It's all very well giving the argument that the Mancs play interchangable strikers but we don't. We do play many "strikers" but they do not interchange.
Our players aren't given the freedom of the Mancs and it's one of the few areas that I'd criticise Rafa for. We're hard to break down because of it, you know Kuyt will get back and defend on the right every time, but we're limited as an attacking force when a great ball is played across the box and nobody is there. The clearest example of this is Xabi Alonso. When he's not "tethered" to a defensive/deep midfield position he will run the game, however in the past season or 2 he's not been his best as he's been stuck about 30 yards behind where he should be.
I would love if Rafa proved Lawro and me wrong, and sent out everybody forward of the 2 defensive mids with the instruction of "go out, score goals" but it won't happen. Rafa loves chess and he treats his football matches like a game of chess. The players are his pieces and they can only move in certain directions and into specified positions.
Disagree with almost every word of that. We've seen pre-season that our strikers do interchange. They pretty much always have in games where we've been reasonably in control. The striker's ability interchange is also conditional on the strikers ability.
The likes of Kuyt, Babel, Keane, even Torres, have never been 'pure' strikers as an earlier post put it. Keane has always drifted deep and into the channels, Kuyt started his career on the right and has always played there for Holland, Babel has mainly played left of a front 3 for Ajax, us AND Holland, so why there's this constant perception that his 'natural' position is anything other than the one he has played most of his career is utterly beyond me. Torres, of course, has only really been used as an out and out striker by us.
So, thus far Rafa has been limited in his ability to let the strikers interchange. Last season we saw plenty of Torres/Gerrard pulling wide and Kuyt/Babel going central, we just didn't see it being particularly effective because, frankly, Torres' passing and crossing was not always up to scratch, and Kuyt was unable to exploit the chances he did get.
Our options included players like Crouch and Pennant...who are pretty much limited to one specific role only, hence including one already makes the whole front 4 vastly more rigid.
This season Keane, Torres, Gerrard, Kuyt, N'gog, Benayoun...basically all of our front 4 options, are capable of playing at least 2 positions within the 4 to a huge degree of comfort, all of them have excellent mentality and physique, and there is no doubt whatsoever that they will be flexible and interchange, especially as time goes on...the pure fluidity that Man U had at times took a while to appear on the pitch, with some very mediocre results in the interim.
As for Alonso, I'm not convinced that this is down to Rafa handcuffing the player. Mash, when he plays, has more defensive responsibilty yet actually manages to get forward, and into better positions, than Alonso tends to. Alonso is class, but maybe the problem is with Alonso's lack of flexibility rather than Rafa's?
Just a last point:
I would love if Rafa proved Lawro and me wrong, and sent out everybody forward of the 2 defensive mids with the instruction of "go out, score goals" but it won't happen. Rafa loves chess and he treats his football matches like a game of chess. The players are his pieces and they can only move in certain directions and into specified positions.
Yet, funnily enough, Torres credits exactly that approach with him having his best ever season. There's no problem telling players they have to perform within a strict system, the problem is getting players with the brains and skill to implement it properly.
It's all very well and good to say that our attackers would be better off just being told to 'go out there and play...' but where's the evidence?
That argument has been used in defensive of poorly disciplined creative players and against systematic managers (which include the managers of the most legendary attacking sides of all time, like Michel's Ajax and Holland, Saachi's Milan) but it's NEVER been true. It was said of Sir Stanley Matthews, who won sod all, while a more systematised Hungary side were stomping all before them. You think Hidegkuti just played in the hole because he felt like it? Or was it the result of a manager having a specific idea and moving him into that position, like he might with a 'chess piece'? It was also said of players like Pele, Maradona and Zidane, the latter two of whom had entire teams built around their skills, and in Pele's case had established systems fundamentally changed to get the best out of him.
Latterly, we've had Real Madrid an indeed Barca taking that approach on and running with it...and falling over. Hard.
Do you think that Man U's fluidity last season was the result of Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo's natural skills just combining together on the pitch, maybe after they'd had a little tete a tete between themselves?
Or do you think it was actually the result of countless hours of drilling behind the scenes, countless hours of 'No Tevez, if Rooney goes there, and Ronaldo goes there, you have to go here.'?
If letting attacking players express themselves wholly according to their own instincts then a formation of 1-2-7 would be the best way of winning football matches. Unfortunately history has shown time and time again that given two teams of equal ability, the more intelligenty organised team is by far the most likely to win.
In fact, the difference between organisation and skill is so vast that Greece can beat Portrugal to a European Championship, merely by having the correct organisational structure.
As Sacchi himself said, and indeed claims to have proved, 5 organised players can stop 10 disorganised players from scoring...ever.
