The Mixer: The Story of Premier League Tactics, from Route One to False Nines

by Michael Cox

  His partnership with Solskjær was productive, but overall Van Nistelrooy wasn’t adept at linking with others, and fellow strikers found him particularly frustrating. At international level he and Patrick Kluivert disliked one another personally and rarely combined effectively, and for United his dominance partly explains why future European Golden Boot winner Diego Forlán found it so difficult at United, going 27 games – albeit many as a substitute – before finding the net. ‘Diego just didn’t register on Ruud’s radar,’ admitted Ferguson.

  The most pertinent criticism, however, came from Louis Saha, who joined United in 2004 and was asked about the differences between Van Nistelrooy and his international teammate Thierry Henry. Saha clearly preferred playing alongside his compatriot. ‘Ruud never scores from outside the 18-yard area and never takes free-kicks,’ Saha said, before more damningly adding, ‘Ruud doesn’t take much of a part in the team’s collective play. His game is all about finishing.’ Later, Saha would describe playing alongside Henry as ‘like getting swept along by the yellow jersey’, a beautiful analogy that could only be uttered by one Frenchman about another.

  Henry, more than anything else, was Van Nistelrooy’s problem. In the 1990s the Dutchman’s relative lack of all-round footballing skill wouldn’t have been mentioned, but Van Nistelrooy was inevitably being compared to the Premier League’s other top-class goalscorer, who was taking centre-forward play in a different direction. Their apparent rivalry dominated discussion during this period, almost like a Premier League version of the Cristiano Ronaldo v Lionel Messi debate a few years later. Henry outscored Van Nistelrooy, but was also capable of doing so much more. Henry was the Messi figure, Van Nistelrooy was the Ronaldo – and it’s fitting, therefore, that both would later play alongside their equivalents.

  Paul Scholes confirms that Van Nistelrooy was overly concerned by his rivalry with Henry. ‘If he didn’t score, he’d sit on the back of the bus and sulk, even if we’d won the game,’ he said. ‘Then if he’d look at the other results and if, say, Henry had scored then Ruud would be fuming even more. He perceived Henry as a personal rival and Ruud was adamant that he was going to get the most goals.’

  During Van Nistelrooy’s five-year Premier League career he and Henry won the Golden Boot every year, but it was 4–1 to Henry: 24–23, 24–25, 30–20, 25–6, 27–21. 2002/03 was the only season when Van Nistelrooy prevailed, the only season he lifted the title – and yet Henry somehow still managed to overshadow him, winning the PFA and FWA Player of the Year awards.

  On the final day, with United already confirmed as champions, focus turned to Henry and Van Nistelrooy’s battle for the Golden Boot. Henry scored after seven minutes of Arsenal’s game at Sunderland to draw level on 24 goals, then Van Nistelrooy netted a late penalty at Everton to move onto 25, admitting he was thinking solely about the Golden Boot while waiting to take the spot-kick. Notably, however, Henry showed little interest in boosting his own tally, and in the second half at Sunderland created no fewer than three goals, all for Freddie Ljungberg – one of only three assister-goalscorer Premier League hat-tricks. Henry was a provider as much as a goalscorer, ending the season with 20 assists, a Premier League record that stands today. ‘Without the work of the last passer of the ball, the goalscorer is nothing,’ Henry once said. ‘Besides, I am not one of those players who suffers when he doesn’t score.’

  One example of that type of player was obvious, and it was notable that while Van Nistelrooy used to celebrate simple tap-ins with tremendous ferocity, Henry reacted to goals with a nonchalant expression borrowed from one of his heroes, basketball legend Michael Jordan. He even suggested that goals he scored in matches Arsenal lost shouldn’t count towards his tally – those strikes, to him, were worthless. He was a true team player; when teammates overhit passes intended for him he was keen to applaud the idea. There was a period around the time of the Invincibles season of 2003/4 where, after rare moments when he lost possession, he would determinedly charge after the ball, closing down two or three opponents solo. It was a spectacular, unusual sight; the Premier League’s most athletic player tearing across the pitch to start the defensive pressure, setting the example for his teammates – if Henry can work hard, why shouldn’t they?

  Henry didn’t simply dominate the goalscoring charts during this period, he came to define the entire era of English football. He boasted a rare mixture of artistry and athleticism, and unlike Van Nistelrooy was also an entertainer, a crowd pleaser, ‘a showman’, in the words of the late George Best. His ‘greatest goal’ highlights reel is remarkable for the sheer variety of strikes – the long-range thunderbolts, the mazy runs, the finishing touches to Arsenal’s team play. Henry was cheeky; he scored from backheels, he scored Panenka penalties, he scored quickly taken free-kicks when the goalkeeper was still assembling his wall.

  No one has risen to a position of such widespread acclaim in the Premier League – in 2004 Arsenal played an FA Cup tie away at Portsmouth, producing a scintillating display of football to win 5–1. The atmosphere at Fratton Park was wonderful, a relentless wall of noise despite Pompey’s heavy defeat, and the home supporters generously applauded Arsenal’s attacking play. ‘I’ve never seen that in my whole life,’ Henry said, while Arsène Wenger was delighted. ‘The result is wonderful,’ he said. ‘But it is even more enjoyable to hear opposition fans cheering our team.’ When Arsenal returned later that season in the Premier League, having already confirmed their title, Portsmouth fans spent much of the second half singing Henry’s name. He swapped shirts with an opponent and conducted a mini lap of honour in a Portsmouth shirt, applauding the Portsmouth fans as he left the Fratton Park pitch. It felt like Henry belonged to the Premier League as a whole, not simply to Arsenal.

  If Van Nistelrooy was the purest striker imaginable, Henry wasn’t really a striker at all. Much has been made of Wenger’s decision to convert Henry from a wide player to an outright centre-forward, although realistically, with Wenger still very much committed to a 4–4–2 system, it was the obvious approach – and Henry had played as a forward throughout his youth-team days. The confusion stems, inevitably, from English observers not appreciating the nuances of systems that weren’t 4–4–2.

  While Wenger handed Henry his professional debut at Monaco in August 1994, he was dismissed from his post the following month, and Henry became accustomed to playing wide in a 4–3–3. Henry played that role during France’s victorious 1998 World Cup campaign on home soil; it was a natural fit for a player blessed with tremendous speed but who didn’t thrive on crosses. His brief, half-season spell with Juventus was peculiar – Juve didn’t play with wide forwards and sometimes used a 3–5–2 system. Henry had chances up front but was also forced to fulfil a wing-back role on occasion, effectively becoming a full-back when his team weren’t in possession. This was clearly a complete waste of his talents, although Henry bristles at suggestions that his period in Serie A was a failure – insisting, with some justification, that he played perfectly well and simply recognised that a move to Arsenal was best for his career.

  In Arsenal’s 4–4–2 Henry had two potential roles: left-midfield or up front, and it’s often forgotten that he initially played the former more than the latter. In the first 15 league games of 1999/2000 he was deployed on the left flank five times, up front only three times and was omitted from the starting XI on seven occasions. In fact he was Wenger’s fourth-choice centre-forward during this period, with Dennis Bergkamp starting 12 times up front, Nwankwo Kanu ten times and Davor Šuker five times. Henry was forced to bide his time, and while there’s little doubt that Wenger had high expectations, Henry’s conversion into a centre-forward wasn’t a fait accompli. When Marc Overmars returned to full fitness and re-took his left-wing slot, things fell into place with Henry moving up front, and he, crucially, credits Wenger for ‘giving me the belief that I could play where I always played before’, rather than for moving him to an entirely new position.

  Henry opened his Premi
er League account in September 1999 with the only goal as a substitute against Southampton, but it wasn’t until late November, when he struck twice against Derby (to turn a 0–1 into a 2–1, with both goals assisted by Overmars), that he showed the goalscoring potential that would eventually make him Arsenal’s all-time top goalscorer. From then on he exploded; after a solitary goal in his first eight league appearances, Henry then hit 16 in his subsequent 19 – only once starting on the wing during that spell, and even then remaining there for only 45 minutes before shifting up front. Henry was now a forward.

  He was, however, an unorthodox forward. His history as a wide-left player was obvious throughout his Arsenal career because he consistently took up positions on the outside of opposition right-backs before cutting inside and bending the ball into the far corner with his right foot. This became Henry’s trademark and owed much to constant work on the training ground as a teenager, repeating the same exercise again and again: receiving the ball near the touchline, cutting inside past a mannequin then shooting inside the far post. When he netted a trademark strike in a 2006 World Cup qualifier away at Ireland, he dedicated the goal to his youth-team coach at Monaco, Claude Puel – who would later take charge of Southampton – because Puel had encouraged him to work on that finish every day after training. ‘I wasn’t born with a gift for goals,’ Henry said in his later years. ‘I was quick. I had to have ten chances to convert one into a goal – but at the same time, I kept creating these chances. Then I told myself: “You won’t have these chances all the time. You must stick them into the net.”’

  Henry’s positioning made life difficult for opponents. Ferguson admitted that when United faced Arsenal, he instructed his right-back – usually Gary Neville – to remain in position at all times. Henry took inspiration from three players: initially George Weah, who had also worked with Wenger at Monaco, but also Romario and Ronaldo. These three, said Henry, ‘reinvented the centre-forward position, they were the first to drop from the box to pick up the ball in midfield, switch to the flanks, attract and disorientate the central defenders with their runs, their accelerations, their dribbling’.

  But Henry arguably took things further; that trio were highly mobile but fundamentally were number 9s. Henry didn’t feel like a striker at all, and with Bergkamp dropping into his usual positions between the lines, opposition centre-backs found themselves without anyone to mark. Playing with a false nine became fashionable a few years later, but Arsenal were effectively playing a strikerless formation at this stage, fielding only a number 10 and a left-sided attacker. Therefore, while Ferguson had made a very deliberate shift to a one-striker system from a basic 4–4–2, Arsenal had subtly shifted to a no-striker system within a basic 4–4–2.

  Even though Henry was able to outscore Van Nistelrooy, Arsenal’s goals arrived from a variety of sources. Freddie Ljungberg hit 12 goals from just 25 appearances in Arsenal’s title-winning campaign of 2001/02, while on the opposite flank Robert Pirès – who won the FWA Player of the Year that season despite missing the last couple of months with a serious knee injury – recovered to hit exactly 14 goals in three consecutive seasons from 2002/03 to 2004/05, a sensational return from a wide midfielder. There was often a role reversal: the forwards were creative, the wide midfielders were goalscorers.

  While Bergkamp and Henry’s partnership is remembered fondly – and they were unquestionably two brilliant forwards on the same wavelength – Arsenal’s peculiar system meant Henry’s best relationship was with Pirès, playing lightning-quick one-twos to escape defenders down the left, while Bergkamp combined best with Ljungberg, whose darting runs met the Dutchman’s through-balls. ‘The most beautiful thing is making the pass when you are in a position to score yourself,’ Henry said. ‘You know you’re good enough to score but you give the ball. You share. And you see that joy in the eyes of the other guy. You know, he knows, everyone knows.’ This couldn’t have been further from the outlook of Van Nistelrooy – Scholes once converted a tap-in from inside the six-yard box against Aston Villa and then felt compelled to apologise to the Dutchman, who had been waiting just behind, ready to pounce.

  When Wenger celebrated his 20th anniversary at Arsenal in 2016, Henry conducted a TV interview with his old manager, quizzing him about the system. ‘We played 4–4–2 with Dennis Bergkamp, who was a striker, but when he played with you it became a little bit of a 4–2–3–1,’ said Wenger. ‘As well, at the time we had players like Freddie Ljungberg, who could make runs from deep, so on occasions it was like playing with two or three strikers.’ The shift away from two-striker formations didn’t mean the lone striker should dominate goalscoring; it meant goals had to come from a variety of sources.

  Ferguson became increasingly aware United came up short in this department, and at the start of Van Nistelrooy’s second campaign was surprisingly critical of the Dutchman in public. ‘Sometimes I think Ruud’s a bit too selfish,’ Ferguson told the media. ‘Obviously he wouldn’t have scored 36 goals last season if he hasn’t been a wee bit selfish, but there are times when he could release the ball better and I’ve told him that. Ruud thinks that if he is not scoring then he is not contributing, and I have spoken to him about that. And when he doesn’t score he comes off angry with himself and he gets himself down. Ruud’s still only young, and if he can add these things to his game then it will turn him into a truly great player.’

  That campaign saw Van Nistelrooy win both the title and the Golden Boot playing up front alone ahead of Scholes, who embraced his more advanced position and enjoyed his best-ever goalscoring return, although Van Nistelrooy saw him as a ‘provider’ who enabled him to concentrate on banging in the goals. It was difficult to argue with Van Nistelrooy’s performances that season, although he never stopped worrying about his lack of all-round ability. ‘If I look at [former Germany striker] Gerd Müller, he was only a goalscorer – I didn’t like that, although he scored so many goals,’ Van Nistelrooy said in late 2003. ‘I’ve always tried to be more complete. My ambition is to combine the best of number 9 and number 10, as a striker who is also a team player and creator.’

  But aside from his literal shirt number there were few signs of a number 10 in Van Nistelrooy’s game. He averaged fewer than three league assists a season during his five years in English football, whereas Henry averaged over ten. It increasingly appeared that United were simply too predictable with the Dutchman up front, which was the complete opposite of Ferguson’s intention when switching to a 4–5–1, and he later admitted that ‘at first I believed Ruud’s range of attributes was wider than it turned out to be.’ Van Nistelrooy was more like a 1990s striker in the manner of Robbie Fowler or Andy Cole – a pure poacher – whereas in the new millennium managers demanded a broader range of attributes.

  It’s worth remembering, however, that while Henry’s legacy has certainly stood the test of time, many pundits during this period thought Van Nistelrooy the better striker. Centre-forwards were still considered in traditional terms, and Van Nistelrooy’s superior ability in the air was often cited as the attribute that made him the more potent goal threat. Alan Smith, the former Arsenal striker turned Telegraph journalist, wrote that ‘in terms of all-round ability, the Dutchman might narrowly pip it,’ which seems crazy in hindsight, in a world where passing ability has become so revered. But Henry’s lack of headed goals was thought to be a major flaw, and it was considered outrageous that he regularly took corners rather than waiting in the middle to convert them, as well as allowing teammates to take penalties, particularly when he’d been the player fouled.

  Van Nistelrooy, having grown accustomed to being the main man at Manchester United, became frustrated when Ferguson signed attackers who challenged his status. In 2003 Ferguson sold David Beckham, the wide midfielder who provided the type of cross Van Nistelrooy demanded, and replaced him with Cristiano Ronaldo, an individualist who frustrated the Dutchman with his reluctance to cross. A year later Wayne Rooney joined – and United started to look better wi
thout Van Nistelrooy. He started 2004/05 slowly, scoring just once from open play in nine matches, in addition to three penalties. Then, when the Dutchman was out injured from the end of November until mid-February, United produced their best run of the campaign, winning 32 points from a possible 36, including impressive away wins at Liverpool and Arsenal. They were now based around Rooney and Ronaldo.

  Clashes with these two proved decisive in Van Nistelrooy’s downfall at United. He never worked particularly well with Rooney, who was notably critical of Van Nistelrooy after his departure. ‘I think he knows the style of football we’re playing isn’t suited to him,’ Rooney said. ‘He’s still an amazing goalscorer, but the players that the manager has brought in like Ronaldo, Louis [Saha] and myself are more geared to playing quick, counter-attacking football. We play with pace, Ruud likes to slow the play down … I’ve had the feeling that he’s been unhappy since the minute I signed for United … I get on with Ruud, but I don’t think he and Ronnie are the best of pals. There’s been one or two arguments on the training ground and Ruud’s become dead annoyed when Ronnie hasn’t released the ball as quickly as he’d like.’ This became a common complaint, with Van Nistelrooy openly protesting that he couldn’t play with Ronaldo because the winger held onto the ball for too long and never crossed – which, in fairness, was a legitimate complaint at that stage.

  But the bust-up became serious. Van Nistelrooy constantly complained about Ronaldo to United’s Portuguese assistant manager Carlos Queiroz, complaints that fell on deaf ears because, in part, Queiroz was always likely to protect his young compatriot. This frustrated Van Nistelrooy even more, and resulted in an regrettable training-ground incident after Van Nistelrooy fouled Ronaldo. When the winger typically made the most of the challenge, Van Nistelrooy shouted at him, ‘What are you going to do, complain to your daddy?’ He was sarcastically referring to Queiroz, but Ronaldo’s actual father had recently died after a long struggle with alcoholism. He was understandably upset.