And that is something that, imho, we didn't do well. We never really took control of the game and even after Van Persie's penalty, Liverpool were threatening and Kelly actually had a good chance to equalise but headed just wide. We didn't even keep the ball very well...
Fergie's obsession with picking old players in midfield
- Thread starter noodlehair
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
And that is something that, imho, we didn't do well. We never really took control of the game and even after Van Persie's penalty, Liverpool were threatening and Kelly actually had a good chance to equalise but headed just wide. We didn't even keep the ball very well...
Last week against Wigan.
Last season Liverpool at home, Sunderland, Man City and Norwich away. And it would presumably have been more if Scholes hadn't retired until January.
In a comfortable 4-0 win. Shocking decision.
So, once this season then. In a game we won comfortably. Clearly it is an issue.
It is a myth, we were left woefully exposed and teams created numerous chances against us.
Well to be fair we did play very good football with them together, but yes, it left us too exposed defensively as well.
Where as we've looked really solid defensively this season?
Did I say otherwise?
Well, have we?
I think we've been as crap defensively this season as at the start of last, personally. We've also conceded more goals than we did at the start of last season.
I'm just not buying any of thse arguments to justify the way we're setting up and playing. They're all based on folly, inaccuracy, and completely ignoring Carrick's ability to still exist when Scholes and Giggs aren't on the pitch.
I think we've been as crap defensively this season as at the start of last, personally. We've also conceded more goals than we did at the start of last season.
I'm just not buying any of thse arguments to justify the way we're setting up and playing. They're all based on folly, inaccuracy, and completely ignoring Carrick's ability to still exist when Scholes and Giggs aren't on the pitch.
Sack SAF sell Giggs... got it.
Of course we have, I've probably said it myself a few times.
I don't get what you're saying. Of course we have defended better or of course we have defended just as badly?
If it's the former then I disagree. We've been quite poor defensively so far this season...and injury ridden. Much the same as at the start of last season.
Also, not playing Scholes or Giggs doesn't mean Carrick magically disappears. Scholes and Giggs are no better defensively than Anderson or Cleverley anyway, so I find that argument bizarre. See Giggs yesterday...he couldn't even do the defensive side of his game properly when he was already sitting on the edge of his own box most of the time. It's not in his make up.
Carrick hasn't been given a chance alongside Cleverley yet (I think it's been literally 1 game), and him and Anderson have looked a very good pairing in the past.
The latter of course, we've defended just as badly whilst not looking half as good on the ball.
Why are you pointing out the rest to me over and over though? I'm not arguing against it.
Why are you pointing out the rest to me over and over though? I'm not arguing against it.
Stop arguing with me!
I don't get that at all, they've only been played together a handful of times. There is no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be able to work as a midfield two so I don't see why we shouldn't be trying it more often. If they can gel they would be my choice for a midfield two in every game with Kagawa in front of them. Either way, Cleverley certainly couldn't have been any worse than Giggs was yesterday.
You reckon there might be a link here, or is it all down to playing pensioners in midfield?
Well yes, there is obviously a link, and I think you're deliberately missing the point to try and be a sarcastic smarty arse.
You reckon there might have been a link there this time last season, or was it all down to not having pensioners in midfield?
Scholes/Giggs being the default option in tough games says that Fergie doesn't have confidence in Anderson/Cleverley - one in his sixth year at the club, and the other who's recently become an England regular.
But if he doesn't trust them now, he didn't trust them two months ago, so why didn't he buy a player he could trust? It's impossible to believe we couldn't have bought a midfielder in the last two years who'd do a better job at Anfield than Ryan Giggs!
But if he doesn't trust them now, he didn't trust them two months ago, so why didn't he buy a player he could trust? It's impossible to believe we couldn't have bought a midfielder in the last two years who'd do a better job at Anfield than Ryan Giggs!
I agree with whatever noodle has said in this thread.
I think at the moment the issue you have is scholes and carrick give us a more solid platform to play from, giving better protection to the defence and are more likely to use the wide players best. The downside imwhich is mostly down to scholes is that they end up too deep allowing the other team to push up on us, increasing the pressure and inhibiting central attacks. Scholes can't be left to hold the midfield leaving us vulnerable if carrick does break forward.
Carrick and giggs/clev has the issue that the midfield because a disjointed. Giggs and clev can offer lots in the final third but often in their eagerness to attack they leave their partner exposed and inhibit our ability to pass the ball out when under pressure and also leave spaces for the opposition to attack as carrick can't cover the whole midfield. With the width we play with this can be an issue. On the plus side they are more dynamic, allow the midfield to push higher and link up better centrally. I realise we haven't seen clev and carrick much but from my observations of him I think he and giggs have similar shortfalls in the middle.
Getting the balance betwern these is the main issue. Ando's main problem is concentration and stamina and may in some ways be the best balance in partners for carrick other than fletcher if he gets back to the player be was.
Personally I would hope we give carrick and clev a run. If we have hopes of clev stepping in to scholes role he'll only develop with games. He's not had a huge amount of games in the middle so he lacks experience there. I think we can afford to give them a run of games together to see if he can refine his game.
Carrick and giggs/clev has the issue that the midfield because a disjointed. Giggs and clev can offer lots in the final third but often in their eagerness to attack they leave their partner exposed and inhibit our ability to pass the ball out when under pressure and also leave spaces for the opposition to attack as carrick can't cover the whole midfield. With the width we play with this can be an issue. On the plus side they are more dynamic, allow the midfield to push higher and link up better centrally. I realise we haven't seen clev and carrick much but from my observations of him I think he and giggs have similar shortfalls in the middle.
Getting the balance betwern these is the main issue. Ando's main problem is concentration and stamina and may in some ways be the best balance in partners for carrick other than fletcher if he gets back to the player be was.
Personally I would hope we give carrick and clev a run. If we have hopes of clev stepping in to scholes role he'll only develop with games. He's not had a huge amount of games in the middle so he lacks experience there. I think we can afford to give them a run of games together to see if he can refine his game.
We should be more grateful that we have players with the experience of Giggs and Scholes, who have done it all and won it all, to fall back on in a big game against Liverpool. Ferguson was right, their experience can be invaluable in certain situations, and the only disappointment is that it isn't valued or acknowledged enough.
We should take as much enjoyment out of seeing these players play for us as we can, we'll miss their input when they're gone.
We should take as much enjoyment out of seeing these players play for us as we can, we'll miss their input when they're gone.
He's wrong though, the experience of Giggs, Scholes and Carrick didn't win it for us. We were outplayed by ten men, and won through a wrongly-given penalty, and an excellent goal by a 22-year-old. The defence was very good, in no small part due to Ferdinand's experience, but that's not who SAF singled out.
As for just being grateful, there's no-one on here loves Giggs and Scholes more than me. But it's a message-board, not a shrine.
But I suppose that's the point "to fall back on". Sometimes as much as I love scholes and giggs it can feel that we turn to them for big games purely because they have experience and not necessarily whether that offsets the drawbacks from their game. Giggs for example was drafted in against city in a massive game last year to play left wing, a role fergie has admitted he can't play at the top anymore and yet he came in over young and Valencia. None of those guys are really inexperienced and both could offer more to the team as a whole.
I suppose the other side is also that whilst experience can be the difference it can also be countered by youthful enthusiasm. Te likes of clev and ando won't have the experience of a giggs or scholes but they have an energy that they don't and in the case of say clev who hasn't played many really big games and is trying to establish himself they have a desire to make an impression.
It's tough to get that balance. I thought he got it wrong against city but not necessarily wrong against Liverpool. We'll have to see what happens in other big games but at the end of the day the likes of clev won't get the experience of the big games unless they play them.
I suppose the other side is also that whilst experience can be the difference it can also be countered by youthful enthusiasm. Te likes of clev and ando won't have the experience of a giggs or scholes but they have an energy that they don't and in the case of say clev who hasn't played many really big games and is trying to establish himself they have a desire to make an impression.
It's tough to get that balance. I thought he got it wrong against city but not necessarily wrong against Liverpool. We'll have to see what happens in other big games but at the end of the day the likes of clev won't get the experience of the big games unless they play them.
I thought you'd have more sense. Experience isn't always about how you play, and certainly not individually, it's about the know-how to hold your nerve in a difficult situation. We were outplayed, Ferguson said as much himself, and it's in those situations that experience can help a team hold on for a result they didn't deserve. Which happened yesterday.
The penalty wasn't wrongly given either.
And as for it being a message board, not a shrine, did I say we should be worshipping at the alter of Giggs and Scholes? We certainly shouldn't be giving them the stick that we do at times in here. They deserve some fecking respect for what they've given this club.
I don't think anyone on here's gives Giggs, and especially Scholes "stick", but they're still Utd players and as such their performances for us are allowed to be judged. I think if they weren't such legends at the club then they'd get far, far, FAR more stick on these boards than they do now.
And they get it - from me at any rate.
Holding our nerve would have involved experienced players putting their foot on the ball, changing the tempo, doing something to change things. We were like a team of ghosts yesterday, we barely seemed to be there. Winning was nothing to do with holding our nerve, it was to do with playing ten men who got knackered after running rings round us, and being given a soft goal.
If that 'penalty' had been given against us, every single Caftard would be (rightly) up in arms.
I think they're underappreciated at times. And I genuinely believe their experience in seeing out the game yesterday was rightfully acknowledged by Fergie and is being underdone in here.
I rate Anderson, and think he still has a future here, but would you trust him to hold his nerve in a tight match in a volatile atmosphere like yesterday over the 3 mentioned? Has Cleverley ever played in that kind of game and shown he has the bottle to hold on?
Like most penalties given against us then? It was a penalty, unless a hand in the back and contact with the foot, without getting the ball, isn't a penalty these days. But that's off topic entirely.
Run rings round us? Tad overboard there mate, no?
They were the better side, I agree, and winning a game when you haven't played well is what good, experienced teams and players do. That's what we are and that's what we have.
Scholes still has a huge role at the club and I thought he played well. You might as well keep utilising what you've got. On the other hand I don't feel there is much of a place for Giggs any more, which hurts to say because he used to be my favourite footballer as a kid (mainly because he's left footed like me) and because well, he's Giggs.
Yesterday as I've talked about in other threads we I can understand why Fergie felt we needed the experience of Scholes and Giggs. I think as the season goes on though we will see more of Anderson and Cleverly, this has to be the season when they take over.
If Fergie didn't rate them then I can't see how we wouldn't have signed a Dembele.
If Fergie didn't rate them then I can't see how we wouldn't have signed a Dembele.
I've never seen a worse performance from us at Anfield, and that's despite a fair few terrible ones. Aside from the goalie and defenders, it was utterly spineless and pathetic. I just cannot see how anyone can see it as the kind of game where we dug deep and pulled it out the bag. I've seen loads of those performances, often inspired by Scholes and Giggs. This wasn't one, we gave nothing. All that happened is we got lucky (and the defence played well).
Underappreciate? Seriously? They're worshipped to death on here and constantly praised for how great they are/were both as players and servants to this club, but the fact is that they are "pensioners" now in terms of footballers and are naturally going to not play as well and therefore get pointed out on that. I don't think it's unreasonable that posters (including myself) would like to see our talented youngsters get game time ahead of them.
I said we should have started Scholes over Giggs yesterday (and rested him midweek in place of Cleverley), he still has a lot more to bring to the club, but Giggs was an absolute liability in midfield yesterday and I don't think it's humanely possible for Clev or Ando to have performed worse, and whether his experience proved pivotal towards our win when he was moved to the wings is debatable.
If this is the kind of rhetoric you're going to come out with there is little point trying to converse with you on it, to be honest. You come across as a right spoilt child there.
3 fecking points, grow up.
Actually he comes across as someone who watched us play throughout the 90 minutes.
I guess we're going to disagree on it then, since i'm not overly negative.
Neither is Plech, he's generally one of the most rational posters on the entire forum.
Worst performance he's ever seen at Anfield? That's rational these days then? If the rest of us are more irrational than that we're fecked.
I love them both. Scholes is my favourite ever player, but it gets to a point where you have to concede that a player might be getting a bit old, and needs extra protection and care in how they're used, if you want them to be able to make their experience (and ability) count during a game.
This point in time is probably before the player in question retires due to being old. At the very least, it certainly isn't any time AFTER the player has already retired themselves once due to being old.
Playing Scholes and Giggs in one game a week instead of two might mean they don't end up in wheelchairs by April of each year, but it doesn't mean they can suddenly showcase the mobility, sharpness, and fitness of a 25 year old in the games they do play. This seems to be strangely lost on us ever since Scholes came back. We keep putting one or the other next to Carrick and asking them to be the engine room for the entire team.
I dislike this myth. Good teams usually win games by being better than their opponent. That's what makes them good. Teams who win games despite playing poorly and being worse than their opponent usually just get found out over the course of a season.
Maybe it was the worst performance he has seen, in his opinion, no?
Given how crap the Liverpool team we were playing against is, and that they had ten men, it's not a big stretch.
Given how crap the Liverpool team we were playing against is, and that they had ten men, it's not a big stretch.
I still think Giggs has a role. It's just, that role isn't to be part of a two man midfield away to Liverpool. We have to be far more intelligent and less naive than that.
I'd agree it was the worst performance I've seen from us at Anfield...and generally we don't play well there. The best we can usually hope for is a gutsy battling performance where we grind out a result. That's a million miles from what we got yesterday. As I said, it was so bad that with 20 minutes to go, the Chelsea fans next to us were convinced United had pre-agreed not to try and win.
I'd say from memory, it was the worst I've ever seen us play and still win in any game. I've seen us play as badly before, but not without being on the end of an embarassing scoreline.
If anything that's quite worrying from Liverpool's point of view. They must be so fecking shite.