Nonsense, he was given a proper run in the side around about November 07 through towards March 08 time, by which point SAF decided to go with experience for the latter part of that season. During the timescale mentioned though, Anderson was a revalation and impressed everyone at the club with his ability and how quickly he adapted to the demands of PL football. Since then he's been unfortunate with injury, but that does not take away from the quality we know he posseses. Like I said, has the Everton MOM performance as little as 8 days ago just been airbrushed from history or what?
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
Nonsense, he was given a proper run in the side around about November 07 through towards March 08 time, by which point SAF decided to go with experience for the latter part of that season. During the timescale mentioned though, Anderson was a revalation and impressed everyone at the club with his ability and how quickly he adapted to the demands of PL football. Since then he's been unfortunate with injury, but that does not take away from the quality we know he posseses. Like I said, has the Everton MOM performance as little as 8 days ago just been airbrushed from history or what?
It should not surprise. you. That is the way with this place. Fickleness and hyperbole rolled into one.
Even Fergie has said Park didn't adjust to the CM role quick enough leading to the goal. Even if Ando was ineffectual going forward at least he knew his role in defence.
We'll just have to agree to disagree here.
Me too. I don't get the reaction on here. One would think Arsenal beat us 4-0 and run riot ala Barca 09.
Exactly. Both, Carrick and Rooney had subdued game attacking wise for some reason. But I thought Anderson and Carrick controlled Arsenal's 3 midfielders with such ease.
We've never had a season of consistent performances from him. Consistent being the key word
We've struggled to get a consistent performance from the team this season. We have a new best player every game.
In his first season, once he got to grips with the ePL he was consistent all through till the time he scored that penalty in the champions league final.
That's not true at all.
He started so brightly that people were willing to forgive all sorts of poor/average performances that followed. As it turned out, he was just as inconsistent in that season as he has been since.
No great surprise though. He's young. Young players are inconsistent. Still only 22 years old. Nowhere near the quality of Fabregas and Wilshere, by the looks of things, but that's no shame. He could still turn out to be a very good player.
Here we go again with posters claiming Anderson was brilliant his first year. Next will be him keeping Gerrard in his pocket.
No way.
He really didn't. He never let anyone get that kind of space that close to the box, but otherwise he was letting Arsenal players run all around him while he jogged around uninterested and with no idea what players and positions he should be taking up. The average Gibson performance is better and more involved than what Ando did today.
Speaking of Gibson, why wasn't he on the bench today? I never thought I'd say this, but I was hoping he'd come on to help us gain more control in the midfield.
Anderson didn't have a poor performance defensively today at all. That claim is obvious bullshit. That is the reason why we went 1-0 down when we replaced him with a winger in center midfield.
The reason we went one nil down was poor defending by Park but even when it was just Park and Carrick in central midfield Arsenal never came close to the kind of dominance they had in the first 30 minutes where I don't remember Anderson making - or even attempting - a single tackle.
A thing Anderson is accused of doing all game. Yet the result was not the same...
He didn't need to. It's not like Carrick was making tackles either. What Carridck and Anderson did those first 30 minutes was sit off Arsenal and let them come on to us, shepharding them to the flanks. Even when we finally settled into the game and started seeing more of the ball first half. Second half they were under instruction to push up more and they did. But they just never got their attacking passing going. They and Rooney played too conservative. It was Park who made our passing down the middle more ambitious when he finally adjusted to the central role.
I fear for some folk, I really do. Are you being serious there?
I thought Anderson had a decent game myself. He wasn't stunning, but I'm not sure his performance deserves the response it has on here. Arsenal were able to do little of their normal play through the middle game, and were going wide a lot and crossing balls in to put pressure on us - with only Van Persie up front, that played into our hands. I don't think he played so well that he can be up in arms about his withdrawal, which was clearly an attacking gamble by Fergie. I don't think Ramsey has the time and space to slot home with him still on the field mind. Message or not, Park has to react there and not just walk while we're in great danger
Shepherding them to the flanks?! Christ. They were fecking pouring through the centre of our midfield in waves.
Go on, post one of your silly stat pitch maps which prove feck all other than someone in a room somewhere has too much time of their hands
Huh? Is that aimed at me?
Calm down, brad.
Calm down, brad.
Jesus Pogue, I'm hardly frothing at the mouth, I was taking the pissIf you need any assistance removing that stick up your rectum, let me know. I'll send Rimaldo round
Like I said, I don't remember Ando giving anyone quite that much freedom near the box. But further up the field he spent just about the entire match watching as Arsenal players peeled of him while he just drifted around.
I almost threw the remote across the room at one stage because of him doing that. He watched Carrick chase one player almost across the width of the field (about midway between the halfway line and our box), Arsenal played a couple of little short balls between each other and then it came back into the middle. Anderson was still hopelessly out of position with no effort to make up, so Carrick had to come charging back to force the Arsenal player into making a sloppy pass which we were able to win. That was the most frustrating incident, but similar things happened constantly all game. If it weren't for Carrick we would've got utterly dominated in the middle of the field.
Carrick did that. Anderson helped sometimes, but no more than Rooney and Park. Probably less if anything.
Neither he nor Carrick were operating much further upfield. That is why your claims are making little sense to me.
That is obvious bullshit. Because once Carrick was left alone without a proper midfield partner we conceded instantly. It wasn't a coincidence. Our game plan was to give Arsenal the ball, hold our ground deep, and try to hit them on the counter. We did that to the letter with both Carrick & Anderson on pitch.
He didn't just help some times. He helped all the time. You are simply way off base here.
Still waiting sadly.
Indeed
It's a sorry place to be when the Rubberman is mocking you with good reason
I can only assume you watched a different game. Was Wilshere out on the flanks when he tripped over Vidic right on the edge of our box? The amount of times we relied on a last ditch challenge right on the edge of our box was frightening. If the attack broke down at that point, they were able to slip the ball out wide to someone in acres of space. It was one way traffic.
So you're trying to claim that Carrick and Anderson spent the entire match operating just outside our penalty box?
They were regularly further up the field. Certainly not in actual attacking areas, but there were plenty of times they were defending around the halfway line or 10 metres or so behind it. And it was in those positions that I constantly saw Anderson jogging around watching the ball with no interest in the runs that other Arsenal players were making.
None of his mistakes were as blatant as Park's. And none ended up directly costing us a goal. Doesn't mean he didn't make any.
Fergie obviously agreed considering how early he took him off. And we didn't need to score at that point so it wasn't a change directly designed to help us get a goal. It was to help us get a hold in the middle of the park, as Anderson wasn't working out.
Arsenal didn't really look very threatening till around the time of the goal. They did their usual fancy act which we dealt with minimum fuss. Suddenly they found an opening scored, and after that of course we were more daring and hence they found lots of space to hit us.
Give it up Pogue, Rubberman clearly watched some extra-terrestrial game of kabaddi.
Exactly. They weren't attacking us out wide. They were attacking us through the centre, and then spreading it wide as they were hitting our defence.
But it really does feel like your first line is correct. Like Brad and Chief watched an entirely different match to what you and I did.
Feel free to
That happened once the entire game. In the period we were still fwwling ouw ay into teh match. You are acting like that is all we did all game long. You are frankly sounding like PeterStorey, who thinks we were lucky to lose 1-0, like his side put up a performance to match what Barca did to us in Rome in 09.
I don't agree at all. If it was any where near as bad as you claim Arsenal's final possession stats would have been in late 50's . They certainly didn't.
I'm not just claiming. I'm sure of it. We were letting Arsenal come on to us. You don't do that by trying to stop the opposition in their own half. We got more ball in the second half simply because we pushed up further as a team. But the tactics stayed the same till Park moved inside, which unsurprisingly caused us to go 1-0 down.
I dont buy that at all. By the time Anderson left the field we were seeing plenty of the ball. It was obviously done with the intent of being more attack minded. If he had agreed with you it would have been O'shea who would have come on instead. Have no qualms about that.
Spot on. An opening that appeared when we switched a center midfielder with a winger because we were looking to be more ambitious in attack. Not because were being over run.
Anderson was truly shit in this match.That is the simple truth
So basically our midfield performed the same task the mighty Sunderland (won 1 in about 14), and Blackburn (similar) managed at the emirates in blocking out an Arsenal side (minus their best player)...waaaahheeyy
They were there for the taking. We failed.
They were there for the taking. We failed.
It isn't. That's pure hyperbole.
No it's not chief.
- Status