he look on Sir Alex Ferguson’s face was a curious mixture of disbelief, shock and amusement. “You can’t believe that scoreline,” he said. “First 45 minutes, we were outstanding. The sending off was a killer for us. And after that, we kept attacking. That’s the nature of Manchester United, fine. But it was crazy. Unbelievable.” And then, remarkably, he smiled. Because even though Manchester City had come to Old Trafford and dished out a 6-1 trouncing, Ferguson somehow sensed amid his disappointment that the fundamentals of his side would survive this single freak result. Of course, Ferguson had numerous advantages his successors in the job would not: a better squad, fewer challengers, the reputation and job security that allowed him to go about his work largely as he pleased. Nonetheless, it is a point worth noting: even a 6-1 humiliation at the hands of their closest rivals did not force Ferguson into amending his approach in big games. And so here we are, almost a decade on: the 185th Manchester derby, first against second in the Premier League, and yet has ever a game between the division’s top two felt so essentially inessential? Partly this is due to the state of the title race: City 14 points clear and already romping down the home straight, United more concerned with finishing in the top four than with genuinely chasing them down. Partly this is due to fatigue: minds and bodies dulled by fixture overload. But to a large extent it is because while the result is still in doubt, the pattern of the game probably is not. United’s indifferent record against the bigger teams in this season’s Premier League is well documented: seven games against the traditional Big Six have produced no wins and only one goal (although they did beat Liverpool 3-2 in the FA Cup). The last four have all ended goalless. And though there have been subtle variations in tactics and personnel, by and large their approach in these games has been remarkably uniform: a cautious, safety-first mentality with Scott McTominay and Fred as a double-pivot in midfield, an emphasis on shape and positional discipline over control of the ball, on sporadic breaks over structured attack. This is most evident in United’s possession in big games: 34% against Liverpool, 38% against Tottenham, 43% against Chelsea last Sunday. City, for their part, have not been averse to conservatism in these fixtures: the 0-0 at Old Trafford in December was a shocking spectacle. But over the course of the season they have displayed an ability to negotiate these games in more than one way. The 4-1 win at Anfield was a counterattacking masterclass completed with 44% of the ball. The two wins over Arsenal were high-tempo possession games. In this particular fixture, United’s impressive record (three wins in six under Ole Gunnar Solskjær) masks a longer-term trend. Notably, not since October 2015 – a full 15 meetings ago, when Louis van Gaal and Manuel Pellegrini were in the respective dugouts – have United enjoyed more than 50% possession in a game against City. In short: United’s instinctive caution against the bigger sides is not a recent phenomenon. It is beginning to define them. Yet it is hard not to see the roots of this season’s circumspection in the one occasion when they decided to take the handbrake off. Neither McTominay nor Fred started against Tottenham in the third game of the season, when Solskjær picked a cavalier starting XI with Paul Pogba behind a fluid front four. Tottenham won 6-1 and Solskjær has not dared to try the system in a big game since. “We can’t be as open as we were today,” Solskjær resolved afterwards. “That’s something I have to look at.” Ferguson’s United, by contrast, bounced back from their thrashing with their philosophy intact. Of course they would often play conservatively in big games, particularly in Europe. In the reverse fixture at the Etihad Stadium, he played Wayne Rooney as a lone striker and lost 1-0 in a game that probably cost United the title. But crucially he was still able to keep teams guessing, still able to send out attacking teams when the situation demanded, aware that the greatest edge a manager possesses is the element of surprise. Three months after their 6-1 humiliation in 2011, United went to Stamford Bridge and claimed a thrilling 3-3 draw after going 3-0 down in the first half. There was a gritty 2-1 win at the Emirates Stadium; a dominant possession-based 2-1 over Liverpool at Old Trafford. It helped, of course, that Ferguson’s United had the depth and quality to adapt. In many ways, Solskjær’s decision to batten down the hatches and play for low scores after the Tottenham game said more about what he really thinks of his squad than any number of cheery press conferences. There is a possibility, too, that Premier League teams have become more accustomed to their counterpunching style and reliance on Bruno Fernandes (whose output plummets against the big teams when you exclude penalty kicks). Solskjær believes the lack of fans at Old Trafford has also been a factor. The irony is that United’s strategy of avoiding defeat in big games may ultimately have cost them their best chance of the title in years. It is less than two months, after all, since they topped the table and raised hopes of a genuine title race. Converting just two or three of those draws into wins would have put an entirely different complexion on this season’s league; instead, the lack of any significant pressure on City has allowed them to pull effortlessly away. There is, perhaps, a tonal shift there, too: from the smiling optimism of Solskjær’s early months in the job to the sober, hard-headed pragmatism demanded now, exemplified in his reminder this week that fans had to be “realistic” and “responsible” in their expectation of new signings this summer. The rules of engagement have changed. Now it is City who do largely as they please, and United who sit tight and hope to limit the damage.