Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber
Thus says Kemo
Utter bullshit. From the moment Giggs came on we switched to 4-3-3 and remained that way till the end of the game.He wasn't, he was in the hole
Utter bullshit. From the moment Giggs came on we switched to 4-3-3 and remained that way till the end of the game.He wasn't, he was in the hole
Not really. About the only "fact" is that Scholes is playing at such a high level that unless it is necessary for him to get a rest, Carrick won't replace him in the starting line up.The fact of the matter is Carrick doesn't deserve to be in the first team at the moment.
The lad has seemed to be playing on autopilot since he got his contract extension.
3 or 4 seasons ago you mean.Any time they play together
Well the good teams didn't have that much success stopping Ronaldo, did they?Poor teams maybe, good teams would expolit imbalance like that
Are you saying we never lost with Ronaldo in the side?Well the good teams didn't have that much success stopping Ronaldo, did they?
More recently as well3 or 4 seasons ago you mean.
If Scholes is being tightly marked it becomes imperative that his partner be capeable of covering his passing gamePerhaps against WHU that may have worked but, if a team chooses to place a player on top of Scholes much like we did with Park on Pirlo - it becomes increasingly difficult for his partner if he doesn't have the legs to cover a lot of ground.
Yes but, you also need the partner to be able to cover a lot more ground back and forth. Not just take over the quarterback role from Scholes. While Carrick can certainly alleviate issues of Scholes being man marked out of a game with his passing - he isn't IMO mobile enough and energetic enough to also do everything else like run up in support and also harry. With Fletcher you get the energy plus he is a pretty good passer of the ball (current form not included).If Scholes is being tightly marked it becomes imperative that his partner be capeable of covering his passing game
Are you talking about Carrick here? He's played 1 game this season in that he's put in a very good shift. Unless you are now referring back to last season.To be honest it's a worry when your more talented midfielders can't be arsed to put in a shift to get themselves out of a rut. It raises a whole host of questions regarding their mentality.
Carrick covers as much ground as Fletcher, champions league games shows the stats and he's never left wantingYes but, you also need the partner to be able to cover a lot more ground back and forth. Not just take over the quarterback role from Scholes. While Carrick can certainly alleviate issues of Scholes being man marked out of a game with his passing - he isn't IMO mobile enough and energetic enough to also do everything else like run up in support and also harry. With Fletcher you get the energy plus he is a pretty good passer of the ball (current form not included).
Berbatov covers the most ground on the team according to the stats but, that doesn't mean he'd be very good at covering for Scholes.Carrick covers as much ground as Fletcher, champions league games shows the stats and he's never left wanting
Not consistently.More recently as well
Don't be silly. I'm saying that the big teams didn't have that much success stopping Ronaldo. It is not and nothing like saying that we never lost with Ronaldo in the team.Are you saying we never lost with Ronaldo in the side?
Eh no, unless you are talking about the Charity Shield or one or two matches here and there.More recently as well
We weren't exceptional against the big sides with Ronaldo in the teamDon't be silly. I'm saying that the big teams didn't have that much success stopping Ronaldo. It is not and nothing like saying that we never lost with Ronaldo in the team.
Fergie is not infalliableEh no, unless you are talking about the Charity Shield or one or two matches here and there.
Mozza, if Alex Ferguson, the most successful manager of all time, had in his midst a central midfield partnership that was far superior to any other central midfield partnership that he had at the club, don't you think that he would play them together regularly? If Carrick and Scholes are so good together, then why don't they play together more often? Either a) Alex Ferguson can't see what's blatantly in front of his eyes or b) Carrick and Scholes are not half as good together anymore as you would like to convince yourself.
Wrong. They were games in which were truly exceptional vs big teams when Ronaldo was here. Even before Carrick arrived.We weren't exceptional against the big sides with Ronaldo in the team
He doesn't need to be infallible to not follow your stupod idea that Carrick and Scholes are our best midfield partnership. Have no qualms about that.Fergie is not infalliable
So you think you know more than him? Ferguson is watching the matches a lot more closely than you. He sees the players training week in week out. I'd think he has a better knowledge of how good the players are than your good self.Fergie is not infalliable
I never said we were, did I?We weren't exceptional against the big sides with Ronaldo in the team
No, but I can still think he's wrong, do you ever think Fergies wrong on anything?So you think you know more than him? Ferguson is watching the matches a lot more closely than you. He sees the players training week in week out. I'd think he has a better knowledge of how good the players are than your good self.
My argument wasn't about Ronaldo's performance, the opposition can expolit the weakness in his work rate regardless of his own qualityI never said we were, did I?
You keep using extremes to try to prove a stupid argument correct.
I said the big teams didn't have that much success stopping Ronaldo, you imply I meant he was exceptional. From my comment, you also implied that I said we never lost with Ronaldo in the team. You need to read my comments if you're going to question them.
At some point you just have to take a look at yourself and admit your point of view is deeply biased. Carrick is very good player but, clearly over the last season and a bit - a pairing of him and Scholes in a 2 CM can be a dangerous prospect for us. Both are excellent at passing and controlling the but, when it comes to working hard and harrying and getting the ball back for large parts of the game - it's not their strong suit.No, but I can still think he's wrong, do you ever think Fergies wrong on anything?
Of course he can be wrong, but I would definitely not believe that he would be wrong about the same thing every day for the last 2+ years, especially when he has more knowledge than anybody else about the subject.No, but I can still think he's wrong, do you ever think Fergies wrong on anything?
I agree. We play some great football with Scholes and Fletcher though.Nothing has changed since I made this thread. Our midfield is far to open because of the way Fletch and Scholes play. It's wide open to the counter attack and it's cost us again today.
What do you mean because of the way Fletcher and Scholes play? It's obviously the tactic to have Scholes dictate the play and have Fletcher making these marauding runs. If Fergie was that concerned about them being caught forward, he'd play Fletcher in a much more defensive role which would obviously make us a lot stronger defensively. It's obviously the tactic to play that way. If it was not so, then it would have been fixed by SAF after day one of the season. It is completely obvious that Scholes and Fletcher are playing the roles that Fergie is expecting them to play.Nothing has changed since I made this thread. Our midfield is far to open because of the way Fletch and Scholes play. It's wide open to the counter attack and it's cost us again today.
Except he cannot play that role, and he never has been able to. Fletcher needs Carrick behind him to do the defensive duties, so Fletcher can 'hassle' the opposition. And that means we lack creativity in central midfield with them too there.What do you mean because of the way Fletcher and Scholes play? It's obviously the tactic to have Scholes dictate the play and have Fletcher making these marauding runs. If Fergie was that concerned about them being caught forward, he'd play Fletcher in a much more defensive role which would obviously make us a lot stronger defensively. It's obviously the tactic to play that way. If it was not so, then it would have been fixed by SAF after day one of the season. It is completely obvious that Scholes and Fletcher are playing the roles that Fergie is expecting them to play.
He can't play a more defensive role, can he not? He played a more defensive role last season and was excellent. So he can play it. It's a tactic to get him more forward.Except he cannot play that role, and he never has been able to. Fletcher needs Carrick behind him to do the defensive duties, so Fletcher can 'hassle' the opposition. And that means we lack creativity in central midfield with them too there.
Because they both get forward as part of their natural game and time after time both get caught up the pitch. Then when we lose the ball the opposition are already at our back 4. It's usually in these "lesser" games where we're really trying to attack the opposition. It was really noticeable against Fulham and then again today.What do you mean because of the way Fletcher and Scholes play? It's obviously the tactic to have Scholes dictate the play and have Fletcher making these marauding runs. If Fergie was that concerned about them being caught forward, he'd play Fletcher in a much more defensive role which would obviously make us a lot stronger defensively. It's obviously the tactic to play that way. If it was not so, then it would have been fixed by SAF after day one of the season. It is completely obvious that Scholes and Fletcher are playing the roles that Fergie is expecting them to play.
But the point is that if Fergie had a problem with it, it would have been fixed already. If there was a problem and they weren't playing as directed, he would be screaming at either Fletcher or Scholes to drop deeper. He doesn't though. They continue to play the exact same way in every match.Because they both get forward as part of their natural game and time after time both get caught up the pitch. Then when we lose the ball the opposition are already at our back 4. It's usually in these "lesser" games where we're really trying to attack the opposition. It was really noticeable against Fulham and then again today.
Cant disagree with that. We are not dominating the midfield area enoughOnce again today, there were a couple of instances when Bolton won the ball and were able to counter-attack straight down the middle of the field because there was literally nobody between them and our defence. We are just so open in the middle of the park it's unbelievable.
The strange thing is that it seems to be a deliberate tactic, as both Fletcher and Scholes do seem to be playing a more attacking role this season than normal. Neither are as good at holding and protecting the defence as Carrick is, but they normally do sit deeper than they have been this season. Fergie did say that he wanted more goals from the central midfield this season, but they have to show more discipline than this.
Carrick can't get back soon enough. Even when off form it's normally only his on the ball abilities that suffer, he'll still handle his defensive duties well. But fingers crossed he'll hit form in both areas.
I will argue that if Carrick had been on the pitch today, the 2nd goal wouldn't have been scoredThe only thing costing us is shit form amongst members of the back 4. Anyone who thinks having a Carrick on pitch could have prevented us from conceding the second goal, that actually cost us the 3 points is a lunatic.