Partly. He's right that he's not world class, he's wrong to say he doesn't bring much to the table.
Central midfield this season...
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- 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.
Partly. He's right that he's not world class, he's wrong to say he doesn't bring much to the table.
Scholes is arguably our fifth choice central midfielder at the moment if we have some sort of a pecking order. I'm afraid to say I can see him continue to struggle as he did at times last season and may only shine in the matches against weaker teams who come up and set themselves in a terrible fashion as did Fulham last year.
Well....I don't agree regarding Ronaldo.
SAF's problem is that Rooney is our best player but his not suited to our best formation. Last season in a 433 formation he played out of position and contributed well but in the long run it's not an optimal solution.
This season we try to play a 442 formation with a Rooney - Berbatov partnership and Valencia - Park/Nani on the wings. So far we can't keep possession with two central players. Against both Boca and BM we where outplayed in the middle of the park. Coincidence? I don't think so!
That means against better teams, and in knock out matches, we will probably continue to play a 433 formation until we find a proper playmaker. Otherwise we loose the midfield and have to more or less rely on counter attack.
All of our current midfielder is better suited to a 433 formation and we don't have a perfect 2-man partnership like Scholes/Keane. That's our problem.
Well, what do you believe Scholes brings to the table?
For me, on his day he can dominate the midfield and play fantastic passes, but thats about it. He doesnt shoot that often anymore and when he does he is much less threatening (other than Barca 2008,
), and thats about it.Before someone mentions all the "experience" he brings to the table, remember he got sent off twice last season for deliberate handballs. That and being booked almost every game for bad tackling doesnt really sound like the kind of experience we need, frankly.
Well, what do you believe Scholes brings to the table?
For me, on his day he can dominate the midfield and play fantastic passes, but thats about it. He doesnt shoot that often anymore and when he does he is much less threatening (other than Barca 2008,
Before someone mentions all the "experience" he brings to the table, remember he got sent off twice last season for deliberate handballs. That and being booked almost every game for bad tackling doesnt really sound like the kind of experience we need, frankly.
He only dominates the midfield!? Isn't that a paradox for a central midfielder?
Did Ronaldo only destroy defences?
Does Van Der Sar only prevent goals from being scored?
We played 442 the vast majority of last season
"That means against better teams, and in knock out matches, we will probably continue to play a 433 formation"
I assumed that by "Last season in a 433 formation he played out of position" you were insinuating that we played 433 all season.
Either way, we didn't really play 433 even in the big games. It was usually a variation of 4231. Even with a Keane-Scholes-at-their-peak combo, I think 4231 is fantastic. Rooney in the hole!
I agree! But that's why Roo need a Benzema/Torres type of player, Berb is not his optimal partner. We have to many players who like to play in the same area as Wazza.
TBF we were hardly free flowing for most of the seoans. So he could have a point. After all our best performances of the season came with the said formation against Arsenal and Inter in the champions league.We played 442 the vast majority of last season
A midfielder can do a lot more than play a good passing game. Frankly I think the term I used in that post (ie "dominates midfield) was pretty generous, since Scholes' defensive work is almost never sufficient to put pressure on the opposition midfielders (except that one time against Barca that we all know).
A midfielder can score goals, get great assists and through balls, make crucial tackles and set up counterattacks, not to mention the usage of ball retention techniques.
Scholes was a great player, and on his day, he still can be, but as well as being a rather one dimensional player (which in my opinion, is a pretty important factor for a position like midfield which generally requires versatility), he is extremely inconsistent now, as well as having poor discipline.
Similarly, a goalkeeper can do a lot more than prevent goals being scored. Command of ones area, and good distribution (which can lead to goals) are key roles for a keeper as well as the obvious shot-stopping/aerial ability).
Yes I agree somewhat with your point I just found the concept of a midfielder merely dominating possession quite amusing 
Well, what do you believe Scholes brings to the table?
For me, on his day he can dominate the midfield and play fantastic passes, but thats about it. He doesnt shoot that often anymore and when he does he is much less threatening (other than Barca 2008,
Before someone mentions all the "experience" he brings to the table, remember he got sent off twice last season for deliberate handballs. That and being booked almost every game for bad tackling doesnt really sound like the kind of experience we need, frankly.
Sounds a bit like Xavi, then. You know, the best midfielder in the world. Or Fabregas.
So I'm struggling to see your point. If he dominated midfield and plays fantastic passes that's enough, it's more than Fletcher or Carrick do most of the time.
Currently Scholes TBH is very much a luxury player. To fully utilise him now we'd need two water carriers to start. I don't believe we possess them.
In a 433...... and there is where we are limited. Both Scholes and Giggs needs two water carrier, even if Giggs last season were briliant against Chelsea. Against Barca we had two offensive players in Ando and Giggs. Poor Carrick was fighting a hopeless battle by himself.
Fletch is good when he plays together with a creative player like Giggs/Ando but they also need protection, and then we have .... 433.
Carrick can play in a 2-man combo but against better teams he's to limited and need one water carrier and one offensive midfielder otherwise we can't keep possession because our movement is to slow, and then we ..end up in a 433 otherwise we loose the midfield battle. See Pool x 2.
That's our main problem against better teams and in knock out stages.
I don't really agree with that. He can work in a 2 especially when teams stand off us and park the proverbial bus. He struggles when a team with fast, strong midfielders play an aggressive pressing game though. It's a case of picking his games and probably using him off the bench. He's still the best passer in the Premiership on his day, unfortunately as he gets older those days become more infrequent. I think this will be his last season.
Xavi is far, far more consistent than Scholes, and much better defensively (but then, to be worse than Scholes in defence would be quite an achievement in itself).
So true...
Yes, he's more consistent, but I wasn't talking about how often they bring it to the table I was talking about what qualities they bring to the table.
Don't agree he's much better than Scholes defensively either, it's much easier to do a job defensively in a three man midfield. He's better, but not much better.
What about Fabregas? Isn't much better defensively, doesn't bring different qualities to the table. Is he just not that good either?
Then again, you think Scholes is past it and want him sold so I'm not sure why I'm arguing with you.
Fabregas is a far more complete midfielder than Scholes.
I think Scholes and Neville are both past it, and their main roles should be shifting from on the pitch to the training ground.
In what sense?
better looking, speaks more languages, striking fashion sense.
honestly, the list just goes on and on.
Classic example of a luxury player. A Riquelme would struggle in the same way without two watter carriers to help him out. Still quality to have around.
Yes. IMO in a 2 man midfield we never really utilise him best unless we are playing a "park the bus" team. Because he is very much a Riquelme nowadays. Totally imobile and too slow to defend decently without fouling. I truly believe if we had two water carriers to play alongside him he'd still work in big games. That is all I was saying.
I`d agree that Fabregas is a more complete midfielder than Scholes these days.
They are both brilliant passers of the ball, I`d even give Scholes the nod in this department because of the range of passing he can show. Fabregas though is much more mobile, defends better these days and has added goals to his game as well.
Scholes is not past it though, not in any way. He is bar Giggs the most naturally gifted footballer we have in our side. If he can be used correctly, meaning not every game, then he can still bring a lot to the team.
The only thing I would question with Scholes these days is his motivation. Then again, he is the kind of guy who would be out of there the first day he didn`t want to play isn`t he?
They are both brilliant passers of the ball, I`d even give Scholes the nod in this department because of the range of passing he can show. Fabregas though is much more mobile, defends better these days and has added goals to his game as well.
Scholes is not past it though, not in any way. He is bar Giggs the most naturally gifted footballer we have in our side. If he can be used correctly, meaning not every game, then he can still bring a lot to the team.
The only thing I would question with Scholes these days is his motivation. Then again, he is the kind of guy who would be out of there the first day he didn`t want to play isn`t he?
This will be Anderson's year. He will be the world player of the year, win the golden boot, play more games for us than any other player, start shagging Kiera Knightley and win an eight figure sponsorship contract with Vidal Sassoon.
Even if I am wrong about some of the above, I think at the very least he will emerge as one of our top midfielders.
Even if I am wrong about some of the above, I think at the very least he will emerge as one of our top midfielders.
I just had a thought (scary, I know)!
Anderson is going to shine this season (or the season after maybe) and become undroppable.
In "easy" games we will see him play alongside Carrick. Pass teams off the pitch with just enough defensive capabilities.
In "tough" games we will see him alongside Fletcher. A combination of strength, aggression, pace, and skill. Niiice.
Right that's that sorted! Who's got SAF's mobile number? I need to inform him of this asap!
Anderson is going to shine this season (or the season after maybe) and become undroppable.
In "easy" games we will see him play alongside Carrick. Pass teams off the pitch with just enough defensive capabilities.
In "tough" games we will see him alongside Fletcher. A combination of strength, aggression, pace, and skill. Niiice.
Right that's that sorted! Who's got SAF's mobile number? I need to inform him of this asap!
you think he doesn't know that already? More fool you.
Ferguson's already in touch with the 2011 WPOTY voters.
Ah yes. It's all about your contacts in football these days.
To get ahead I need track down Dr. Who's Tardis and bob about in time finding the best talents.
I can't really say I am surprised to learn that this thread has turned out to be a Fabregas vs. Scholes/Carrick debate. Lets return to the topic Caffites, do we need to sign some muscle to beef up the midfield seeing as Hargreaves is never fit and Anderson is just a conundrum? Do we also need to get an attacking mid/ playmaker since we really don't have any (Scholes no longer counts based on his age, performances last season and fitness questions).
I actually fancy Giggs in that role to Scholes. He's better defensively, and his willingness and ability to run forward at speed with the ball still gives defenses something to think about when they try to close him down. His passing may not be as good as Scholes, but I reckon it's good enough.
Giggsy has the legs and the enthusiasm but lacks the patience to play the Scholes role. He frequently tries far too many through balls which when they don't come off turn out to be a cheap surrendering of possession to the opposition. In addition he is 36 later this year and one can't really consider in the midfield's long term plans.
Fletcher and carrick majority of the games and rest either one occasionally for anderson or hargreaves when fit.
Fletcher and Carrick will play most of the matches in central midfield.
Against bigger teams in a 3 man central midfield, both will definitely play. When playing weaker sides, it will be chopped and changed. Fletcher will most certainly play against the higher class opposition because that's where he is best. Carrick will most certainly play against the lower class opposition as that is where he is best. The rest will be rotated.
Against bigger teams in a 3 man central midfield, both will definitely play. When playing weaker sides, it will be chopped and changed. Fletcher will most certainly play against the higher class opposition because that's where he is best. Carrick will most certainly play against the lower class opposition as that is where he is best. The rest will be rotated.
Central midfield is a problem area for us - certainly without Hargreaves and who knows when he's likely to be back in contention. Furthermore the purchase of Valencia means we are likely to go into games with two conventional wingers. To balance thngs, on the left it will be a toss up between, Park, Nani, maybe Rooney and perhaps this fellow Obertan with a fair degree of rotation going on. Of course all of those can play on the right as well, altghough I don't know about the last mentioned. So what's this got to do with central midfield. Well with two strikers in a 442 set up, we only have room for two in midfield and that's the problem - certainly against good teams. Fletcher and Carrick, being arguably the first choice pairing, may not always be able to cope and where does it leave Anderson, Giggs and Gibson ? Certainly there's no longer such a thing as a consistent and rigid selection policy but, nonetheless, 442 might be the general rule as we seem to have a surfeit of wingmen to be accomodated with Valencia perhaps being the most important perhaps.
IMO the only problem we have in midfield is a lack of consistent goals. With Ron gone the midfield as a whole has to step up and start to score.
This is true. We don't have a truly balanced central midfield partnership to make 442 work at the moment. Carrick and Fletcher is the most complete pairing, but it lacks creativity.
Well, what do you believe Scholes brings to the table?
For me, on his day he can dominate the midfield and play fantastic passes, but thats about it. He doesnt shoot that often anymore and when he does he is much less threatening (other than Barca 2008,
Before someone mentions all the "experience" he brings to the table, remember he got sent off twice last season for deliberate handballs. That and being booked almost every game for bad tackling doesnt really sound like the kind of experience we need, frankly.
At his best, he really did run the midfield. I've always said that I believe that he's the best player I have ever seen live. The importance of running power, aggression and tackling are massively overstated. When in his pomp, he would dominate midfield, simply by not relinquishing possession.
Agreed. Point about Scholes is that time is catching up with him. There is no shame in that. I'd say that physically it has always been more of a challenge with Scholes than say Giggs or Beckham. He does look very laboured these days.
He can still be very useful in a cameo role. As you say, when you get also-ran teams coming to OT and parking the bus, standing off and giving the midfield plenty of time, then Scholes can still be invaluable.
I actually think he can become a very useful player in the last 30 mins of games. For the first hour or so, when teams still display good energy levels, they tend to hassle and press - this is where Scholes now struggles.
The experience he brings to the fore is vital though. You can't dismiss having someone like him in the squad. A leader by example. He probably doesn't say a lot, but serves as a good reference point for Ferguson with the younger players.
A bit of an unfair comparison given their respective ages?
At his peak, Scholes was as good as Xavi.
Also, Scholes, at his peak, played in 2 man midfields. Granted, he had the likes of Keane next to him, but the suggestion that he is "weak defensively" is a bit of a nonsense really.
We don't really have anyone who looks like stepping up though Chief.
Carrick: we are willing him to play a more advanced position on the field, but it's just not his way. His job is to sit and dictate from deep. As such, it's hard to envisage him being massively prolific. It's unfair to compare to the likes of Barry (who takes free kicks and pens), and Lampard and Gerrard (who both play far more advanced).
Anderson:
Hargreaves: if he ever gets fit, we are looking at a player who could be a regular goalscorer from penalties and free kicks. But again, he's not going to be prolific from open play. Not the most composed player is he? It's a different game when striking a dead ball.
Fletcher: he is the only real all round, box-to-box player at our disposal. He is the one who actually gets into the area, but his goals record is still quite patchy. He is the one with the greatest scope for goals for me.
Scholes: never going to play regularly enough and when he does, a bit like Carrick, he operates from far too deep these days.
Giggs: he's fairly cavalier still, and he has notched a few in pre-season, but he's not going to get many is he?
I still believe that we could do with an attacking midfield player in the squad. Then we'd have a complete blend, in my opinion. As things stand, there is a lot of pressure on the strikers.
agreed, but Brwned was suggesting that Xavi and Scholes (in his current day form) are comparable, which I think is a rather silly notion, great player though Scholes was.
Nah, I agree with you. They're not really that comparable. Scholes barely moves from his deep lying position these days. He just pings his passes from there. Xavi is far more mobile than Scholes.
As I said, if you want to take Scholes and Xavi at their peaks then you have two sensational players with very little between them.
I didn't say they were comparable in terms of quality, just style.
And they are, quite clearly.
Xavi's game is just about pinging passes around and controlling midfields, like Scholes.