the ball and the whole back line when we dont. Other than that the 2 strikers have to go in opposite directions to deshape defences and the midfield are all over the shop.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I see it as 4-5-1. When Ruud is alone up there, he will struggle.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Lion:
<strong>Well, I see it as 4-5-1. When Ruud is alone up there, he will struggle.</strong><hr></blockquote>

He struggled their worse than ever despite having Olle up there with him.
Did they get a decent ball all day?
The goal and Olles header are the only ones i can think of <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Murt:
<strong>

He struggled their worse than ever despite having Olle up there with him.
Did they get a decent ball all day?
The goal and Olles header are the only ones i can think of :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

I thought Ole was playing wide on the right in Beck's position although he did get up for the goal. Most of the match Ruud battled alone against there centre backs and it all looked rather pathetic.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by WeasteDevil:
<strong>

4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 whatever you want to call it is nothing more than a play on 4-4-2, with 4-3-3 and 5-3-2 being the only other true formations. I've said this before, but am mainly disagreed with.

It makes me laugh when people think that playing 4-4-2 means that the defence, the midfield, and the attack should all move backwards and forwards in perfectly straight lines, like toy soldiers on a tabletop battle field.

I think some people played table football (you know the one where you spin the players on metal rods around and around) far too much as children.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Can't argue with that assessment. It's all down to trying to create greater fluidity and flexibility in order to make us less predictable. This goes back to 2000 following the Real defeat. But has it worked ? Whatever you say though it still appears that generally Ruud plays alone with little or no support and generally little success either (this season that is)
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Julian Denny:
<strong>
I thought Ole was playing wide on the right in Beck's position although he did get up for the goal. Most of the match Ruud battled alone against there centre backs and it all looked rather pathetic.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nah, he may have drifted out their occasionaly and tended to be on the right side of Ruud but he was definitely playing up front.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Murt:
<strong>

Nah, he may have drifted out their occasionaly and tended to be on the right side of Ruud but he was definitely playing up front.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Murt, what match were you watching? Ole was definately employed as an attacking midfielder in this one. fergie obviously must have thought that he could 'do a Wiltord'
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by golden_blunder:
<strong>

Murt, what match were you watching? Ole was definately employed as an attacking midfielder in this one. fergie obviously must have thought that he could 'do a Wiltord'</strong><hr></blockquote>


I agree Ole looks like a right winger than a striker last Saturday.

But no matter how, we can't use last Saturday's result as a proof of anything. When our defenders play like that, we would definitely have lost no matter we played 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1 or even 9-0-1.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by golden_blunder:
<strong>Murt, what match were you watching? Ole was definately employed as an attacking midfielder in this one. fergie obviously must have thought that he could 'do a Wiltord'</strong><hr></blockquote>

I disagree, he was central when he scored his goal and when he got that header wasnt he? Hardly positions youd expect Beckham to pop up in. When we hadnt the ball he tucked more into the right but technically he was one of two strikers.
Click to expand...
 
watch Wiltord play for Arsenal, thats how Fergie thinks Ole can play. Technically it is a right wing posistion, with the license to get up front.
 
People can argue that using Ruud as the main target man, and another player, be it Scholes, Ole, or whoever, playing slighlty deeper, has resulted in us not being able to score as many as we used to.

But then again, Ruud hasn't really had much of a chance to get a consistent run going has he? And if he is slightly off form is such a 4-4-2 (4-4-1-1 indeed) it will cuase us problems in scoring (him scoring to be exact). Ruud is off form, he will not score as many as if he is off form playing directly level with another striker. The problem is though, I don't think Ruud is a striker (in the Gary Lineker, Ian Rush mould), but more of a powerful and versetile forward.

But have the great United sides of the last decade ever totally relied on two out and out strikers? No, we've always prided ourselves on the fact that goals come from everywhere in the team, with Beckham and Giggs and Scholes and Keane regulary getting into high single and even double figures. The 4-5-1, 4-4-1-1, or whatever you want to call it should not effect that, in fact, in theory it should provide for more of that.

Other people say it's crowding the midfield and causing Beckham and Giggs to come inside, but again, surely, if the midfield is more crowded (ie we have more bodies in there) it should encourage Beckham and Giggs to stay on the wings?

I've seen us play as equally badly using two direct forwards in 4-4-2 and with a withdrawn forward/attacking midfielder in 4-4-2 (4-4-1-1), so I personally cannot see that the tactic/formation is the correct thing for us to blame or make a scapegoat out of. There is something deeper at fault, and I, and probably SAF have not yet worked it out yet.
 
Originally posted by WeasteDevil:
<strong>, . There is something deeper at fault, and I, and probably SAF have not yet worked it out yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agreed. But seeing as its SAF's job, how much longer do think he'll take ?
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by uranushk1:
<strong>


I agree Ole looks like a right winger than a striker last Saturday.

But no matter how, we can't use last Saturday's result as a proof of anything. When our defenders play like that, we would definitely have lost no matter we played 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1 or even 9-0-1.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I tend to agree with you - the 3 goals conceded were self-inflicted & so had nothing to do with the formation played.

Also, United had chances, with Schmeichel twice saving well from Ole & firstly Giggs, & then O'Shea mis-kicking in front of goal after lovely passing from Ole.

Of course City themselves cud have scored more.

The more pertinent question is: Were the City players more hungry than United's for a victory?

They seemed faster to 50/50 balls & were stronger in their tackles, & on balance, deserved their victory!
Click to expand...
 
I still believe that the 4-4-2 formation is the ideal formation but its also true that WE DONT HAVE THE CAPABILITIES TO PLAY IT.

How can you play an attacking 4-4-2 when the defense is made up of headless chickens which make goater look like Ronaldinho?

How can you play 4-4-2 when you have a foolish brainless P Nev that doesnt know wat DEFENDING and TACKLING means 'guarding our defense'?

And finally how can you play the 4-4-2 formation when the team have lost its battling spirit.?

Maybe I am too angry to be able to comment on this. But as SAF said these players do not deserve our respect anymore.

The 4-4-2 brought to OT the treble, but then we had warriors and not spoiled rich brats which we now have. Its a shame that all that talent had been wasted.

SAF do not deserve this
 
Originally posted by Julian Denny:
<strong>It's all down to trying to create greater fluidity and flexibility in order to make us less predictable. This goes back to 2000 following the Real defeat. But has it worked ?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm starting to think this match against Real is where all our problems began. It seems that United, manager and fans, have a bit of a complex about this game. I'm not sure so much needed changing after that game in hindisght. I think we should have accepted that we were beaten by the better team on the night and that our time would come again, possibly against Real, and that on the night it would be anyone's game. The Real defeat seemed to make us all believe that we would never beat them without these radical changes. I'm sure we would have though and had we stuck to what we were good at we mightn't be in this position today.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Dans:
<strong>

I'm starting to think this match against Real is where all our problems began. It seems that United, manager and fans, have a bit of a complex about this game. I'm not sure so much needed changing after that game in hindisght. I think we should have accepted that we were beaten by the better team on the night and that our time would come again, possibly against Real, and that on the night it would be anyone's game. The Real defeat seemed to make us all believe that we would never beat them without these radical changes. I'm sure we would have though and had we stuck to what we were good at we mightn't be in this position today.</strong><hr></blockquote>


I don't think that they would have beat us if Keane hadn't scored that own goal. Shit happens in football though.

I agree with you though Dans, because we were not played off the park in that game. Redondo was really on fire that night too, and there is nothing that we could have done to counteract that.

We took Valencia apart that season at Old Trafford in a similar vain to the way Real took them apart in the final.

This is why I dont think that it was the Real game that change SAF's mind, but the one against Bayern a year later.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Murt:
<strong>Today and yesterday ive bneen amazed to see that ppl are still blambing the 451 formation for our poor performances over the past 1½ yrs!
This is insane.

Since thew start of last season weve lost 11 games and 9 of them have been with a 442 formation.

Our last 3 games have been
442 scrappy 1 all draw with villa
451 equally scrappy 2:1 win vs the Saints
442 even scrappier 442 last saturday.

Blambing the 451 formation when it has only cost us 2 losses out of 11 is imo both ignorant and unresearched.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Murt, you're statistics are like all statistics, damn lies. You never seem to recognise what actual formations are used, probably because you only look at the teamsheet and not how they're actually deployed. But regardless, whatever formation he picks, it looks a mess with no understanding or organisation at all.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>
But regardless, whatever formation he picks, it looks a mess with no understanding or organisation at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>

my point exactly, so its not 451 or 442. It makes very little difference.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Murt:
<strong>

my point exactly, so its not 451 or 442. It makes very little difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It lacks organisation and understanding since the formation change, because no one knows their role anymore, or feels comfortable in it.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by WeasteDevil:
<strong>


I don't think that they would have beat us if Keane hadn't scored that own goal. Shit happens in football though.

I agree with you though Dans, because we were not played off the park in that game. Redondo was really on fire that night too, and there is nothing that we could have done to counteract that.

We took Valencia apart that season at Old Trafford in a similar vain to the way Real took them apart in the final.

This is why I dont think that it was the Real game that change SAF's mind, but the one against Bayern a year later.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The problem in the Real game was that we were literally blown away in the first half. Having played the first leg pretty well in the second at OT we tried to throw everything at them and left ourselves totally exposed to counter attack in the process. We weren't patient (favourite Fergie expression after that game) and we didn't lock the back door first and foremost. Fergie himself admitted that the tactics were naive and that he had to change the way we played if we were to repeat the 1999 success. That's why it goes back to that game.
Click to expand...
 
People seem to have forgotten Demitradze.

Real was only the tip of the iceberg.
 
tho play 451, you need to have really attacking wingbacks - when was the last time giggsy or one of the wide men got to the byline for a cross? Giggsy ain't a winger anymore 'cos he cannot beat a man, he just confuses things, so then you look inside for the midfielders to beat players, and we don't do that so what are we doing??
 
Originally posted by Murt:
<strong>

Nah, he may have drifted out their occasionaly and tended to be on the right side of Ruud but he was definitely playing up front.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not according to MUTV. They discussed it at some length.
Click to expand...
 
451 equally scrappy 2:1 win vs the Saints


was scrappy indeed and all 3 strikers were on the pitch when the winner was struck. the 1st goal by phil 'la machine' neville was scored at what the 15 min. mark. when MU score goals it's after saf puts everybody into attack. MU had RG playin' lb ffs!
 
Originally posted by mu77:
<strong>MU had RG playin' lb ffs!</strong><hr></blockquote>

As a left wingback, not a left fullback you mean? That's 5-3-2 then!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.