• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

*** Tottenham Hotspur vs Manchester United OMT ***

braineclipse said:
Oh. And I have to say that we faced a rather good looking United side. If it's by luck or by slowly learning his lessons LvG put out a very good side. 4 at the back. Carrick back from injury being his usual excellent self. Fellaini playing in the one role he's properly good in. Rooney up front. Mata in the side. Herrera in the side. Ashley Young back from injury.

It doesn't explain everything that went on. We were clearly way off our best, no excuses. But this United side was a lot better than some of the RvP and Falcao led shyte United sides we've seen this season.
Click to expand...
Di Maria getting sent off against the Goons made a huge difference. I think LVG might have played him had he not been suspended and then there might have been no Mata. Ah well...
 
braineclipse said:
A plan B doesn't have to be a change in formation. Keeping the same formation doesn't mean a "one size fits all approach".

I agree. We're lacking consistency. Making drastic changes in our formation, changing to a back 3, doesn't sound like the thing that will give us consistency.

We don't have the wing backs in our squad to play a back 3 imo.
Click to expand...

How do you propose to have a plan B that doesn't rely on a change of formation?

Also, I think Rose and Walker are more natural wing backs than full backs. Their defensive qualities often leave a lot to be desired.
 
Pirate55 said:
How do you propose to have a plan B that doesn't rely on a change of formation?

Also, I think Rose and Walker are more natural wing backs than full backs. Their defensive qualities often leave a lot to be desired.
Click to expand...

You really think a plan B has to be a change in formation? I would suggest it's you that has to back up your opinion further, not me. But since you ask...

You can change the level of pressure. You can change how direct your attacking is. You can switch it up using long balls. You can switch it up by bringing different player types into the same positions keeping the formation intact. You can sit deeper (arguably what we should have done early on against United). You change how far back attacking players are asked to track when defending. You can change how often and how far your full backs push on, and if both are allowed to push on at the same time. You can split your centre backs when building up from the back, allowing your full backs to push further forward earlier in the buildup play. You can ask players tow switch positions more often. You can tweak or change movement patterns like asking wide players to stay wider or not cut inside as early off the ball... Want me to go on?

The idea that a "plan B" or change in approach has to be a change in formation is, in my opinion, nonsense.
 
I think one of the things which can get lost in all these tactical discussions is that the shape of a system often changes on transitions from possession to loss of possession. What cost us the most dearly at Old Trafford, was that the pressing game we have been so good at aggressively implementing was absolutely non-existent. We played that first-half looking like we did against the spammers on Lasagnegate. I cannot remember a match since November where we have allowed so much space for the opposition midfield to operate, and we were generally playing so deep that Eriksen and Kane were thoroughly isolated. It was really strange. When we play the pressing game, it is always clear tome that the moment possession is lost, we quickly become an aggressive 4-5-1 (or if you want to boil that egg, 4-6-0!) because we drop into the spaces and 'swarm' the player in possession PLUS their potential passing lanes. It's a shame we were asleep Sunday as I think Mata was there for the taking and Carrick, however good he is, could've been snuffed out easily.
 
My work colleagues have actually been very magnanimous in victory this week. It surprised me.

It's like they know now they can't just be blasé and roostery about being Man U fans anymore.

Thank you David Moyes Ferguson retiring for making them humble for once! (I can't be harsh on Moyes as LVG has proved).
 
braineclipse said:
You really think a plan B has to be a change in formation? I would suggest it's you that has to back up your opinion further, not me. But since you ask...

You can change the level of pressure. You can change how direct your attacking is. You can switch it up using long balls. You can switch it up by bringing different player types into the same positions keeping the formation intact. You can sit deeper (arguably what we should have done early on against United). You change how far back attacking players are asked to track when defending. You can change how often and how far your full backs push on, and if both are allowed to push on at the same time. You can split your centre backs when building up from the back, allowing your full backs to push further forward earlier in the buildup play. You can ask players tow switch positions more often. You can tweak or change movement patterns like asking wide players to stay wider or not cut inside as early off the ball... Want me to go on?

The idea that a "plan B" or change in approach has to be a change in formation is, in my opinion, nonsense.
Click to expand...

Sorry, all the above involves a change in "formation" . Whether you want to accept that or not is up to you. For example, playing long balls to one up front is not a sensible plan B unless you have others up to support him which inevitably leads to a change in formation. Similarly, pushing full backs on is obviously a "change of formation" . Switching positions within a 4231 is not changing positions but equally is not a sensible plan B either.

A Plan B doesn't have to be a switch from a regimented 4231 to another rigid system, but in my opinion it does have to provide much more difference than your nuanced changes if we wish to alter the course of games when 4231 isn't working. Otherwise we will become turgidly predictable.
 
thfcsteff said:
I think one of the things which can get lost in all these tactical discussions is that the shape of a system often changes on transitions from possession to loss of possession. What cost us the most dearly at Old Trafford, was that the pressing game we have been so good at aggressively implementing was absolutely non-existent. We played that first-half looking like we did against the spammers on Lasagnegate. I cannot remember a match since November where we have allowed so much space for the opposition midfield to operate, and we were generally playing so deep that Eriksen and Kane were thoroughly isolated. It was really strange. When we play the pressing game, it is always clear tome that the moment possession is lost, we quickly become an aggressive 4-5-1 (or if you want to boil that egg, 4-6-0!) because we drop into the spaces and 'swarm' the player in possession PLUS their potential passing lanes. It's a shame we were asleep Sunday as I think Mata was there for the taking and Carrick, however good he is, could've been snuffed out easily.
Click to expand...

I agree. But the problem imo against both United and Chesea is that we were "out pressed" . We need to find a solution to this when our Plan A is thwarted.
 
Pirate55 said:
Sorry, all the above involves a change in "formation" . Whether you want to accept that or not is up to you. For example, playing long balls to one up front is not a sensible plan B unless you have others up to support him which inevitably leads to a change in formation. Similarly, pushing full backs on is obviously a "change of formation" . Switching positions within a 4231 is not changing positions but equally is not a sensible plan B either.

A Plan B doesn't have to be a switch from a regimented 4231 to another rigid system, but in my opinion it does have to provide much more difference than your nuanced changes if we wish to alter the course of games when 4231 isn't working. Otherwise we will become turgidly predictable.
Click to expand...

Do not accept your premise.
 
Pirate55 said:
I agree. But the problem imo against both United and Chesea is that we were "out pressed" . We need to find a solution to this when our Plan A is thwarted.
Click to expand...


Like against City and Arsenal away this season where we played on the counter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back