First you attack Ruud Van Nistelrooy on the pitch, and now you're sticking harpoons in old people.
Anderson
- Thread starter Kaos
- 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.
- Status
First you attack Ruud Van Nistelrooy on the pitch, and now you're sticking harpoons in old people.
non-sense he's controlled a difficult ball and used skill to open up our play. Basically turning a pass which would have compressed our play down that flank into an attack which opened up the entire field.
As for the high risk, great players take risks it's the way that they achieve greatness.
He played in the hole in a 4231 so he had less running to do than the two old boys. He was also up against a Chelsea CM of Mikel and Romeu which was complete pants until Ramires gave it some legs,.
'Almost single handed' is a falsehood IMO, Giggs and Fletcher were good too. He did cover a lot of ground though, seemed keen to make a huge impression, and he did.
I think he and the fitness team have a new plan in place to manage his fitness, with regards to injuries and being able to last the full 90. I predict a strong second half of the season from him.
Am I the only one that chuckles at that gif and thinks he didn't really mean it the way most fans think, got a bit lucky....
A good player is playing a simple first-time ball into the space for the runner not fecking about with a flick 5 yards into the air.
What do you think he was trying to do?
He played in the middle of a three. And if you watch the game again covered Ann immense amount if running.
You sound obsessed with the Spanish style of play, storey. A good player gets the job done no matter how. And I don't see what's wrong with a bit of flair. Not that I'm comparing, but you didn't enjoy watching Ronaldhinio and his bags of tricks?
rather than draw two players into him (creating space) before moving the ball on to a player in space with multiple options?
Football is a simple game - watch Messi or Xavi.
Poor first touch, shit player.
I kid obviously but it's a similar type of logic.
No, he didn't he was high up the pitch v the two CMs. It was 4231 possibly just a 433 with him at the top of the ^.
Ronaldhinio, till he decided to stop caring about football, was better than Xavi anyday. Besides, football is about entertainment for me, and if you can do the same thing whilst entertaining people it's even better.
As if Messi and Xavi don't do flicks at all.Remind me how Messi scored against Almunia again ? Maybe he should have just smacked it, keeping things simple and all
Both are players with outstanding flair. I don't quite understand your point?
That's the kind of stuff you try when you're 0-3 up, it's still indulgent.
They play very simply - no flicks and tricks for the most part.
Did you cringe when you saw Zidane do that 360 degree trick? Seriously, I don't see how you can't enjoy this side of football. I know I wouldn't have preferred Rooney's goal against City more had he controlled it and placed it into the net.
Rooney had no other choice to score but to do the overhead - as it happens he shinned it and got lucky.
How about Bergkamp vs Newcastle in 2002?
Absolute rubbish, yes they play a lot of simple first time passes but they both use skill and flair frequently. My point is that there is nothing at all wrong wit using a trick to open up play as long as it is effective
And Zidane?
We just like different things in our football I guess. I like unpredictability and flair (at least in spurts). You look like simplicity and efficiency.
He's done similar stuff before. It's part of his repertoire.
It was the only way to do it - see Rooney comment above. Bergkamp was the ultimate keep-it-simple player - most of the good ones are.
I'm talking from a (my own) player perspective more than a spectator perspective.
Only way to score, and it was certainly 'high risk'. He could have just layed it off and continued, a bit like Anderson in that clip, instead he chose to use a bit of skill to make significant process.
It's not always a bad thing, usually when it comes off, which it did.
It's completely different - Anderson could have played the simple cushion ball into space, having the same net effect but less risky and quicker. Bergkamp either does the extraordinary or reduces the move to an vague positional advantage.
If an Arsenal player had put that performance in last night you'd still be stroking your cock, Pete.
Walcott made that look like mediocre on Tuesday but it was only the league cup which is why no one's wetting themselves. And he lasted 120 mins.
Cushioned it back to Nani? He'd have to take a touch for that. Look at the way he's receiving the ball on the bounce and with his body facing away from the rest of the players. I think he'd have to take a touch to lay the ball off to anyone, which probably would have led to the Chelsea players getting close and him first having to hold them off.
Chelsea were about Reading level when Anderson was poncing about - as soon as they put on Hazard and Oscar you took him offReading and Chelsea are roughly the same level, so yea, fair comparison.
Walcott.
.Even if you hadn't already said you only had half an eye on the match, it'd be more than obvious.
Reading and Chelsea are roughly the same level, so yea, fair comparison.
Walcott.
What's so funny about Walcott?
That's true, though I'm not sure Andersons alternative would have exactly the same net affect.
Do you have the same opinion when say a player receives a ball that he can easily bring down and slot past the keeper, but instead volleys it first time and still scores? More high risk, but pulls it off, and same net affect.
I agree that skill that serves a good progressive purpose (which I still think Andersons did by the way) is far better than skill for relatively no reason, but when it works it's fine, better even. Flair, skill and entertainment is good in my book.
Chelsea were about Reading level when Anderson was poncing about - as soon as they put on Hazard and Oscar you took him off
Yeah because Reading have players of the level of Cahill,Mata,Mikel,Cech. Even the likes of Moses,Sturridge,Bertrand, Romeu would walk into their team.
When I was about 11 I did one of those and blew it over the bar (we were losing 2-0 and it was about 88 mins). I never did that again. Score the goal.
Pete bitching about one of our players against all the evidence. Ando really must have played a good game.
EDIT: Shit player doesn't know football is about keeping it simple. Should just have passed back to the keeper:
Shit player just 'poncing about' with 'high-risk flash bollocks', should have just passed it back to Diaby:
EDIT: Shit player doesn't know football is about keeping it simple. Should just have passed back to the keeper:
Shit player just 'poncing about' with 'high-risk flash bollocks', should have just passed it back to Diaby:
Pete.
there's a difference between
and
there's a difference between
and
- Status