All good managers make tactical & formation changes, but you're mistaking that for a total change in footballing philosophy, & style of play. Ferguson's sides have always had wing-play as a key element of their success. He might have made certain changes for certain matches, but the foundation & format of all United achieved was pretty much the same right throughout his 26 year tenure. Like United, Liverpool's success in the 60's centred around wingers. This carried on into the 70's with Steve Heighway. But towards the end of the decade, this changed as Paisley's team become more compact, & fluid, as a unit, with players often interchanging with each other. Our right back could turn up playing wide out on the left, whilst someone like Alan Hansen would be playing a one-two on the edge of the opposition penalty area. However, their positions would be covered by other team-mates. They had to the flexibility to do this within a framework of team responsibility. This wasn't something we'd do when chasing the game, it became an intrinsic part of our play, & it made us into the formidable team we were under Bob Paisley. It was also a major contributory factor to our success in Europe, as the foreign sides generally deployed a man to man marking system. Which of course was very difficult when the striker you were marking spent a fair bit of time on the half-way line covering for the centre-half who had gone on a foraging run.
I don't think I've ever said Paisley's Liverpool were as good as the recent Barcelona side. But football is evolutionary, & they, like Liverpool, evolved into a side that was feared throughout Europe. Something that Ferguson's United never did. & I'm really sorry to break that to you to. I've been on here giving reasons as to why Liverpool were a dominant European side under Paisley. Whilst a lot of people on here have been giving me excuses as to why United weren't under Ferguson.
A clash in the knock out stages would be more fun though.
