Death of the tackle?

 "In 30 years I have never seen a sending off for a tackle like this... I can't understand it. Vinnie took the ball; he did nothing.” – Roberto Mancini

The sending off of Vincent Kompany in the FA Cup 3^rd Round caused a huge debate given the importance of the match, but it is just one of a number of controversial refereeing decisions this season. There has been an inevitable chorus of former footballers who have groaned that “football is in danger of becoming a non-contact sport”. Robbie Savage complained in his column in the Daily Mirror that, “they are trying to take tackling out of the game and it saddens me. What happened to Vincent Kompany on Sunday at Eastlands was outrageous. A hard but fair tackle in which he maintained control was rewarded with a red card.”

Look at my tackle...

Tackling is to many supporters the greatest expression of their conception of the game. It encompasses qualities so admired in English football such as passion, strength and bravery. 

The issue of tackling was also fundamental in the initial formalisation of the game. It is commonly known that a disagreement about whether a player should be allowed to carry the ball was one of the reasons for the split between football and rugby. Less known is that a conflict over the level of physical contact allowed that was also a key to the split. 


In earlier drafts of the original FA rules rule 10 stated that, “If any player shall run with the ball towards his adversaries' goal, any player on the opposite side shall be at liberty to charge, hold, trip or hack him, or to wrest the ball from him.” Most of delegates involved in forming those first rules agreed that carrying the ball and hacking should be outlawed, but the FA’s first treasurer F.W. Campbell objected saying, “hacking is the true football.” Campbell withdrew his club, Blackheath, from the FA, and Association Football began its life with a clear philosophical distinction from Rugby Football. 


The idea that physical contact should have clear limitations was a fundamental component of original laws of the game, and not a more recent innovation from FIFA.

Ah the good old days

Rules do change over time however and many have been introduced to benefit attacking football. Take the offside rule. Originally forward passes weren’t even permitted, a rule that remains in rugby to this day. They become permitted in 1866, but only if three defensive were between the receiver and goal at the time of the pass. In 1925 this limitation was reduced to 2 players to promote attacking football, which resulted in a rise from 4,700 goals in the 1924-25 Football League season to 6,373 the following year. Continuing in the desire to open up the game, the rule was liberalised further in 1990, by allowing the attacking player to be level with the second-to-last opponent. Finally, in 2003, FIFA issued new guidelines stating the attacking player is only offside if they are “active”.

If only it was this simple...

The same trend has been seen in the laws for tackling and the changes have been equally beneficially for the game. The greatest players of all times suffered at the hands of opponents using brutal tactics to force them out of the game. Pele was famously kicked out of the 1966 World Cup by Joao Morais and Maradona was fouled 23 times by Claudio Gentile in one 1982 World Cup match, after which Gentile famously quipped “football is not for ballerinas.” 

Police arrest that man!

In an attempt to reduce injuries, such at the one that forced Marco Van Basten to retire prematurely at 28, FIFA outlawed the tackle from behind in 1998. This trend has continued, the intention being to reduce injuries and favour attacking football. UEFA president Michel Platini has made the point that it was hard to compare the play of current world player of the year Leo Messi with previous greats since today, “he can play football and express his talent… before talented players had to think first to avoid blows.”

The true golden balls but the best ever?

The current laws of the game set out which challenges constitute a sending off offense – “Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.” The referee thus has a simple decision to make – is the tackle dangerous to the point of endangering the opponent. 


All the debate surrounding Kompany's tackle concerning over whether he won the ball, how high he was off the ground when contact was made, and whether Nani complained about the challenge becomes rather irrelevant in this light. 

Hmm... I'm sure it's supposed to be one of these

Tackling is a skill that is learned in the same way passing or shooting is. It has to be acknowledged, however, that when the tackler goes to win the ball, the risk of injury is very much weighted in the person he is challenging. Most players, managers and fans love a good clean hard tackle, and will accept in some situations mistakes are unintentionally made and injuries occur.

A two-footed tackle, however, is a very deliberate action. It is not in the same bracket as a 'late' one-footed challenge, which can also be dangerous if mistimed and excessively forceful. Making a two-footed tackle requires a specific technique and body movement – it is inherently aggressive and by its nature, dangerous.

The mass hysteria regarding Kompany’s challenge and the ‘death of the tackle’ is bemusing. Week after week in the Premiership superb tackles are made with players going to ground to make challenges and well timed sliding challenges are an enjoyable and essential part of the game. If tackling was been outlawed, would it be possible to England captain John Terry and Manchester United skipper Nemanja Vidic to be considered two of the best defenders in world football, when their game is based on their physical presence and strong tackling? Even the most graceful defenders of all time, such as Paulo Maldini, Franco Baresi, Bobby Moore and Franz Beckenbauer, have needed to produce sliding challenges on numerous occasions, but their technique meant it was rarely reckless.

One word... legend

Of course it’s would be ridiculous to expect every defender to have the grace of Baresi or Moore. But Kompany’s challenge was not a sliding challenge in any sense of the term. He was in mid-air from the moment he launched himself at Nani, and therefore, unlike in a genuine sliding challenge,  at no point is his weight supported by the ground. His entire body weight is directed at Nani’s ankles. 

Is it a bird, is it a plane...

Luckily for Kompany (and more pertinently, luckily for Nani), Nani saw Kompany flying directly at him and decided to pull out from challenging for the ball and jump over Kompany's oncoming studs.

Ok you can have the ball and I'll keep my legs thanks

If Nani had not seen Kompany coming there would have been a huge danger of a repeat of the shocking injuries to seen to Aaron Ramsey and Eduardo in recent seasons. Sadly if Nani had been seriously injured it is likely the debate over Kompany's challenge would be less vociferous, but really should it take a player to get seriously injured before a challenge is deemed to be dangerous and reckless? Not according to the laws of the game, and not according to fair minded observers.

Hard but fair... are you sure Vincent?

The physical side of the game is integral to football, and it is a perfectly legitimate tactic to use physical attributes to compensate for a lack of technical qualities. But even in extreme contact sports such as rugby or boxing, there are rules in place to prevent the physicality from being potentially dangerous. In rugby, for example, the spear tackle is punishable by an automatic red card, as Welsh captain Sam Warburton found out to his cost in the 2011 Rugby World Cup semi-final. It was thought to be harsh by many commentators at the time, but even in a sport based around physicality player welfare is considered an imperative.

That's more like a Rugby tackle... oh yeah it is

The same thinking underpins FIFA’s attitude to two-footed tackles. There is no legitimate sporting justification to making such a challenge and they have rightly been outlawed. Once Kompany jumped at Nani with both feet off the ground, whether he made contact with his opponent, injured him or won the ball are irrelevant. As Lee Dixon pointed out in a recently BBC blog on the subject, “players have a responsibility to not make tackles like that… I was a tough tackling full-back and in the past I've made some strong tackles from behind and the side, but in 22 years of playing I never made a two-footed tackle. I don't understand the need to jump in with both feet.”

Are you sure Dixon?

A large reason for the frustration regarding refereeing this season has been the lack of consistency. We have seen Yohan Cabaye and Frank Lampard, amongst others, getting away with leg-breaking-type tackles, while Nedad Milijas was sent off for a far less dangerous offense. The inconsistencies were highlighted further when in Manchester City’s next game, Liverpool’s Glen Johnson committed what appeared to be an equally dangerous tackle to Kompany’s, but referee Lee Mason didn’t even give a free kick for the challenge.

Anything Kompany can do, I can do better

Sir Alex Ferguson commented on the problem of inconsistencies after Peter Walton only awarded Zat Knight a yellow card when fouling Danny Welbeck in what was a clear goal scoring opportunity, and therefore should have been an automatic red card offense. "Mike Riley needs to give his referees some direction on these matters," the United manager said. "The present situation is unacceptable, inconsistency from referees is confusing everyone… He should be making it clear to referees that it is not acceptable if they change their minds or don't follow the same set of rules. We've had enough debate on two-footed tackles and the like recently, now something needs to happen."

Now lads, I'm not telling you how to do your job but...

Consistency needs to be brought in if referees are to be given the respect they request and deserve. The fact is, however, more proscriptive instructions are the only way to produce more consistency in decision making between games. While consistency within a match is expected, it seems more accepted that referees will differ in their philosophy and thus have a different interpretation on the same event. FIFA have become more and more proscriptive with the referees in order to try and get consistency, saying that if X happens the referee should do Y. 

Many complain that this doesn’t allow for ‘common sense’ and referees have to go against their better judgment. They complain referees are being assessed from the stands by some Sepp-Blatter-loving crony who’s aim in life it is to turn all referees into mindless robots. While it is important that referees use their intelligence, their primary job is not to 'manage' the game and support the spectacle, but to apply the laws in a fair and consistent manner. 

While I appreciate your suggestions... I'm not listening

Another large complaint from pundits and players has been over the FA appeals process, which typically upholds the decisions made by the referee. While it might be frustrating, the panel can only make amends for serious and obvious errors, such as Jack Rodwell’s dismissal in the Merseyside derby. The ability to appeal red cards is actually unique amoug the major European leagues, and something that FIFA are very much against. In both FIFA and UEFA competitions red cards will only ever be rescinded in the case of mistaken identity, hence why Darren Fletcher missed the 2009 Champions League final, even though he was sent off for a perfectly clean challenge in the semi-final against Arsenal. They believe the referee should be supported at all times and the FA therefore have to be very careful in overturning decisions given the friction over this matter. 

Oh no, now we're going to have to play with Anderson in the final

Unfortunately, while the higher echelons of the football pyramid are doing much to promote fair play and reduce dangerous play, their campaigns on respecting referees have led them to be in denial that there is a problem with the standard and consistency of decision-making. There are continuous debates over the merits of goal-line technology, video technology and extra officials but the consistent tone from FIFA and UEFA suggests the problem is exaggerated and there are no solutions beyond better refereeing. 


Bizarrely Platini also suggested the debate caused by controversial refereeing decisions was also beneficial to the popularity of the game - ‘Football has also based its popularity on injustice You can remember them and talk about them in the bars. You can talk about 1982, France-Germany, it was an injustice like the hand of Maradona or that of Henry. The notoriety also comes from negative things in football.’ 


He steadfastly refuses to entertain the idea of using technology to improve decision making, believing extra officials behind the goal-lines are the solution to all the problems. The reality has shown they have had minimal impact on the decision making process and have so far been well paid spectators. 

I think human eyes are better than those of a hawk

No problem can be solved before the problem itself is acknowledged to exist. While FIFA have recognized the problem of dangerous tackles and put measures in place to protect players, they have yet to acknowledge the inconsistencies and injustices that occur on a weekly basis. While Chris Foy rightfully dismissed Kompany for his dangerous challenge, Lee Mason also got it wrong in missing Glen Johnson’s two-footed lunge three days later. Kompany is currently serving a four game ban, while Johnson will go unpunished. Whetever your feelings about tackling and red cards, that’s a situation everyone can agree is a true injustice and needs a solution.

AVB Half Term Report - Is he another Special One?

When Roman Abramovich paid the €15m to Porto to buy out André Villas-Boas’ contract there was one question on everyone’s lips – is he the new Special One? 


Performances thus far have been mixed - Chelsea are 4th in the Premier League, with 37 points from 20 games, and 11 points behind leaders Manchester City. While they managed to qualify top of their Champions League group, they only managed to qualify with a tense 3-0 victory in their final group match against Valencia. There has also been talk of unrest in the dressing room, with senior players questioning the direction of the club. 


In the 4 years since José Mourinho’s departure Chelsea have had 4 different managers and despite still being very successful in that period, they have never quite reached the heights expected by their fans and more importantly their demanding owner. 

There's only one special one

While it seemed harsh to sack previous manager Carlo Ancelotti only 12 months after he had delivered a historic double, the Italian had failed to bring Chelsea closer to success in Abramovich’s holy grail, the Champions League. The owner also craved to see his team playing the ‘sexy football’ of world champions Barcelona, which has failed to materialise despite him investing close to £1bn since he bought the club in 2003.

No I'm not bored, this is my happy face

Comparisons with Mourinho are natural. AVB is young, Portuguese, had no playing career, and made his name at Porto. He also worked under Mourinho at Porto, Chelsea and Inter, so while it would be natural to assume he would be highly influenced by his mentor, is he José mk.2?

How can you say we're the same, I would never wear a blue shirt

Judging by his press conferences and interviews he has the same steely determination and supreme confidence of Mourinho. This self-confidence could be key in the huge job that AVB has of evolving what is essentially still Mourinho’s team. At Porto he was happy to let big name players leave, such as captain Bruno Alves and Raul Meireles, in the same way Mourinho’s first act after joining Real Madrid was to tell their two longest serving players, Raul and Guti, that their time at the club was up. Villas-Boas faces a similar situation at Chelsea where Anelka and Alex have already been ushered out of the door, with rumours that Didier Drogba will follow shortly, and potentially more to go after him.

Oh please give me a new 2 year contract, pretty please

While AVB enjoyed a very successful time in his single season at Porto it would be unfair to equate his achievements to Mourinho’s. While his Porto team did win their domestic league with a record points haul the Portuguese league is fairly weak, which is evidenced by the fact Porto were champions in 6 of the 8 seasons before AVB joined and haven’t finished outside the top 3 since 1976. Their success in the Europa League produced big headlines and mirrored Mourinho’s triumph in the same competition during his first full season with Porto. It is however generally accepted to be a weak competition and Villas-boas was rarely called upon to alter the course of a game that had gone against his team.

Throw him to Chelsea and we'll keep the trophy for ourselves

It is unfortunate that we were unable to gauge how good the Porto team were under him from a Champions league run. This season Porto are once again unbeaten after 14 games in their domestic league, but they failed to qualify from a weak Champions League group that was topped by minnows APOEL from Cyprus. This either highlights the importance of AVB as coach or demonstrates the extra step up required to compete successfully in the Champions League, and why Mourinho's victory with Porto in 2003/4 is rated so highly. 

Don't worry Paulo, you can come with me to Chelsea

The irony of all this talk about Villas-Boas being the new Mourinho is that he’s done more to try and move away from Mourinho’s playing style that any of the four managers that proceeded him. On the surface AVB is using the same 4-3-3 formation that the special one had so much success with, but in this case the team dynamics are more important than the formation itself. 

The biggest change has been in how he wants Chelsea to play without the ball. In the defensive phase Mourinho’s Chelsea retreated back into a deep-set compact unit, with his 4-3-3 looking more like a 4-5-1. The same formula was continued by his successors, and while Hiddink and Ancelotti’s teams produced some wonderful attacking football when in possession of the ball, they typically sat very deep without it, looking to initiate devastating counter attacks using their pace and power.

Mourinho's 4-3-3 vs AVB's - it's all the same... isn't it?

Villas-Boas has shown that he wishes to bring a new, more pro-active approach to Chelsea’s play by asking the team to press the opposition quickly and aggressively to try and win the ball close to the opposition goal. This was the style of play that brought him success at Porto, and in this regard his team more closely resembles Pep Guardiola's Barcelona or Arrigo Sacchi's Milan, than Mourinho's Chelsea.

Now this is how you press

A natural consequence of pressing high up the pitch is that to remain compact, and avoid being played between the lines, the team's defensive line also needs to push higher up the pitch. This is something that Chelsea’s defense have noticeable struggled with, most notably when faced with the pace of Arsenal’s forward line, a game in which they conceded 5 goals. 

Look at the score boys, look at the score!

Holding a high line in itself isn't a problem, the problem is Chelsea’s current personnel aren’t best suited to this style of play. Their captain, John Terry, is a master when it comes to no-nonsense defending, i.e. headers, last ditch tackles, blocks and clearances, in and around the box. But when playing high up the pitch these qualities are less called upon, and he has regularly been outpaced if required to turn and run when the opposition break the offside trap and look to exploit the space behind. 

Oh Carlo, I miss you

This philosophy in the defensive phase is why Barcelona have been so effective in using Javier Mascherano or Sergio Busquets to cover in central defense. While not top defenders in the traditional sense (Busquets seems to have an illness that causes severe facial pain in physical contests), they are nevertheless well suited to Barca’s aggressive attacking game, being comfortable in possession, quick on the turn and find themselves occupying areas of the pitch that are natural to midfielders. 

I'm so good I can tackle him without looking

Although less obvious, goalkeeper Petr Cech is another key player ill-suited to the new change of style. While Cech’s confidence in physical contests has evidently diminished since he sustained his head injury in 2006, he is still considered one of the best goalkeepers in Europe. However, ideally the goalkeeper for a team playing a high defensive line will need to play like a sweeper coming out of his area to cover balls behind the defense. This is certainly not a strong feature of Cech’s game. 

Playing a high line will also impact the type of saves a goalkeeper will be called on to make. When Chelsea sat their line deep, Cech was mainly having to repel shots in and around the box, either using his wide reach to pluck out long range efforts, or his first class instincts to produce acrobatic reaction saves. A high-line however will naturally expose a goalkeeper to a lot more one-on-one situations, and while Cech is a master shot stopper, this is not the strongest part of his game.

Come on JT it's not that bad

The high tempo pressing style inevitably also impacts both midfield and attack. Firstly, constantly closing down the opposition requires high levels of stamina, and secondly it requires the quickness of feet, guile and instincts to move the ball at speed on tight spaces. This has been a tough adjustment for a team that has spent two years playing the more patient and ponderous style that Carlo Ancelotti preferred. 

This requirement for players who can move the ball quickly in possession, has resulted in players like John Obi Mikel and Saloman Kalou falling out of favour and Nicolas Anelka being ushered out of the club. The contrast between the strength and power of Mikel and the positioning, intercepting and ball circulating ability of his impressive replacement Oriol Romeu highlights the change in philosophy.

It's not about the money, I like Chinese food... honestly

Chelsea’s star attackers Didier Drogba and Fernando Torres have also struggled thus far to adapt successfully to the new tactics. Drogba has been one the most successful strikers in the Premier League but thrives on direct power football, and bullying defenses into submission. His current Premier League tally of 3 goals from 15 appearances is a long way short of his magnificent best. 

Torres has had his own well-documented problems. He lit up the Premier League at Rafa Benitez’s Liverpool, where they often played counter-attacking football using his pace to the maximum. There is more to his game than outrunning markers though - in his prime at Liverpool he scored a wide variety of goals and was considered one of the best finishers in world football. He also has the technical skills that should be well suited to a high tempo possession based game, although his low confidence has clearly affected his potency at Chelsea.

Now what was it I was supposed to do, I'm sure I wrote it down

What Torres have been lacking, apart from fitness and a regular run of games, is the players around him to deliver the type of service he requires. At Liverpool he had the pass master Xabi Alonso supplying from deep, and while Steven Gerrard has the propensity to frequently smash the ball into the kop in search of glory, he would also typically produce the one or two peaches a game for Torres to feed off.

Ok here's the plan, I pass to you and you score, easy

Chelsea’s midfield, however, has been built around the driving runs of Frank Lampard. Lampard’s omission from the team has been big news in recent weeks, and there have been suggestions that Chelsea are willing to release him, if not in the January window, then at the end of the season. This seams like harsh treatment for one of Chelsea’s best ever players and someone who still has a lot to offer at the highest level. In fact, Lampard’s stats this season still make good reading - 10 goals from is 25 appearances is a top class return for a midfield player. 

While his contribution to Chelsea has been immense, he is nevertheless primarily an energetic midfielder who scores goals for himself rather than creating them for others.  When he finds himself in and around the box his preference is to shoot for goal, rather than look for an intricate through ball. And while possessing a solid technique, he certainly isn’t a one touch passer or quick-footed dribbler. It looks as if Lampard’s driving runs are going to be replaced by the younger, more energetic Ramires, and while it’s always sad to see a legend cut a frustrated figure on the bench, Villas-Boas decision to phase him out is very much aligned with his desire to reshape the team.

No not me Roman, he's the one you want to get rid of

So on closer inspection it appears that Villas-Boas change of style is impacting the entire spine that Mourinho built his Championship winning side around. Cech, Terry, Lampard and Drogba, they have all had mixed fortunes under the new manager. While this season seems to have highlighted their weaknesses and suggest these players are on the wane, their lower contribution is largely a result of the change in style being misaligned with the qualities that make these players great in the first place. 

While the old guard have had their problems, a new breed has emerged to take on the challenge. Daniel Sturridge has thus far been very impressive in the right sided attacking role that Hulk occupied so successful for Villas-Boas at Porto. As mentioned previously, Romeu has thrived in the midfield pivot role, orchestrating from deep, while Juan Mata has shown enough glimpses of magic to suggest he could provide the bullets to get Torres firing again.

I can be the new Hulk, watch me!

Interestingly however, in their biggest game of the season thus far, the Champions League eliminator against Valencia, Chelsea triumphed by going back to their old approach. Having persisted with his philosophy against Manchester United and Arsenal, and failed, Villas-Boas abandoned the high defensive line and pressing. While much was made in the media about the omission of Lampard for this game being a marker for change, the team’s style of play very much resembled the days of Mourinho or Ancelotti. They didn’t close down Valencia’s defense or holding midfielders, their wingers dropped deep to make a 4-5-1 in the defensive phase, and the defense sat back leaving no space in behind. 

Ok lads, let's practice the deep defensive shape

In the attacking phase it was also Chelsea of old with long balls from deep into Didier Drogba, and plenty of counter attacking, rather than the short passing game that Villas-Boas has been favouring. Crucially, the tactics helped produce a 3-0 victory for Chelsea. The defense and goal keeper looked far more secure defending from a deeper position, while Drogba was in his element, leading the line magnificently with space to operate in and runners from deep to dovetail off. 


How much performances like that will harm his intention to change the team's playing style will remain to be seen. While the old guard may have their failings, they also have immense experience, stature and leadership ability that brings results and will be hard to replace. 

So what can we conclude from all this analysis? 


Firstly, formations don't tell the whole story and tactics are much deeper than that. Secondly, there is no best system or style, the best tactics for any team is the one that best suits its player's strengths and weakness, both individually and collectively. 


However, a manger (or owner, or supporters) may have a preference for a particular style and therefore a balance often needs to be struck between these ideals, a desire for results and the resources available to achieve both. In Abramovich’s case the resources appear to be unlimited, and while Chelsea have enjoyed the most successful period in their history, his desire is to see Chelsea play the proactive attacking high-tempo precise football of Guardiola’s Barcelona that he so admires. 

Very funny... you're saying he's more special than me?!

Winning attractive football isn’t the result of just putting world class players on the pitch, it is about molding a cohesive team. The desire for high tempo possession football may not suit many of Chelsea’s current players, hence why results have been patchy thus far. While this might be causing unrest among their big characters, every great team needs to evolve and this can often be a painful process.

Don't cry JT, I promise never to say high-line ever again

Chelsea have suffered from a short-term outlook in recent years.  Villas-Boas has received a lot criticism for using the 'wrong' tactics, and going purely on a desire to win games this criticism is justified.  However, he is trying to usher in a new era and give them a new identity, which requires a long-term outlook and patience from the fans and the owner. It is well documented how long it took Sir Alex Ferguson to turn round the fortunes of Manchester United, and 25 years later that patience has been well rewarded. Given time, resources and a bit of luck, he could create a successful Chelsea team and a very different Chelsea team from that of his mentor... assuming he is a special enough that is.

My thirst for adventure will never be quenched!

Do Manchester United always get better in the second half of the season?

This weekend's fixtures will be the last in the Premier League for 2011 and also represents the midway point of what promises to be one of the most exciting seasons ever. With 18 games gone both Manchester clubs are locked on 45 points and a win for either club would leave them on a record points total after 19 games, equaling Manchester United's 1993/94 season.

Can we buy it? Yes we can!

Most pundits (and bookmakers) are predicting that Manchester City's depth and quality of squad will be the telling factor in the run-in and will lead them to a first top division league title since 1967-68. However, on the Boxing Day MOTD Messrs. Shearer and Lawrenson put forward the conventional wisdom that Manchester United should not be counted out given they are always stronger in second half of the season. Shearer stated, "they always get better in the second half of the season don't they", while Lawrenson noted "what we know about Manchester United at this time of the season, course and distance, always." The question is, is this widely held belief actually true?

Surely Shearer and Lawrenson can't know more than me

Having analysed data from every Premier League season it is true to say that United have averaged more points in the second half of seasons (42.3 points) than the first (40.5 points). They have also scored more points in the second half of 11 of the 19 seasons since the Premier League stated. However, does a 2 point difference really justify the conventional wisdom? Interestingly their main rivals, Arsenal and Liverpool, also have a higher points average in the second halves of seasons (Arsenal 37 vs 35.6, Liverpool 33.8 vs 33.6), which suggests United's success might be more a factor of their points haul across the season.

A closer look, however, shows United's second half form has been crucial to their success. If the season had ended at the halfway point then United would have only won 7 Premier League titles and not the 12 they have done. While in 5 of the seasons they scored less points in the second half, they still finished top of the pile, suggesting they may have taken their foot off the gas with the medals in the bag. Their run-in form has therefore been crucial to making Manchester United the most successful team in Premier League history. 

We knocked them off their perch!

Some of these championships have been won by outstanding comebacks and support the belief that they come good when it matters. 1992/93, the first Premiership season, was memorable for Steve Bruce's Easter brace in the last 5 minutes against Sheffield Wednesday, a win that was part of a 7 game winning streak to finish the season and produce United's first championship in 26 years.  1995/96 was notable for Eric Cantona's return from his infamous 8 month ban to help haul United back from a 12 point deficit to Newcastle and bring back the trophy to Old Trafford. 

I'd luv it if we beat them, luv it

1n 1998/99 United went unbeaten in all competitions from Boxing Day onwards, with memorable victories against Arsenal in the FA Cup, Tottenham on the final day of the Premier League season, and Bayern Munich in the Champions league final to seal a historic treble. While in 2002/3 they finished with 15 wins and 3 draws to overhaul an 8 point deficit over Arsenal to regain their title in sublime fashion. Finally, in 2008/9 they produced a superb second half haul of 49 points to deny Liverpool a first Premier League. It was a season characterised by Rafa Benitez's "I want to talk about facts" rant, which highlights the importance of mental strength when the pressure is on. These superb performances from Manchester United highlight a strength of character that winners in all fields have, and is critical in the high pressure moments of a championship run-in.

I'm not playing mind games, just discussing facts

However, there have also been many instances where even Fergie's men haven't produced the results when it mattered. In 1995 a win against West Ham on the final day of the season would've been enough to deliver them a third successive championship - but they could only achieve a draw, handing the title to Kenny Dalglish's Blackburn Rovers. In the 1997/98 season, United held a 10 point lead over the eventual champions Arsenal at the halfway stage, but succumbed to 5 losses in the second half and were pipped by Arsene Wenger's men. In 2003-4 United led the race with a superb 46 points after 19 games, but were only the 7th best performing team in the run-in, being outperformed by Newcastle and Bolton, and finished 3rd overall behind Arsenal's 'invincibles' and an upcoming Chelsea. And while they were narrowly the best performing side in second half of the 2009-10 season, a crucial home loss in a high pressure April decider against Chelsea saw the title return back to the Bridge. 

We are invincible Ruud, invincible!

This leaves current rivals Manchester City with some hope. While United have shown superb quality in many title run-ins, they have also failed to deliver on numerous occasions, especially when their team is going through a transition phase. Their current squad includes a number of new players, but one consistent feature of the clubs Premiership history is their legendary manager. Sir Alex does seem to have the ability to make the Manchester United shirt possess magical qualities, whoever is wearing it, and his team are often greater than the sum of their parts.  So while Mancini might have the better individual players at his disposal the season has a long way to run, and Ferguson's know-how and experience of dealing with high intensity situations could prove crucial when the pressure is on.

Sorry Tevez but Aguero is better

So do Manchester United always get better in the second half of the season? Not always, but enough times for their rivals to be worried.