Anderson

Status
Not open for further replies.
McGrathsipan said:
he is the best of a pretty mediocre bunch at present.
Click to expand...

Well aren't you a ray of sunshine!

Cleverley is a great little player. If we can get the best out of him and Anderson then we'll have a very non-mediocre midfield on our hands with able support from some very good squad options.
 
I'm always right said:
Anderson & Cleverley aren't just the "best of a pretty mediocre bunch at present", I think that is doing both players a disservice, their current form is streets ahead of anyone else in that midfield.
Click to expand...

This. Yes, a mediocre midfield would be better than what we're starting at the moment, but Anderson and Cleverley are much more than mediocre.
 
I'm always right said:
We created a couple of half chances at home against the team who currently prop up the Premier League. Revisionism is saying we came "fractionally close"... when was this?

In short, we were completely clueless, just as Sult's said.
Click to expand...

Scholes' chance for starters.
 
Zen86 said:
Scholes' chance only.
Click to expand...

Fixed, and even that wasn't fractionally anything, easy save for the keeper. It was however the only decent chance we made in 60 mins.

Your words "fractionally close on numerous occasions" are pure revisionism, I think even you'll admit that if you give it a real think.
 
I'm always right said:
Fixed, and even that wasn't fractionally anything, easy save for the keeper. The only decent chance we made in 60 mins.
Click to expand...

So is that Scholes and Young's fault I take it? We went 1-0 behind and went gung ho with 4 strikers whilst a tiring QPR sat back even further, of course more chances are going to happen.

I'm not taking anything away from Anderson, but what do people expect? Cruising 6-0 everyweek against the cannon fodder?
 
Zen86 said:
I'm not taking anything away from Anderson, but what do people expect? Cruising 6-0 everyweek against the cannon fodder?
Click to expand...

We expect better than the shit we served up for the first 60 mins yesterday. A shite 60 minutes that every man and his dog predicted as soon as the starting 11 was announced.

Fair enough if you're happy with that though, beats the doom & gloom of many of the posters around here. Personally I just think SAF's team selections are making it more difficult than it needs to be at present.
 
I'm always right said:
We expect better than the shit we served up for the first 60 mins yesterday. A shite 60 minutes that every man and his dog predicted as soon as the starting 11 was announced.

Fair enough if you're happy with that though, beats the doom & gloom of many of the posters around here. Personally I just think SAF's team selections are making it more difficult than it needs to be at present.
Click to expand...

This sort of discussion has been happening for weeks now. It's the same cycle. People vent their frustration at an inhibiting lineup. United mostly end up winning the game and then we have some who choose to sit on their high horses and shout down those who they think don't see the positives. Then discussions degrade to simply arguing over style more so than the actual argument. It's really annoying. The amount of times posters have had to explain themselves repeatedly because there are some on here who just pick out a few words and make an argument on that is astounding.

The majority of the complaints come because we're seeing the same mistakes just about every week. We don't know better than Fergie. We're not there in training. However, we do see the lineups and the corresponding performances as a result of that lineup. That's really all we can judge and it's not a fallacy to say starting Giggs or Scholes in a midfield 2 lends the team to not perform well. This has nothing to do with the result but yet almost everytime someone chooses to extrapolate it and say "we're top of the table.....be happy!" when that isn't even the thrust of the discussion.

I think I'm just going to do my best to avoid coming on here until everyone has calmed down. The monday after we played Norwich, opinions were more constructive and well-thought and it led to some real good discussion. I don't feel like wasting my time and effort having to correct someone when they twist my words and try to use a strawmanesque tactic.

As they say, humans like to take the path of least resistance and critical thought and reasoning is not along that path.
 
acnumber9 said:
Bollocks. If QPR's midfield pairing was better why did we dominate possession?
Click to expand...

Most of our midfield combinations are capable of holding the majority of possession against teams like QPR. The problem is that, often, it's innocuous possession because the likes of Scholes, Carrick and (now) Fletcher all sit deep, and we become one dimensional as a result.

What's more, when teams do turn over the ball, we're astonishingly easy to play through with the old stagers in the side.

In 90% of games, United's midfield 'dominates' ball possession, but in football you don't need a majority of the ball to cause damage. We need to play Cleverley and/or Anderson more frequently for two reasons - 1) more attacking variety, and 2) more recovery pace.
 
I'm always right said:
Because possession is about more than 2 people in midfield, and dominating is about more than just possession.

Whichever way you look at it, Scholes / Fletcher in a 2 is a truly awful midfield for Manchester United in 2012, it's unreal.
Click to expand...

What did QPR's midfield pairing do to suggest they were better than ours?
 
I'm always right said:
Not having that.

Watch the Braga away game again and you'll see the vast amount of defensive work he got through. In the games where it is needed, Anderson isn't shy of putting a defensive shift in.
Click to expand...

I don't give a feck whether you're having it or not. Anderson does do enough work tracking players back to his own box.
 
All 3 United said:
Yes & what did we do with that possession. We were 0-1 down against QPR at home with that pairing and didn't even look like scoring until the changes.

Practically every poster on here could have guessed we would have lots of possession and do nothing with it due to the central
midfield pairing.
Click to expand...

What did the QPR midfielders do? They were better after all.
 
I think the thing you need to look at is a players peak performances. At his best Ando is unplayable. Unfortunately he has been blighted by fitness issues, injuries and not having a prolonged spell in the first team. If Fergie is being cautious to ensure he doesnt get injured again then that's all well and good. I think Ando and Cleverley are pretty much our best two midfield options at the moment purely because they give us added dynamism that we have been missing
 
Feed Me said:
Most of our midfield combinations are capable of holding the majority of possession against teams like QPR. The problem is that, often, it's innocuous possession because the likes of Scholes, Carrick and (now) Fletcher all sit deep, and we become one dimensional as a result.

What's more, when teams do turn over the ball, we're astonishingly easy to play through with the old stagers in the side.

In 90% of games, United's midfield 'dominates' ball possession, but in football you don't need a majority of the ball to cause damage. We need to play Cleverley and/or Anderson more frequently for two reasons - 1) more attacking variety, and 2) more recovery pace.
Click to expand...

Great post. Due to Barcelona possession stats have become a crutch for every midfield argument.
 
Did anyone else notice the much greater celebration by SAF & Rene for our 3rd goal compared to even Darren's?

Now part of that may just be the quality of the move & finish - but perhaps the style shown by the players concerned was particularly rewarding for them? something they'd been hoping/expecting to see?
 
acnumber9 said:
I've yet to see an argument provided for how QPR's midfield was better.
Click to expand...

I never said they were, neither midfield was particularly good, my point was that citing possession stats doesn't tell the whole story, our biggest problem is when we don't have the ball, there is no hustle of pace in there and teams run through us, twice yesterday at least QPR simply drove through our center, fortunately they were clueless once they reached the final third.
 
Carrick, Scholes, Giggs and Fletcher (fitness issues) are not very effective against teams who press the ball.
 
Devil may care said:
I never said they were, neither midfield was particularly good, my point was that citing possession stats doesn't tell the whole story, our biggest problem is when we don't have the ball, there is no hustle of pace in there and teams run through us, twice yesterday at least QPR simply drove through our center, fortunately they were clueless once they reached the final third.
Click to expand...

Quite

There is no spine.
 
Steven Seagull said:
Yep. Because they haven't got the legs or balls to break through the lines like Anderson and Cleverley can. Giggs on form has the ability to make things happen but he's been terrible recently
Click to expand...

Giggs is a victim of the circumstances. His best position should be starting as the most advanced midfielder in a 3 man midfield or coming of the bench and trying to unlock rigid defenses. He is a flair player not a distributor. It should not be his job to provide midfield control.
 
I think the most important thing is that we start playing with the same two midfielders week in week out, this rotation is stupid, we should know who is going to start in the centre most weeks instead of it being a pick and mix. Be it Clevs and Carrick, Ando and Clevs or Carrick and Ando, SAF should just make his mind up.
 
paceme said:
I think the most important thing is that we start playing with the same two midfielders week in week out, this rotation is stupid, we should know who is going to start in the centre most weeks instead of it being a pick and mix. Be it Clevs and Carrick, Ando and Clevs or Carrick and Ando, SAF should just make his mind up.
Click to expand...

Don't you think rotation is important now that we are playing pretty much a game every 4 days?
 
paceme said:
I think the most important thing is that we start playing with the same two midfielders week in week out, this rotation is stupid, we should know who is going to start in the centre most weeks instead of it being a pick and mix. Be it Clevs and Carrick, Ando and Clevs or Carrick and Ando, SAF should just make his mind up.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is our best option currently would to be have Anderson and Cleverly start however both need to show they can play 90 minutes on a regular basis I don't think the management have confidence in this happening. I think one option would be to have those two rotating with probably Carrick taking the other spot in midfield and make sure we always have one or the other on the pitch.
 
Premier league games should have set starters, Cup games and European cup games should have set starters.

There is obviously room for flexibility when fixtures pile up but can you honestly say you know which two players Sir Alex sees as our real starters? Pretty much all top teams have a set starting XI which is played when possible. People always talk about the importance of a solid CB pairing and also a good strike partnership who understand each other, why don't people think the same when it comes to the midfield.
 
paceme said:
Premier league games should have set starters, Cup games and European cup games should have set starters.

There is obviously room for flexibility when fixtures pile up but can you honestly say you know which two players Sir Alex sees as our real starters? Pretty much all top teams have a set starting XI which is played when possible. People always talk about the importance of a solid CB pairing and also a good strike partnership who understand each other, why don't people think the same when it comes to the midfield.
Click to expand...

I think it is important to know your best players but rotation (though between Fletch, Carrick, Ando and Clev for the midfield) is not a bad idea at this stage of the season. You give everyone games and time to get their bearings right for the business end of the season. As you said, I think a consistent midfield and defensive pairing is paramount to pose a serious challenge in the knock out stages of the champions league and run of victories in the premier league. Hopefully, when time comes Carrick, Cleverley and Anderson will be fit and on form, as for me they are the three best midfielders in our squad.
 
Just to back up the folly of a stats based argument, we had 74% possession against Spurs, with a 90% passing accuracy. They still ran through us for all their goals and deserved their win. Most people would unanimously say their midfield was better that day. Despite having 26% of possession & only 76% passing accuracy.

It's not how big it is, it's what you do with it that counts.
 
acnumber9 said:
What did QPR's midfield pairing do to suggest they were better than ours?
Click to expand...

Where in any of my posts do I say such a thing?

You reckon possession stats show that our midfield "bossed" the game, I think, as Mockey has pointed out, that "bossing" a game is about much more than possession. I give our defence most credit for our possession stats to be honest.
 
Mockney said:
Just to back up the folly of a stats based argument, we had 74% possession against Spurs, with a 90% passing accuracy. They still ran through us for all their goals and deserved their win. Most people would unanimously say their midfield was better that day. Despite having 26% of possession & only 76% passing accuracy.

It's not how big it is, it's what you do with it that counts.
Click to expand...

This is possibly the thing that Fergie's clinging to by playing Scholes and Carrick so frequently.

He sees that we're dominating the ball when they're playing. But that's not really that relevant when we're playing so slowly, don't create anything and are so incredibly easy to just play through when we lose the ball. QPR could really have punished us yesterday as we were wide open in midfield at times.

I think Feed Me is spot on. We need Anderson and/or Cleverley in midfield for two reasons: We need to create a link between our fantastic front players and the midfield other than a long diagonal for Valencia to do something, and we need the legs when we don't have the ball. I'll also add that Anderson in particular adds something else for teams to contend with due to his sheer directness and penetrative through balls from central areas. No other midfielder on our books does this.
 
Devil may care said:
I never said they were, neither midfield was particularly good, my point was that citing possession stats doesn't tell the whole story, our biggest problem is when we don't have the ball, there is no hustle of pace in there and teams run through us, twice yesterday at least QPR simply drove through our center, fortunately they were clueless once they reached the final third.
Click to expand...

I know but that was where the debate started.
 
Mockney said:
Just to back up the folly of a stats based argument, we had 74% possession against Spurs, with a 90% passing accuracy. They still ran through us for all their goals and deserved their win. Most people would unanimously say their midfield was better that day. Despite having 26% of possession & only 76% passing accuracy.

It's not how big it is, it's what you do with it that counts.
Click to expand...

They'd be wrong though. They surrendered the midfield to protect their defence. They just happened to a couple of times take advantage of a particular weakness we have displayed.
 
acnumber9 said:
It was meant to say doesn't. Which he doesn't.
Click to expand...

None of our midfielders are great at tracking runs and keeping things tight in the middle. Ando though gives us much more legs defensively than Scholes Giggs and the like.
 
I'm always right said:
Where in any of my posts do I say such a thing?

You reckon possession stats show that our midfield "bossed" the game, I think, as Mockey has pointed out, that "bossing" a game is about much more than possession. I give our defence most credit for our possession stats to be honest.
Click to expand...

Read back to the post you initially quoted me on and what I was talking about and maybe then you'll understand what's going on.
 
Varun_Utd said:
None of our midfielders are great at tracking runs and keeping things tight in the middle. Ando though gives us much more legs defensively than Scholes Giggs and the like.
Click to expand...

He should but frequently he doesn't. Carrick does all the defensive work in our midfield.
 
acnumber9 said:
They'd be wrong though. They surrendered the midfield to protect their defence. They just happened to a couple of times take advantage of a particular weakness we have displayed.
Click to expand...

They didn't surrender midfield, they just didn't feel the need to do anything with Carrick and Scholes pointlessly rolling the ball between themselves for ages. Instead they waited until we approached their area and then killed us since neither Carrick nor Scholes ran back.

If you're producing more both defensively and offensively than the other midfield does, and if you have a bigger impact on the game than the other midfield, you're not surrendering the midfield, you're winning the midfield battle. Which is what teams have been doing to us whenever Scholes/Giggs have started this season.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.