Central midfield this season...

Pogue Mahone said:
If Anderson steps up he can do this season what Giggs did last time round.

Interesting to note who SAF thought was the best partner for Giggs in the game that turned out to be our best performance against any top four team last season.
Click to expand...

Anderson has the potential to be our best midfielder, in either Carrick or Fletcher's rolls in my opinion. I'd prefer to seem him deeper though as I think he could end up being excellent there.
 
Name Changed said:
He controlled the big matches. He completely controlled the midfield in both legs of the CL semi for example. Carrick has not got the capacity to control a match like that. He didn't do that by just running around. Your blind ignorance is becoming boring.
Click to expand...

He controlled it? Carrick set up our first goal in the tie and was excellent in both matches, he was also by a country mile the best player on the pitch against Inter in their gaff

Nobody is saying Carrick is a bad player in any way. I certainly am not anyway. But you're blind ignorance is ridiculous. Carrick is a good player but he is nowhere near as good as you think he is.

Performances make players what they are. Performances made Fletcher our best midfield last season regardless of what the purists may believe. Just because Fletcher is not a flair player or a popular player, it does not mean he wasn't the best player in his position at a particular time.

Carrick may be better next season, but maybe he won't. Maybe Fletcher will improve even more. And when he does, I'd still expect you to be singing the same aul boring shite.
Click to expand...

Performances have not made Fletcher top dog, he runs around a bit, tackles a bit and generally does nothing wrong, this season it's coincided with winning a few games. It's only because he's been mediocre for most his career that a little improvement is seen as the second coming, he's still a nothing player. Phil Neville could do the whole Face/Off transplantation, played the games Fletch did last season and we'd never have noticed a drop in quality.

If Carricks better next season then this he still wouldn't get the praise he deserves. He ended the season with 4 goals and 11 assists from defensive midfield. He scored one less goals then Alonso but got far more assists, he also out scored and created more goals then Fletcher, Scholes, Mikel, Ballack and Mascherano. He stepped up at the end of the season when the pressure was on, half his goals and assists came in the 6 matched between the loss to Fulham and the championship win against Arsenal.

On a slight tangent it astonishes me that what United fans got from watching Barca was not that we should try to emulate them, it's that we should aim to destroy their ability to play. More Fletcher, more Hargreaves, less football. It's the same thinking that elevates Fletcher to being our best midfielder last season
 
Mozza said:
He controlled it? Carrick set up our first goal in the tie and was excellent in both matches, he was also by a country mile the best player on the pitch against Inter in their gaff



Performances have not made Fletcher top dog, he runs around a bit, tackles a bit and generally does nothing wrong, this season it's coincided with winning a few games. It's only because he's been mediocre for most his career that a little improvement is seen as the second coming, he's still a nothing player. Phil Neville could do the whole Face/Off transplantation, played the games Fletch did last season and we'd never have noticed a drop in quality.

If Carricks better next season then this he still wouldn't get the praise he deserves. He ended the season with 4 goals and 11 assists from defensive midfield. He scored one less goals then Alonso but got far more assists, he also out scored and created more goals then Fletcher, Scholes, Mikel, Ballack and Mascherano. He stepped up at the end of the season when the pressure was on, half his goals and assists came in the 6 matched between the loss to Fulham and the championship win against Arsenal.

On a slight tangent it astonishes me that what United fans got from watching Barca was not that we should try to emulate them, it's that we should aim to destroy their ability to play. More Fletcher, more Hargreaves, less football. It's the same thinking that elevates Fletcher to being our best midfielder last season
Click to expand...

This is a point I have often touched on. It's a disappointing tendancy of ours in Europe.
 
Mozza said:
Performances have not made Fletcher top dog, he runs around a bit, tackles a bit and generally does nothing wrong, this season it's coincided with winning a few games. It's only because he's been mediocre for most his career that a little improvement is seen as the second coming, he's still a nothing player. Phil Neville could do the whole Face/Off transplantation, played the games Fletch did last season and we'd never have noticed a drop in quality.

If Carricks better next season then this he still wouldn't get the praise he deserves. He ended the season with 4 goals and 11 assists from defensive midfield. He scored one less goals then Alonso but got far more assists, he also out scored and created more goals then Fletcher, Scholes, Mikel, Ballack and Mascherano. He stepped up at the end of the season when the pressure was on, half his goals and assists came in the 6 matched between the loss to Fulham and the championship win against Arsenal.

On a slight tangent it astonishes me that what United fans got from watching Barca was not that we should try to emulate them, it's that we should aim to destroy their ability to play. More Fletcher, more Hargreaves, less football. It's the same thinking that elevates Fletcher to being our best midfielder last season
Click to expand...

Good post
 
Did anyone see that lad sessegnon the other day... cracking player. Not saying we should sign him mind but definitely one to keep an eye on.
 
marcus agrippa said:
true.

the possession stats, for example, show that we had almost equal amount of the ball. we just didn't know what to do with it.
Click to expand...
Neither did we know what to do with out it. I find it utterly irritating for people to want us to go out and attack Barcelona/play Barcelona passing football without a midfielder or midfield capable of making them lose the ball more readily or simply have no space to think. It's as if they never watched closely the pressure Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets kept putting on us that made our midfield look so clueless with the ball.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
I'm astonished that some people still can not grasp that Barcelona actually comprehensively stopped us playing football. Rather than simple hogging the ball.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They knew we were weak in midfield. We had nearly the same amount of the ball but look where we had it, in our own half. They need we weren't actually that creative in midfield and simply let us have it when they were winning until we went forward when they inevitably forced one of our midfielders to give the ball away. And then, when Barca had the ball, they passed it around in midfield because they knew we hadn't got the players to win the fecking thing back. It looked like an easy game plan on their behalf. Control the midfield, which was not hard, and therefore control the match. They knew we had no bite in midfield and they took advantage of it. Messi basically playing in the centre was a masterstroke. He, Xavi and Iniesta played the ball between them as if playing in a five aside. And if we did get the ball and manage to venture further, Busquets was in the way.
 
Mozza said:
He controlled it? Carrick set up our first goal in the tie and was excellent in both matches, he was also by a country mile the best player on the pitch against Inter in their gaff
Click to expand...

Am I wrong or was Fletcher man of the match in both Arsenal matches? Carrick has never been as dominant as Fletcher was in either of those matches, especially the second leg. He was absolutely fantastic. Whether you like it or not, Carrick is not capable of controlling a match like that. Not many thought Fletcher was but he seems to do it a bit.

Mozza said:
Performances have not made Fletcher top dog, he runs around a bit, tackles a bit and generally does nothing wrong, this season it's coincided with winning a few games. It's only because he's been mediocre for most his career that a little improvement is seen as the second coming, he's still a nothing player. Phil Neville could do the whole Face/Off transplantation, played the games Fletch did last season and we'd never have noticed a drop in quality.

If Carricks better next season then this he still wouldn't get the praise he deserves. He ended the season with 4 goals and 11 assists from defensive midfield. He scored one less goals then Alonso but got far more assists, he also out scored and created more goals then Fletcher, Scholes, Mikel, Ballack and Mascherano. He stepped up at the end of the season when the pressure was on, half his goals and assists came in the 6 matched between the loss to Fulham and the championship win against Arsenal.

On a slight tangent it astonishes me that what United fans got from watching Barca was not that we should try to emulate them, it's that we should aim to destroy their ability to play. More Fletcher, more Hargreaves, less football. It's the same thinking that elevates Fletcher to being our best midfielder last season
Click to expand...

Yea, Carrick stepped it up in the league against weaker teams. Exactly like I have already said. He is at his best when against weaker sides like Wigan. He does not perform consistently at the highest level against the better teams. That is where other players come in.

As Peterstorey alluded to, we could try and emulate Barcelona but why would we? We have not got the players to do so. Our most "creative" midfielder is Carrick and he pales in ability to the likes of Messi, Xavi and Iniesta. You play to your strengths. I've thought that United's best strength was winning the ball and then attacking at speed and in numbers. That suited because we had someone like Ronaldo who's game that would suit although it won't work anymore as we don't really have the pace. But Carrick and another midfield player are never going to pass a team like Barcelona off the park.

It's not destructiveness that made Fletcher our best midfielder last season. Stopping a team playing their game is a strength, not a weakness. You seem to think that using Fletcher's ability to stop other teams playing as a way to have a go at him will make people think that it is a bad thing. It is not a bad thing to have a grafter in the middle of the pitch. Was it ridiculous to have Roy Keane grafting in the middle of the pitch? Did that make him a worse midfielder? The same with Robson? Both could graft, both could stop others playing while being fairly good on the ball themselves. That was a positive aspect of both players' games, as it is with Fletcher despite not being on their level which in itself is not such a bad thing as Keane and Robson were the best midfielders of their generation.

And I don't really get your point in the first paragraph? Are you saying that there was no drop in quality when Fletcher was not playing? Quite the opposite. In the bigger matches, we seem to win with him in the team and seem to lose when he isn't. In fact, it seemed to be that way throughout the season. It is not coincidence that our best midfield performances come with him in it and with him being generally class in those matches. Coincidence my hole. It would be coincidence if it was once, but if it was every single time, I don't think so. And from what I remember of Phil Neville playing in midfield, his sole objective was to stop a certain player playing. That was it. Fletcher does a lot more than that. Neville only had a couple of good games in the middle. Nowadays, when United are playing a top side, Fletcher is the midfield player who shines time and time again. And he can do it with Carrick, he can do it with Giggs and he can do it with Anderson.

He runs around a bit and that's all he does. Bollox.
 
Name Changed said:
Exactly. They knew we were weak in midfield. We had nearly the same amount of the ball but look where we had it, in our own half. They need we weren't actually that creative in midfield and simply let us have it when they were winning until we went forward when they inevitably forced one of our midfielders to give the ball away. And then, when Barca had the ball, they passed it around in midfield because they knew we hadn't got the players to win the fecking thing back. It looked like an easy game plan on their behalf. Control the midfield, which was not hard, and therefore control the match. They knew we had no bite in midfield and they took advantage of it. Messi basically playing in the centre was a masterstroke. He, Xavi and Iniesta played the ball between them as if playing in a five aside. And if we did get the ball and manage to venture further, Busquets was in the way.
Click to expand...

And not forgetting their defence, some credits are due. S.A.F. knew about the lack of creativity and tried to bypass the midfield - e.g. in one instance, Carrick even hit a long ball just a few yards away from United's corner flag. It could be a success, but it failed on that night.
 
bbest said:
And not forgetting their defence, some credits are due. S.A.F. knew about the lack of creativity and tried to bypass the midfield - e.g. in one instance, Carrick even hit a long ball just a few yards away from United's corner flag. It could be a success, but it failed on that night.
Click to expand...

Well their defence was class that night but in general it could be perceived as a weak point of the team. They were there to get at, but you have to win the ball first. Long balls were an option alright but when playing them to split open a defence, they have to be absolutely perfect. None of our midfielders could pass the ball on the night unfortunately.
 
Name Changed said:
Am I wrong or was Fletcher man of the match in both Arsenal matches? Carrick has never been as dominant as Fletcher was in either of those matches, especially the second leg. He was absolutely fantastic. Whether you like it or not, Carrick is not capable of controlling a match like that. Not many thought Fletcher was but he seems to do it a bit.
Click to expand...

That's just not true.

Like Mozza said, he controlled the midfield against Inter in one of our best performances of the season, and it was one of the best midfield performances that season.

Like it or not dominating a midfield through possession play and excellent passing is always going to be more impressive than dominating it by covering plenty of ground, putting in plenty of tackles and playing it simple on the ball to keep possession.
 
Brwned said:
That's just not true.

Like Mozza said, he controlled the midfield against Inter in one of our best performances of the season, and it was one of the best midfield performances that season.

Like it or not dominating a midfield through possession play and excellent passing is always going to be more impressive than dominating it by covering plenty of ground, putting in plenty of tackles and playing it simple on the ball to keep possession.
Click to expand...

Fletcher played just as well, if not better, in that game.
 
Don't agree, at all.

Would you agree that dominating a midfield through possession play and excellent passing is always going to be more impressive than through sheer workrate and tenacity, or is that just me?
 
No, there's room for both.

Sometimes you need a Fletcher-like player to dominate midfields in his way because it's just not possible for Carrick.

Was just asking which you thought was more impressive, in general.

Never mind.
 
Brwned said:
No, there's room for both.

Sometimes you need a Fletcher-like player to dominate midfields in his way because it's just not possible for Carrick.

Was just asking which you thought was more impressive, in general.

Never mind.
Click to expand...

I answered your question.

IMO you can't have one without the other. Not any more. There's a reason Toure gets his game for Barca and they don't rely on Xavi and Iniesta's passing ability alone, no matter how "impressive" that might look.

Mozza's so full of shit on this topic it's unreal. In his bizarre world we should only ever play 442, Darren Fletcher offers nothing more than Robbie Savage did and Carrick has no flaws in his game whatsoever. The truth is Carrick doesn't have enough presence to dominate midfield against top opposition without someone who can get in opposition faces alongside him.

If this partner can create/score a lot of goals that would be a bonus, meanwhile Fletcher complements Carrick almost perfectly and deserves to be picked for every big game next season, no matter what mozza thinks.
 
I'd say Carrick and Scholes dominated plenty of midfields without needing a Fletcher like player or performance to do it.

I'd agree it's nigh on impossible to do it against the top teams without a Fletcher or Hargreaves though, and the fact that Fletcher's one of the first names on the teamsheets in the big games is proof of that.
 
Brwned said:
I'd say Carrick and Scholes dominated plenty of midfields without needing a Fletcher like player or performance to do it.
Click to expand...

Scholes - for all the grief he gets about not being able to tackle - has always put himself about in midfield. I remember someone (can't remember who) saying that Scholes was one of the dirtiest players he played against. He's a magnificent passer of the ball but the aggression he brings to our midfield is often over-looked.

It's this lack of aggression which is Carrick's biggest flaw and the reason he needs a partner with a bit of devil in them. I'm saying this as a big fan of Carrick, by the way. Only I'm not quite as deluded about his abilities as mozza.
 
Brwned said:
I'd say Carrick and Scholes dominated plenty of midfields without needing a Fletcher like player or performance to do it.

I'd agree it's nigh on impossible to do it against the top teams without a Fletcher or Hargreaves though, and the fact that Fletcher's one of the first names on the teamsheets in the big games is proof of that.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I also think that Barcelona would dominate virtually everyone they played without a Toure in their midfield.

It's not necessary to have one snarling, domineering midfield player to break up the opposition play. I've always thought that type of player is just a waste of a space in the team. The entire team can help disrupt the opposition through high workrate and plenty of pressing/cloding down. The most important thing is to be able to keep the ball. That is what our failing was in the CL final.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Scholes - for all the grief he gets about not being able to tackle - has always put himself about in midfield. I remember someone (can't remember who) saying that Scholes was one of the dirtiest players he played against. He's a magnificent passer of the ball but the aggression he brings to our midfield is often over-looked.

It's this lack of aggression which is Carrick's biggest flaw and the reason he needs a partner with a bit of devil in them. I'm saying this as a big fan of Carrick, by the way. Only I'm not quite as deluded about his abilities as mozza.
Click to expand...

I think Redknapp said that. Atleast it was an ex-footballer now pundit.

Said something along the lines of Scholes looking like he can`t tackle and that he hits players because he misses the ball. Then went on to say that Scholes' tackles usually were intentional and that they had "bite".
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Scholes - for all the grief he gets about not being able to tackle - has always put himself about in midfield. I remember someone (can't remember who) saying that Scholes was one of the dirtiest players he played against. He's a magnificent passer of the ball but the aggression he brings to our midfield is often over-looked.

It's this lack of aggression which is Carrick's biggest flaw and the reason he needs a partner with a bit of devil in them. I'm saying this as a big fan of Carrick, by the way. Only I'm not quite as deluded about his abilities as mozza.
Click to expand...

Totally agree that Scholes' defensive contribution is all to often overlooked, but he's still not your archetypal midfield destroyer is he? Point is, his and Carrick's main feature as a partnership was their ability to retain the ball and pass teams to death.

I agree with the sentiment that Carrick lacks aggression and thus needs a partner with it.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Scholes - for all the grief he gets about not being able to tackle - has always put himself about in midfield. I remember someone (can't remember who) saying that Scholes was one of the dirtiest players he played against. He's a magnificent passer of the ball but the aggression he brings to our midfield is often over-looked.

It's this lack of aggression which is Carrick's biggest flaw and the reason he needs a partner with a bit of devil in them. I'm saying this as a big fan of Carrick, by the way. Only I'm not quite as deluded about his abilities as mozza.
Click to expand...

I'd say Xavi's somewhat similar, he closes down the opposition quickly and puts himself about, although not to the same extent. But yeah, I probably did overlook that fact.

I'd agree he needs a player with a bit of devil in him, but I'm not sure he needs to be someone like Fletcher or Hargreaves who have an abundance of it. I'd say Anderson's aggressive enough to make the partnership work in that sense.
 
Brwned said:
That's just not true.

Like Mozza said, he controlled the midfield against Inter in one of our best performances of the season, and it was one of the best midfield performances that season.

Like it or not dominating a midfield through possession play and excellent passing is always going to be more impressive than dominating it by covering plenty of ground, putting in plenty of tackles and playing it simple on the ball to keep possession.
Click to expand...

One single game last season? Fletcher and Giggs had Chelsea, and Fletcher had both legs against Arsenal. Those were better performances than Carrick's against a weak enough Inter midfield.

Of course you can dominate midfield through passing and possession play. But what if you don't have the ball? You have to win it to play your possession/passing game. You still need someone there to win it. Our most dominant performances came against other teams and Fletcher/Giggs were the performers in those matches.

And anyway, in that Inter match, I could have sworn that Fletcher was at least just as good as Carrick.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I answered your question.

IMO you can't have one without the other. Not any more. There's a reason Toure gets his game for Barca and they don't rely on Xavi and Iniesta's passing ability alone, no matter how "impressive" that might look.

Mozza's so full of shit on this topic it's unreal. In his bizarre world we should only ever play 442, Darren Fletcher offers nothing more than Robbie Savage did and Carrick has no flaws in his game whatsoever. The truth is Carrick doesn't have enough presence to dominate midfield against top opposition without someone who can get in opposition faces alongside him.

If this partner can create/score a lot of goals that would be a bonus, meanwhile Fletcher complements Carrick almost perfectly and deserves to be picked for every big game next season, no matter what mozza thinks.
Click to expand...

Top post.

It's true that Carrick doesn't dominate against top opposition. He is not that type of player, that is not his game. His strengths are in other areas. That is just what Fletcher is best at. Carrick is a lot stronger than Fletcher in other aspects of the game, but at dominating against good opposition, Fletcher has always been good at it but he was brilliant at that last season. There is room for both players. And in my opinion, Fletcher is essential when playing top opposition. I remember when he got sent off against Arsenal and thinking we were fecked. The only players we could have afforded to lose less were Ronaldo and Rooney.
 
Brwned said:
I'd say Xavi's somewhat similar, he closes down the opposition quickly and puts himself about, although not to the same extent. But yeah, I probably did overlook that fact.

I'd agree he needs a player with a bit of devil in him, but I'm not sure he needs to be someone like Fletcher or Hargreaves who have an abundance of it. I'd say Anderson's aggressive enough to make the partnership work in that sense.
Click to expand...

I think Anderson also lacks aggression. When we got overrun by Liverpool at Old Trafford he only attempted two tackles in 90 minutes. Two. Which is fecking shocking really.

Anderson is a mystery to me, to be honest, when he's on form he pops up everywhere and does seem willing to get stuck in. But when he's not playing well he's so anonymous he makes Liam Miller seem like Mikael Essien. I can understand young players being inconsistent but the dramatic variation in his level of commitment and effort is really odd.
 
He also doesnt tend to make that many passes. Usually under 20. I think a player like Fabregas or Alonso at his age were making closer to double that.

Anderson definately has his strengths, but his weakenesses are the reason he doesnt really fit into one box or another. I hope he has a coming of age season next season. I think he needs to.
 
He should be played further up the pitch in the final third, with little to no defensive responsibilities...
 
Ekeke said:
He also doesnt tend to make that many passes. Usually under 20. I think a player like Fabregas or Alonso at his age were making closer to double that.

Anderson definately has his strengths, but his weakenesses are the reason he doesnt really fit into one box or another. I hope he has a coming of age season next season. I think he needs to.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I didn't know that. I guess you he doesn't need to make a lot of passes when he's going off on barn-storming runs forward but if he is making as few passes as that it would explain why our midfield so frequently misfires when he's in the mix.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Interesting. I didn't know that. I guess you he doesn't need to make a lot of passes when he's going off on barn-storming runs forward but if he is making as few passes as that it would explain why our midfield so frequently misfires when he's in the mix.
Click to expand...

I think he just seems less natural receiving passes and then moving the ball around than some of the "pass masters" out there today. When you watch them its all fluid, quick and hard to pounce on. With Anderson it seems to take more time and effort for him to pick up a pass and move the ball onwards towards the opposition goal. Thats not to say he cant see a pass and sometimes execute that killer ball as much as the rest of them. But in terms of just moving the ball around and keeping moves flowing, he doesnt convince me that he's going to be "the new Scholes" or one of those types of creative midfielders that a lot of people have him down as.

He has some other skills and talents that usually those types of players dont have, like his physical strength and his speed. So its not that I think he'll be a lesser player, but he does seem to have trouble fitting into the positions most people consider for a midfielder. To me he's just box to box right now - not good enough positionally or strong enough in the tackle for me to consider him a defensive option and not decisive enough in attacking areas for me to consider him an attacking option. He finds himself in the middle with gaps in his game.

Right now I think he's closer to being a defensive option than an attacking one though. I think he's proven more in that regard at United, with his performances against Fabregas and Gerrard. He hasnt come close to producing something of as much note in attacking areas yet. In fact his freekick in a pre-season friendly is pretty much it so far.

Hopefully he'll kick on from that and with more confidence will start producing more in attacking areas. As I said, I think its important for him to have a big season if we want to win the league this year. Same with Nani.
 
Brwned said:
I'd say Carrick and Scholes dominated plenty of midfields without needing a Fletcher like player or performance to do it.

I'd agree it's nigh on impossible to do it against the top teams without a Fletcher or Hargreaves though, and the fact that Fletcher's one of the first names on the teamsheets in the big games is proof of that.
Click to expand...

That is true with regard to the way we played last season.
As I have commonly mentioned over the last few weeks though - I reckon that with Valencia and Park/Tosic/Nani (all of whom can put in a lot more defensive work than Ronaldo ever did) we may hopefully be able to get away with a Carrick/Anderson (or similar) partnership without being overrun in midfield. We wont need a Fletcher/Hargreaves because our wingers will be getting back and defending more.
 
Mozza said:
On a slight tangent it astonishes me that what United fans got from watching Barca was not that we should try to emulate them, it's that we should aim to destroy their ability to play. More Fletcher, more Hargreaves, less football. It's the same thinking that elevates Fletcher to being our best midfielder last season
Click to expand...

Perfection. People are saying we should sign a Keane type player. Madness. We need a playmaker. Getting a Keane type player would mean less possession, and less passes. Getting a playmaker would allow us to control more possession against the best teams, and create more.

However I do think Fletcher is good at keeping possession.
 
Scholesy said:
Perfection. People are saying we should sign a Keane type player. Madness. We need a playmaker. Getting a Keane type player would mean less possession, and less passes. Getting a playmaker would allow us to control more possession against the best teams, and create more.

However I do think Fletcher is good at keeping possession.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine its simply because no matter who we signed, we'd still be outplayed in the middle of the park by Barcelona. They have the best, we cant buy better. Instead what we can do is limit what they are able to do. Due to our tactics and selection, we can improve that part about 500%
 
Brwned said:
I'd say Carrick and Scholes dominated plenty of midfields without needing a Fletcher like player or performance to do it.

I'd agree it's nigh on impossible to do it against the top teams without a Fletcher or Hargreaves though, and the fact that Fletcher's one of the first names on the teamsheets in the big games is proof of that.
Click to expand...

Carrick and Scholes dominated many a midfield, but they weren't the top midfields. They were the cannon fodder than most of the PL has to offer.

Anderson and Fletcher, Carrick and Hargreaves, Anderson and Carrick, Fletcher and Giggs, any combination you want would dominate against most teams. They are all very good players. They would nearly always win a midfield battle against your run of the mill PL teams.

The fact is that nearly all the top teams play with an extra midfielder in the big matches.
 
Scholesy said:
Perfection. People are saying we should sign a Keane type player. Madness. We need a playmaker. Getting a Keane type player would mean less possession, and less passes. Getting a playmaker would allow us to control more possession against the best teams, and create more.

However I do think Fletcher is good at keeping possession.
Click to expand...

Getting a Keane type player would mean less possession? I don't believe that. Sure Keane rarely ever lost possession. And he'd win it more than anyone else. He'd win it and play the easy pass to a more creative player. Keane used to sometimes single-handedly dominate world class midfields.

You need to win the ball to be able to pass it around. I don't believe that if we bought in a playmaker it would make a difference. Yea sure, I'd bring one in, but he'd be playing in the middle with Fletcher.

The only way you're going to stop a team like Barcelona is prevent them from passing it around and then pass it around yourself. To do that, you have to win the ball off them, you have to close them down, you need to cut off the space. Having playmakers in the middle of the park alone are not going to do that. You need one, if not two players to win the ball and close down the space. They did it to us. Does nobody remember that Busquets was playing?

No way would a player like Roy Keane, or Roy Keane himself specifically, mean we would have less of the ball. It would mean the complete opposite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.