We've got some very talented youngsters who are in need of playing time and having him about will only take that away from them. Sell him, and don't replace with anyone.
27
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 31
- Goals
- 7
- Assists
- 2
- Yellow cards
- 7
- Red cards
- 1
- Status
If we sell him and don't replace him we become weaker as a squad. As hard as it is to hear, he is a better player than Pereira, Pearson etc at this point in time.
We don't use him in their positions, and haven't done so since Moyes' time here. Januzaj is the one that should be playing and I'd rather he plays than him. No need to be short-sighted here, it might make us weaker right now but it will secure our future.
Well Fellaini has easily out-performed Januzaj in that position anyway, so I would not just be starting him because he is young. We were pretty poor again in the league this season, I don't think we have time to make sacrifices for long-term gain.
His pretty unique skillset makes him a valuable member of the squad. Keep the lump I say but he should not be a starter.
No one is saying it was all down to him and they were undoubtedly great team performances that won those games, but I just dont see how anyone can deny that he was integral to those big wins in late March/early April. Why would Jose decide to change his entire set up to man mark him if he wasnt?
As you note, he scored vital goals and contributed to the build up of other chances in that triangle on the left - but in fact the part of his game that continually gets understated is the defensive work he does for the team. The idea that he is just a target man or pseudo no10 is completely wrong - he contributes to both the attacking and defensive side of the team.
Not that I am trying to say he is a world class player or even that he should start every week, but to deny he played a vital role this season in getting us back to the CL is wrong.
There are several who dont want to give him credit for anything he did this season and have stuck to the same opinion that they had last summer ("hes shite", "get rid" etc) which, when you consider the vast difference in his performance level from last year to this, is simply ridiculous.
Januzaj hasn't played in that position for us. We have to have him getting games cause he's young and talented. He should be the squad player that people are convinced fellaini should be next season. We're gonna invest, so we should be better next season.
I always maintained he had some decent performances this season but the role he generally plays for us is far high up the pitch and I really don't like to see us employing him as our main option going ahead, not that you have implied such.
As far as Jose's point is concerned, yes he was marked and yet we kept bombarding it forward to him. That trick just stopped working and the bench was not smart enough to realize or change it. This is what happens when we use that tactic and it gets found out (which it would have anyway seeing that it is nothing but a big hoof forward to a big guy). That is why my concern that using him as a plan A does have some merits but there are a lot of negatives which outweigh the positives. Not to mention that SAF also used players to mark Andy Carroll. That does not make him a very good player, just simply points out that he is a big brute who needs to be handled.
Thats not the same thing at all - it is absolutely standard to have a defender marking the opposition striker, every team does it in every match. This was a specific one off tactical move that Chelsea made by putting an extra defender in midfield just to nullify the threat of Fellaini (to a lesser degree other teams then copied that when they saw it was a success) - SAF employed man markers in midfield very rarely and it was to deal with some of greatest talents in the world (e.g. Jones on Ronaldo, Park on Pirlo).
You are right that we need to have other options and should not be so reliant on that. But, as Ive mentioned already, when teams are forced to adapt their game like that, it inevitably leaves spaces elsewhere. Specifically in that Chelsea game I remember Shaw having a lot of joy down the left flank, this is all a result of Chelsea changing their standard line up.
Chelsea changing their shape to deal with Fellaini was probably less about how good he was and more about how one dimensional we were without him. The fact that he was that integral to our play reflects badly on us more than it reflects well on Fellaini (and I don't say that to have a go at the guy).
It is a bit of both TBF and I do get the point that it is not good for us to be so reliant on him. Although dont forget that Carrick was also missing that day, which meant that Herrera (our most creative alternative) was forced into a defensive role. Still we did have chances and the actual disappointment that day was that the likes of Rooney, Mata and Young didnt manage to create more with all the play we had.
Keep him for another season but don't rely on him and don't start him regularly, is my opinion. Sell him next summer when the team/tactics are in better shape.
Limited but effective sums up fellaini, he offers some thing different and unique wherever you play him but you also lose a lot in any position he plays. For a team that plays percentages he will be a good player and I think that is why he worked well at times this season.
if he gets the right opponent he can be unplayable, it's easy to hit long balls to him and his ability in the air and chest control mean if he has the measure of his man and gets the ball in the right areas he can cause havoc. Conversely if someone matches him physically he is nothing like as effective and toward the end of the season when teams did that he struggled.
He isn't going to improve much from what we saw this season, he should only play in an advanced role and he gets in the team because we lack physicality and aren't really that good. If that changes over the summer I think his role will be drastically reduced and he will be a plan b and backup which is the best he can hope for at a team at the very top. It's stupid we paid so much for him and that we signed him at able really but there are uses for him and it's not his or LVG's fault moyes signed him.
if he gets the right opponent he can be unplayable, it's easy to hit long balls to him and his ability in the air and chest control mean if he has the measure of his man and gets the ball in the right areas he can cause havoc. Conversely if someone matches him physically he is nothing like as effective and toward the end of the season when teams did that he struggled.
He isn't going to improve much from what we saw this season, he should only play in an advanced role and he gets in the team because we lack physicality and aren't really that good. If that changes over the summer I think his role will be drastically reduced and he will be a plan b and backup which is the best he can hope for at a team at the very top. It's stupid we paid so much for him and that we signed him at able really but there are uses for him and it's not his or LVG's fault moyes signed him.
There is nothing unique in his skillset.
Edit: Fellaini and Raul Garcia are both poor men's Tim Cahill.
Last edited:
I am going by Fellaini's contribution this season (and to a lesser extent last), which has involved him starting a high number of games and often being used as a central point to our tactics. I've gone to the effort (both previously and below in my point to Rood) of pointing out some examples of games where this has happened for you and others, since some people seem to have re-invented history again in claiming otherwise.
I don't really see the point in getting into theoretical scenarios that haven't actually happened yet...like Fellaini being a "squad member"...partly because what does this mean exactly? That he'll never start a game? That we'll use him completely differently from a tactical point of view? If so, how? How does it make a difference to whether a player is good enough if they spend 5 games a season in the team not being good enough, as opposed to 25, for example? I mean when would you use him to make him effective, and in what type of role?
I'm not judging him as a key match winning player either. I'm judging hm on whether I think he's good enough to play for a team who's ultimate ambition is to be the best in the world. "He's good enough to play for them, as long as it's not very much" isn't really a particularly compelling argument to me. You could argue Kevin Nolan is good enough to be in the United squad providing he doesn't play at all, but what would be the point?
I guess what you're basically saying is he's a good option to have if we want to change it up in a game and bring someone on to win headers and be tall and stuff. I mean, ok, but this is what we did in games this season, and it didn't usually go down very well, or help very much at all.
Also consider that I'm arguing against points like "Fellaini was integral to our best football of the season"...you can't have it both ways. I think he's contributed at times, and he's had some good performances. Overall I've watched him play for us for two seasons now and seen two things a) he isn't a good enough footballer for where we want to be, and b) when he's in the team our tactics tend to change, and too often to our detriment. particularly when we're losing.
You don't like the CL final argument, even though it was you who bought our CL winning sides up, but ok, lets change it to suit what you are saying. I can't think of a player in either the 99 or 08 United squads, who made a meaningful contribution during the season, who was as limited as Fellaini. Name such a player.
I see also that someone has accused me of being "biased" now. Biased towards what exactly? Short people? You think you have to contend with people changing your argument (I apologise if that's the impression I gave), but at least you don't have to contend with people who invent an impossible agenda for you to have, then claim that you have it. This is a bizarre thread tbh.
Really, I claimed two other players were integral to our worst football of the season? Who were they? It seems a bizarre thing for me to have said three seperate times, seeing as I only said it the one time because it was something you said that I turned around.
Yes those were our best performances, but Fellaini wasn't "integral" to them. Not anymore than Mata was, or Young, or Herrera, or Rooney, or Carrick. Those were three good team performances.
On the flip side you have the games we played poorly in, where our tactics descended to hoofing the ball to Fellaini. It's hard to argue that Fellaini isn't somewhat integral to a game plan of "hoof the ball to Fellaini"...there was even that one game against Swansea, where we were actually playing well, and then turned shite as a direct result of starting to hoof the ball to Fellaini.
I don't actually hate him I just think, for exactly the reason above, that he isn't good enough to be here. I recall defending him, but that was much earlier in the season...before he came on against West Brom away I believe? And that's because he WAS getting loads of unfair stick. He was being slagged off and blamed for things purely because David Moyes signed him. He got booed and sarcastically cheered by his own fans for feck sake.
I was prepared to give him this season to prove himself. I think though, what he's proven this seson is that in order to be useful for us, we have to become a poor team, and that too often, when things aren't going right, having him on the pitch seems to encourage us to become exactly that..
Maybe we can loan him to Real Madrid? FSW wanted him for Napoli after all. Fellaini and FSW would be a dream duo for @Vato and Co. to experience.
I don't think you can ignore we tried to get rid of him to Napoli, but that didn't happen, lvg rejuvenated his confidence and utilised him well to the team's advantage which is good management but you would like to think we could get the right players in to play a more expansive game. He may have done enough to keep himself around as an option however, a plan b in certain games, but I do not want to see him as a first choice next season.
Thats just bollocks! Do you think we were a poor team against City/Spurs/Liverpool?
Just to make it clear, I think all this talk comparing past and present CL winning teams is pretty irrelevant to the discussion about Fellaini but, since you asked the question, our '99 CL winning team had Butt and Blomqvist in it, 2 pretty average squad players who still played important roles for the team when called on. In fact I would say Fellaini has a lot more to offer than either of them (ye not exactly the same position I know).
Now I do get your point about the hoofball and I am no fan of the long balls either, but I think you (and others) are exagerating how much we actually did that and the idea that Fellaini is only useful for that is simply not true. Fair enough there were points mid-season when we set up like that and Fellaini played further upfront but it was just a means to an end at the time and I very much doubt we will see that much next season because our game has already progressed from there. Late in a game if we are losing then I am ok with it but for me Fellaini is best in midfield where he contributes both to attack and defence, I dont want to see the long balls looking for knock downs because quite frankly we arent very good at that as a team anyway.
And I stand by the 'integral' comments - yes they were good team performances but his contribution stood out at the time for me and it seems many other agreed. In voting for MOTM on here, although he was not the top choice in any specific game (he was at other points in the season), he is the only one appearing in the top 3 for each of those big wins. Shows a consistency of high level performance in the big games, a criticism levelled against him last season was that he had a few good performances against weaker teams but struggled in big games - well he blew that out the water this season.
and as I asked above, Why would Jose decide to change his entire set up just to man mark him if he was not integral to those wins?
Last time I checked, we don't have a Tim Cahill in our squad. Fellaini offers us something completely different. Just imagine, CL final vs Barcelona, 1 goal down, 1 minute to go. Struggling to break them down with our possession play. Throw Fellaini on, get the ball out wide, cross to the far post on to that afro. Like to see who ever's defending try and out-jump Fellaini!
So to sum up the above fantasy piece; he will prove to be a useful member of the squad over the course of a 50+ game season. No need to get rid.
If he is to stay, I hope he'll have limited playing time as a result of the team having much better players and playing much better in general. There is a limit to the progress we will make or we aspire to make if Fellaini regularly starts for the team.
Twist the knife a bit further, why don't you?
We either bring a quality defensive midfielder and sell him or we don't sell him at all. I don't rate the guy but we do need his physicality in midfield.
We don't need his physicality though. There's other ways of getting stuck in and annoying the crap out of the opposition than just tearing around the place swinging wild elbows and pulling lads down like he mainly does. I know he gets wrongly done for it sometimes but that's not good enough either.
We do need it. Fellaini is doing what Scholes (do you remember those tackles who were more likely to maim a player rather than win the ball?), Keane and Ince used to do. It would be nice having 11 talented boy scouts in the team but you will never win anything with them. If you don't believe it just ask Arsenal fans.
However, yes we can find a better players to do that job than Fellaini. Schneiderlin, Bender Vidal and Javi Martinez for example. If we bring 1-2 players like them (1 first teamer and 1 cover) than we can allow Fellaini to go.
Ask them what? Would they like to have Fellaini or a Fellaini type midfielder on their team?
I reckon they'd say ''no thanks, we'll stay plodding along the way we are''.
We need a good solid, physical, midfielder that'll get suck in but has a bit more going on in his head than what Fellaini has.
That's not my point isn't it? We may be able to win the league with kids but we'll definitely won't be able to win the league with 11 boy scouts irrespective of how talented they are. No wonder why Arsene seem interested in Vidal. Arsenal hasn't been a powerhouse ever since a certain Patrice Viera (another cnut) left their team.
If Fellaini leaves than we need a hard man in midfield whose not afraid getting his shirt dirty and why not, do the nasty stuff once in a while. SAF's teams always had this sort of players (Robson, Ince, Keane, Butt, Phil Nev, Fletcher, Scholes etc). As you can see there's a big gap between lets say Keane and Fellaini in terms of talent and we can replace Fellaini with someone whose more talent. However players with that attitude are needed. I assure you we wont be winning the EPL with Herrera-Blind-Gundogan in CM.
Last edited:
Exactly. And there are plenty of good, quality teams who dont have a player like him and do very well
I already said that I thought we played well in those games, and explained why, in my last post? 4 or 5 good performances in a 40+ game season doesn't prove you're a good team, anymore than 4 or 5 good performances in a 40+ game season proves you're a good player.
Nicky Butt was a pretty good player and proved as much for a number of years on the trot. I would kind of agree about Blomqvist, except that he only played for us for half the time Fellaini has and made only 25 appearances! What exactly does that prove?
You say our game has already progressed, but the last game in which having Fellaini on the pitch proved to be detrimental to us, was in fact against Hull last Sunday. The game before was against Arsenal a week earlier when he was completely incapable of not giving the ball away and a large amount of our attacks broke down through him. The game before that was West Brom where we had Fellaini up front failing to get hold of the ball, with Rooney, Van Persie and Falcao all in midfield behind him (why?). Before that Everton a week earlier where he had to be taken off at half time. These are all games that have taken place SINCE the ones you named in which we played well. It seems to happen in more games than it doesn't.
Even giving you the benefit and saying he was one of our top three performers in those three games. Three games over two years isn't enough for me. It wouldn't be enough if he was average/irrelevant in other games, but the problem is when he's not effective, he's often worse than average/irrelevant.
I just don't see the point in keeping him around. If pretty much everyone agrees he shoouldn't be starting games if we're where we want to be next season, and no one likes when we bring him on or move him up top to hoof the ball to him, what exactly would his role be? To come on and get sent off every so often?
You tell me - you asked the question! Your point was about average/limited players who played for us in CL finals, I actually thought it was a pointless question but answered it anyway as those 2 immediately came to mind!
Ye he was fecking stupid at Hull but it was a meaningless dead rubber so I couldnt give a shit TBH. Accusations of giving the ball away are not true - just look at the stats, 85%PA in that game which is the same as Mata and not far off Blind (87%) and Herrera (89%). LvG does not stand for players who give the ball away, its pretty much the most important thing to him, so Fellaini would not be starting if he did that as much as you suggest.
I focused on those 3 games but In fact he has had several other very good performances and even been MOTM on other occasions (Im sure you remember him coming on at WBA and literally changing the game). I just focused on those 3 as an example of how well we can play with Fellaini in the team and this was not against weak teams either which is why it is even more important. It clearly disproves the idea that for us to function well as a team with Fellaini that we have to play poor football (your words!).
I hadnt looked in this thread for a whole and was actually quite surprised to see a few saying he should be sold etc. But looking over at the rating for the season thread, it seems the vast majority recognise he had a good year as well.
Not everyone agrees with that at all - I expect him to start several games next season as LvG obviously likes what he has to offer. If you say you think someone is a squad player, it doesnt mean you dont think they should start ANY games, it just means you dont expect them to start EVERY game - thats a vital difference.
Next season being back in Europe, having more squad options will be especially important. Regardless of who we bring in, I expect him to start some games when we need what he offers.
Don't mind if he is kept in the squad, but there is no way he should be starter next season.
We need him in our starting XI.
At least 70% of our attack is making 500 passes to lead to somebody putting in a cross. We don't play through the middle and when we do the ball ends out wide for a cross anyway. If we're just going to put crosses in, I'd rather Fellaini be in the team. I don't think we play this way because we have Fellaini. We did the same thing against Hull without Fellaini, but we were less willing to put in crosses and instead of crossing we just passed it amongst ourselves. If we change our style of play and not put so much emphasis on getting the ball out wide for a cross, then we wouldn't need Fellaini. But if we continue doing what we have this season, then he is a necessity for our team.
At least 70% of our attack is making 500 passes to lead to somebody putting in a cross. We don't play through the middle and when we do the ball ends out wide for a cross anyway. If we're just going to put crosses in, I'd rather Fellaini be in the team. I don't think we play this way because we have Fellaini. We did the same thing against Hull without Fellaini, but we were less willing to put in crosses and instead of crossing we just passed it amongst ourselves. If we change our style of play and not put so much emphasis on getting the ball out wide for a cross, then we wouldn't need Fellaini. But if we continue doing what we have this season, then he is a necessity for our team.
"Fellaini" and "necessity" should never be used in the same sentence. Not for Manchester United.I agree wholeheartedly, but with how we play and our emphasis on crossing Fellaini is the best option. My muppet signing for Fellaini's spot is Vidal or Pogba, but they're not going to get on the end of crosses like Fellaini will.
Like I said we either change our philosophy in attack to include something beyond crossing, long balls over the top and long shots from Blind and Rojo or stick with Fellaini who is the best option to play this style of football.
We don't need his physicality in midfield. We used to win titles with carrick and giggs in there. Hererra is no shrinking violet either. We're also going to sign a DM in the summer.
Id much rather prefer him upfront if i had to choose. Him making challenges outside our box just scares the hell out of me.
Carrick is one of a kind. His positioning is world class and there's very few players out there like him. Giggs wasn't first teamer as a CM.
I agree, if we get someone like Schneiderlin than we wont need Fellaini, at least as first teamer. Until then we have to play him
I don't agree, Schneiderlin won't affect whether Fellaini plays up front or not. It's a dominant striker, who is also aerially good, that is going to move him from that position.
I think he's an asset for the big games. His performances against City, Liverpool, Spurs etc prove that and he will be a handful in the CL. Teams will struggle against him as they have no prior experience of facing him, it was the same with Crouch in Europe and International games. Our style of football changes when he plays but if it means we get the points in the big games then I am happy to go with that style.
He's actually a decent footballer, but his mind or speed of movement on the ball is a major weakness in his game. He rarely does anything 1 touch unless it's with his head or chest and he can get caught in position too easily. His passing while not being expansive is decent enough but he can play some dangerous sloppy passes.
I would like us to bring in a replacement for him and use him effectively from the bench or starting in the big games where he can be an asset. Most of the big teams we face we are not going to pass of the park or beat them playing their game so it's not a problem having a plan B if it's effective. Against the small team, he's not really needed, we should be able to pass these teams of the park and cut them open easily enough.
He's actually a decent footballer, but his mind or speed of movement on the ball is a major weakness in his game. He rarely does anything 1 touch unless it's with his head or chest and he can get caught in position too easily. His passing while not being expansive is decent enough but he can play some dangerous sloppy passes.
I would like us to bring in a replacement for him and use him effectively from the bench or starting in the big games where he can be an asset. Most of the big teams we face we are not going to pass of the park or beat them playing their game so it's not a problem having a plan B if it's effective. Against the small team, he's not really needed, we should be able to pass these teams of the park and cut them open easily enough.
- Status