Bloody hell fellas, you took that a bit too literally
I just meant the idea that he's a better product than he is a player due to being from the Far East is a little ignorant of just how good he actually is.
Don't be offended.
Shinji Kagawa | Signs for Manchester United
- Thread starter Raoul
- 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
I just meant the idea that he's a better product than he is a player due to being from the Far East is a little ignorant of just how good he actually is.
Don't be offended.
Andersons not explosive anymore because he ate too many pies, not because we made him a more rounded midfielder.
Park isn't generally average going forward (with exceptions) because he was converted into a more defensive winger. He was converted into a more defensive winger because he's generally average going forward.
Ok no worries.
So what chance we sign Kagawa and then try to mould him into a player he is not and three years down the line decide he wasn't the right player for us.
Anderson had great potential but the attempt to mould him into a player he clearly was not has backfired. Anderson still can be a top quality performer but perhaps not at United.
Anderson had great potential but the attempt to mould him into a player he clearly was not has backfired. Anderson still can be a top quality performer but perhaps not at United.
Very
He will be used as an orthordox winger no doubt.
Kagawa role that suits him would either be the free role behind the striker or as part of a mobile front three.
How would he look as part of a three man midfield?
How would he look as part of a three man midfield?
We did changed his position though
Kagawa will play through the middle, lot of doom and gloom creeping into this thread.
Oh and Anderson has never been shoe horned into playing a different way. He was immense at the start of the season but was unfortunate with his injury. We brought him back too early (which we seem to have a habit of doing with our players) and he got injured again.
Oh and Anderson has never been shoe horned into playing a different way. He was immense at the start of the season but was unfortunate with his injury. We brought him back too early (which we seem to have a habit of doing with our players) and he got injured again.
Well said 2Bullish.
He wasn't immense. He was decent, better than most of the time, but far from immense. Against Chelsea he was plain awful, we conceded about seven goal scoring opportunities due to him not being able to pass the ball. It was like that in each and every one of our games, even Tottenham's second string side took like 15 shots because they were allowed too much space. Cleverley and Anderson combo was exciting to watch but it was far from being good to be honest.
Aye, Anderson's start of the season performances have been way overblown, unless you're comparing them to his performances the 2 years before that.
Like I said, lot of doom and gloom getting into this thread, Oh and btw didn't we win all those games with Anderson in the side. Tottenham (second string my arse, you don't know shit) were soundly beaten and if you think a 3-0 scoreline means our midfield where shit, with Anderson scoring and making another, you need to get a grip.
Just watched those passing videos. Moist.
Agreed.
Anderson is shrouded in doom & gloom on these boards now though.
He's still the player that put the best performance in against Yaya Toure that I saw all year, totally bossed him in the Comm Shield.
I think you're the one who needs to get a grip here, because nobody said our midfield was shit in that game.
And go find the Tottenham first XI for that game and tell me it wasn't poor compared to their normal XI.
A glorified friendly.
Except if you actually watched that match, it was nothing of the sort. I see we're doing the same thing as we did last year, wherein the only good teams we've played are the teams that beat us. If we beat a team then, by default, they're not good.
Rubbish, look above.
Nothing wrong with that squad apart from missing Modric and we battered them. Not a "second string" my any means.
and the Arsenal one, plus the Chelsea game was mental, they should have scored 5 or something.
I'm pretty sure it's only United fans that make excuses for good results.
And a missing Adebayor and Parker. And Livermore and Krancjar in midfield.
We really didn't batter them by the way, it was a good win but far from a demolition job over the 90 minutes, and yet again, nobody here claimed our midfield was not good in that game, so I don't know where you're coming from on this anyway.
Personally, I think, when you have a ball playing attacker like Kagawa, the trequartista [#10] in a 4231 and an attacking midfielder in a 433 are very similar positions that are fairly easily adapted between. When a team with the ball is playing 433, one of those two attacking midfielders tends to move further forward into the area a #10 usually occupies anyway. When on defense the trequartista has to drop back and effectively becomes a 3rd midfielder.
RB CB CB LB
CM CM
RW AM LW
ST
RB CB CB LB
CM
AM AM
ST ST ST
CM CM
RW AM LW
ST
RB CB CB LB
CM
AM AM
ST ST ST
You obviously didn't watch the match.
It certainly wasn't played as a glorified friendly, far from it, it was the most contested Community Shield match I've ever seen.
It must be.
We didn't lose a game with this combo. Anderson picked up a niggle during the Chelsea game. Which part of the above strikes you as not saying our midfield was any good?
The combo was superb Bullish, back to the old United of... if you score 3, we'll score 4.
It was obviously too exciting for the likes of Cina who prefer 1-0 wins.
Where did he say 'shit against Spurs' there?
'far from good' is a bit much but the 2 man combo of Cleverley - Anderson wasn't as great as some people think it was, and NOT because of how good either of them were, though Cleverley was the better of the 2 at the time. The main reason it wasn't that great a combination is because we leaked a ridiculous amount of chances and shots with them there because neither of them are defensive players in the slightest.
I don't remember an old United like that personally. I remember an old United that had players like Keane and Robson in the middle of the park who stopped us conceding lots of goals whilst still allowing us to score lots. Actually, a bit like Carrick and Scholes in 06/07, arguably the best football we've played in a season in the last 10 years, and guess what, that combo was very defensively stable too.
The guy was talking about how weak Tottenham's team was when we played them, if anything Arsenal's was even weaker.
It was exciting but conceding 15+ shots on goal every game was never going to work in the long term.
It's worth remembering at this point that the Cleverley-Anderson partnership by and large featured in games with Jones at CB.
Very true.Although the big stat was mainly caused by this myth that DDG struggle against long range shots.You'd seen some ridiculous shots from all kind of angles and distances
.It made me feel like Cristiano was playing vs United in every match
Pick any of the top clubs and you will find that shots on target against them is about the same across the board. Anywhere from 5 - 15+, no different from the Anderson/Cleverley partnership. Its shots on target that count, having a team taking shots and missing the target are just wasting possession, more often than not because they are shooting from distance and just wasting possession.
Edit. Anyways, Ive contributed enough to derailing this thread, back on topic for me.
Very true.Although the big stat was mainly caused by this myth that DDG struggle against long range shots.You'd seen some ridiculous shots from all kind of angles and distances
It made me feel like Cristiano was playing vs United in every match
Both good points.
Listening to the others you'd think it was 100% Anderson and Cleverley's fault that other team were shooting against us.
Very true.Although the big stat was mainly caused by this myth that DDG struggle against long range shots.You'd seen some ridiculous shots from all kind of angles and distances
It made me feel like Cristiano was playing vs United in every match
It's also not true, Tottenham for example only got 9 shots on target against us in the 22 shots on target and 16 of them were from outside the area. West Brom had 16 shots against us, only 2 were in the area and on target.
The stats were so misleading. Look at the Norwich game where we started with Carrick and Scholes in midfield, with Ferdinand and Evans in defence. They had 16 shots against us. It's not actually that unusual.
meh not exited to be honest
This a match between us and City will never be a glorified friendly.
I still have hopes for Anderson but possibly all the injuries he's suffered with might have ruined any true potential we could get out of him.
I mean every injury he gets seems to be a major one which rules him out for months.
Stats aside, I don't understand how anyone can have watched the early season games against WBA, Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs without thinking our defence were incredibly exposed throughout.
We looked a bit more solid against Bolton but that was because Carrick replaced Cleverley in the first 15 minutes.
We looked a bit more solid against Bolton but that was because Carrick replaced Cleverley in the first 15 minutes.
- Status