Anderson

Status
Not open for further replies.
The last paragraph makes sense, ideally a squad player would be more reliable but you take what you have.

When you consider that Scholes and Fletcher are both likely to leave this summer, and if they don't will not be any more reliable fitness wise than Anderson, selling him makes no sense. If we sell him it just means we'll have a third cm who needs replacing which just isn't going to happen.

Ideally next season in center mid I'd have Carrick, Cleverley, new player, Anderson, and either Powell or another new player depending on if Sir Alex wants to loan out Powell.
 
gza the genius said:
The last paragraph makes sense, ideally a squad player would be more reliable but you take what you have.

When you consider that Scholes and Fletcher are both likely to leave this summer, and if they don't will not be any more reliable fitness wise than Anderson, selling him makes no sense. If we sell him it just means we'll have a third cm who needs replacing which just isn't going to happen.

Ideally next season in center mid I'd have Carrick, Cleverley, new player, Anderson, and either Powell or another new player depending on if Sir Alex wants to loan out Powell.
Click to expand...

I can't see that, SAF will give Fletcher chance to try and prove his fitness and worth to the club.
 
Isotope said:
:confused: But that's the whole point. He's taking up a place for other potentially better midfielder.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If he's replaced with a player who can play 35 - 40 games a season as a first team regular, surely that's beneficial?
 
There's no reason Anderson can't play that many games though. He's already been in the squad 31 times this season.
 
Chabon said:
There's no reason Anderson can't play that many games though. He's already been in the squad 31 times this season.
Click to expand...

How is that a reason? If he actually played more than five of those games in a row then he would probably pick up an injury, as the past has shown.
 
The point is that he's been available for selection most of the time this year. One month out with injury in a season is probably about par for a United player these days, and sure he missed much of last season with injury, but so did half the squad.

He's had two major injuries since we signed him, but I really don't think that's enough to be consigning him to the scrapheap. He's not exactly Darren Anderton, nevermind Owen Hargreaves, who, it might be noted, we kept on the books for three straight injury-devestated years, and he didn't have half of Anderson's talent.
 
I don't think we should consign him to the scrapheap, mainly cause our midfield is so thin, so what's the point in getting rid of a useful squad player, which is all he is now.

But you can't say he's capable of playing 30+ games a season based on the fact that he's been available for them without actually starting remotely that many!
 
Why not? If he's there in the matchday squad 40 times a season (as he presumably will be this year) then surely he's available for that many games?

Apart from early on in the season when Scholes was getting the nod over the pair of them (foolish sentimentality to my mind) he has, apart from his injury over Christmas, been in pretty much constant rotation with Cleverley, with Clev usually getting the bigger games. Being the understudy probably isn't the dream scenario for the lad, but he's playing his part, usually to a good level, and I don't really see why playing a lot of games would mean he's more likely to get injured. As far as I can tell his injuries have been entirely random.
 
Yes, he's been available for them, but he hasn't played them, there's a big difference. I don't buy that because he's in the matchday squad 30 times he could've started 30 games, how do those two go hand in hand exactly? Especially given his record of getting injured as soon as he plays more than five games on the trot.
 
I guess it hinges on whether his injuries are really random occurrences, down to bad luck, or whether playing football necessarily leads to injuries for him. Chabon, do you really think Anderson has it in him to play 30 games in a row without getting injured? Do you honestly think he could manage 10? I think if SAF did he would be getting more games.
 
Except that's not really his record is it? His injuries have occurred at random times, with no real consistent factor, except perhaps that more often than not they seem to occur away from matches.

And why would he been in a matchday squad if he wasn't fit to play? I think Anderson's just as likely to get injured sitting on the bench for six games as he is to get injured starting six.

Adebesi said:
Chabon, do you really think Anderson has it in him to play 30 games in a row without getting injured? Do you honestly think he could manage 10? I think if SAF did he would be getting more games.
Click to expand...

Well nobody plays 30 games in a row any more, not at this club at least. When he got crocked against Reading he'd only started three games in the previous month, whereas last season he started pretty much every game before getting a knock against Galati which snowballed into a season-ruiner. I don't think how much he plays has much to do with his injuries.
 
But that's what you're saying, no? If he's in the squad for 30+ games he should be able to play 30+ games too?
 
Chabon said:
Anderson's just as likely to get injured sitting on the bench for six games as he is to get injured starting six.
Click to expand...

You cant really argue with this. Which is not to say it is right. It is totally illogical, if you think about it. But neither can it be proved or disproved. Its a bit like arguing about religion.

I work on the assumption that Anderson, like all players, is far more likely to get injured playing football than not. If you have a different view thats your prerogative.
 
The claim being made is that Anderson is far more likely to get injured if he plays a lot of games in a row, but there's not really anything in his injury history to back this up. Sometimes he plays 12 out of 14 games in a row and then gets injured, sometimes he hardly plays at all and then gets injured.
 
Yes but that is how injuries work. It isnt, you play for 250 minutes and then get injured.

Some people are more likely to get injured than others. When you play football you increase the risk of injury. When you sit down on a sofa you decrease your risk of injury. That does not mean when you are playing football you will get injured, any more than it means when you sit on a sofa you will not get injured. So when someone who is already quite injury prone plays football, the risk is high, both because of their natural constitution, and because of the high risk activity they are engaged in. Sometimes you can do something high risk for a long period without any consequences. Sometimes you can do something very low risk but the worst can happen. It still doesnt change the nature of risk or probability.

You can look at Anderson's injury record and draw whatever conclusions you want from it, the fact is he is not some special case that exists by an entirely different set of rules. He is an injury prone person, so much so that he gets injured even going to the supermarket. That doesnt mean going to the supermarket is therefore equally high risk as 90 minutes (70 in his case) of high intensity sport.
 
You appear to have misunderstood both my post and the entire argument. I'll rephrase my point to be clearer. When I said "Anderson's just as likely to get injured sitting on the bench for six games as he is to get injured starting six" I meant that he's as likely to get injured playing after six games out of the side as he is playing his seventh game in a row, not that he'll pick up an injury whilst literally sat on a bench.

Cina believes that Anderson is used somewhat sparingly because there's a particular cumulative build-up of risk of injury (and this limits his value as a player). While this is a problem for some older players, I don't think there's any real evidence of it with Anderson.
 
No, I believe he's used sparingly because Carrick, Cleverley and Giggs are all better midfielders than him and two of them are capable of playing full games on a regular basis. His constant injuries and fitness issues certainly don't help though.

I totally disagree with you though, he's far more likely to get injured by playing regularly than by not playing at all, most players are.
 
Well obviously most players are, but you're claiming, as I said, that with Anderson there's a particular risk compared to the average footballer.
 
Cina said:
How is that a reason? If he actually played more than five of those games in a row then he would probably pick up an injury, as the past has shown.
Click to expand...

Chabon said:
you're claiming, as I said, that with Anderson there's a particular risk compared to the average footballer.
Click to expand...

Cina said:
I really didn't.

Keep on backtracking.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one backtracking.

edit: Where'd your post go?
 
Chabon said:
Well obviously most players are, but you're claiming, as I said, that with Anderson there's a particular risk compared to the average footballer.
Click to expand...

You're sort of contradicting your earlier statement here, which was basically "if he's available 30+ games a season he can play 30+ games a season".

(Tbf, I forgot that post, which was meant a bit tongue in cheek, but does back up what you said, my bad)
 
I don't see what I'm contradicting. It (literally, I hope) goes without saying that almost all players are more at risk of injury if they play football as opposed to sitting down, and that with the tempo of the modern games very few players can play literally every match they're available for, it's a truism. My point is that Anderson isn't a special case who has to be wrapped up in cotton wool, therefore limiting his utility as part of the squad.

I partly agree with your assessment as to why he doesn't start more (although I think it would be more accurately characterised as an issue of trust), but when it comes to injuries I think he's just unlucky, as a lot of players are.
 
I don't think he's just unlucky. He's never really looked fully fit and is apparently the laziest player in training, that's not unlucky to me.

Seriously though, what you said:

Chabon said:
There's no reason Anderson can't play that many games though. He's already been in the squad 31 times this season.
Click to expand...

Basically implies that cause he's been in the squad 31 times means he can play 30+ games, it doesn't, it really doesn't. If he had started 5 of those 31 games in a row then there's a far bigger chance he'd pick an injury up and not be available for half of them, which has been the case in the past, therefore he wouldn't be available to play 30+ games a season. it seems like simple enough logic to me.

There's still a chance Anderson can be a 30-35 game a season squad player for us, but that's all I see him as really, which in my eyes is still an absolute failure, given the price, expectation, and potential he had as a youngster. It's a shame really.
 
Chabon said:
You appear to have misunderstood both my post and the entire argument. I'll rephrase my point to be clearer. When I said "Anderson's just as likely to get injured sitting on the bench for six games as he is to get injured starting six" I meant that he's as likely to get injured playing after six games out of the side as he is playing his seventh game in a row, not that he'll pick up an injury whilst literally sat on a bench.

Cina believes that Anderson is used somewhat sparingly because there's a particular cumulative build-up of risk of injury (and this limits his value as a player). While this is a problem for some older players, I don't think there's any real evidence of it with Anderson.
Click to expand...

OK well you are making what seems to me to be a slightly different point there, and a far more defensible one.

Having said that I am still with Cina. If Anderson sat out 6 games and then played one, yes he might get injured, the bigger risk though would be that he would play like a muppet.

If Anderson started 7 games in a row and came through them all without injury I would be astonished. If he managed that I also think he would play himself into some very good form, but that is more wild conjecture. But yes, I do think playing intermittently will decrease the risk of injury for him, not based on any particular evidence looking back at his injury record, but just based on common sense.
 
Adebesi said:
If Anderson started 7 games in a row and came through them all without injury I would be astonished.
Click to expand...

He's done it before.

Cina said:
There's still a chance Anderson can be a 30-35 game a season squad player for us, but that's all I see him as really, which in my eyes is still an absolute failure, given the price, expectation, and potential he had as a youngster. It's a shame really.
Click to expand...

I don't really see how it would be an absolute failure. At worst it would be comparable to Wes, who you'd still say had a great career. Of course if he does follow the Wes precedent then we can look forward to that one season where he plays over 50 times on the way to European glory, even setting up the goal in the final. Gods, I'm getting nostalgic now.
 
When we bought him the general consensus here was that we paid a hell of a lot of money for a youngster who was potentially one of the very best players in the world. If all we're getting is a decent squad player who never did enough in training to try and become a great player then that's an absolute failure to me.

Comparable to Wes? Don't insult the man.
 
You're going to bring up that comment about him being the laziest trainer every single time you discuss Anderson from now until the end of time, aren't you?
 
Im a lot more pro Anderson than Cina, that is for sure.

I dont believe this business about him being lazy in training, for example. I reckon that was Evans trying to be funny, deflecting a question that he had no place answering.

I dont really blame Anderson for his problems. I do think he is unlucky, unlucky to be someone whose footballing gifts were undermined by his weak constitution. But I dont think it is pure bad luck that he repeatedly gets injured, I think that is just the way he was built, and I expect it to continue in the future. Hope Im wrong though.
 
I think that the worst we'll get from Anderson is 8-10 seasons with about 20 starts a year, in which he'll be good most of the time and intermittently spectacular, with probably that one big season where everything seems to click. And then we'll sell him for maybe half the fee we bought him for in his mid-to-late 20s.

Obviously that'll be disappointing compared to what might have been, but if that's an absolute failure then what the christ was Owen Hargreaves?
 
Its true, part of Anderson's problem is the high expectations he came with. I remember mine, they were sky high. The new Scholes. The answer to the midfield conundrum, finally. What we got compared to that is disappointing, there's no two ways about it. Pity he didnt arrive from Exeter for £500,000, then we could all just enjoy the occasional flashes of brilliance.
 
Chabon said:
You're going to bring up that comment about him being the laziest trainer every single time you discuss Anderson from now until the end of time, aren't you?
Click to expand...

That recent one wasn't about the laziest trainer thing at all. It seems clear to me, given that he's never really been fit enough to finish matches without looking bollocksed or play on a very regular basis without getting injured that he doesn't really put in the effort. A lot of youngsters have had to deal with injury and fitness issues but they do so by training hard and bulking the feck up. he's not even young anymore, he's almost 25 and his fitness levels seem to have regressed more than anything! I refuse to believe it's just bad luck.
 
At the moment we have far too many players whose appearances have to be managed, or who can't play a run of games. Rio (to a lesser extent, admittedly) Vidic, Giggs, Scholes, Anderson and Fletcher before he went away for treatment. It's too many, IMO. I know someone will peddle the usual "but we're 12 points clear" and I accept that, to an extent. But it seems to me that it's in spite of that, not because it isn't an issue. It's just asking for trouble to have to basically plan without players for a large chunk of a season.
 
Brophs said:
At the moment we have far too many players whose appearances have to be managed, or who can't play a run of games. Rio (to a lesser extent, admittedly) Vidic, Giggs, Scholes, Anderson and Fletcher before he went away for treatment. It's too many, IMO. I know someone will peddle the usual "but we're 12 points clear" and I accept that, to an extent. But it seems to me that it's in spite of that, not because it isn't an issue. It's just asking for trouble to have to basically plan without players for a large chunk of a season.
Click to expand...

Some experience in that list.

Looking positively at the situation I think SAF must be counting his blessings he can use this excuse/reason to rotate the squad.
 
Cina said:
There's still a chance Anderson can be a 30-35 game a season squad player for us, but that's all I see him as really, which in my eyes is still an absolute failure, given the price, expectation, and potential he had as a youngster. It's a shame really.
Click to expand...

I admire Anderson, but now I wouldn't be very upset if this is the case. I don't believe anymore that he would be the answer to our problems and one of the best midfielders in the world, but I would be happy if he manages to play that amount of games in every season as a squad player, and contribute to our success. 30-35 games in a season is not an absolute failure, though it is less than we all expected 5 years ago.
 
Brophs said:
At the moment we have far too many players whose appearances have to be managed, or who can't play a run of games. Rio (to a lesser extent, admittedly) Vidic, Giggs, Scholes, Anderson and Fletcher before he went away for treatment. It's too many, IMO. I know someone will peddle the usual "but we're 12 points clear" and I accept that, to an extent. But it seems to me that it's in spite of that, not because it isn't an issue. It's just asking for trouble to have to basically plan without players for a large chunk of a season.
Click to expand...

Perhaps what appears to you, Bro, to be a liability is actually an asset. Do you really want 23-26 players on the squad who all believe they should be regular starters? I don't think so. On their day, any one of the players you named above, with the exception of Anderson, are outstanding footballers. If Vidic can't be played twice in a week, that's really not a problem if you have Evans right behind him. The depth of the squad is the solution to the problem you've identified.

Scholes falls into a different bucket. It was a shock to learn his return and he was absolutely sensational for us through the end of last season. Well, he's just too old now but the team isn't suffering because he sits on the bench or doesn't even make the bench. His presence in training alone must be a huge plus for players like Cleverley. And Giggs? I'd rather have the Giggs who can get up for a game no more than twice a month than no Giggs at all.

We're actually in pretty good shape. We do need to spruce up the squad a bit over the summer but that's always the case, isn't it?
 
Ruud10 said:
Perhaps what appears to you, Bro, to be a liability is actually an asset. Do you really want 23-26 players on the squad who all believe they should be regular starters? I don't think so. On their day, any one of the players you named above, with the exception of Anderson, are outstanding footballers. If Vidic can't be played twice in a week, that's really not a problem if you have Evans right behind him. The depth of the squad is the solution to the problem you've identified.
Click to expand...

Oh dear God, where should I start?
 
We all know he can't play 90 minutes.


So why the feck isn't he coming on to help control the game in the last 30? Injured?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.