Man Utd (Redbloods) v Arsenal (Match Thread!)

The-Frank-Tavern wrote:was fergie watching with blinkers?

yes he accepted arsenal deserved to win.

BUT

"we had as much possession as them in the first half" ffs it was 30% 70% against

we were tired, pathetic arsenal had played on wednesday too, in germany not at home and then had to travel to manchester much worse preparation.

Frank, he said they deserved the win, what else do you want him to say.

ok, i know that and it seems more than owen thomas is willing to do. i was just a bit annoyed about the excuse as if arsenal wouldn´t have had probs with tiredness it reflected more on you cos you chased the ball a lot in the 1st half whereas they had possession and its always easier then imho. alythough in fairness i´m sure its more than you´d have got off moron-io.

i was actually surprised at how unbiased keane seemed to be,

Keane was excellent, he's always been honest in his book and in his interviews of when we haven't done well enough.

That game was crying out for someone like him yesterday.

parky - the exclusion of carrick said to me that you were going to try and out physical them again which defo worked last season, unfortunately for you it didn´t this i thought he left it too late to bring him on, cos o´shea and scholes didn´t get stuck in as much as he´d have liked. thought rooney was particularly disappointing, ronaldo had a poor game in comparison to others this season but not as bad as rooney

Rooney was woeful yesterday.

Ronaldo was our most dangerous player attacking wise but I do wish he didn't take all our free kicks and stopped the tricks in our half under severe pressure.

O'Shea instead of Carrick was a huge mistake. Carrick looked well bright when he came on.

Scholes, Carrick and Fletcher should of been enough protection.

Parks Lives wrote:Rooney was woeful yesterday.

Ronaldo was our most dangerous player attacking wise but I do wish he didn't take all our free kicks and stopped the tricks in our half under severe pressure.

O'Shea instead of Carrick was a huge mistake. Carrick looked well bright when he came on.

Scholes, Carrick and Fletcher should of been enough protection.

It also didn't help with the whole situation surrounding Silvestre. He shouldn't have started and then you were forced into a change early in the game. I still can't understand why he started ahead of Evra who had a much better game.

Mt 2cents worth is that Fletcher had a good first half. He gets a lot of flack, probably because he seems to lumber about the pitch and isnt particulalry quci, but I thought he was far from United's worse player yesterday. Some of his passing was exemplary. The same couldnt be said abour O shea....

The problem is that Fletcher clearly isnt a winger.

with giggs on the left, Ronaldo on the right, the midfield is so much more balanced. Had the midfield been Giggs-Carrick-Scholes-Ronaldo the attacking threat would have been much greater.

Some say O Shea was in there to provide more physicality, but in all honesty I dont see how he provides more than Carrick would, who is not overly physical but is able to break up the game as he is excellent at intercepting passes....

Silvestre must have some dirt on Fergerson because everyone who has seen him play knows he's a liability.

Sheffield gunner wrote:

Parks Lives wrote:Rooney was woeful yesterday.

Ronaldo was our most dangerous player attacking wise but I do wish he didn't take all our free kicks and stopped the tricks in our half under severe pressure.

O'Shea instead of Carrick was a huge mistake. Carrick looked well bright when he came on.

Scholes, Carrick and Fletcher should of been enough protection.

It also didn't help with the whole situation surrounding Silvestre. He shouldn't have started and then you were forced into a change early in the game. I still can't understand why he started ahead of Evra who had a much better game.

Yeah, Evra was much better when he came on.

I'm honestly not sure if Silvestre had a knock or it was tactical.

The Real White Pele wrote:Mt 2cents worth is that Fletcher had a good first half. He gets a lot of flack, probably because he seems to lumber about the pitch and isnt particulalry quci, but I thought he was far from United's worse player yesterday. Some of his passing was exemplary. The same couldnt be said abour O shea....

The problem is that Fletcher clearly isnt a winger.

with giggs on the left, Ronaldo on the right, the midfield is so much more balanced. Had the midfield been Giggs-Carrick-Scholes-Ronaldo the attacking threat would have been much greater.

Some say O Shea was in there to provide more physicality, but in all honesty I dont see how he provides more than Carrick would, who is not overly physical but is able to break up the game as he is excellent at intercepting passes....

Very bad decision.

Carrick's football intelligence >>>>>>>>>>> O'Shea's.

Parks Lives wrote:

The Real White Pele wrote:Mt 2cents worth is that Fletcher had a good first half. He gets a lot of flack, probably because he seems to lumber about the pitch and isnt particulalry quci, but I thought he was far from United's worse player yesterday. Some of his passing was exemplary. The same couldnt be said abour O shea....

The problem is that Fletcher clearly isnt a winger.

with giggs on the left, Ronaldo on the right, the midfield is so much more balanced. Had the midfield been Giggs-Carrick-Scholes-Ronaldo the attacking threat would have been much greater.

Some say O Shea was in there to provide more physicality, but in all honesty I dont see how he provides more than Carrick would, who is not overly physical but is able to break up the game as he is excellent at intercepting passes....

Very bad decision.

Carrick's football intelligence >>>>>>>>>>> O'Shea's.

Also let's not forget that Carrick ALWAYS plays well against Arsenal.

Parks Lives wrote: Yeah, Evra was much better when he came on.

I'm honestly not sure if Silvestre had a knock or it was tactical.

I asked this question yesterday and no one is entirely sure. He didn't look like he was injured when he came off but I've seen a few reports that said he picked up a knock.

Zack_thfc wrote:

saintgoingmarching wrote:p.s. Arsenal didn't play on the counter because Man U sat deep and invited them into the United half. The main problem was that Arsenal had more energy in their midfield so Man U couldn't pass and move through them, necessitating long balls that for the most part only Scholes could play accurately.

With Carrick in the team, they would surely have more possesion and will somewhat dictate play and would also push up more, i.e not lying deep as much.... and hence my theory of arsenal playing on the counter.....

Man U's gameplan was to sit deep - not push up high and win the ball in the opposition half. The last two years against Arsenal they've tried to negate their pace on the counter by playing deeper and pressing the ball 15 yards inside their own half, rather than on the halfway line or in the opposition half, as they would against a team with less pace and ability to play direct passes.

Did you watch the match? Man U's gameplan failed not because they tried to press high and were pinned back. On the contrary, they invited Arsenal onto them because they felt confident that Arsenal lacked the ability in terms of slow, patient build-up to break them down. If you try to press high against Arsenal then they can slaughter you with two good passes. If you sit deep then they pass and pass and pass but don't have much in the air and don't cross much, so have to find the perfect pass (i.e. through ball across 10 yards, which is very difficult) to get a chance, or take hits from long range.

However, this relies on the midfield having the energy to keep the ball when they did have it, which they did not do well enough. This means that they tired more quickly that Arsenal because they were chasing the ball around more, and playing the long ball up to the front to create chances (which, as I noted on the Arsenal team thread, was a tactic that created more clear cut chances than Arsenal created).

Look at the winning goal itself - the ball is lost in midfield, and Fabregas moves with intent towards the United goal. Tired United midfielders initially back off him, but then two go to close him down at once, Fabregas tries to play it to the right, but it ricochets off one of the United players into space. Had Man U not been as tired they may well have got to this second ball, in which case there's no goal. But no, Fabregas is onto it quickly, takes a couple more touches, plays a lovely ball into Adebayor and he scores. The point is that Man U had two distinct chances to take the ball off Fabregas even after the mistake by Ronaldo. They didn't put up enough of a fight in that instance because they were tired.

I agree with you that Carrick IS a good Interceptor and a tackler, as proved against arsenal, when he played for us, but he had Jenas/Davids along side him, with Jenas being more atheletic than scholes....which enabled him to assert that authority in the middle without being overun.

And Man U had Fletcher, who was the only midfielder whose tackling and movement was good enough yesterday. He also created a wonderful chances for Saha with a left-footed cross, and was instrumental in Ronaldo's volley into Lehmann's face. Of course, the Fletcher-haters will completely ignore this, but they are morons.

Basically my point is, Fergie obviously found it difficult to have Both Scholes and Carrick in the middle, with Arsenal with a 5 man midfield...Its a risk not worth taking...and I agree...

O'shea did next to fuck all. Carrick would have been better than him. Arsenal's five man midfield could have been countered if Rooney, Scholes and O'Shea hadn't obviously been tired and lacked the energy to close down the opposition.

Carrick and Scholes prob would work against a "Lesser" team tho...

They could work against a top team, if you prepared them and the players around them in the right way. The basic principle of my argument is this - Man U didn't get overrun in midfield - they just lacked the right movement (Carrick has excellent movement and always tries to make himself available) to be able to keep the ball, tired as a result and so gave the ball away more. This is exactly what led to the goal, and Arsenal's 2 other best chances (Rosicky drive, Baptista shot dragged past the post) apart from the goal and the penalty.


Of course, MOTD talked an absolute load of shit about the whole game. They completely missed the point as to what Man U's gameplan was (i.e. they always intended to use the long ball, but MOTD used this as proof that they were being overrun in midfield), spent 2 minutes talking about triangles, when of course you can draw straight lines between any 3 players on the pitch and produce a triangle, and completely overlooked the fact that Man U had more clear cut chances in the game. Of course, Hansen hates Man U and Dixon is a total moron.

MOTD 2 was bollocks.

Making out Scholes was chasing shadows is rubbish and they should of taken note at least of how many he was up against.

p.s.


For all the people who don't understand formations, Man U were not playing 4-4-2 yesterday. Ronaldo was playing as a left-sided forward, not as a left midfielder. Also, Fletcher was playing inside right, not on the right wing. Nonetheless, he created two good chances from being on the wing, so all this talk of him being useless there is nonsense.

I'm convinced that most people here didn't actually watch the game properly, but are basing their opinions on the views of commentators, pundits and journalists.

One of his passes from the right flank to the left to Saha was top quality.

There's still talent in that boy.

I hope he gets a run in the side now Giggs and Park are out.


------- Fletcher ---- Scholes ---- Carrick
--------------------------------------------- Ronaldo
------------- Rooney -------- Saha

He also created the Saha header, won most of his tackles and was the only player to have the stamina to keep up with Arsenal for the whole game.

Agree. Fletcher is a lot better then he is given credit for. But he isnt a winger and would be better playing more centrally

fletcher is struggling from being a decent footballer but in a 4-4-2 ish system not having an ideal position he isn´t strong enough for CM in the EPL nor is he a winger

The-Frank-Tavern wrote:fletcher is struggling from being a decent footballer but in a 4-4-2 ish system not having an ideal position he isn´t strong enough for CM in the EPL nor is he a winger

He's made for a 3 man midfield.

Which with Giggs and Park out we should be moving to, with Carrick the anchor, Fletcher the industry and Scholes getting forward and linking the play.

Ronaldo, Rooney and Saha in front of them.

Parks Lives wrote:

The-Frank-Tavern wrote:fletcher is struggling from being a decent footballer but in a 4-4-2 ish system not having an ideal position he isn´t strong enough for CM in the EPL nor is he a winger

He's made for a 3 man midfield.

Which with Giggs and Park out we should be moving to, with Carrick the anchor, Fletcher the industry and Scholes getting forward and linking the play.

Ronaldo, Rooney and Saha in front of them.

That was the gameplan against Arsenal, and it almost worked. Had Rooney not played so poorly, had O'Shea not been pretty much useless and had one of Ronaldo's chances gone in, or Saha's header or Solskjaer's late left-footed drive, then believe, the match reports would have been very different.

saintgoingmarching wrote:and had one of Ronaldo's chances gone in, or Saha's header or Solskjaer's late left-footed drive, then believe, the match reports would have been very different.

and if gilberto hadn´t slipped, baptista effort been a few inches inside the post rather than just outside if one or two passes had been a few inches shorter or longer when the through balls were made, etc., etc. it could have been so much different in the other direction the fact is it was 1-0, you lost, end of. if buts and maybes count for nothing in the league table

I don't blame Scholes, Fletcher or Saha for yesterday. Just Ronaldo, Rooney and O'Shea. Ronaldo actually had a decent game, just made one criminal mistake.

& Fergie (my hero) for playing O'Shea instead of Carrick in the first place.


The other thing that I must say, is despite Lehman's great save, the technique from Ole for the shot was also top draw.

The-Frank-Tavern wrote:

saintgoingmarching wrote:and had one of Ronaldo's chances gone in, or Saha's header or Solskjaer's late left-footed drive, then believe, the match reports would have been very different.

and if gilberto hadn´t slipped, baptista effort been a few inches inside the post rather than just outside if one or two passes had been a few inches shorter or longer when the through balls were made, etc., etc. it could have been so much different in the other direction the fact is it was 1-0, you lost, end of.

I'm not a Man U fan. I'm merely highlighting how close the game was and how well Man U played despite the shoddy performances of Rooney and O'Shea, and Fergie's bizarre decision to leave out Carrick. Both teams played well, neither taught the other a lesson.

ifs buts and maybes count for nothing in the league table

The league table is only 5 games old. My point is about form, play, tactics, style - all things that will impact on results.

Try again...

[quote="saintgoingmarching"]I'm not a Man U fan./quote]so you say but your chat is often v favourable towards them

The-Frank-Tavern wrote:

saintgoingmarching wrote:I'm not a Man U fan.

so you say but your chat is often v favourable towards them

As I've outlined before - apart from Southampton my allegiances are all with north-west clubs because I was born there. I also have a passion for Liverpool (and yes, that does make Liverpool-Man U a difficult game for me, because I don't want either to lose, but I hate draws), Bolton, Blackburn, Everton, Wigan...

As I say, it was a very even game and Man U had the better of the chances, with Arsenal having the better of the midfield play. I've outlined in detail precisely why other views of the game that are popular are nonsensical, so there's no need to do it again.

[quote="The-Frank-Tavern"]

saintgoingmarching wrote:I'm not a Man U fan./quote]so you say but your chat is often v favourable towards them

& your's is to Arsenal as well Frank.

[quote="Parks Lives"]

The-Frank-Tavern wrote:

saintgoingmarching wrote:I'm not a Man U fan./quote]so you say but your chat is often v favourable towards them

& your's is to Arsenal as well Frank.

1 non fan each then

one thing i think fergie may have underestaimated was the arsenal 4-5-1. he was q´d about it pre-match and he said that they may play it like they did in the cup final a few years ago, but anybody who has seen arsenal in the interim must know that their 4-5-1 has developed a lot since then and is now a v effective alternative system which the players almost seem more comfortable with than their 4-4-2/4-4-1-1, i think he may have not given it enough consideration as to how offensive it can be for them

The-Frank-Tavern wrote:one thing i think fergie may have underestaimated was the arsenal 4-5-1. he was q´d about it pre-match and he said that they may play it like they did in the cup final a few years ago, but anybody who has seen arsenal in the interim must know that their 4-5-1 has developed a lot since then and is now a v effective alternative system which the players almost seem more comfortable with than their 4-4-2/4-4-1-1, i think he may have not given it enough consideration as to how offensive it can be for them

Absolute rot. Man U losts due to poor performances and a lack of energy and bite in midfield. The tactics were spot on from Fergie, but the line-up wasn't and he took too long to change it.