Fergie's obsession with picking old players in midfield

Maybe I'm doing it wrong and should greet 3 points at Anfield with a chorus of "Oh noes".

I'd start a thread pointing out how shit we are but it seems someone has beaten me to it.
 
Its one of those games where, when the dust settles, all that really matter is the result.

3 points that could win us the title. I'd rather play badly and win than the alternative, but looking ahead they need to find a solution to why the team aren't playing well. IMO its not the personnel in midfield, its that we need an extra body in there to help us control games.
 
Agree with what noodle is saying here. We have tried the same old experienced line up every time we go to Anfield. We've got dominated every game too. You'd think we'd learn and try something different.

Experience didnt win us the game yesterday. 2 moments of brilliance and a stupid red did.
 
I think Giggs gets picked against teams that play pressing football because he has the ability to keep possession when pressed (he's definitley not Scott Parker and other English triers in midfield) because despite his age he is still better on the ball than alot of the players in the Premier League.

With Scholes, he is clearly our best midfielder. We've tried numerous times to replace Scholes and lessen his importance (ironically older Giggs was the one to do so in the 2010-2011 season) but nobody younger has done so. If Anderson, Cleverley, Powell or whomever can do for us consistently what Scholes does, I'm sure Sir Alex would gleefully choose them over Scholes, like he chose Brown, O' Shea and Rafael over Gary Neville.
 
I don't think Scholes and Giggs should ever be on the pitch at the same time. They have both lost a step and that shows. It's simply about their defensive capabilities, closing down space, etc.

When you've to two geezers (who are younger than me) running around, you're just not going to control things against decent teams.
 
I think it can work in some cases but it largely depends on the player.

With Giggs, I largely agree with you. He's too wasteful on the ball. When he was producing the goods it was a compromise we could take, but he hasn't been overly productive lately and it's just costly.

Scholes is more capable of playing in midfield for us. Still though, you make a good point about how he's not as capable now considering he's aged. His passing is great, but when teams press his game is deemed redundant to a certain extent. Yesterday he got away with it because of the sending off, but on plenty of other days he doesn't and won't.

We should certainly be shifting towards giving more time to the younger players looking for a midfield place, especially for players like Anderson and Cleverley who are reaching that make or break stage in their career.
 
AlwaysRedwood said:
I don't think Scholes and Giggs should ever be on the pitch at the same time. They have both lost a step and that shows. It's simply about their defensive capabilities, closing down space, etc.

When you've to two geezers (who are younger than me) running around, you're just not going to control things against decent teams.
Click to expand...

This. It really is that simple.

That Fergie can't see this blows my mind. Class is great and all, but after 60 minutes that class becomes less useful than actual energy and movement.
 
Scholes is a better cm then all the rest.
 
When we play against a pressing teams Scholes drops too deep and then relies on his excellent long pass out to the wing cutting down any play through the middle.
 
I think when Scholes play the team plays to him, defers to him. Whether thats the best way for the team to be setup or play against opposition that presses is upto debate.
 
Neither Giggs nor Scholes should be starters. Impact subs is fine but they should be luxuries not necessities (and not every damn match)

Our other midfielders (Powell, Cleverley, Anderson) need to be given a chance if fit and a run. If they arent good enough, well then you give youth a chance. Or you buy somebody who is.

Having to rely on Scholes to keep possession or Giggs to find a killer ball from his 15 or so attempts in which the other 14 are needlessly given away is not doing our team any favours.
 
As post 8 said, playing at Anfield is a special case. The front 4 were poor which made the midfield look bad, as well as vice versa. Scholes is still our best midfielder, for certain games.
The thing about midfield is getting the right combination, which IMO Fergie has not done yet, perhaps bacause of injuries. Overall, the unit comes across as controlled, but too slow and passive against a team like Liverpool. Jones would have been quite tasty against Shelvey and co yesterday.
 
I just wish we had a fit Hargreaves still around. He'd have been fantastic.

I said last season that Giggs should retire, still wish he had. At this point he's only tainting his stellar reputation.
 
I think Scholesy ability to compete is beyond Giggsy's now. Why Fergie thinks Giggsy can play a few more years is beyond me. He really needs to get involved in the coaching side of things imo because he isn't as effective as Scholesy in CM and doesn't have the pace for wing anymore.

If you play Scholesy in a 3 with either Carrick/Fletcher/Ando with limited defensive responsibilities he would still thrive.
 
Pointless to debate this, we all feel the same way (that we're relying too much on them), but at the same time we all know it won't change anytime soon unless a team without those 2 in the fold starts winning 4-0, 5-0 or 6-0 matches. (and even then I wouldn't put my money on Fergie starting to "drop" them in favour of players who actually have enough in their legs to last an entire match.
 
I was talking to my old man about this yesterday. There's a case for Scholes, but absolutely none for Giggs, especially in a game like yesterday's when we know we're going to be attacked the full 90.

Giggs was a ghost out there yesterday and sure he had his moments, he always will, but it was at such a huge cost to controlling the game. Carrick isn't mobile enough to cover Giggs' lack of defensive capabilities, and until Fletcher gets well, if ever, that's the type of game we're going to get punished in.

Imagine if Liverpool's team wasn't a u-21 team, imagine that kind of domination against a City or in the CL against a Real Madrid, we'd of been smashed 5-0.

We don't need experience in those kinds of games, we need energy and there was absolutely none in the middle of the park yesterday. And in the CL it'll be like last year all over again if we are putting out that formation.

I think Giggs is a 10 minute player at the end of a game. And Scholes can still be a 90'er, just not every game.
 
I think Fergie gave the start to Giggs because we all know Giggs is gone after this season and after many admirable battles against Liverpool, Fergie wanted Giggs to have one last taste. I think in Fergie's mind, this season is a singsong tour for Giggs.
 
davisjw said:
I think Fergie gave the start to Giggs because we all know Giggs is gone after this season and after many admirable battles against Liverpool, Fergie wanted Giggs to have one last taste. I think in Fergie's mind, this season is a singsong tour for Giggs.
Click to expand...

Doesn't really add up with what Fergie has said regarding Giggs also if that was the case there's no reason he couldn't come on after 60 mins or so. Think it's more Fergie wanting his experience as with City last year.
 
davisjw said:
I think Fergie gave the start to Giggs because we all know Giggs is gone after this season and after many admirable battles against Liverpool, Fergie wanted Giggs to have one last taste. I think in Fergie's mind, this season is a singsong tour for Giggs.
Click to expand...

Don't believe that for a minute. As much as Fergie knows what a great job Giggs has done, he's not one to mindlessly bow down to sentimentality. If Giggs wasn't good enough in his opinion to play in a game like yesterday, then he wouldn't have risked us getting three points by starting him, especially when he knows how little the league can be decided by and how crucial any game can turn out to be when looked back on.
 
davisjw said:
I think Fergie gave the start to Giggs because we all know Giggs is gone after this season and after many admirable battles against Liverpool, Fergie wanted Giggs to have one last taste. I think in Fergie's mind, this season is a singsong tour for Giggs.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right because we will never sign a top midfielder whilst he is still on the payroll.
 
devilish said:
Ok scholes is our best amc. Happy now?
Click to expand...

Just making a point that it's high time we get away from this idea that Scholes is still our best midfielder. He was our best midfielder. Now that he's gotten old, he isn't anymore.

He's still our most talented midfielder, but that's a different thing entirely. He'll still be talented when he's 55.
 
I guess the real problem is that there is no clear best partner for Carrick in the middle, Scholes, Clev, Giggs and Ando all have their drawbacks. From what we've seen in recent times though I think Giggs should be quite low on the list for hard games. He doesn't seem to have the same impact in the middle as he did in the past and hasn't shown the range he did have. He was great when he would sit a bit deeper and dictate and then time some excellent runs. Now it seems he'll make a burst forward, the move won't come off and he won't get back quick enough.

So the trade off for me is really between Scholes and Clev. Scholes give you an unparalleled passing range, a more balanced/secure partnership with Carrick as although he's not the best tackler he does know what positions to get into. The trade off is energy and our midfield going too deep which allows other teams to push up higher making it tough for us. With Clev you get the energy and thrust through the middle but and although we've not seen it much as they've not played together, I think the partnership would be less balanced and Clev could inadvertently make it harder for us when we're of the ball for two reasons. Firstly he's not got that tactical knowledge of where he should go and to often follows the ball at the expense of a tactical position and secondly there is the potential that in his eagerness to break forward he goes too early and doesn't let the attack get properly started, this is shown best in the Southampton game.

I still think though that we need to persist with Clev and Carrick. He's only going to get better through experience. Scholes and Giggs are great to have and whilst in some games they can make the difference, particularly Scholes, I think they should be more insurance than anything. It's still early days and we don't know how much Fergie will play them over the likes of clev/ando when they're all fit but in general I hope we get as much Carrick and Clev/Ando as we can and either see if the latter two don't push on in which case we can turn to Scholes and Giggs or if they do step up then we can still use Giggs and Scholes to freshen it up and as leaders in the squad.
 
Scholes is a great sub to bring on as he is not under so much pressure physically against opposition tiring after the hour mark. And if the first 45/60 does not go well, like yesterday, he can change things and bring some control, as he usually does. So maybe there is no need to start him, but instead make him a permanent supersub.
 
This thread is abit OTT for me, at least some of the statements in it.

Firstly, I can't believe anyone has yesterday down as our worst performance at anfield. Anyone catch the 4-0 in 90, or the 3-1 or 2-0 in 2001. The defensive performance alone put it above plenty of other performances we have put in there recently IMO. Christ, I reckon O'Shea's last minute winner was a poorer performance than yesterday.

I also think LFC, as poor as they may look in the league table, are being hugely under-estimated on here. Not only is this their biggest game of the season, it also comes after the 23 year long Hillsborough campaign has just concluded and their crowd and the occasion would have galvanised them. Personally I only think they were the better side UNTIL the sending off and to be honest, I don't find that highly surprising given the occasion, our recent record there and them having everything to prove. After the sending off I never thought we were in danger of losing the match and was highly confident we would win. Other than Gerrard's goal in the second half I can't recall any notable incident they created. Their also the best side we have played so far this season and will show that by the end of the year.

Now, I was against playing Giggs over Cleverley yesterday but after Scholes played two in two games, he was always going to be rested for the game at Anfield and our track record with Scholes at Anfield has not been good for years. Anderson had very little game time, so it was a straight choice between Clev and Giggs, and Giggs got the selection.

Furthermore, the entire team did not play well yesterday(other than the back four) and the wingers and the attack deserve as much scrutiny as the centre midfield. THe problem at the moment is not just with the central players, it's collectively as a whole, the entire team is not playing well. If anything, the solidity and individual performance of the back four yesterday was progress and a step towards a solid base, which we need.

I'm also not sure after effectively the majority of the forum wanting United to sign and play an attacking midfielder like Kagawa, plenty wanting this over the inclusion of Rooney, why this is generating so much criticism. Kagawa's now analysed as a support striker when, for me, he's playing as the attacking midfielder as part of a midfield three that plenty wanted. For me, he is part of our central midfield options and part of Carrick and Giggs. He's playing the role different to Rooney and Welbeck did for most of last season, that's evident to see.

Kagawa's going take some time to fit in with our style of play, brand of football and individual players. This is something which is struggling at the moment and has not been helped by Valencia and Nani being seriously out of form for the most part. Valencia barely had an impact yesterday(pen aside) and after defending Nani for his Gala performance, he was incredibily frustrating and wasteful yesterday. All of this combined is not giving RVP much to work with and also the lack of cohesion is effecting the entire team. You can't place all of this on the centre of the park every time.

This side is going to need a good 15-20 games to be properly judged. There's too things that need to be settle to expect instant success. We have a host of players returning from injury and fitness in defence and midfield, we are playing a slightly different type of play and we have new players familiarising themselves in attack. Yesterday was the first time all season our back four looked collectively strong lead by Rio and it's only a matter of time before the attack starts to click more effectively, the talent is to good for that. If this is the case and the midfield is the problem, then fine, but it's way to premature to go down that road already and some of the opinions reflect this. People writing off Clev and Carrick as a pairing when they have to my memory played once together is lunacy. Anderson and Carrick have always looked a reasonably balanced pairing to me as well.

The likes of Clev and Anderson have hardly had a chance and Fletcher not even had a proper run of games yet. On top of Vidic slowly feeling his way back in, RVP and Kagawa getting used to the club, Rooney injured early season and a host of defenders slowly coming back from minor injuries, it's not surprising we are hardly firing on all cyclinders, is it?

All ready we have two of our toughest away games out of the way and having managed to win five consecutive games, clawed ahead of City early on(which is key) and now have a basis to go on and improve. Personally I reckon we will be fine and soon will look strong in all areas. Most confident I have been in the side since 08/09. Only thing I can't get my head round, is the keeper rotation after DDG's form last season.
 
noodlehair said:
Just making a point that it's high time we get away from this idea that Scholes is still our best midfielder. He was our best midfielder. Now that he's gotten old, he isn't anymore.

He's still our most talented midfielder, but that's a different thing entirely. He'll still be talented when he's 55.
Click to expand...

Hes better then carrick. The only 2 differences are

A) he plays in a different role
B) scholes has decent cover, carrick is covered by someone who is still recovering from a career threatening sickness and a defender.

If fletch was 100 % fit and on form i would have said scholes.

Honestly im sick of saf fanfare in mentioning kids only to see them relegated on the bench once we start playing the real football. Scholes wont last forever and old players performances tend to nosedive quickly when their time is up (ex gaz and baresi). If we dont have any quality successor for scholes then maybe its time to stop bringindg in strikers and invest in a quality cm.
 
If you're good enough, you's old enough. (Class of 92)
If you're still good enough, you're young enough (Class of 92 in 2012)
 
devilish said:
Hes better then carrick. The only 2 differences are

A) he plays in a different role
B) scholes has decent cover, carrick is covered by someone who is still recovering from a career threatening sickness and a defender.

If fletch was 100 % fit and on form i would have said scholes.

Honestly im sick of saf fanfare in mentioning kids only to see them relegated on the bench once we start playing the real football. Scholes wont last forever and old players performances tend to nosedive quickly when their time is up (ex gaz and baresi). If we dont have any quality successor for scholes then maybe its time to stop bringindg in strikers and invest in a quality cm.
Click to expand...

Yeah but scholes is able to play the way he does because he has someone like carrick covering him, carrick allows us to get the best out of scholes, scholes and in general all our midfielders can't give carrick that same platform. If carrick had a partner who knew how to play in a midfield 2 and had the athleticism to cover ground it would allow carrick to have a far greater influence on games.
 
Ash_G said:
Yeah but scholes is able to play the way he does because he has someone like carrick covering him, carrick allows us to get the best out of scholes, scholes and in general all our midfielders can't give carrick that same platform. If carrick had a partner who knew how to play in a midfield 2 and had the athleticism to cover ground it would allow carrick to have a far greater influence on games.
Click to expand...

Every amc needs a quality dmc behind him period. Zidane in his prime had the likes of davids and dechamps, scholes had the likes of keane, fletch, butt and now carrick. Football is a teams game.

In my opinion we may have enough talent to do well on all fronts with a 3 cm midfield. However if we insist on a 2 cm midfield then we have to spend
 
I think Pogba/Carrick combo would've been good, but unfortunately the idiot decided it would better playing for Juve.
 
devilish said:
Every amc needs a quality dmc behind him period. Zidane in his prime had the likes of davids and dechamps, scholes had the likes of keane, fletch, butt and now carrick. Football is a teams game.

In my opinion we may have enough talent to do well on all fronts with a 3 cm midfield. However if we insist on a 2 cm midfield then we have to spend
Click to expand...

Yeah but scholes isn't an am/c if he is he's the deepest one around. Don't get me wrong I think scholes has a big part to play but because he has to play so deep and can't cover his partner he leaves problem and if carrick did have a partner who was in his prime an knew centre mid he could do more.

I don't think we necessarily have to go to a 3 although kagawa playing a bit deeper would help, I expect in general that clev will get more games and has just been reset following the Olympics.
 
Varun_Utd said:
Experience didnt win us the game yesterday. 2 moments of brilliance and a stupid red did.
Click to expand...

Neither coming from a player with the big game experience either. So that destroys the whole point of "experience wins you games". Ferguson has problems letting go of his old guard imo, I know Scholes coming back helped us last season but all it seems to have done is delayed the much needed CM signing.

Considering our wingers are out of form and we have Welbeck and Hernandez eager for games, I still find it a mystery why we aren't trying 4-3-3:

---Clev-Carrick-Ando---
-Kagawa-RVP-Welbeck-

The above would imo work very well, as Carrick could sit a little deeper and screen while Clev/Ando would be the engine in midfield. Once Rooney returns from injury I could see him playing ahead of Welbeck in that lineup.
 
Varun_Utd said:
Agree with what noodle is saying here. We have tried the same old experienced line up every time we go to Anfield. We've got dominated every game too. You'd think we'd learn and try something different.

Experience didnt win us the game yesterday. 2 moments of brilliance and a stupid red did.
Click to expand...

I don't think you could label any of Halsey's calls as "stupid" ... on first showing (and he only gets one viewing), you can see why he made every call he made
 
You must log in or register to reply here.