Fergie's obsession with picking old players in midfield

The Neviller said:
Well done what? You're like a broken record of late, a miserable one at that.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "of late"?

I can't moan about us picking stupid CL teams anymore, because after it resulted in us being knocked out everyone stopped insulting me and started agreeing instead.

We've got about 50/50 on this one atm...still plenty of legs left in it. Especially since as Giggs and Scholes get older, I gradually get more and more right about it. I can't lose.
 
Rowem said:
I said Scholes transformed OUR PLAY, not THE GAME, dear.

I don't think SAF has a particular discrimination against young or old players. Each situation is unique. Starting Giggs in a game when Anderson is injured and Cleverley is out of form does not mean that SAF is more likely in general to opt for Giggs over a younger option in big games.

To be honest there are few players in world football that are capable of dictating the rhythm and pace of their team's game as well as Paul Scholes. Predictable it might be, stopping it is something else.

We've heard different interviews with SAF then, but ok.
Click to expand...

The quote is from the official site.

I disagree that Scholes transformed our play. We got slightly better because Scholes put in an adequate performance whereas Giggs was bloody awful in the first half. Also, Liverpool lost a man. That's sort of crucial. But "transform" would imply that we suddenly looked a different team, a lot better one, and that wasn't so, unfortunately. As Fergie himself admitted, we can't really be proud that we managed to do a little better in possession against 10 men.

You say that "Cleverley is out of form"... well if we base selection on form (a a sound idea in general) then Giggs sure as hell should not be near the starting XI. And if he plays shite then take him off. Fergie doesn't like to do that either.
 
noodlehair said:
What do you mean "of late"?

I can't moan about us picking stupid CL teams anymore, because after it resulted in us being knocked out everyone stopped insulting me and started agreeing instead.

We've got about 50/50 on this one atm...still plenty of legs left in it. Especially since as Giggs and Scholes get older, I gradually get more and more right about it. I can't lose.
Click to expand...

Hang on, Fergie was picking weakened teams in the CL for a number of years before it backfired last seasons. Also last seasons group was far easier than some previous ones.

He was well within his rights to expect the squad to get the job done.

For what it is worth I do kindve agree with this thread. I was not surprised to see the team sheet at all. And I also attempt to understand why he has picked it. But I do want to see him freshen the middle up sooner rather than later
 
noodlehair said:
What do you mean "of late"?

I can't moan about us picking stupid CL teams anymore, because after it resulted in us being knocked out everyone stopped insulting me and started agreeing instead.

We've got about 50/50 on this one atm...still plenty of legs left in it. Especially since as Giggs and Scholes get older, I gradually get more and more right about it. I can't lose.
Click to expand...

I used to enjoy reading your stuff, you used to bring some humour to the table, now it's just tedious moan after tedious moan.

Let yourself feel some joy noods. We just got a penalty at Anfield, scored it and won there. Smile a little man, enjoy it.

We all have worries about where things are headed, but we'll be alright.

It's just disappointing to see this noodleshell, we want funny noodle back. This version makes Pogue look like a bundle of joy.
 
Siorac said:
The quote is from the official site.

I disagree that Scholes transformed our play. We got slightly better because Scholes put in an adequate performance whereas Giggs was bloody awful in the first half. Also, Liverpool lost a man. That's sort of crucial. But "transform" would imply that we suddenly looked a different team, a lot better one, and that wasn't so, unfortunately. As Fergie himself admitted, we can't really be proud that we managed to do a little better in possession against 10 men.

You say that "Cleverley is out of form"... well if we base selection on form (a a sound idea in general) then Giggs sure as hell should not be near the starting XI. And if he plays shite then take him off. Fergie doesn't like to do that either.
Click to expand...

He just doesn't know what he's doing, does he?
 
The Neviller said:
I'd agree, it's obvious he knows more about the older players, and midfielders in general, than Alex Ferguson.
Click to expand...

Thats a great response.. why even bother with a forum discussing fan's opinion's if it is impossible to criticise SAF's tactics. He is obviously one of the greatest managers of all time.. but the midfield has always been one of his more tactically weaker areas since the era of Scholes and Keane in their hey day.

Rowem said:
Well he didn't start, and I don't think anyone would suggest starting him would have been a good idea.

Nor is anyone going to claim that starting Giggs worked out well, but given the alternatives were either unfit or out of form, then it's hardly worthy of such venomous and unconstructive criticism.
Click to expand...

The reason why there is no valid alternatives is the failure in having recruitment drive and a general failure to acknowledge a problem exists in that position of the pitch in the first place. The midfield has constantly been a weak link for a number of seasons, yet I see little being done about it.

I see the likes of Nani being criticised for being unable to hold possession etc but when he plays for Portugal that is rarely a problem.. Kagawa too is getting unnecessary stick, when he's one of the few people in midfield with the intelligence and mobility to recycle the ball without getting caught on it under moments of pressure.
 
Raees said:
Thats a great response.. why even bother with a forum discussing fan's opinion's if it is impossible to criticise SAF's tactics. He is obviously one of the greatest managers of all time.. but the midfield has always been one of his more tactically weaker areas since the era of Scholes and Keane in their hey day.



The reason why there is no valid alternatives is the failure in having recruitment drive and a general failure to acknowledge a problem exists in that position of the pitch in the first place. The midfield has constantly been a weak link for a number of seasons, yet I see little being done about it.

I see the likes of Nani being criticised for being unable to hold possession etc but when he plays for Portugal that is rarely a problem.. Kagawa too is getting unnecessary stick, when he's one of the few people in midfield with the intelligence and mobility to recycle the ball without getting caught on it under moments of pressure.
Click to expand...

Cheers, I thought so too.
 
I simply don't think we're getting anything like the best out of our midfield options, as long as Fergie is adamant he'll pick one of Scholes/Giggs in there.
 
Its unfair to always blame the midfield when so many players struggled yesterday.

We need to consider whether playing two in the middle is the right strategy for the squad. If we do persist, then in contrast to some posts above, we need Scholes more than ever. How we can turn a 'player being always available for a pass' into a negative towards that player I'll never understand.

With two attacking full-backs in the team I don't think we need to play with outright wingers. Valencia and Rafael are a good combination. I think when Rooney returns we might find Kagawa moved to an inside-left position with license to roam.

In summary, for me its the system and not the players.
 
Raees said:
Thats a great response.. why even bother with a forum discussing fan's opinion's if it is impossible to criticise SAF's tactics. He is obviously one of the greatest managers of all time.. but the midfield has always been one of his more tactically weaker areas since the era of Scholes and Keane in their hey day.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that, turned Scholes into a deeper-lying midfielder. Signed Carrick, was unlucky with Hargreaves (should have signed Senna instead). Missed out on Ramsey. Anderson hasn't kicked on. Fletcher has been unfortunate too with his illness. I do agree though, the last 2-3 years have been worrying, I did think SAF was holding out for Pogba to mature and take the Scholes role up but that boat's sailed and I'm not sure what he is doing.
 
The Neviller said:
I used to enjoy reading your stuff, you used to bring some humour to the table, now it's just tedious moan after tedious moan.

Let yourself feel some joy noods. We just got a penalty at Anfield, scored it and won there. Smile a little man, enjoy it.

We all have worries about where things are headed, but we'll be alright.

It's just disappointing to see this noodleshell, we want funny noodle back. This version makes Pogue look like a bundle of joy.
Click to expand...


I don't find Manchester United very fun to watch at the moment. I just see an almost criminal waste and misuse of talent. It's therefore hard to be fun or funny about it, since nothing fun ever happens.

We've become like Mourinho's Chelsea. We suck in all the joy and anticipation of exciting football, then spit it back out as a disgusting gunge of slow, methodical depression...which would be just about barable if we a) were actually good at it, or b) didn't have the players readily available to be doing something much better.

I've decided this is the main reason/cause as to why. So I'm going to moan about it. Probably a lot.
 
Siorac said:
Shoo, troll.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i'm a troll for not wantng to tear into Fergusons team selection, and the older, expereinced players he picked after a win at Anfield.

Yes, we didn't play particularly well, but can you say he was wrong? He didn't say the beautiful football played by the older players got us through, he said their experience saw us through. Can you categorically state he was wrong?

In a game where Liverpool played well (they always do against us, it's their cup final) is it beyond the realms of possibility that experienced heads saw the game out and the result go our way? He said we didn't play well, but our expereince was a factor. Show how he is wrong to say that.
 
I agree 100% with the OP. Giggs and Scholes still have valuable roles, but they should never start together, only play together if we're either winning easily or chasing a winner late in a game, and neither should start in a midfield 2 except maybe Scholes against absolute shite at home. And I mean absolute shite, even against lower-half PL teams it's dicey these days.

I also don't get why people are talking as if Carrick-Cleverley has been tried fifty times. Cleverley's still only played a handful of games alongside Carrick. I can't really see any reason why they shouldn't be able to play well together, and I don't get this post:

#07 said:
Even if Cleverley and Anderson were 100% fit Scholes and Giggs would still compliment Carrick better than Cleverley and Anderson. The reason is Carrick is less mobile and holds his position more which means unless his midfield partner will sit in beside him a massive gap will open in midfield.

If you're going to play a pressing game you have to play it as a team and if you're going to counter attack you have to counter attack as a team. You cant have one midfielder racing off to press and the other sitting off waiting to counter with a quick accurate pass forward to the flanks. It doesn't work.
Click to expand...

:confused: with a player who likes to bomb upfield and link with the forwards, a holding player who plays from deep is exactly what you want. It avoids huge gaps in midfield. And Carrick may be no great athlete, but he's perfectly mobile, he covers a lot of ground.

The combination I always think could work if given more time is Carrick-Anderson. It's very balanced on paper - Carrick has the defensive positioning, the simple possession passing and the occasional creative long ball. Anderson has the energy and dynamism, can put a tackle in and also do the attacking link play, as well as having some good long passes himself. Of course, it would depend on Anderson being not shit for a decent stretch.
 
experience did see us through, as someone else mentioned earlier everyone seems to have forgot about Rio
 
Siorac said:
But "transform" would imply that we suddenly looked a different team, a lot better one, and that wasn't so, unfortunately
Click to expand...

Do you really want to get into a back-and-forth, cock-waving, let's see who can be more pedantic competition? Transform, change, revolutionise, alter, does it really fecking matter?

Also this bit contradicts your previous post where you said our players defer to Scholes when he's on the pitch. By your own logic, Scholes' mere presence is capable of transforming, nay, revolutionising our entire game!

feck yeah, look how pedantic I can be son!

You say that "Cleverley is out of form"... well if we base selection on form (a a sound idea in general) then Giggs sure as hell should not be near the starting XI. And if he shite then take him off. Fergie doesn't like to do that either.
Click to expand...

Giggs has barely played this season to be considered out of form. He was shifted position and performed better (pedant disclaimer note: substitute better with any of the following: ok, not shit, less crap, decent, quite well - it doesn't matter, they all make a similar point, the exact phrasing can be left to personal preference).
 
Plechazunga said:
I agree 100% with the OP. Giggs and Scholes still have valuable roles, but they should never start together, only play together if we're either winning easily or chasing a winner late in a game, and neither should start in a midfield 2 except maybe Scholes against absolute shite at home. And I mean absolute shite, even against lower-half PL teams it's dicey these days.

I also don't get why people are talking as if Carrick-Cleverley has been tried fifty times. Cleverley's still only played a handful of games alongside Carrick. I can't really see any reason why they shouldn't be able to play well together, and I don't get this post:



:confused: with a player who likes to bomb upfield and link with the forwards, a holding player who plays from deep is exactly what you want. It avoids huge gaps in midfield. And Carrick may be no great athlete, but he's perfectly mobile, he covers a lot of ground.

The combination I always think could work if given more time is Carrick-Anderson. It's very balanced on paper - Carrick has the defensive positioning, the simple possession passing and the occasional creative long ball. Anderson has the energy and dynamism, can put a tackle in and also do the attacking link play, as well as having some good long passes himself. Of course, it would depend on Anderson being not shit for a decent stretch.
Click to expand...

They didn't.
 
golden_blunder said:
experience did see us through, as someone else mentioned earlier everyone seems to have forgot about Rio
Click to expand...

Apparently though SAF explicitly pointed towards Giggs, Scholes and Carrick's experience as helping see us through.
 
Plechazunga said:
I agree 100% with the OP. Giggs and Scholes still have valuable roles, but they should never start together, only play together if we're either winning easily or chasing a winner late in a game, and neither should start in a midfield 2 except maybe Scholes against absolute shite at home. And I mean absolute shite, even against lower-half PL teams it's dicey these days.

I also don't get why people are talking as if Carrick-Cleverley has been tried fifty times. Cleverley's still only played a handful of games alongside Carrick. I can't really see any reason why they shouldn't be able to play well together, and I don't get this post:



:confused: with a player who likes to bomb upfield and link with the forwards, a holding player who plays from deep is exactly what you want. It avoids huge gaps in midfield. And Carrick may be no great athlete, but he's perfectly mobile, he covers a lot of ground.

The combination I always think could work if given more time is Carrick-Anderson. It's very balanced on paper - Carrick has the defensive positioning, the simple possession passing and the occasional creative long ball. Anderson has the energy and dynamism, can put a tackle in and also do the attacking link play, as well as having some good long passes himself. Of course, it would depend on Anderson being not shit for a decent stretch.
Click to expand...

Yeah - how many games have Carrick/Cleverley even played together?

They played vs Ajax last season, IIRC. Other than that, they started together vs Fulham. And that's about it. Why shouldn't they work?

And I completely agree with your testament when it comes to Carrick/Anderson.
 
Plechazunga said:
I agree 100% with the OP. Giggs and Scholes still have valuable roles, but they should never start together,
Click to expand...

to be fair, the OP makes it sound like Giggs and Scholes should be taken out to pasture and shot
 
Plechazunga said:
I agree 100% with the OP. Giggs and Scholes still have valuable roles, but they should never start together, only play together if we're either winning easily or chasing a winner late in a game, and neither should start in a midfield 2 except maybe Scholes against absolute shite at home. And I mean absolute shite, even against lower-half PL teams it's dicey these days.

I also don't get why people are talking as if Carrick-Cleverley has been tried fifty times. Cleverley's still only played a handful of games alongside Carrick. I can't really see any reason why they shouldn't be able to play well together, and I don't get this post:



:confused: with a player who likes to bomb upfield and link with the forwards, a holding player who plays from deep is exactly what you want. It avoids huge gaps in midfield. And Carrick may be no great athlete, but he's perfectly mobile, he covers a lot of ground.

The combination I always think could work if given more time is Carrick-Anderson. It's very balanced on paper - Carrick has the defensive positioning, the simple possession passing and the occasional creative long ball. Anderson has the energy and dynamism, can put a tackle in and also do the attacking link play, as well as having some good long passes himself. Of course, it would depend on Anderson being not shit for a decent stretch.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why the Carrick/Cleverly partnership has been written off either. For a team that seems to want its central midfielder to simply feed the attacking quartet, they look a potentially ideal couple.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Apparently though SAF explicitly pointed towards Giggs, Scholes and Carrick's experience as helping see us through.
Click to expand...

Show how he is wrong.

Now, if he'd said the lovely football they played helped see us through I think people would have a point. What he said was that we didn't play well but our experience saw us through. Do people understand what that means?
 
The Neviller said:
Show how he is wrong.

Now, if he'd said the lovely football they played helped see us through I think people would have a point. What he said was that we didn't play well but our experience saw us through. Do people understand what that means?
Click to expand...

I get what he is saying but you can also say, well how did the experience help us score the two goals which won us the game. SAF said we were poor and everyone agrees. However I think a lot of people predicted the First Half would turn out like it did when they saw Giggs on the teamsheet. It's frustration more than anything, for SAF to point to Giggs after the game only serves to frustrate people even more as that only increases the likelihood it will happen again.
 
The Neviller said:
Yeah, i'm a troll for not wantng to tear into Fergusons team selection, and the older, expereinced players he picked after a win at Anfield.

Yes, we didn't play particularly well, but can you say he was wrong? He didn't say the beautiful football played by the older players got us through, he said their experience saw us through. Can you categorically state he was wrong?

In a game where Liverpool played well (they always do against us, it's their cup final) is it beyond the realms of possibility that experienced heads saw the game out and the result go our way? He said we didn't play well, but our expereince was a factor. Show how he is wrong to say that.
Click to expand...

Now see, this is not a troll post. Now you're actually contributing.

Had Fergie cited the experience of Ferdinand as crucial, I'd say he's right. He was immense.

But Giggs was poor throughout, Scholes steadied the ship somewhat... against 10 men. Our equaliser was the work of Kagawa and Rafael; the winner was the work of Valencia and the incompetence of Liverpool. These things and the red card were by far the most important factors in the win because for all the experience out there, we were never in control of the game. Actual good football goes a lot further than experience.

Again, Ferdinand's experience was a good influence on the back line but only because he used that experience to perform really, really well. The midfielders did not and it doesn't seem to me that we benefited from their experience that much.
 
golden_blunder said:
unless im blind, Nani and Valencia were on the pitch too. Admittedly Nani went invisible so Scholes was brought on
Click to expand...

1. Giggs is too much of a luxury player to start games.

2. Giggs and Scholes should never play together in midfield, even as part of a midfield 3.

3. We should have started with 3 in midfield. Kagawa and RVP were isolated all match. We'll be pasted in Europe/big domestic games playing like this.
 
Siorac said:
Now see, this is not a troll post. Now you're actually contributing.

Had Fergie cited the experience of Ferdinand as crucial, I'd say he's right. He was immense.

But Giggs was poor throughout, Scholes steadied the ship somewhat... against 10 men. Our equaliser was the work of Kagawa and Rafael; the winner was the work of Valencia and the incompetence of Liverpool. These things and the red card were by far the most important factors in the win because for all the experience out there, we were never in control of the game. Actual good football goes a lot further than experience.

Again, Ferdinand's experience was a good influence on the back line but only because he used that experience to perform really, really well. The midfielders did not and it doesn't seem to me that we benefited from their experience that much.
Click to expand...

you realise that experience doesn't just refer to how they individually play? Its about not panicking, its about knowing when to close the game down
 
Rowem said:
Isn't Anderson recovering from injury whilst Cleverley has played a fair bit this season and has been below par?

They will of course get plenty of opportunities this season. Why have you turned into such a drama queen?
Click to expand...

If he's one the bench, he can play. You don't put a man on the bench who can't.
 
Snow said:
If he's one the bench, he can play. You don't put a man on the bench who can't.
Click to expand...

Some players are fit enough to come off the bench but not to play a full 90 minutes. It's an idea as old as substitutions.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
I get what he is saying but you can also say, well how did the experience help us score the two goals which won us the game. SAF said we were poor and everyone agrees. However I think a lot of people predicted the First Half would turn out like it did when they saw Giggs on the teamsheet. It's frustration more than anything, for SAF to point to Giggs after the game only serves to frustrate people even more as that only increases the likelihood it will happen again.
Click to expand...

I get the complaint, but I don't see how he's wrong with what he said, or how we have a reliance on the older players. Scholes, maybe, but the guy is still fecking class. Giggs doesn't play as much. They aren't over relied upon, but their experience at times is invaluable, such as when you're seeing out a tight match at Anfield when you haven't played particularly well.

Last season we bemoaned the loss of experienced players like VDS, Neville, Brown and O'Shea, now we're bemoaning experienced players being praised for being experienced and using that experience to see out a tricky match in which we didn't play well, away to our most hated rivals, who are always up for beating us, irrespective of their relative quality.
 
noodlehair said:
...The time to stop relying on Giggs and Scholes, regardless of the alternatives, was a long, long time ago. If we have to play them we really need to change our system and style of play to suit, like we did with Keane...and that didn't really work anyway, and probably would even less so this time given that we have arguably the greatest collection of direct attacking players in the world.
Click to expand...

This is most regrettable aspect of the whole midfield snafu. Like buying a Ferrari and putting a Chevrolet Cruze engine in it.
 
Fergie
'It has been four or five years since we got a win here. It was an ugly win, probably our worst performance in that time, but we will take that,' he said.

'We didn't get going as an attacking force. We were on the back foot for most of the first half and sometimes it creates its own problems.

'Today, with the occasion and the emotions involved, we just wanted to come here, get the job done and get out with the three points.

'We have done that so we are well pleased. You can get really involved and sometimes the emotion of the occasion can affect you.

'They dealt with it fantastically. You have to pay tribute to that but we won the game - that is all that matters.'
Click to expand...

Giggs
'Over the last three or four years we've come here and played a lot better and not got anything - that's how it goes sometimes,' Giggs told Sky Sports 1.
Click to expand...

I think people are reading too much into the match yesterday. United played badly and got the result (despite the occasion). We've played better and got nothing before
 
The Neviller said:
I get the complaint, but I don't see how he's wrong with what he said, or how we have a reliance on the older players. Scholes, maybe, but the guy is still fecking class. Giggs doesn't play as much. They aren't over relied upon, but their experience at times is invaluable, such as when you're seeing out a tight match at Anfield when you haven't played particularly well.

Last season we bemoaned the loss of experienced players like VDS, Neville, Brown and O'Shea, now we're bemoaning experienced players being praised for being experienced and using that experience to see out a tricky match in which we didn't play well, away to our most hated rivals, who are always up for beating us, irrespective of their relative quality.
Click to expand...

As others have said Ferdinand was immense, however Giggs in a midfield two is too predictable now. Scholes is class but in a game with a high tempo and pressing he looks vulnerable, SAF needs to utilise him slightly more effectively. He got it right on Sunday with Scholes. Neither should be on the pitch at the same time really.
 
golden_blunder said:
I think people are reading too much into the match yesterday. United played badly and got the result (despite the occasion). We've played better and got nothing before
Click to expand...

Not to mention this is after a Champions League tie, delighted with the 3 points but just worried about the middle of the park. To be fair to SAF he hasn't really used Giggs centrally so far this year. Giggs and Scholes are great players but their age shows when we don't have the ball, we have to strike a certain balance with them in the team. Sometimes they have to be saved for certain games too but I just didn't see it with Giggs and Liverpool. I was certain Cleverley with his energy was being saved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.