Man Utd Readin and No strikers?

vanzandt

vanzandt

The answer must be Jam
26 July 2007
Everton
Why did ferguson play with no out and out striker and not even have a single striker on the bench?

Personally I don't see why he is persisting with playing Rooney as a striker when he is clearly better as a secondary striker behind a front man.

Maybe Ferguson thought that Man U didn't need a striker against Reading?

Rooney does not play so well as a front man- that was the formation where they got tanked by Milan..

Either way to not have a striker on the bench seems mentally questionable- even for Ferguson.

Rooney gets injured and is replaced by Nani, so Man U had three wingers and no striker and ended the game playing Vidic up front against 10 men of Reading.

There is no excuse for not having access to a striker if you are managing a childrens under 14 side, never mind a massive out fit like Man U.

I understad Saha is injured and Smith was sold, but what about Solskjaer or Tevez?

I heard it said that Tevez was not fit, but Ferguson said he looked very fit when he returned to Old Traford and Tevez looked fit in the Copa America....

My personal opinion is this was one of the worst managerial performaces from Ferguson that I have ever seen (he has been and still is a great manager).

Also I don't think this idea of Rooney up front with two wingers wide will work.....it is missing out on what is best about Roney which is picking the ball up deep and playing people in or running at a defence.

Seems obvious Man U need Saha/Rooney or Solsjaer/Rooney or Tevez/Rooney......In fact anyone as a front man and then Rooney....not Rooney up top.

What do Manchester United fans think?

P.S

Honest thread not having a go....I think Man U have a great squad and a good chance this year.
 
this could have been posted in the Man u thread

And to answer your question Rooney is the only fit striker and he got injured and Tevez was inedgible

so Ferguson was forced into doing what he did
 
Fair enough about the Man U thread.

Tevez though was able to play- Ferguson just opted to not include him in the team including the bench.
 
Professor Nutmeg said:
Tevez wasn't match fit.
Click to expand...

Alex Ferguson stated that he WAS match fit and was thinking about including him on the bench. This is a quote and was printed in at least two English national newspapers.

Also are we saying that even if Tevez wasn't match fit (Ferguson seems to disagree with you) that he would be less preferable up front than Vidic?

Not having a striker on the bench to me just doesn't make sense, particularly when you are playing a formation with no recognised front man to begin with.

Even the Chinese lad who has yet to play if fit would make more sense than going to Reading with ZERO strikers.
 
I find it amazing how Fergie can spend all that money and not buy a CF, Tevez is basically Rooney but better IMO. If he plays them together in the CL against the better teams then they wont do much, just ask Argentina when there stupid manager played Messi n Tevez (instead of Crespo or Milito and 1) against Brazils two big CB's what impact did they have in that game?
 
tobi said:
I find it amazing how Fergie can spend all that money and not buy a CF, Tevez is basically Rooney but better IMO. If he plays them together in the CL against the better teams then they wont do much, just ask Argentina when there stupid manager played Messi n Tevez (instead of Crespo or Milito and 1) against Brazils two big CB's what impact did they have in that game?
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that- apart from Tevez being better than Rooney. But I agree with them being too similar, agree that they need another centre forward and agree with the point you made about Argentina.
 
Suprised United didn't sign Huntelaar this season. Heck they still might.

Saha isn't constistent enough. I think most were expecting Saha to leave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom