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

Tweedledum wrote:

Parks Lives wrote:This is just going round and round in circles (I'm even tempted to lock this).

Saints, me and most Man United fans excepted Arsenal deserved to win the game, now people want to throw into your face, Saints defends it and people make out he's being biased for explaining Man United had chances.

Well I've also said we were a bit lucky but we've been out of luck in the last three games so we deserved some

On the contrary, I don't think Arsenal were lucky - I think that they capitalised on Man U's problems in a focussed manner, and deserved their goal. Dunno about the whole 3 points, but the goal was the just result for some very good play.

Alan Hansen's assessment of the 'big four' after yesterday's games for anyone who is interested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/5356038.stm

Put it this way Saints.

If you are a manager of Cheltenham Town you are hardly going to ask your team to play neat and attractive carpet football are you?

And likewise if you have players with dynamism, skill and pace you won't be asking them to do the long ball at every opportunity.

So to a degree tactics ARE dependant on personnel.

I'll grant you that SAF was the first to 'suss us out' though, however our style isn't the same as it was in 2004 - Vieira and Cesc are completely different players and Cesc is now beginning to develop.

We also have a bit more steal about us than we did at the start of last season and a bit more directness thanks to players like Gallas, Baptista, Adebayor and Rosicky

It's the usual cretinous nonsense from a man who thinks saying 'unbelievable' three times a sentence makes him seem authoritative. Not to mention his insistence on sitting in tight trousers with his legs splayed wide, so much so that an observant person will notice that he has a smaller than average penis.

United were at home, with four wins under their belt already, with more than 70,000 backing them. The crowd wants entertainment and it wants attacking football.

United tried to supply that, but that allowed Arsenal to play.

And the Gunners showed they're still the best team for movement. They play quick one and two-touch football.

It made the game more open than in Arsenal's three previous league matches.

Most teams will be defensive against Arsenal.

The most effective way to play against Arsene Wenger's side is the way Aston Villa played, the way Middlesbrough played and the way Manchester City played - all with some success.

This is the exact opposite of my assessment of the game - that Man U tried to play the right way, but just failed.

This is one my points - when a big team loses, pundits almost always say that it's because they tried to play the wrong way, because it makes them sound like they know what they are talking about, and protects the individual reputations of the big name players. It's all a mutual cocksucking endeavour - the pundits criticise the managers rather than the players, the players keep their reputations, fans keep coming to see the players, the money keeps rolling in, the pundits remain in a job.

I don't expect many of you lot to care about this.

I don't agree with much of what he says to be honest.

I think we were just a little off match practice and also a little unlucky in our first three games -its not as though we weren't creating chances!

Sheffield gunner wrote:Alan Hansen's assessment of the 'big four' after yesterday's games for anyone who is interested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/5356038.stm

saintgoingmarching wrote: Not to mention his insistence on sitting in tight trousers with his legs splayed wide, so much so that an observant person will notice that he has a smaller than average penis.

Not usually something I look for when I'm watching MOTD to be honest

Tweedledum wrote:Put it this way Saints.

If you are a manager of Cheltenham Town you are hardly going to ask your team to play neat and attractive carpet football are you?

Yes. That's exactly what I'd do. Hoof and hope is never a good 'tactic'.

And likewise if you have players with dynamism, skill and pace you won't be asking them to do the long ball at every opportunity.

Funny, that's exactly what Chelsea and Man U do. Their philosophy of late, in contrast to how United played in the 90s, is to play a long ball if one is available, and play it short if they have to. Arsenal are still content to primarily rely on short passing, but they still have the most pace and outright technical ability in the league (as will before).

So to a degree tactics ARE dependant on personnel.

So people think, certainly. I disagree. I think that even a pub side is capable of playing proper pass n move football, if you set them up right. It's just part of the British mentality to think 'shit, the ball is 20 yards from our goal, kick the fucker!!!!!'. This is why we'll never win the world cup - because our star midfielders (Gerrard and Lampard) are, for all their talent, ball hoofers. Beckham was a slightly more sophisticated ball hoofer, but a hoofer nonetheless.

I'll grant you that SAF was the first to 'suss us out' though, however our style isn't the same as it was in 2004 - Vieira and Cesc are completely different players and Cesc is now beginning to develop.

Sure sure, Arsenal are developing more variation to their play. Despite some of my earlier comments you know full well that I realise this isn't the same as the 98-03/4 side.

We also have a bit more steal about us than we did at the start of last season and a bit more directness thanks to players like Gallas, Baptista, Adebayor and Rosicky

This is exactly what I was saying before - You've traded pace and technique on the left for a bit more muscle and aerial ability down the middle. Given your flexible attacking style, it seems that Wenger decided you could accomodate the lack of width losing Reyes and Cole will bring, given the gains you've made. Like I say, time will tell. My view? It may take a season before it comes together. But we'll see...

Tweedledum wrote:

saintgoingmarching wrote: Not to mention his insistence on sitting in tight trousers with his legs splayed wide, so much so that an observant person will notice that he has a smaller than average penis.

Not usually something I look for when I'm watching MOTD to be honest

It seems to be a common theme for football analysts, Shearer does the same whenever he is on the TV and its not very pleasant.

Didn't Shearer make a comment on Saturday about 'trying to copy Hansen'?

The problem is that a slightly boring Geordie who everyone feels a bit sorry for because he never did win that major trophy with the Toon is not the same as an eccentric and incompetent (but nonetheless entertaining) Scot.

And you're right about Shearer's trousers.

Regarding the width though, the plan it to do a bit of a Chelsea I think and go narrow in midfield and allow Eboué and Clichy (who is actually much better going forward than Cole) to bombe down the wings - good idea IMO as it has a massive element if suprise about it

@ saints... i frankly do not have enough time to reply to all your points so will leave you be and just add that

a) i watched the game in the pub so have no idea what gray, keane etc said on the game as i couldn't hear it..

and

b) didn't watch MOTM

i haven't accepted your opinion as i disagree with more or less everything you have said here so think what you wish

@saints

A prime illustration of this is that in the BBC caption, and Dixon's 'analysis' (i.e. boring comments about triangles that were beneath contempt) they had Man U lining up in a 4-4-2 when anyone with the faintest idea could have told you it was a 4-3-3.


Do u really believe manu played a 4-3-3 formation yesterday? U must have been watching another game surely.... or maybe flecher drifting into midfield at times must have misled u to believe he was part of a midfield three. Now let me tell u , all midfielders told to play out wide have the tendency to drift into midfield at times, hleb does that alot but that doesn't mean we play a 4-3-3 formation

Agooner wrote:@saints

A prime illustration of this is that in the BBC caption, and Dixon's 'analysis' (i.e. boring comments about triangles that were beneath contempt) they had Man U lining up in a 4-4-2 when anyone with the faintest idea could have told you it was a 4-3-3.


Do u really believe manu played a 4-3-3 formation yesterday? U must have been watching another game surely.... or maybe flecher drifting into midfield at times must have misled u to believe he was part of a midfield three. Now let me tell u , all midfielders told to play out wide have the tendency to drift into midfield at times, hleb does that alot but that doesn't mean we play a 4-3-3 formation

He was referring to Ronaldo playing up front

Rooney and saha were the front two. Ronaldo was on the left but drifted into midfield or went upfront whenever evra came up

Agooner wrote:@saints

A prime illustration of this is that in the BBC caption, and Dixon's 'analysis' (i.e. boring comments about triangles that were beneath contempt) they had Man U lining up in a 4-4-2 when anyone with the faintest idea could have told you it was a 4-3-3.


Do u really believe manu played a 4-3-3 formation yesterday?

Yes. When Arsenal had possession, Ronaldo and Rooney primarily stayed forward, leaving Scholes, O'Shea and Fletcher to sit deep and protect the back four. This fits in perfectly with the 'sit deep and hit them with long passes' strategy. If you only play 2 up front then hitting long balls up to them turns you into a Championship side.

U must have been watching another game surely.... or maybe flecher drifting into midfield at times must have misled u to believe he was part of a midfield three.

He was. He played both inside and outside - that's the problem of the 4-3-3 - it relies on two of the midfielders covering a lot of ground. Fletcher did pretty well at this yesterday, but Scholes didn't. O'Shea was pretty useless all round.

Now let me tell u , all midfielders told to play out wide have the tendency to drift into midfield at times, hleb does that alot but that doesn't mean we play a 4-3-3 formation

No, it doesn't.

Man U played 4-3-3. If you can't recognise that then I can't be bothered to explain if further.

Agooner wrote:Rooney and saha were the front two. Ronaldo was on the left but drifted into midfield or went upfront whenever evra came up

Just asserting the same bland point doesn't make it true. Ronaldo played as drifting forward behind the main striker, as did Rooney. Perhaps it's slightly more accurate to call it a 4-3-2-1 but that usually implies the Christmas tree arrangment, which wasn't what Man U were doing.

Still should win the title, but why do we struggle when 2 matches in a week, that ftness coach that beckham hammered not doing his job right.

Hopefully fergie will learn from his mistakes even if others havent, ronaldo gone from complete rubbish to our most dangerous player some people crack me up

U are talking crap saints; ronaldo did not stay forward when we had possession, saha stayed deeper with rooney behind him, Both ronaldo and Fletcher dropped deep to prevent our fullbacks from attacking.

As for ronaldo playing behind the forward, that's just pure nonsense. He is a winger but not the type that just stays on the wing, he comes into midfied at times, get himself into forward positions etc Messi plays the same way for barca but he is still considered their right winger

Agooner wrote:U are talking crap saints; ronaldo did not stay forward when we had possession, saha stayed deeper with rooney behind him, Both ronaldo and Fletcher dropped deep to prevent our fullbacks from attacking.

As for ronaldo playing behind the forward, that's just pure nonsense. He is a winger but not the type that just stays on the wing, he comes into midfied at times, get himself into forward positions etc Messi plays the same way for barca but he is still considered their right winger

Barca play 4-3-3 you tit...

saintgoingmarching wrote:

Agooner wrote:U are talking crap saints; ronaldo did not stay forward when we had possession, saha stayed deeper with rooney behind him, Both ronaldo and Fletcher dropped deep to prevent our fullbacks from attacking.

As for ronaldo playing behind the forward, that's just pure nonsense. He is a winger but not the type that just stays on the wing, he comes into midfied at times, get himself into forward positions etc Messi plays the same way for barca but he is still considered their right winger

Barca play 4-3-3 you tit...

did u read what i wrote? I said messi plays the same way as ronaldo but no one tells u he plays behind their main forward.

On the contrary, that's exactly why people tell me. That's because they play 4-3-3, like Man U did yesterday...


Listen, you can keep giving me ammunition and you can keep accidentally arguing against yourself but really, you're wasting your time and mine with this crap.

we have been playing effectively a 433 for most of the season,

Also Ronaldo is naturaly a second striker not a winger his perfect role is playing in a foward 3 like he has been doing given the freedom to join the striker rather then watch his full back all the time...

it's like saying Barca play a 442 really

saintgoingmarching wrote:On the contrary, that's exactly why people tell me. That's because they play 4-3-3, like Man U did yesterday...


Listen, you can keep giving me ammunition and you can keep accidentally arguing against yourself but really, you're wasting your time and mine with this crap.

To be honest saints , Either u didn't read properly what i wrote or u haven't got a clue about what u are talking about. Fletcher's role yesterday should be equivalent to xavi's in the barca system according to u ie the midfielder playing on the right of the midfield three in their 4-3-3 system. U even went on saying more rubbish like:He played both inside and outside - that's the problem of the 4-3-3
Now that's just pure nonsense, the role of the right hand midfielder of a 4-3-3 system is not to play on the inside and outside but to track runners from midfield(defending), keeping possession, getting the ball forward and making some timely runs in the opposition's box. We saw fletcher provide width for manu yesterday(putting crosses in etc) but that should not have been his role had he been played in the xavi role. The width in a 4-3-3 system is provided by the fullbacks.

The Times today give Fabregas 5! Unbelievable - yesterday he was an 8, easily. Granted he gave the ball away on a couple of occassions - he's young - but generally his passing and vision were superb. He was integral to the victory and did superbly for the goal. Arsenal were worth the victory.

That's to allow Rooney to move inside, though and also because one of Fletch's strength's is his amazing workrate to get up and down the pitch and his long range passing/crossing,

Xavi tends to sit deep at barca anyway Giving Deco the freedom of midfield which i think is basically the plan at United, even though it will be modelled by sky etc. as some ridiculous 442 with Hargreaves/???? or Scholes on the left

If you had watched United all season the formation has been anything but a rigid 442

poiuy1 wrote:That's to allow Rooney to move inside, though and also because one of Fletch's strength's is his amazing workrate to get up and down the pitch and his long range passing/crossing,

Xavi tends to sit deep at barca anyway Giving Deco the freedom of midfield which i think is basically the plan at United, even though it will be modelled by sky etc. as some ridiculous 442 with Hargreaves/???? or Scholes on the left

If you had watched United all season the formation has been anything but a rigid 442

thats's what edmilson does, xavi is the link man between midfield and attack

Freddie Or Not wrote:The Times today give Fabregas 5! Unbelievable - yesterday he was an 8, easily. Granted he gave the ball away on a couple of occassions - he's young - but generally his passing and vision were superb. He was integral to the victory and did superbly for the goal. Arsenal were worth the victory.

do u really take paper ratings seriously?

cesc was slopy at times but there are few players out there who could have played that pass given the amount of manu players around him. That alone deseves atleast a 7

Agooner wrote:

poiuy1 wrote:That's to allow Rooney to move inside, though and also because one of Fletch's strength's is his amazing workrate to get up and down the pitch and his long range passing/crossing,

Xavi tends to sit deep at barca anyway Giving Deco the freedom of midfield which i think is basically the plan at United, even though it will be modelled by sky etc. as some ridiculous 442 with Hargreaves/???? or Scholes on the left

If you had watched United all season the formation has been anything but a rigid 442

thats's what edmilson does, xavi is the link man between midfield and attack

Xavi tends to start attacks off he's the on that stays central IMO much like a Pirlo or a Carrick would, they are not great winners of the ball hence why they have players around them like Edmilson and Gattuso, i really wouldn't call him a link man, he doesn't sit but then i wouldn't say he get's foward an awful lot either he sets the tempo and get's the ball to the creative players

Agooner wrote:

Freddie Or Not wrote:The Times today give Fabregas 5! Unbelievable - yesterday he was an 8, easily. Granted he gave the ball away on a couple of occassions - he's young - but generally his passing and vision were superb. He was integral to the victory and did superbly for the goal. Arsenal were worth the victory.

do u really take paper ratings seriously?

cesc was slopy at times but there are few players out there who could have played that pass given the amount of manu players around him. That alone deseves atleast a 7

The Times occasionally comes out with strange ratings. It does come down to personal opinion at the end of the day. One person has given him a 5 another person on their website has written an article about Fabregas' decisive contribution.

poiuy1 wrote:

Agooner wrote:

poiuy1 wrote:That's to allow Rooney to move inside, though and also because one of Fletch's strength's is his amazing workrate to get up and down the pitch and his long range passing/crossing,

Xavi tends to sit deep at barca anyway Giving Deco the freedom of midfield which i think is basically the plan at United, even though it will be modelled by sky etc. as some ridiculous 442 with Hargreaves/???? or Scholes on the left

If you had watched United all season the formation has been anything but a rigid 442

thats's what edmilson does, xavi is the link man between midfield and attack

Xavi tends to start attacks off he's the on that stays central IMO much like a Pirlo or a Carrick would, they are not great winners of the ball hence why they have players around them like Edmilson and Gattuso, i really wouldn't call him a link man, he doesn't sit but then i wouldn't say he get's foward an awful lot either he sets the tempo and get's the ball to the creative players

What would u call a link man?

That's not the point of the argument though, i was just pointing out what the role of the right hand midfielder in a 4-3-3 sysytem is. Deco plays the role at times when iniesta is in the team( inplace of xavi) but u don't see him getting to the byline putting crosses in- something fletcher was doing yesterday