A Different Voice

My wife and I got a bit fed up recently about all of the Arsenal-based blogs concession to United. We get it. United finished top of the league, and are playing in their second consecutive CL final. We get that, too. United have overwhelming wealth (operating debt) and can afford to keep 100m quid on as subs. Must be nice. But let's have a serious debate about why United is better than everyone else...and I'm gonna stick with my guns - they are champions because their competition does not play. If you play not to lose, you still lose.

But truth be told if one takes the time to look at United's results this year you will find that the match was often lost before the match was even played. How is that possible? Well, so many teams play in defensive formations against United that there is no match to play - there is only absorbtion of wave after wave of United attack. A 4-5-1 formation eventually cracks against a 4-3-3. Even if the formation holds for 65min, United will dip into their 100m quid bench and influence the match in so many different ways. Eventually, United will score. Easy explanation for all of those late 1-nil wins, right? So, why do the lessers take this approach? Perhaps it is because they know they are going to lose, and are reserved to cushioning their goals against statistic. Certainly, if you are battling for survival a 0-1 loss to United is better than a 0-3 margin and could be the difference at the end of the season. But perhaps some of these managers should do a review over how Fulham and Liverpool got such convincing results. What did they do?

Liverpool ran riot for a few reasons and Hodgson took notice and emulated the result. In both emphatic wins the teams played; they did not sit back, they countered. Their formations were slightly different but both pressured the United player with the ball; thus, there were loads of unforced errrors and 'squeaky bum' moments resulting in errant passes, poor first-touches, and one might even say some nerves. Subs were also deployed immediately after United made their subs. One for one. United's late sub was neutralized so if the teams were still with United late, or had an advantage then the match often did not change. So, really, was Liverpool or Fulham better than United? Well, on the day they were better. But why?

So, for our first post, i'll leave it open for debate. Was United really better than all the other squads (so says the points) or did the others play into the fear of United and cast the illusion of dominance and superiority?

ArsenaLOS