United forced to splurge due to Ferguson's misdirected vision

Rick - Have just read your reply to my comment and once again have been impressed by the amount of thought you have put into your point of discussion. However like most contributors on this site you have shown a limited knowledge of the history of the development of football tactics over the last 90 years.You see it is dangerous to only work in a 45 year history span for in doing so you are in fact missing out on many stages of development. For example the first team to show "defensive gearing" as you call it was not Barcelona or Pep Guardiola in what could be deemed recent times,back in the 1920's a manager at Arsenal informed his players that because they "had a point when they went on the field they had better come off the field still in possession of that point". To help them accomplish this (his) aim he moved his cenre back out of his up to then central midfield role into a back line of 3. That ,and the limited success it achieved, was the start of a development that is still going on today. Among students of football tactics it is widely now recognised the the term "Total Football" was a name conjured up by Dutch journalists to describe the successful runs of the Dutch national team and Ajax, and to a lesser extent Feyenoord, in the late 60's and early 70's. What is not widely recognised is that the Moscow Dynamo team of 1945 and the great Hungarian team of the early 50's played with "systems " that saw players given a much wider scope in the areas they had to "operate " in and the "gene" for that development is usually credited to the Austrian "Wunderteam" of the late 1930's. Also in that era there was another Austrian coach who,taking over the running of the Swiss national team and recognising that his players were not up to standard of other European countries tickled positional play even more. This positional tweak was called "Verrou" and is thought widely to be the basis of the ultra defensive game developed in Italy and dubbed by the press as "catenaccio".We have now moved to the 1960's and as teams struggled with the tactics required to break down this tactic a young manager in England became one of the first to use the tactic known as "pressing", where, when his team lost the ball his charges immediately took steps to close down the space,and thus the time.that their opponents had to work in. His tactics took his team up 3 divisions of English football in 3 seasons.So once again we find the tactical development actually took place long before the 6 second rule you credit to Guardiola's Barcelona. You,and I hope other readers,will forgive me the "history lesson" in the development of football tactics but if you would like to go into the subject more I can advise the book "Inverting the Triangle" by Jonathon Wilson is a very worthwhile and fascinating look at where the tactics of the game have brought us up to date,and continue to be "tweaked".Cheers jb

Bondy -Please answer me a simple question. Why is it (like many others) you use only a 10 years history to back up a point you are trying to make. The European Cup and Championship has been played for since 1955 giving it a 60 year old life span which has seen the emergence of many teams as being "top of the tree" for various lengths of time.One of your nominations actually won the cup 5 years in succession and then had what could be termed a "lean spell" for Spanish clubs only winning the trophy once more until Barca again won it some 30 years later.During these years there has been evidence that "countries" usually dominate for a few years then fall away for a while,Dutch,German,Italian, & English teams all enjoying long spells at "the top of the heap" so to speak. You see one player does not make a team and it has been proved too often that having 1 world class player is no guarantee of success. Cheers jb

But which one ....

Thanks for the comments j binnie. Firstly, let me clear a few things up with my terminology, as it will make for greater clarity. I remember having a conversation similar to this with Punter. Now he corrected me on the terminology used in football, as apposed to AFL, basketball etc.. The use of the term 'attack' I am well aware is used in football and offence more in basketball for example. However, I prefer to use the term offensive vs defensive to describe the nature of a team precisely because it encompasses the entirety of ones game plan. You have rightfully pointed out that indeed you can't be attacking when you are not in possession, however, you can be aggressive and positive, which is a major determining factor when it comes to being offensively or defensively geared. Now I wrote an article last year on the AFL forum showing more teams offensively geared had won the premiership over a 25 year period compared to defensively geared. I also proved this statistically. Here is a link if you are interested: http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/08/13/defence-may-be-the-best-form-of-attack-but-attack-is-the-best-method-of-winning-premierships/ This is relevant to your point, because it's highly unlikely a team is going to be both. The way I showed this was by taking the average goals scored across the entire league. If a teams average goals 'for' is above, then they are offensively geared. If below, they are defensively geared. It's all relative to the other teams in your league, so therefore is 100 percent accurate. The way teams play is irrelevant to the discussion, because a team can look like they are playing aggressive attacking football, but if they don't have the goals to back it up relative to the rest of the competition...well it means nothing. We can talk about game plans, styles etc...all day long, but at the end of the day I like to back things up with solid data. It's who I am, but I can appreciate a good conversation about game styles too, which I will indulge in further. You mention the discussion goes much 'deeper' and that it's important what a team does when in possession and when trying to win the ball back. I totally agree, and although this does not determine if a team is either offensive or defensively geared, it does allow us to determine 'why' they may be one or the other. Lets look at Barca back in the late 2000's as an example of what you are talking about when it comes to 'winning the ball back'. Pep Guardiola's philosophy was a modified version of Total Football and its high intensity pressing. Pep used Total Football as his template, but made a few changes to the Dutch style of football like introducing the 6 second pressing rule (The team had to win the ball under 6 seconds after losing it), a rule which embodies the concept of ” The best way to defend is to defend proactively, by keeping the ball as much as possible and winning it back as soon as possible”. Apart from the 6 second rule, Guardiola also highlighted the importance of 'workrate'. As you can see, this was a very aggressive and proactive way to defend, which lead them to scoring so many goals in La Liga relative to the league average. However, they were also extremely good defensively relative to the league average, so I would need to go through the data completely to determine if their goal average 'above' the league average was greater than their goals 'against' relative to the league average. That's the final determining factor, but I would be surprised it they were not net positive here. Real would definitely be offensively geared over the past 15 gears at quick glance and they have been the second best team. In a nut shell, I believe the more offensive you are, the more chance you have at winning over the long-term, providing you have sound defence to back it up.

Rick - You will excuse me for asking about the use of the adjectives/nouns "offense" and "defense" and your attempt to justify the use of them when describing teams.The danger is that they are adjectives/nouns usually used by professional commentaters employed to comment on muliiple sports in the USA., one day they may be describing a soccer match,the next a baseball game, and on to an ice-hockey game if not a boxing match. In football the terms used are possession and non-possession and the reason for this is quite simple and logical. No team can play "offensive.attacking" football when they do not have the ball and in contrast playing defense, or as we say defensively, when they are trying hard,and by whatever means to regain possession. When these two factors are viewed with a knowledge of the game it is easier to understand what is good football and what is bad football and all the standards in between. When one views the "best ' team in the world (an opinion of course) you have to look for specifics in the tactics being used ,the individual performances of players, and how they interpret what needs to be done to finish of a successful 'attack" or conversely breaking down an opponents "attack". The discussion goes much deeper than that of course but any opinion has to be rooted in what a team does when "in possession" or what they do when trying to win "possession" back. A good example of this philosophy taken to the "N" degree is a game of basketball where the rules have been developed to such an extent that is nearly impossible to not see every "offense" finishing at an attempt at "netting", thus ensuring "scores aplenty "at each end.Cheers jb

“I really have no interest in insights from (& have pretty low regard for) people who base their analysis of football by only watching video highlights of goals on the FoxSports news.” Mind explaining those comments again then champ? Why comment at all if you have no interest in me? I'll always defend my comments here, I have no issues with them. It's a shame you can't say the same thing about some of your ludicrous comments. "If my comments on football upset certain people, whom I find annoying, that’s an unintentional bonus." I especially like the 'whom I find annoying' part. Got under your skin have I tough guy?

@Rick Disnick On the internet, and in life in general, I will say: a) whatever I want b) whenever I want c) to whomever I want. If my comments on football upset certain people, whom I find annoying, that's an unintentional bonus.

“I really have no interest in insights from (& have pretty low regard for) people who base their analysis of football by only watching video highlights of goals on the FoxSports news.” Okay Fuss, lets say for a second you are 100 percent correct and I am a highlights watcher. Does this mean you will finally stop making comments on my comments like I have asked you to do for the past 6-months? I don’t comment on this forum that much, but when I do, at least 50 percent of the time you decide to make comments on my comments. You must find me pretty interesting, or you are still trying to save-face on your gambling comments/ FBI joke/ biggest economy balls-up/ AFL does actually have a minor premiership cup mix-up/ mixing ALeague terminology up yourself whilst abusing others for the same mistake or getting banned for abusive and personal comments. Did I miss anything? Like I said Fuss, I don’t find you of any interest and I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to challenge yourself against me. Cheers

Comments moved to below

Nope. I repeat: "I don’t think I’ve read anyone for the past 10-20 years who’ve said EPL is the best quality football competition". In the 1970s-80s, English football was widely observed as being the best in Europe. But, after the 1985 Heysel Disaster which pushed English clubs out of Europe for 7yrs the quality of English football has never recovered. Of course you'll get the odd team or 2 teams that are excellent. But "quality of a football league" doesn't just refer to the No.1 or No.2 teams in each league. It refers to the 5th, 6th... 15th, 16th .. teams. Which leagues have the best depth of quality. Has England had the best depth of quality across the Top Division for the past 10-20 years. No.

From the great Fuss himself "In fact, I don’t think I’ve read anyone for the past 10-20 years who’ve said EPL is the best quality football competition … except Aussies whose main sport is not football." I agreed it wasnt currently the best league, it was the most exciting. But it seems like you were - again - talking waffle when you said that.

"from 2004-2010 the EPL was ranked the best league in the Europe by the UEFA coefficient." So, by introducing that piece of evidence, you admit that currently the EPL is the 4th best league in Uefa. And, it has not been the No1 League in Europe for the past 4 seasons.

yes because in this day and age, us Aussies only get an insight into English football by watching 5 minute highlights on Foxsports. And i doubt you have friends, let alone friends in England. Again, 3 of the last 4 teams in the 2008 Champions League were English the finalists of the 2008 Champions League were English. from 2004-2010 the EPL was ranked the best league in the Europe by the UEFA coefficient. But what would UEFA know aye? Your imaginary English friends must be right

Adam 3000 -Your comment got me thinking and I picked what I thought was a normal "team" that would have appeared in Fergie's last season when they won the title It may surprise you to see the following figures and from where the players were procured. De Gea Atletico Madrid 18 million Smalling Fulham 10 million Vidic Sparta Moscow 7million Ferdinand Leeds 30 million Evra Monaco 5,5 million Carrick Spurs18.5 million Rooney Everton 26 million Scholes Home grown Valencia Wigan 16million Van Persie Arsenal 24 million Young Aston Villa 16 million So it could be said the championship winning team had been put together by United outlaying 171 million pounds with only one or two (include Giggs) players who had come through their own system. So much for the myth that surrounds United.???? Cheers jb

For insights into English football, I only pay attention to people who watch a lot of English football - generally, they live in England: particularly, ex-players, ex-coaches & people who have significant standing in the English game. No one I read, or listen to, says the EPL is the best league in the world. I really have no interest in insights from (& have pretty low regard for) people who base their analysis of football by only watching video highlights of goals on the FoxSports news.

Fadida -Yes the signing of 2 experienced midfielders has been noted and is not surprising when it is remembered that United are now in the "big' competition and could be playing around 80 games a season against a myriad of styles and tactical deployments.That is why teams like these need squads of around 25 players who can be "rotated " to meet the task at hand and IMO you will find LVG is not finished yet for the 'problrms" at the back don't yet seem to have been addressed. Moyes has gone and so be it I no longer have an interest in what he did at United, however as I do not pretend to know the workings of a boardroom I will defend any manager, who again IMO is being criticised unfairly, by people who should know better. Your views on "body language",the interviews and especially the views of a "spent force" like Ferdinand are all opinionative,not really backed up by factual data. I have always stated that as an observer the squad that Fergie left needed revamping and there is no doubt that Mr Van Gaal agrees with that sentiment. That's my point. Cheers jb

me too - Remember that figure is an average "spend" from1986 to 2013, 26 years, and includes purchases of 5 and 6 figures.as well as the over a million pound purchases. Cheers jb

Well you do live under a rock so i'm not surprised you never heard that, especially when English teams were dominating the CL a few years ago. Remember when England had three of the last four teams in the CL? It is only recently that the quality of the EPL has dropped off, however it is still the most exciting league.

True Bondy. Hard to make any conclusions here though, especially given one is probably the best player the world has even seen.

Rick Disnick Also if you have a look at where the European Cup has " predominately " been won by over the past ten years then its two players Ronaldo ( Man Utd & Real Mad) & Messi ....