Finally got to watch the match amongst other things more pressing,have read the reports on here, if only the Stealth Astra could speak!!nice story Screach. Anyway first reports indicated a doom and gloom scenario, but on watching the game I was reasonably pleased with the performance, especially the ball retention under pressure in midfield where Man U had replaced guile with grit. Agree with majority of other posts re defence etc but to me the crucial factor was obvious and not altered during the game by YBR or discussed on here. As we scored our goal from this failing it may put me out on a limb , but I put the goal down solely to the resourcefullness of Alan Shearer.

The main fault was due to mainly Elliot and at times Hughes putting in crosses from midway in Man U half. Any defender will find this meat and drink , it stems from lack of confidence that (Elliot) will not hit the dead ball line or is not unable to do so full stop. Both backs are playing to many Bartonesque balls to Shearer, YBR was not to know that Becks/Giggs were not to play, hindsight I know but I believe my selection with 3 center backs and Hughes sweeping would have ground out a result.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002

Answers

Buff - Happy New Year.

Imo, Elliott doesn't have the pace, or indeed the skill, to play as an attacking FB, and his only realistic role is as an auxiliary CB, enabling us to play a pseudo back-three, with the RB free to get forward. However, this system means we simply must have a midfield player playing wide on the left.

With the RB free to get forward, Solano can tuck slightly infield of his RB, and support GS in the centre of m/f, allowing KD to support the two forwards - indeed it means that CB & KD can both use their pace down both channels to capitalise on Shearer's lay offs and support him in the box.

This system effectively capitalises on the strengths of our better players. However, take Robert out of this equation, and play KD nominally on the left wing but with a entirely free/roving brief - and you create all kinds of problems, including an expectation that Elliott gets forward on the left to occupy the gaping hole in our formation that the opposition can otherwise utilise.

This then leaves the two CB's without the cover that Elliott normally provides, and leaves Elliott's lack of pace exposed to pacy attacking forwards or m/f players.... and so on.

This was imo the source of most of our problems on Wednesday, and could possibly have been avoided by simply playing Bernard in Robert's place. However, bringing Lee in implied a lack of confidence in a system that had been working well, and effectively handed the initiative to ManU before we'd even kicked off.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002

Excellent analysis Mr Clarky, agree with all and the return of Lee was a measure of YBR`s thinking.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002

the question I have though Buff... was it entertaining????

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002

sparrx marra, if you're referring to clarky's (above) posting, IMHO it was kinda boring and Liverpool2001/02esque ;7)

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002