Tottenham Hotspur vs. Manchester United

cw1984 said:
I'm not here to say which one is better than the other, I was pointing out Harry's unhealthy obsession with it.

Although if you want to get into armchair management... the reason your 4231 didn't really work last season is because you were trying to do it with Defoe up front. It was a simple flaw in the tactic and that's why when you signed Adebayor I was in the thread saying it would be a brilliant signing for you. He was just what you needed to make it work.
Click to expand...

I can't remember much further back but I'm pretty sure that before he managed to get his hands on Defoe and Crouch at Pompey, he played 4-5-1 almost without fail down on the South Coast.

Crouch was often at the top of our formation last season, not Defoe. And this season, both Defoe and Adebayor have scored more, and the team have picked up more points per game, when those two have been paired together, as opposed to when we've paired Adebayor with VDV.

As I've already said, I prefer the 4-2-3-1 formation anyway. Especially away from home against other good teams. I thought his decision to start with a 4-4-2 against Arsenal last week was a very poor one (before the match), though VDV, Lennon etc weren't fully fit.

My point is that 4-4-2 is a formation that still very much has its uses and it is not as poor as many on here make it out to be. And who's Mike?
 
africanspur said:
You did not have that much possession and possession is a meaningless stat. What did matter was that we beat you 2-1. As we did when we beat both you and Chelsea within 5 days playing 4-4-2.
Click to expand...
Only because VdV cheated otherwise you'd have got a draw at best (and check the possession we had 62/38). You only drew at home to Chelsea and didn't play 2-up. You still have to go to Stamford Bridge at the end of March.
 
africanspur said:
There are rumours going about that on top of the guaranteed absentees of Parker, Gallas and Huddlestone, there is a chance that Friedel, Walker, King, Bale and VDV are out too.

Oh dear.
Click to expand...

Friedel?? Friedel missing a game?!! Is he dead?
 
peterstorey said:
Only because VdV cheated otherwise you'd have got a draw at best (and check the possession we had 62/38). You only drew at home to Chelsea and didn't play 2-up. You still have to go to Stamford Bridge at the end of March.
Click to expand...

I did check the stats, and, as they do so often, they vary greatly between different sites. At best? Was it all those non-existent chances you missed? I'm talking about the season we finished 4th, hence the within 5 days bit. 2-1 against Arsenal. Then 2-1 against Chelsea.

I know and I'd like us to play 4-2-3-1 at SB. That has been my view for years. That we shouldn't play 4-4-2 away against these kinds of teams. I'm also of the view that 4-4-2 isn't 'dead' and has its uses. And even against the top teams, especially at home, it can still be used.
 
africanspur said:
I'm also of the view that 4-4-2 isn't 'dead' and has its uses. And even against the top teams, especially at home, it can still be used.
Click to expand...
It's been superseded in the modern game - you simply can't afford to have two strikers who may not see much of the ball nor two wingers who are peripheral to the play (this was initially countered by having a CM playing wide and tucking in, and a striker dropped off to make a 4411). Next your CMs are playing too high and can't get to grips with the opposing 4231's attacking midfielders or get caned by 433's 3-in-CM. It just doesn't work any more against strong opposition.
 
4-4-2 will make a comeback soon, or at least a variant of it, watch.
 
peterstorey said:
Not a chance, there's been a relentless logic about the move from 523, to 424, to 433/442, to 4231/433. You need to get value/involvement out of players not have them standing around not in the game.
Click to expand...

Player's can still run in a 4-4-2, it all depends on what you have at your disposal really although I think we will at first see a shift towards 3 at the back gradually at first.
 
peterstorey said:
The Brits played 4411 against Europe for the first half of the 00s and got caned. Switch to 4231/433 and hey presto.
Click to expand...

Yes but 4-4-2 is not dead, not at all. I think we are getting to a stage where are more less exhausting all of the tactical options available and we will get to stage where people will go back and reinvent old ideas.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Yes but 4-4-2 is not dead, not at all. I think we are getting to a stage where are more less exhausting all of the tactical options available and we will get to stage where people will go back and reinvent old ideas.
Click to expand...
The only old idea that will be 'reinvented' is total football, it's the ultimate goal. No one's going back to 424 (or 442).
 
peterstorey said:
The only old idea that will be 'reinvented' is total football, it's the ultimate goal. No one's going back to 424 (or 442).
Click to expand...

That has already kind of been reinvented by Barca, you never know pete there are lot of very poor defences around just asking for it but as I said it will depend on the players you have out your disposal.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
That has already kind of been reinvented by Barca, you never know pete there are lot of very poor defences around just asking for it but as I said it will depend on the players you have out your disposal.
Click to expand...
They haven't quite got 10 Bryan Robsons and a keeper. If you've got miles better players you can play whatever you like. I played in a team that had worse/less fit players and beat others by being tactically astute.
 
africanspur said:
There are rumours going about that on top of the guaranteed absentees of Parker, Gallas and Huddlestone, there is a chance that Friedel, Walker, King, Bale and VDV are out too.

Oh dear.
Click to expand...

Of course we haven't got any injury problems have we?

Oh, hold on...

No wait, we must have more squad depth then ;)
 
africanspur said:
I don't think we'll have quite all those injuries so I think it will be

Friedel

Walker
Dawson
Kaboul
BAE

Lennon
Sandro
Modric
Kranjcar

Ade
Saha
Click to expand...

We'll still need to play very well to win but I think that Spurs side is beatable, the best sides dont often lose two games in a row though and Spurs are one of the best now. Cant see past a draw myself :(
 
Colin129 said:
Of course we haven't got any injury problems have we?

Oh, hold on...

No wait, we must have more squad depth then ;)
Click to expand...

Squad depth? Nah, its more about the person sitting in your dugout. ;)

The team that Charlenefan just quoted is hardly a poor team.
 
pocco said:
I suppose not, but United play a 4-4-2 quite often. It's very rare that we go with 5 in midfield. Though you could argue that for periods of the game we do play 4-5-1. Still, it's a regular formation for us.
Click to expand...
Nah, you've played mostly variations of 4231 since about 2006 with a 433/451 in Europe. 4231 can look like a 442 at home when the AMs go wide, fullbacks push up and hole player gets to play next to the CF.
 
pocco said:
I suppose not, but United play a 4-4-2 quite often. It's very rare that we go with 5 in midfield. Though you could argue that for periods of the game we do play 4-5-1. Still, it's a regular formation for us.
Click to expand...

Rooney drops really deep sometimes and at times becomes a third midfielder, often it's a 4231 but sometimes when we're really defensive (think Everton away) it can become a 433.
 
Colin129 said:
What about 'arry then?
Click to expand...

A good manager but hardly the match of Ferguson, who has regularly been able to make his teams play above their ability. The winning mentality he instills in your teams is excellent.
 
peterstorey said:
Nah, you've played mostly variations of 4231 since about 2006 with a 433/451 in Europe. 4231 can look like a 442 at home when the AMs go wide, fullbacks push up and hole player gets to play next to the CF.
Click to expand...

The thing is, when you watch from the stands you can clearly see one line of four defenders, another line of four midfielders and two strikers level with eachother. It might not be apparent on tv but it is a 4-4-2.

The problem is that these formations are open to interpretation. A 4-4-2 can easily become a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-4-1-1 depending on how you look at it and what situation is happening on the pitch.
 
pocco said:
The thing is, when you watch from the stands you can clearly see one line of four defenders, another line of four midfielders and two strikers level with eachother. It might not be apparent on tv but it is a 4-4-2.
Click to expand...
I think you need to have another look and at rest, you'll see one 'striker' well ahead of the other, the two CMs much deeper and often the 'wingers' skewed.
 
pocco said:
The thing is, when you watch from the stands you can clearly see one line of four defenders, another line of four midfielders and two strikers level with eachother. It might not be apparent on tv but it is a 4-4-2.

The problem is that these formations are open to interpretation. A 4-4-2 can easily become a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-4-1-1 depending on how you look at it and what situation is happening on the pitch.
Click to expand...

Spot on, people like to over analyse formations for whatever reason but truth is we play about as conventional a 4-4-2 as anyone in the league. All this talk of 4-2-3-1 is bullshit tbh, it's only because Rooney has license to go wherever he wants that people get blinded by the football manager in them.

Was it 4-2-3-1 at the weekend when we had Welbeck and Hernandez up front and Scholes scored our opening goal? No it was a basic 4-4-2. Even when we are under the cosh and Rooney doesn't play in as much as an off the striker role but more in supplement to the midfield that doesn't even make it 4-2-3-1 it makes it 4-5-1.
 
I remember some real 442's from the 90s, where you had two strikers playing a 2 man game up top while the rest of the line of 4 stayed in midfield. Christian Vieri and The Divine Ponytail, they didn't need any friggin' wingers, attacking midfielders or inverted wingers.
 
peterstorey said:
I think you need to have another look and at rest, you'll see one 'striker' well ahead of the other, the two CMs much deeper and often the 'wingers' skewed.
Click to expand...

I've had this conversation with you before and I still continue to see it. When sky sports line the players up before the match in a perfectly symmetrical 4-4-2, that is how it looks on the pitch, especially when we don't have the ball. When we have the ball players are allowed to move out of position and you could then call it what you like. It's a pointless discussion to me as players aren't robots and are allowed to stray from whatever formation we play.

To be honest, the formation is he most basic of tactic that probably doesn't get much of a mention before the match. It is the areas covered by players and their numerous other responsibilities that dictate how the game is played. Plus their basic instincts.
 
peterstorey said:
The last time I saw Man Utd live it was a classic 4231. No way do you line up at rest with the twoCMs on the same level as Nani Valencia et al.
Click to expand...

Neither is Rooney on the same level as Nani and Valencia too.
 
Just read that Bale, VdV, and Kyle Walker are questionable to play play on Sunday.
 
We swap between a 442 and a 4411/4231 but I think we're undoubtedly at our best in the 4231. Against most teams now you just make it too hard for yourselves in a 442 because everyone else is playing 451. When we have Rooney or anyone in that slightly deeper role it gives us extra defensive strength as well as gives us a kit more options attackingly and allows the midfield to get forward more.
 
Code: 
              de Gea

Jones     Evans    Ferdinand    Evra

Nani     Carrick    Scholes    Young

          Rooney    Welbeck

SUBS:
Amos, Rafael, Fabio, Giggs, Park, Hernandez, Berbatov

Rooney dropping deep to make up a midfield 3 at times.
 
Was already mentioned in the Press Conference thread I see... a bit dissapointed about it, would have loved to see Tony back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.