I'm sure Fergie does, but as Fletcher was on the bench against Sunderland I'm sure that means he could have played the last 45 minutes instead of Scholes or the last 10-15 instead of Giggs.
Fergie's obsession with picking old players in midfield
- Thread starter noodlehair
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Or maybe he was there because there was no other option, even though he should be rested, but as a contingency if yet another midfielder got injured.
That's a little far fetched. We still replaced two midfielders and brought on two other midfielders who were not Fletcher. I doubt we mate contingency plans to bring on three midfielders.
I felt we had total control of the match in the first half. Never so much in the second, the defence looked far more vulnerable from the first minute. Of course, a big part of it is due to the fact Scholes and Cleverley are not really a good combination defensively and none of them can take Carrick's place, which makes it far harder to judge.
Out of seven subs, how many mids would you have?
Annihilate Now! -- one of the more colorful names here -- is spot on. We were never in danger of losing our grip on the match. We missed a couple of very good chances that we "should" have scored on (and I really don't mean any shot on goal, but shots where the view on goal was very promising) and a few other developing opportunities where the final ball was lacking in quality.
As far as Scholes, he had a few wayward balls but he wasn't "shocking" at all.
I see no problem having Scholes or Giggs, or even Scholes AND Giggs, close out games which have already been put to bed. But I do agree with most other posters here that you don't want to rely on those two against a tough opponent. Age is what it is.
We'll miss these two legends of the game when they leave us, so get a good look at them now. I, for one, hope Fergie plays either or even both when the boys make the trip to Sunderland on March 30.
Maybe. I'm just fed up with Giggs and Scholes being used that way.
It's not even how about how they perform. It's about how their physical limitations can inhibit the team. It's not really a slight on them. They're old. Even against smaller teams, playing them in a midfield two is risky.
We weren't going to lose grip of the match. That wasn't the issue. The issue was our defensive shape as a team. Again, it's not their fault. It's how they're being used.
Specifically on the Sunderland game I would say that at first clev and scholes were fine but once Sunderland realised they could get some job by now committing players forward then the combo looked like it was shaky. It was to be expected though, clev isn't the best defensively and his strong point is being able to join with the attacker which he couldn't as he got pushed back. That's why I've always said if you want to play scholes then unless its a particularly unambitious/weak team he needs to play with carrick because you need that protection even if it comes at the expense of attacking quality.
Taking into consideration Giggs can also play on the wing and that we don't have cover for Young and Valencia, I'd say two or three, but two or three I'm willing to send on for at least 45 minutes. If one of the three is someone I really don't want to play, he has no place on the bench at all.
Does that mean you are not willing to play the other 4 (3+GK)?
As you say yourself, if Young got injured Giggs could cover.
So that leaves 2 for in the midfield. (not saying they can't get injured or dismissed)
To answer your own question, why do you think Fletch didn't come on?
Because Fergie thought we could handle just fine with Scholes and Giggs in the middle. Which I don't think we did at all. We were out of shape. Fletcher should have played as he would have given the defence better cover. I can't accept that Fletcher was on the bench even though Fergie really didn't want to play him. Had he really thought so, Fletcher would have been in the stands.
Well neither of us know for sure, so let's leave it there.
We dominated them for the first 25 minutes of that second half. We were constantly in and around their final third, Valencia and Jones were having the freedom of Manchester on that right side, we scored a goal, and Rooney/Young/RVP all had great chances to add to the scoresheet.
By the time Sunderland got their goal, we could (and should) easily have been at least 4 or 5 up.... which is what happens when you're in total control of a game.
They only really realised that after they scored though, by which point, Scholes and Giggs were off the pitch. Before that, they were just taking shots from distance / in crowed areas that were getting blocked... much like in the first half really.
All Sunderlands "pressure"/"good work" came after the goal... which they clearly gained a lot of confidence from.
Pretty confident Scholes was on the pitch when Sunderland scored.
I never said they didn't...
Sounds like you did but I might be mis-understanding you. Anyway like I said I don't think there was a huge difference at the start of the second half without Carrick but as the game went on it became more noticeable. I wouldn't purely pin it on Scholes and Clev as a combo and then Giggs as in general the team switched off a little, but I think there was a clear weakening in the middle which was further compounded by moving Giggs there alongside Scholes.
Ah, well thats a typo... obviously meant on. My apologies.
Anyway, before the goal (which came from a shot from Sessengon from outside the box no less) Sunderland's attempts consisted of shots from outside the box from Gardner and Wickham, and a blocked shot from the later... our hold on the game had reduced them to that, much like it had in the first half. Any 'weakening" that occured due to a midfield combo of Scholes/Cleverley was minimal... at best.
Anyway, before the goal (which came from a shot from Sessengon from outside the box no less) Sunderland's attempts consisted of shots from outside the box from Gardner and Wickham, and a blocked shot from the later... our hold on the game had reduced them to that, much like it had in the first half. Any 'weakening" that occured due to a midfield combo of Scholes/Cleverley was minimal... at best.
Fair play guess that's down to how you viewed it, personally I thought after maybe 10mins or so we lost the control we had in the first half and long term I certainly don't think a clev/scholes duo would work well except for a weak and unambitious team. I'm not saying you're suggesting that just that I think there are inherent weaknesses in that combo.
I really disagree. Throughout the second half I felt we weren't as solid defensively. Also, the Gardner shot you mentioned wasn't a pot shot from outside the box. It was a very good chance inside the box.
You mean the one that bbc describe as "Effort on goal by Craig Gardner from just outside the penalty area goes harmlessly over the target." or SkySports described as "Gardner with a desperate shot from distance that soars well over the crossbar" ?!?
The ball broke to him outside the area after Wickham had a shot blocked and he had a snap shot that went well over. It was hardly a chance, never mind a very good one.
No, I'm talking about one that ended with De Gea having to make a double save. Different one, obviously.
Ah right, I'm clearly talking about the other one!
It was just inside the box, hardly a "very good" chance though... certainly not in comparison to some of the openings we created. Sunderland had similar attacks in the first half, but, as with the first 20/25 minutes of the second, they were few and far between.
Fergie says Scholes won't retire end of the season and that Giggs can play another season or two 
To be fair, he didn't rule out Scholes retiring. He just said Scholes hasn't said anything to him regarding it.
Plus, he said Giggs CAN play for another two season. Doesn't necessarily mean that he WILL play for another two seasons.
I can see both retiring this Summer - will be a sad time
Plus, he said Giggs CAN play for another two season. Doesn't necessarily mean that he WILL play for another two seasons.
I can see both retiring this Summer - will be a sad time
He is obviously bullshiting regarding Giggs though. He doesn't start him in the most of thr game and most of his starts in the last month or so has come in small games. He's hardly going to come out say that Giggs legs has gone. Still think they both will retire at the end of the season.
If they are to retire at the end of the season, I feel that it must be their decision alone. SAF seems to still treasure them and understandably so, having managed them for so long. It must be hard for him to let go.To be fair, he didn't rule out Scholes retiring. He just said Scholes hasn't said anything to him regarding it.
Plus, he said Giggs CAN play for another two season. Doesn't necessarily mean that he WILL play for another two seasons.
I can see both retiring this Summer - will be a sad time
I really hope they retire, they deserve to go out as legends rather than the fans dreading them wearing the shirt.
Aye, I'm sort of feeling the same. I hate to say it too, and try not to complain given the great service they've both provided us with over the years, but I would hate to see a stain (albeit a small one) on either of their legacies.
There won't be any stain. Form is temporary, class is permanent. They ooze class. You'll all be eating your words when Scholesy or Giggsy turns a game around for us, once again.
Same for me.If we win an important trophy this season there is absolutely no doubt in my mind they will retire
Scholes already has this season.
Both are still very capable of contributing. The stick they get on here is pretty embarrasing.
They should be used sparingly, in certain games and with certain other players. Age has dictated that. But that doesn't mean they don't have plenty to offer.
You could argue that they were indeed used sparingly against Sunderland, yet a lot of us still moaned. Both are still very capable of contributing indeed, however I'd give the edge to Scholes in that regard.
but the problem is, whilst they're still at our club, their retrospective positions (cm) won't be strengthened. I would rather see them retire and us bring in another midfielder, we can't keep relying on these 2 as our options for much longer.
The moaning after the Sunderland game was unreal. It was a perfect opportunity to give them both minutes. We were 3-0 up!
Given Fergie's history of central midfield signings you should be careful what you wish for!
Hopeully both of them retire soon.Fergie is making them a laughing stock by playing them.
I think that Scholes has been alright this season, I really don't understand the over-the-top criticism he's getting on here. Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes should never be on the pitch at the same time, that's fair enough, but I think Scholes still has plenty to offer this season. It's Giggs that looks like a concern in my opinion.
Putting them both on seemed quite bizarre. And the score was 3-1 with those two on the pitch and we got overrun and Sunderland had quite a few chances in the last 15 minutes or so and thus yes the reaction was probably reasonable. On another day (think Everton 4-4) we could have so easily dropped valuable points.
Why did they need to be given minutes and both of them at that?