Nice reply. Do you think Sir AF can embrace attacking football again: we started last season like dambusters, then there was the Cleverley injury: bug it seemed to lead to him turning away from the football that had got our hearts racing and thinking we were going to seem something special: even it meant a crazy 2 horse race with City where we finished behind them but still beat our own record for points and goals scored. Instead both teams flipped and flopped and it became a final day lottery. We need something to get us excited this season and Sir AF must try to do this: not play uninspired, the dull containment football that is not what we are about.
Hit the road Malc
(80 posts) (17 voices)-
Posted by unregistered user: Damian GarsidePosted 9 months ago #
-
Posted by unregistered user: Denton Davey
Damian Garside @ 6:55: “We need something to get us excited this season and Sir AF must try to do this: not play uninspired, the dull containment football that is not what we are about.”
i could not agree more. That’s why i’ve trumpeted my belief that the 3-5-2 is the way to go.
Most teams start from a negative containment structure with three in midfield with four defenders behind them who have a limited licence to roam. By and large, ALL of SAF’s teams are set up in some version of a 4-4-2/4-5-1 which, in practice, usually amounts to the same thing with different personnel. Very, very few modern teams play with out-and-out wingers like UTD. And even fewer play with overlapping full-backs on both sides of the field.
Does any other team play with BOTH two out-and-out wingers AND two overlapping full-backs ? The result is that when UTD play against opposition with a comparable skill-level they are out-numbered in midfield. The man-difference isn’t helped when TheGingerNinja plays alongside Michael Carrick.
18 months ago Paul Scholes realized that he just doesn’t have the legs to play in an out-numbered midfield – just watch how slowly he gets back when there’s a quick reversal of play. It’s like watching me running alongside – and behind ! – Usain Bolt.
When UTD line up with Scholes/Carrick, there is a big problem in that Scholes seems to “intimidate” Carrick, who is always too deferential to his senior partner. For a 4-4-2 to work with Michael Carrick there needs to be a more aggressive and combative partner – or else he needs more manpower alongside him.
I’m doubtful that YoungTomCleverley is “the answer” and even more sceptical that we’ll ever see something special from Anderson. Against inferior opposition these guys are adequate partners but when TheLads play a two-man midfield against fast, athletic pressing defences then the absence of DarrenFletcherinho and Owen Hargreaves is magnified. Some people think that Ryan Tunnicliffe might be “the answer” – I happen to think that Daniele De Rossi would be an absolutely-perfect complement for Michael Carrick but SAF doesn’t seem interested in spending big on a guy who might be termed a “water carrier”.
The foregoing is a roundabout way of getting at two points:
first, without a change in formation away from the two-man midfield TheWayneBoy is always going to roam backwards thus depriving the attack of its most essential player; and,
second, playing with two up-front – and two on the wings – can only be accommodated by depriving the midfield of manpower. That’s why I think that the 3-5-2 is a way to address both issues, which leaves behind the rigidity of a 4-4-2 which is – too often – a recipe for “dull, containment football”, as you rightly point out.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I think the issue is much more simple than your analysis. We have the personnel to set up for attack, or to defend, but not both at the same time. This is a consequence of square pegs in round holes, a lack of legs in midfield and an absence of midfield creativity (which Kagawa may partially address).
I predict a similar pattern to last year, fluidity early on in the easier games, followed by short-comings in the bigger games. Unless there's a big influx, I think we're nailed on for 3rd
Posted 9 months ago # -
Posted by unregistered user: Denton Davey
BiscuitBarrell: “We have the personnel to set up for attack, or to defend, but not both at the same time. This is a consequence of square pegs in round holes, a lack of legs in midfield and an absence of midfield creativity (which Kagawa may partially address).”
Well, I disagree insofar as the place where there are “square pegs in round holes” in the central midfield – and, really, the problem there is that there is no suitable partner for Michael Carrick whose “shielding game” needs either an energetic water-carrier or else two other guys to prevent him from being over-run.
To my way of thinking, Michael Carrick is this team’s key player for two reasons:
First, what happens if he’s injured and can’t play ? and,
Second, playing him alongside TheGingerNinja doesn’t really address the issue you point out – “a lack of legs in midfield”.
Michael Carrick isn’t going to change his game so the question is how does the team get built around him, not only to protect him from harassment but also to provide him with support in moving the ball from defence to attack.
The worst answer is to have TheWayneBoy wander all over the pitch. The best answer – to me, at least – is to have three guys (say, KagawaBunga and/or YoungTomCleverley somewhat behind two inside forwards like, say, Nani and Ashley Young [or Lucas Moura ?] ) – who move “between the lines”.
Given that footie is a game of continuous movement, formations don’t really capture a fluid, interchanging approach but – at the cost of contradicting myself – some version of a 3-5-2/5-3-2 seems the best way of taking pressure off Michael Carrick and NOT playing with just one striker.
Will it work ? I don’t see why not. Like I wrote earlier, the Italians used it against Spain and could have/should have won the match but they were let down by an inability to finish their chances.
For the hidebound conservatives, the only feasible option is to get Michael Carrick a partner who is part-man/part-monster like Keane-o or Daniele De Rossi. BUT since that ship seems to have sailed, persisting with the 4-4-2 seems to me to be quite a bit like Einstein’s description of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again in the hope that it works”.
Posted 9 months ago # -
uncleknobheadforfucksake said:
this utd team is only so bad because regardless of the money he hasn't been given, the money he has has been wasted on shite like young berbatov hargreaves anderson, that's 90m of dross, carrick valencia hernandez and nani wouldn't have cut it at old utd sides eitherof those four, I would say they were all decent punts and they didnt work out. Maybe overpaid for Berbatov and Anderson. On the flipside Nani and Hernandez were decent buys and Carrick and Valencia were inspired, no one really rated them that much at the time. Whether they are 'good enough' for United is a different question.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Some news reports claim credible sources saying IPO is oversubscribed at high end of range.
Bit torn about this...would smile to see IPO flop coz I dont like Glazers. Yet successful IPO is the only real short term solution to our cashflow (and thus transfer market) issues..even though a big chunk will go to shareholders instead of debt. In other words ANY reduction indebt is good for ManUtd, and that requires a successful IPO
Thoughts?
Posted 9 months ago # -
The reports I've read quote "an unnamed source" about the IPO. We seen all this before with the Glazers, spin, lies and more spin. I'll believe it when the money's on the table. This IPO won't help cash flow anyway. Halfs going straight into the Glazers pockets, the other half is a drop in the Ocean.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Anantax – IPO will do nothing for United’s cash flow or ability to compete in the transfer market. Half is going into the Glazers’ pockets, the other half to retire some bonds. It’ll save about £5m per season in interest. Or around £4m after tax is taken into account. This IPO was never about benefiting Manchester United – and all about providing easy cash for the family. Any Glazerites who try and tell you otherwise are lying.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I want this IPO to fail badly, and expose the Glazers to real scrutiny and ridicule... but I've a feeling it will do well... not because smart investors will want a piece, because I doubt they will... but because a lot of clueless fans will see this as a chance to own a token piece of Manchester United... this will be the ultimate bit of United merchandise...
If I wasn't always bitching about the Glazers, I doubt my missus would even know who they are... and if it was my birthday or summat, this is exactly the type of thing she might buy me.
"Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and ching' tu madre! Come out from that shit-hole of yours. I have to speak to you."Posted 9 months ago # -
Alfonso Bedoya said:
If I wasn't always bitching about the Glazers, I doubt my missus would even know who they are... and if it was my birthday or summat, this is exactly the type of thing she might buy me.LOL - you're a lucky man
"Sometimes you look in a field and you see a cow and you think it's a better cow than the one you've got in your own field. It's a fact. Right? And it never really works out that way."Posted 9 months ago # -
Have you got kids Pip?
Posted 9 months ago # -
Well, when you've got kids, you soon learn that you move to the very bottom of the pecking order in the family unit.
Kids obviously come first, but Mom still maintains a fairly special rank in the unit, as she's deemed the house martyr... Dad is just the house mule.
Before kids, the bloke used to get all the womans attention, and for birthdays and Chrimbo would often get some great presents... once kids arrive, you need to get used to socks, and Lynx gift packs... ffs...
Posted 9 months ago # -
Socks and Lynx are all I get anyway - and I haven't got no kids FFS
Posted 9 months ago # -
Socks AND Lynx? You guys don't know you're born.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Posted 9 months ago # -
Alfonso Bedoya said:
I want this IPO to fail badly, and expose the Glazers to real scrutiny and ridicule... but I've a feeling it will do well... not because smart investors will want a piece, because I doubt they will... but because a lot of clueless fans will see this as a chance to own a token piece of Manchester United... this will be the ultimate bit of United merchandise...If I wasn't always bitching about the Glazers, I doubt my missus would even know who they are... and if it was my birthday or summat, this is exactly the type of thing she might buy me.
It's probably better for the club if the IPO is as successful as possible. If nothing else, the more cash the Glazerscum get from the IPO, the less pressure they'll feel to siphon off the club's cash flow. I dunno though, maybe a flopped IPO would be good in the long-run for the club, but it sounds like a dangerous hope. My fear is that if the club ends up going through a major financial trauma and drops out of the CL places, we might never get back again.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I suspect that the IPO will be a pretty big success though, for reasons I've explained before
Posted 9 months ago # -
It just hit me before - are we playing any home games in preseason?! You know so that those who pay their hard earned every year to watch United week in week out can actually see their team warm up for the season? You know those fans who actually live in the same town as the club they support? Or even just in the same country. Unreal. Just so wrong and another nail in the coffin of the current United set up. Fergie has definitely forgotten where he came from in his old age.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Yes because top teams play all their pre season games at home and United haven't been touring every summer for two decades.
Posted 9 months ago # -
bman said:
It's probably better for the club if the IPO is as successful as possible. If nothing else, the more cash the Glazerscum get from the IPO, the less pressure they'll feel to siphon off the club's cash flow. I dunno though, maybe a flopped IPO would be good in the long-run for the club, but it sounds like a dangerous hope. My fear is that if the club ends up going through a major financial trauma and drops out of the CL places, we might never get back again.I'm of the opposite opinion, the more cash the Glazers get out, the more they'll milk it. If this IPO is successful we may never be rid of them. They are like rats suckling at the teat of the sacred cow. They'll hold on for dear life.
I may be wrong, but this talk of overscribed IPO sounds like spin to me. "Come and get your united shares, last one left.... etc". By any rational valuation it's overpriced. You could call institutional investors a lot of things, but thick isn't one of them. If the Glazers have been offered £1-1.2bn, that's probably not far off value - I'm not sure where this £2bn value comes from, certainly not on current trading. More likely the institutions have offered to buy the shares, but significantly under the IPO value. The Glazers are probably hyping the price up.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Posted 9 months ago #
-
I think the IPO might do quite well because wealthy people and institutions have nowhere to put their money at the moment. United's risk/stability profile will probably find a few takers in the current environment.
Posted 9 months ago # -
IPO at $14/share
Posted 9 months ago # -
Sounds like that would generate about £73M to reduce the debt, or a bit more than Chelsea's net spend on transfers so far this summer. Whoop de fucking doo.
Posted 9 months ago # -
bman said:
I think the IPO might do quite well because wealthy people and institutions have nowhere to put their money at the moment. United's risk/stability profile will probably find a few takers in the current environment.As predicted, they've overpriced. The shares will sell eventually the question is at what price. Kinda blows a hole in the "we're totally oversubscribed" rumours - surprise, surprise. Even less money will be available to reduce debt. Particularly as they won't be able to pay off the other glazers in full.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Btw is Ferguson so senile he can't count. Bitching about PSG he's quoted as saying they've spent about £150m (pounds, yes pounds). I've done a little totting up - ibra and silva €65m, Moura €43m. Comes to about £85m. No wonder he thinks there's no value, if he's doing the adding up.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Quote on the Man Utd website:
"They must have spent about €150million in the last month."
Sounds like it was off the top of his head - in €.
They bought Cavani too - I think about £21m. That makes ~ €135m - knowing Fergie he'd include all the agents fees and so on, so it probably is close to €150.I know that half of the total IF it sells out is ~ £75m, but once you include the £12m fees for listing the IPO (all of which is to be payed by the club), and additional costs for paying of the debt earlier than scheduled, the total will be much lower. £75 million was estimated for an $18 share price. At $14 the total is £42m less, so the debt pay off will be nearer £50m.
Posted 9 months ago # -
marlon said:
Quote on the Man Utd website:
"They must have spent about €150million in the last month."
Sounds like it was off the top of his head - in €.
They bought Cavani too - I think about £21m. That makes ~ €135m - knowing Fergie he'd include all the agents fees and so on, so it probably is close to €150.Just checked it out - You're right Lavezzi for £21m, That comes to about 116-117m. Quoted figures appear to include agents fees, certainly the Moura deal does. . Still, I take your point. Interestingly the difference is almost exactly our net spend since 2008/9. For a man shopping at the Champions league equivalent of Aldi, you'd think he'd count his pennies better.
Posted 9 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.