Anderson

kanchelskis14

Don't think anyone's demanding he starts ahead of them. I thought this thread was simply to speculate as to why he hasn't played one minute for us in about 4 games.

Count Duckula

Well I can't speak for Sam, but I know that whilst there hasn't been too much wanking over Anderson in this particular thread, this forum as a whole over the past season has been guilty of overrating him. Pogue even started a very sensible thread about it, and I didn't see you in there Top charging in and calling people childish.

Fact is, Anderson has great potential, but as of yet has done nothing of considerable note. He's played very well in a few games, but only a few. He drops off in the middle of most performances, hasn't scored a goal and probably doesn't have anything like as many assists as people would like to think he does.

He is one for the future but there are people on here who were shocked he didn't win Young Player of the Year, which is ludicrous. He's got a lot of potential, but, at the moment, that's all it is. As GB said, there's some who want him to actually start in Moscow; a huge gamble and one I would be shocked if SAF took.

JCurr

Three in midfield with Hargreaves alongside Scholes and Carrick for me. If ever there were an instance for which we bought Hargreaves, this is it. His mobility will be sorely needed in my opinion. I agree with the motivation of those who want Anderson. The more athleticism the better against this lot. But he is certainly too great a risk even if he looks fit prior. Maybe off the bench, but nothing else. However, I honestly expect a 4-4-2 with Park getting the run out. Fantastic little player he is, but I'll be pretty nervous if SAF opts for him. Scholes and Carrick got run over by the Chelsea three man midfield at Stamford Bridge.

Coca Cola

Scholes didn´t play at Stamford Bridge.

golden_blunder

no, not in this thread but in countless others created over the last 3 weeks. my comments were general, not really directed at anything said in this thread

and i would think that the answer to the question is pretty obvious?

Alex

He'll start in Moscow

golden_blunder

shut up

Cornell

He'll play 120 minutes, score a hat trick, get Terry and Cech red carded, cover the most distance anyone ever has in a game of football, and convert the winning penalty.

And while doing so, won't even break a sweat. Such is the talent of Anderson.

Cupid Stunt

Exactly, not that we expect lot's end product from any young player, look at Ronaldo and Rooney 3 years ago they werent exactly setting the world on fire like they are doing now. On the other hand Anderson has gave us very little to shout about when referring to end product, he hasnt scored and only has 1 assist to his name in around 16 starts and 8 sub appearances. This alone shows he's not good enough to hold a starting place yet and most definitely not a Champion's League final start.

I also dont lay down to the claim that no-one expected anything from him. I think the reported £18 million transfer fee and the dub of the "New Ronaldinho" (not my word's) put's quite a significant amout of expectation on him. To which he has lived up to when considering the difficulty's of a young Brazilian like Anderson must encounter when moving to the best league in the world and to Manchester United, where even the most establishhed players have come and failed.

It's clear from moments during performances that he should be a top player and future star baring a crisis. But he is still far from a finished article and down the pecking order for games of magnitude where experiance is invaluable.

If it's meant to be I hope he get's some playing time in the final, it would be tremendous experiance for one so young. Hopefully he grabs the winning goal right at the death.

Bleachno8

I see both sides of the argument on this one, and wether he should start in Moscow only SAF can truly be the judge of that. However I think all this talk of him being one for the future and not being a finished article is only true to the degree that he will of course improve with time. I still believe he has shone this season. He was an attacking player at Porto and was damn good at going forward to.

I think he is a little in the shade at the moment, there is so much emphasis on Ronaldo, Rooney & Tevez as our spearhead that the centre midfeilders sit deeper than they probably have in the past. He finds himself playing more of a holding role and his fitness and adapting to the English game is something he will need to work on.

However I believe Anderson has been an important player this season much of what he has done has been done without any fuss. His range of passing has been second to only Carrick. However he has the pace to track back and tackle unlike Scholes who has always made rash challenges.

Scholes is a legend but for me to slow and to pedestrian to hope he will hit ones like he did against Barca for every vital game. Best paring has to be either any combination of Carrick, Anderson & OH. There all quicker, can track back & tackle. If we had used any of those combinations against Chelski at the bridge we would have one.

Lizard King

You've got a cold heart if you don't get excited by Anderson's potential.

Cupid Stunt

You make good points and I agree with everything except that in bold. Scholes is our best passer by some margin, he is perhaps the best passer in the world IMO and this is shared by many.

Scholes is slightly less athletic these days, but he has never have been described as athletic, not even in his pom.

IMO our best combination is Scholes and Carrick, we usually play the best football with these 2 and provide our front line with great service in good area's. Your point that it's not the most athletic partnership, mainly due to Scholes, is just and reasonable. However, these have provided us with our best football in the main and we can only speculate as to wether SAF will try to match up to Chelsea in the physical department by adding Hargreaves, Fletcher or Anderson, I think Hargreaves is most likely.

I wholeheartedly disagree that we would of won at the Bride with the combinations you suggested, it was always going to be a difficult game, plus we did play Anderson, Fletcher, Carrick, and we still got over run. IMO we could have done with Scholes in that game to bring some calm and authority to the midfield. Shame he needed to be rested for the Barca game.

JCurr

You're absolutely right. Forgot. Fletcher and Carrick it was with Anderson playing behind Rooney. Once Anderson came off injured somewhere around the 60 minute mark, Ballack and Essien really asserted themselves. That was one of the more bizarre lineup decisions this season from SAF with Ronnie, Tevez, Scholes and Hargreaves on the bench.

Lot 49

...

Cupid Stunt

I was talking in terms of end product. Ronaldo wasnt getting goals or assist's people expected for the amount of talent he possesed, same for Rooney but to a lesser extent. When these guys can do anything with a ball at thier feet people expect product and lots of if. Especially when they come on the back of a big transfer fee and you're playing for Manchester United, when you play for United you are going to get chances, more than players at other clubs get.

Different these days though..

Godfather

And that is coming from a 13 year old, who is posting 36+ posts everyday on the forum

I think he is able to. He has played 90 minutes for Porto as well, and he could for us. I think he got a knock against Chelsea I dont think it was because he was tired.

Fergie wouldnt have started him in so many games if he hadnt known that he was capable of playing full 90 minutes.

But I of course do know, that redcafe freaks like you do know better than him.

Sam#1

Yes yes, of course I'm 13.

Wanker.

The fact that he's not once been able to hold his performance past 60 minutes, and Fergie usually brings him off on about 60-70 minutes, yet you think he can last 90 minutes in a Champions league final against one of the most physical side in the world. You're just so deluded it's untrue.

Shotgun raisin

Have we ever played a 4-3-3 well without Anderson? Not that I can remember. Without him there's nobody to bridge the gap between midfield and attack.

It's difficult to make a convincing case for dropping one of Scholes, Carrick or Hargreaves, but as far as the team is concerned Anderson's important to he way we play in big games. I don't think he'll start but I hope he does.

And if Anderson is on the bench, I reckon the onus will be more on Carrick to get forward than Scholes.

Cupid Stunt

We played against Roma at home in a 4-3-3, then it was Hargreaves job to support the attack, and he was superb that game. Can't think of many other times we have done it and played really well.

Usually when we play a 4-3-3 it's either Anderson, Hargreaves, Scholes or Fletcher that gets forward, never Carrick, he just sits and picks the ball off the defenders. I agree Anderson is the best in this system (4-3-3) at joining in the attack by some distance. We dont play it that often though, SAF likes his 4-2-3-1, and in that system Carrick and Scholes usually get picked if fit with Tevez ahead of them.

Everybody seems to think we will match Chelsea in Moscow and go 4-3-3, if we did I think Anderson may or should perhaps get the nod. Personally I think we will go 4-2-3-1.

neno

The fact that he rested these players against Chelsea thinking about the Barca game underlines the fact that Scholes, Tevez and Hargreaves will start in Moscow... Ronaldo is a given though obviously.

Scholes is our best passer... nuff said

Tevez is too much of a big game player and "important goal" scorer to leave in the bench

Hargreaves adds a certain dynamism to our midfield that neither carrick or scholes do. he is needed there and it would be daft not to play him.

best possible lineup by far is

Vds

Brown Ferdinand Vidic Evra

Hargreaves Scholes Carrick

Ronaldo Rooney Tevez


By the way JCurr im not trying to contradict u or anything i'm just using your post as a reference...

Shotgun raisin

That game was a bit weird. Roma hardly bothered closing us down in midfield and it was actually both Anderson and Hargreaves who pushed up on the wings while our actual wingers came narrow to support Tevez up front. Hargeaves didn't do that from the centre of a congested midfield, and although he can cross, he doesn't have the passing ability to make the spare man in the final third.
Scholes doesn't have the legs for that anymore. He's been poor whenever he's been asked to play that way in recent seasons (other than the second half against Milan last year at OT after Gattuso had gone off). Carrick has got forward on occasion this season and he's looked okay. We'll have to wait and see on Wednesday, but I reckon Scholes'll be the one sitting.

Godfather

You are 16, that's even worse. A pubescent internet addict calling me a boy.
Nice Sam, really. You are making good points now and then, but just because I said he would be able to play 90 minutes calling me a fanboy is premature, sorry mate.

We have 2 different opinios, right.

And actually I NEVER said he should play full 90 minutes against Chelsea.
I said it would be a very difficult decision for me to decide who should and who not.

Furthermore I said that Scholes' experience as well as Anderson's pace could be crucial.
OK you have a different opinion, you think Anderson shouldnt start. I personally would probalby sub him in, if needed, or probaby let him play for 40 minutes.

I'm not saying he should play full 90 minutes against Chelsea, all I'm saying is, that he would be physically able to, in my opinion.

Think about it, before you start abusing me again.

Godfather

Nicely put.

Godfather

What comments are you talking about? I really never said he should play full 90 minutes against Chelsea, I really don't know what you are on about.

If you disagree with me, that's fine mate. But just because I like the way Anderson performed for us this year, you shouldnt start getting aggressive or sth.

Sam#1

Pretty much every OTT comment you make about Anderson. Don't worry though, it's not just you. There are plenty of others. And to be honest, my initial comment was just me saying that it is starting to irritate me slightly, I wasn't having a go, just commenting, but then Top got involved and the whole thing got thrown out of proportion. And, unfortunately it was your comment that I quoted, when stating my irritation, so it seemed like I was having a go at you, when I wasn't specifically.

And also, don't get so worked up about calling you a fanboy, you took it far to literally, I wasn't implying that you were a kid or anything. If you want, shall I call you a fanman, is that better?

Cupid Stunt