Fergie's obsession with picking old players in midfield

[LR7]

And therein lies the problem on here. It was a risky gamble but we did enough to make sure we didn't concede more. It put unnecessary pressure on our backline.

For some people on here, it would have to take a loss for them to finally come out and say something. My question is why wait to notice a problem until the worst occurs (a loss)? It's clear it was a risky decision. Again, we're such a good team, and our attack is so potent, that it makes this "issue" seem trivial. If we do the same thing on a day when our attack isn't firing on all cylinders, we'll pay the price.

I don't mind seeing Giggs and Scholes play. It's when and how we're using them which bothers me. Every single time it seems to directly or indirectly affect our play. It's not their fault. It's how they're being used.

Tottenham? Norwich? - it's happened already.

Scholes and Giggs started vs tottenham and we went into the interval 2-0 down. Giggs off at HT and everything changed (not saying that's the only reason we changed)

Giggs and Carrick started vs Norwich with Scholes coming on to join the other two as a 2nd half substitute - I was at this game and we kept possession but never looked like scoring.

Only other PL loss this season is Everton where Scholes and Cleverley started in CM with Carrick at CB

Sir Alex isn't silly. He will have noticed the pattern, he is now using them more sparingly when we have a cushion in games like yesterday.

I agree it isn't their fault. They can't really be expected to keep pace with twenty something's anymore. It's a bit sad to see but like I said in my other post SAF is using his squad where he can to rest key players and so that Giggs and Scholes are not completely rusty should they actually be needed in the near future.

 

[Platato]

Tottenham? Norwich? - it's happened already.

Scholes and Giggs started vs tottenham and we went into the interval 2-0 down. Giggs off at HT and everything changed (not saying that's the only reason we changed)

Giggs and Carrick started vs Norwich with Scholes coming on to join the other two as a 2nd half substitute - I was at this game and we kept possession but never looked like scoring.

Only other PL loss this season is Everton where Scholes and Cleverley started in CM with Carrick at CB

Sir Alex isn't silly. He will have noticed the pattern, he is now using them more sparingly when we have a cushion in games like yesterday.

I agree it isn't their fault. They can't really be expected to keep pace with twenty something's anymore. It's a bit sad to see but like I said in my other post SAF is using his squad where he can to rest key players and so that Giggs and Scholes are not completely rusty should they actually be needed in the near future.

Exactly. But some won't say a thing until that happens. As if criticism is wholly based on the result.

Sir Alex has given me no assurance he can use Giggs or Scholes correctly. I mean FFS, they're almost 40 and putting them in a midfield two expecting them to get up and down the pitch like Carrick and Cleverley is simply absurd. I get the risk. We were 3-0 up and were still cutting Sunderland to pieces. We just wouldn't finish. A habit that really needs to disappear.

I have always been a organization and defense first person and I simply dont understand sacrificing our balance for a player's need of game time. I said it before but what reason is there to put our backline under unnecessary pressure? I've seen this too many times and thankfully, we're not paying the price for it.

 

[Fergus' son]

This is basically a 'Giggs and Scholes should retire' thread.

 

[acnumber9]

This is basically a 'Giggs and Scholes should retire' thread.

Aren't they all?

 

[Tonjo]

Alex Feguson is the Master of psychology.
He is using psychology to tell off Giggs and Scholes.
What better way to tell them that they really don't have the legs
to play in mid-field by fielding them and giving them the chance to realise that they are a burden to the team.
It is so obvious when they came in and Sunderland nearly got something out of the game.
The defenders were over-stretched and some of them nearly got injured. They (the defenders) must be cursing and swearing at Giggs and Scholes silently.
I hope that both of them realised that and will finally retire.
In this modern game, skills alone will not be sufficient and a player need to try and win back the ball when he looses it and both of them cannot do that.
Giggs should be the first one to go as he is not only unable to defend and also afraid to get injured. You can bet he will not be involved in any 50-50 situation.

 

[Verminator]

Alex Feguson is the Master of psychology.
He is using psychology to tell off Giggs and Scholes.
What better way to tell them that they really don't have the legs
to play in mid-field by fielding them and giving them the chance to realise that they are a burden to the team.
It is so obvious when they came in and Sunderland nearly got something out of the game.
The defenders were over-stretched and some of them nearly got injured. They (the defenders) must be cursing and swearing at Giggs and Scholes silently.
I hope that both of them realised that and will finally retire.
In this modern game, skills alone will not be sufficient and a player need to try and win back the ball when he looses it and both of them cannot do that.
Giggs should be the first one to go as he is not only unable to defend and also afraid to get injured. You can bet he will not be involved in any 50-50 situation.

Show some fecking respect!
Our two most decorated players, and you slate them like bargain signings.
Fergie used them in a game that was won, without tiring any of our other options.
Dicks like you seriously piss me off.

 

[Sojiro]

Show some fecking respect!
Our two most decorated players, and you slate them like bargain signings.
Fergie used them in a game that was won, without tiring any of our other options.
Dicks like you seriously piss me off.

take a look at his post history, he/she loves to have a pop at Giggs/Fletcher or Fergies selections going back to 2006. Bizarre than one posts so little yet majority are complaints.

 

[Swaters16]

Show some fecking respect!
Our two most decorated players, and you slate them like bargain signings.
Fergie used them in a game that was won, without tiring any of our other options.
Dicks like you seriously piss me off.

While I thought he put his point across poorly, surely Giggs and Scholes both recognise that they really aren't contributing a whole lot to the team at this point and that they may be a hindrance to the progression of this club. Even for club legends, there comes a time when you are too old. Giggs' legs are almost entirely gone and I don't want his reputation to be tarnished in the short term because he plays on when he can't compete at this level. I hope they prove me wrong but I don't expect much. The match against Sunderland might have been over but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have kept a clean sheet or gone for more, with both Giggs and Scholes on there was no way we'd do either.

 

[Rowem]

While I thought he put his point across poorly, surely Giggs and Scholes both recognise that they really aren't contributing a whole lot to the team at this point and that they may be a hindrance to the progression of this club. Even for club legends, there comes a time when you are too old. Giggs' legs are almost entirely gone and I don't want his reputation to be tarnished in the short term because he plays on when he can't compete at this level. I hope they prove me wrong but I don't expect much. The match against Sunderland might have been over but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have kept a clean sheet or gone for more, with both Giggs and Scholes on there was no way we'd do either.

We looked like scoring when they came on. Scholes had a little darting run through the middle himself, and Rooney scored when he was on the pitch, RvP had his lob attempt. They scored from a corner essentially, which wasn't Scholes' fault. It was in fact Tom Cleverley he lost his man for Campbell to score. We didn't concede after Giggs came on. edit: oh and RvP missed a header late on, after Scholes played a one-two with Young and then hit a cross field ball to Jones to who crossed for RvP.

The two of them in CM together doesn't work but it was more about giving them playing time as they will be needed soon.

Both can still make a valuable contribution if used in the correct way.

They are here this season because SAF wants them to be here. It's preposterous to suggest that SAF doesn't think they're good enough and wants them to retire so he doesn't have to force them out.

 

[LR7]

The more I think about the substitutions the more I see the logic in them. Early reports sugest that Carrick felt his hamstring. Why risk sending him back out, even if it turns out he is ok? We have a game every three days for the next couple of weeks where we will need him. Then when SAF thought we had the game sewn up he took Cleverley off to protect him too. Yes it made us a bit more vulnerable but the benefits outweighed the risks. In hindsight at least.

 

[Ash_G]

But why not go for fletch instead of giggs if you want to rest clev with scholes already playing. I think that for me is the issue, how we use them. Both are more than capable of contributing and are still good players but I think at times we don't always recognise their limitations. Giggs particularly has been asked to do some roles he just doesn't seem up to recently.

 

[Verminator]

Playing them together does leave us vulnerable down the middle, but essentially they both bring experience and (usually) composure. As LR7 points out, this allows us not to risk injuries becoming more serious.
Fletch is still coming to terms with his debilitating illness, and Fergie knows better than us, how he needs to be used.
This will probably be the last year of two absolute club legends, and whilst we may have questions over their contributions, there is no excuse for some of the downright insulting comments we see and hear from some ungrateful bastards.
The whining Brummie that sits next to me, has shouted, "You're useless!" at both of them, and he is old enough to know better.
The next time he does it, when his grandson isn't there, he's going to learn my thoughts on it.

People here realise that the flack Benitez gets off Chelsea fans is misguided, and that their ire should be directed at the gangster, because it is his decision.
The same applies to Fergie playing Giggs and Scholes. Why give them shit?

They will leave, and new players will come in, but the service they provide has bought time for Cleverley to come through. It may be allowing Powell to get extra time in his education.
If this means that we see young players break through, at the rate that Britain's most successful manager, and developer of young talent, deems right, then who are we to argue? Our club is built on developing youth, and most of us prefer it that way.

 

[Fergus' son]

But why not go for fletch instead of giggs if you want to rest clev with scholes already playing. I think that for me is the issue, how we use them. Both are more than capable of contributing and are still good players but I think at times we don't always recognise their limitations. Giggs particularly has been asked to do some roles he just doesn't seem up to recently.

Giggs might've needed the minutes more than Fletcher, who knows? Oh yeah, SAF!

 

[Sam]

The thing is, Scholes CAN still contribute. But not in a four four fecking two. It's criminal to be using him like this. Play him in a system that accommodates the fact that he's 38 years old and can't run anymore, and it'd work. A 3 man midfield with the two other players being the 'legs' of the midfield. Let Scholes sit back and dictate the game, and have the freedom to play his passes.

Sadly, I just can't see Fergie doing this. He's stuck in his ways and wont be changing. 4-4-2 is what he knows and trusts. I expect we'll see plenty more of Scholes/Giggs midfield two's, and plenty more crap performances while they're there, until they retire. Which is very sad to think about, because, used properly, they could both still be assets to us, and not hindrances.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I know it doesn't really fit the narrative of this thread... but we continued to dominate the game for the first half of the 2nd half with Scholes and Cleverley as our midfield two. It was only after Cleverley went off, combined with the boost they got from scoring that allowed for a poor last 20 minutes. Before that though, we were totally in control of the game - and that was with a Scholes/Clev 4-4-2.

 

[Verminator]

The thing is, Scholes CAN still contribute. But not in a four four fecking two. It's criminal to be using him like this. Play him in a system that accommodates the fact that he's 38 years old and can't run anymore, and it'd work. A 3 man midfield with the two other players being the 'legs' of the midfield. Let Scholes sit back and dictate the game, and have the freedom to play his passes.

Sadly, I just can't see Fergie doing this. He's stuck in his ways and wont be changing. 4-4-2 is what he knows and trusts. I expect we'll see plenty more of Scholes/Giggs midfield two's, and plenty more crap performances while they're there, until they retire. Which is very sad to think about, because, used properly, they could both still be assets to us, and not hindrances.

True Sam.
If the boss thought the game was won at 3-0, he could've changed the formation to allow that. I don't know why he didn't.
The Euro wank-fest over Pirlo proves your point.

 

[Ash_G]

Giggs might've needed the minutes more than Fletcher, who knows? Oh yeah, SAF!

Ok, then why not bring him on for someone else which wouldn't lead to unbalancing the team more then it already was. Or then dropping Rooney deeper to accomodate the lack of legs in the middle. We've seen Fergie ask a lot of Giggs and Scholes this season and judging from their performances they don't seem comfortable with it.

 

[Verminator]

I know it doesn't really fit the narrative of this thread... but we continued to dominate the game for the first half of the 2nd half with Scholes and Cleverley as our midfield two. It was only after Cleverley went off, combined with the boost they got from scoring that allowed for a poor last 20 minutes. Before that though, we were totally in control of the game - and that was with a Scholes/Clev 4-4-2.

Yes, but it ran Cleverley into the ground.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Yes, but it ran Cleverley into the ground.

Not really... Cleverley was absolutely everywhere in the first half as well. He didn't start working any harder just 'cos Scholes was on the field... It was 70 minutes of constant getting around the pitch that knackered him out.

 

[Godfather]

Not really... Cleverley was absolutely everywhere in the first half as well. He didn't start working any harder just 'cos Scholes was on the field... It was 70 minutes of constant getting around the pitch that knackered him out.

yet when Anderson runs out of gas after doing the same he's called fat and unfit, both of course totally untrue and idiotic.

 

[Fergus' son]

Ok, then why not bring him on for someone else which wouldn't lead to unbalancing the team more then it already was. Or then dropping Rooney deeper to accomodate the lack of legs in the middle. We've seen Fergie ask a lot of Giggs and Scholes this season and judging from their performances they don't seem comfortable with it.

I thought Carrick felt his hamstring and Cleverley was brought off because he was tiring or because he wanted to keep him fresh. Either way, it worked out and some of our out of form legends got some game time. Can ony help the squad overall.

 

[Fergus' son]

Not really... Cleverley was absolutely everywhere in the first half as well. He didn't start working any harder just 'cos Scholes was on the field... It was 70 minutes of constant getting around the pitch that knackered him out.

Agreed.

I know it doesn't really fit the narrative of this thread... but we continued to dominate the game for the first half of the 2nd half with Scholes and Cleverley as our midfield two. It was only after Cleverley went off, combined with the boost they got from scoring that allowed for a poor last 20 minutes. Before that though, we were totally in control of the game - and that was with a Scholes/Clev 4-4-2.

And agreed!

 

[Verminator]

Not really... Cleverley was absolutely everywhere in the first half as well. He didn't start working any harder just 'cos Scholes was on the field... It was 70 minutes of constant getting around the pitch that knackered him out.

I don't know how you can say that.
If he knows how to pace himself, something changed.
The dynamic of the match changed, as Sunderland came into a game, previously, they had offered nothing.
Carrick, a more mobile and key player had gone off.

Thi all added to Cleverley's workload. It has to!

 

[apotheosis]

The thing is, Scholes CAN still contribute. But not in a four four fecking two. It's criminal to be using him like this. Play him in a system that accommodates the fact that he's 38 years old and can't run anymore, and it'd work. A 3 man midfield with the two other players being the 'legs' of the midfield. Let Scholes sit back and dictate the game, and have the freedom to play his passes.

Sadly, I just can't see Fergie doing this. He's stuck in his ways and wont be changing. 4-4-2 is what he knows and trusts. I expect we'll see plenty more of Scholes/Giggs midfield two's, and plenty more crap performances while they're there, until they retire. Which is very sad to think about, because, used properly, they could both still be assets to us, and not hindrances.

Spot on Sam. This is the root of the problem. SAF playing aging players in systems that highlight their weaknesses, and expose the rest of the team as a result whilst doing so.

The fault lies solely with SAF in my view. If he wants to continue with Scholes and Giggs as midfield options, then protect them better, so they can show their quality on the ball, without being ridiculously exposed whenever we lose possession.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I don't know how you can say that.
If he knows how to pace himself, something changed.
The dynamic of the match changed, as Sunderland came into a game, previously, they had offered nothing.
Carrick, a more mobile and key player had gone off.

Thi all added to Cleverley's workload. It has to!

I can say that because I watched the game. I can say that because, at about 40 minutes (ish), me and the bloke next to me started talking about how well Cleverley was playing and how it seemed like he was in about 5 different places at once. There were several instances where he was defending on the edge of our box, then all of a sudden part of our attack in their final third moments later.

I can say this because you have to realise that just because A happens doesn't automatically mean that B has to happen. Just because Carrick went off doesn't mean that Cleverley must have worked harder by default. I mean the majority of people who watched the game surely saw how hard Cleverley worked in the first half! It didn't change much from that to the second... no matter if you want it to fit the narrative or not.

Sunderland only came into the game properly after they scored the goal (72 minutes) and then Giggs came on immediately after which further aided their cause. Before then it was the standard potshot/attack (though nothing overly worrying) every now and then that they had enjoyed similarly in the game up to that point.

 

[Tonjo]

take a look at his post history, he/she loves to have a pop at Giggs/Fletcher or Fergies selections going back to 2006. Bizarre than one posts so little yet majority are complaints.

Hi guys,
I have been a MU supporter since 1969 and had seen and read about the ups and downs of MU since then. I have played the game and also did coaching.
What I have observed is obvious to anyone who is involved in the game.
Even though my posts were little as most of them were observations, I am trying to point out that they are obvious flaws or setbacks. Please do not get offended and hope that United's coaching team realised what had happened and do some changes for the better.

 

[Brightonian]

I thought Carrick felt his hamstring and Cleverley was brought off because he was tiring or because he wanted to keep him fresh. Either way, it worked out and some of our out of form legends got some game time. Can ony help the squad overall.

I agree with most of what you say, and the criticism of Giggs and Scholes on here has got absurd. Substituting them on in games when we are comfortable is the sort of use I like to see us getting out of them.

BUT, the bolded part is wrong. I know you love Scholes, we all do, but you have to face the fact that the two of them are not 'out of form', they're just old. They're not going to be getting any better than they are now.

 

[Verminator]

I can say that because I watched the game. I can say that because, at about 40 minutes (ish), me and the bloke next to me started talking about how well Cleverley was playing and how it seemed like he was in about 5 different places at once. There were several instances where he was defending on the edge of our box, then all of a sudden part of our attack in their final third moments later.

I can say this because you have to realise that just because A happens doesn't automatically mean that B has to happen. Just because Carrick went off doesn't mean that Cleverley must have worked harder by default. I mean the majority of people who watched the game surely saw how hard Cleverley worked in the first half! It didn't change much from that to the second... no matter if you want it to fit the narrative or not.

Sunderland only came into the game properly after they scored the goal (72 minutes) and then Giggs came on immediately after which helped them grow into it. Before then it was the standard potshot/attack (though nothing overly worrying) every now and then that they had enjoyed similarly in the game up to that point.

Well I'll put your condescending manner to one side, and say that I was at the match. I saw the same thing, in that Cleverley had a great game, and covered a lot of ground. He does, and usually lasts the pace.
I also had people next to me criticising Scholes' contribution. Some going OTT about it.
So my view differs to yours?

You criticise me for saying something, you refer to as,

just because A happens doesn't automatically mean that B has to happen.

Then you go on to do the same to fit your narrative:

Sunderland only came into the game properly after they scored the goal (72 minutes) and then Giggs came on immediately after which helped them grow into it. Before then it was the standard potshot/attack (though nothing overly worrying) every now and then that they had enjoyed similarly in the game up to that point

It's call supporting your argument.
So, what's your problem? That I thought Cleverley tiring, was made worse by the change, whereas you don't?
Did that illicit your angry response?

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Well I'll put your condescending manner to one side, and say that I was at the match. I saw the same thing, in that Cleverley had a great game, and covered a lot of ground. He does, and usually lasts the pace.
I also had people next to me criticising Scholes' contribution. Some going OTT about it.
So my view differs to yours?

You criticise me for saying something, you refer to as,
Then you go on to do the same to fit your narrative:


It's call supporting your argument.
So, what's your problem? That I thought Cleverley tiring, was made worse by the change, whereas you don't?
Did that illicit your angry response?

I'm not meaing to be condesending my good man, and I apologise if that's how you've read it/it's come across! You asked "how could I say that" and so I tried to answer the question as fully as possible! No malice or anger intended.

Anyway, yeah, I would say it's fair to say that there wasn't a noticeable shift, if any, into how hard Clerverley was working after/before half time. He was busting a gut for the full duration for my money, so yeah, I would disagree totally with a suggestion that he tired due to Scholes coming on.

The A leading to B argument basically was a response to "this added to Cleverley's workload, it has too" ... where I don't think it has to at all, as like I said, Cleverley didn't appear to be working any harder then he had in the first half. Scholesy himself was getting round the pitch OK when he came on anyway, so that would also mean I would disagree with that assumption.

Finally, I'm not sure how my final paragraph is saying the same thing. I'm saying that Sunderland came into the game and started pressuring us after they scored and there cause was perhaps aided with Giggs coming on immediately afterwards. Not sure how that's A must mean B, as Sunderland definitely applied more pressure on us in the last 20 minutes then they had at any point before then.

As an aside, Cleverley also seemed to tire towards the end of the City game as well I thought. These were the two most competitive games he's started in a fair while mind, which probably has something to do with it?

 

[Fergus' son]

I agree with most of what you say, and the criticism of Giggs and Scholes on here has got absurd. Substituting them on in games when we are comfortable is the sort of use I like to see us getting out of them.

BUT, the bolded part is wrong. I know you love Scholes, we all do, but you have to face the fact that the two of them are not 'out of form', they're just old. They're not going to be getting any better than they are now.

Out of form, or lacking match fitness/sharpness, either way they need minutes.

It's a matter of opinion but I think they can certainly play better than they are doing so right now, the season when Scholes retired, he looked really poor when not playing regularly. Then last season he got an extended run and was brilliant.

 

[acnumber9]

Show some fecking respect!
Our two most decorated players, and you slate them like bargain signings.
Fergie used them in a game that was won, without tiring any of our other options.
Dicks like you seriously piss me off.

100% agreed. We should savour every last minute we get from these legends because the chances of us seeing their like again are very slim. Some people just don't deserve to have been blessed with watching these two play.

 

[Platato]

I'm not meaing to be condesending my good man, and I apologise if that's how you've read it/it's come across! You asked "how could I say that" and so I tried to answer the question as fully as possible! No malice or anger intended.

Anyway, yeah, I would say it's fair to say that there wasn't a noticeable shift, if any, into how hard Clerverley was working after/before half time. He was busting a gut for the full duration for my money, so yeah, I would disagree totally with a suggestion that he tired due to Scholes coming on.

The A leading to B argument basically was a response to "this added to Cleverley's workload, it has too" ... where I don't think it has to at all, as like I said, Cleverley didn't appear to be working any harder then he had in the first half. Scholesy himself was getting round the pitch OK when he came on anyway, so that would also mean I would disagree with that assumption.

Finally, I'm not sure how my final paragraph is saying the same thing. I'm saying that Sunderland came into the game and started pressuring us after they scored and there cause was perhaps aided with Giggs coming on immediately afterwards. Not sure how that's A must mean B, as Sunderland definitely applied more pressure on us in the last 20 minutes then they had at any point before then.

As an aside, Cleverley also seemed to tire towards the end of the City game as well I thought. These were the two most competitive games he's started in a fair while mind, which probably has something to do with it?

I'm not sure if he worked harder, but he did drop deeper. In the first half, he would pass the ball to Carrick than move forward to a more attacking position. Once Scholes came on he did less of this and rightly so.

I love what Scholes and Giggs bring to the team but I'm not going to sit here and gloss over the fact, the way we played them yesterday wasn't imbalanced. It was a risk. We got away with it. End of story. IMO, I think they could be used better as it's becoming increasingly obvious, they can't get up and down the pitch as effectively as they used to. Plus, Giggs doesn't really play as a CM but that's another matter entirely.

Someone made the point, we should enjoy their final games here at United. It's not easy to enjoy it when we're not using them correctly! I don't mind them coming on but at the expense of our shape and defensive solidity? It seems to be for rotational reasons, which I understand. I just don't see why it has to come at the expense of our balance. Is there no other option?

It's sad seeing these boys develop and now look like has-beens. How we're playing them makes it no better. I don't want them to be remembered like this. They should have went out on a high!!

 

[Ash_G]

I thought Carrick felt his hamstring and Cleverley was brought off because he was tiring or because he wanted to keep him fresh. Either way, it worked out and some of our out of form legends got some game time. Can ony help the squad overall.

My point was more a general point though that the way they've been used atm doesn't seem to get the best out of them or us and at times it seems more is asked/expected of them than they can give.

I've said countless times that I think both have loads to offer still. Personally I think Scholes against teams who sit off is still the master and a player who makes a massive difference. I don't think though that he should play games like against Spurs when he clearly doesn't have the legs. Same with Giggs playing left wing against Spurs and Liverpool. Playing the two together in a 2 could easily have gone worse than it did, even Fergie admitted Sunderland could have embarrassed us.

In the right team/positions and against the right opposition both are still very good but I just don't think we're using them or acknowledging their weaknesses as much as we should be in the way we play and it makes them look worse than they are. Like I said I don't think they should retire nor need to just now, and it's sad to hear some say they should, but I think part of the problem is expecting them to be able to do too much.

 

[Fergus' son]

I realise what the general point is, I was just pointing out why SAF may have made the substitutions he did in that particular game.

 

[manutddjw]

Both of them are still good players, but because of their age they do need help from others in the team. If used correctly both Giggs and Scholes can still add so much to our team.

Giggs was outstanding against Chelsea in the League Cup when he was in a midfield 3 with Anderson and Fletcher and showed us what he's still capable of. It may have been the League Cup, but because of Chelsea's lack of squad depth it was still a very strong Chelsea side and one that is probably better than half the teams in the league. If he gets the help in midfield he needs, it takes away what he can't do and heightens the things he can do.

 

[Verminator]

100% agreed. We should savour every last minute we Eg from these legends because the chances of us seeing their like again are very slim. Some people just don't deserve to have been blessed with watching these two play.

Yeah, some people fail to acknowledge that, while they are not in their prime, they still offer something to the team. The disrespect is unnecessary and inexcusable.

Annihilate, I apologise if my terminology, "How could you say that?" appeared confrontational or inflammatory, it was used more as a lead-in than in that way.
I have discussed this elsewhere, mainly due to the tirade aimed at Scholes, by the prick who sits next to me at OT.
I'll admit Scholes was sloppy when he came on. He gave the ball away, and was caught in possession, not befitting the previous high standards he has set. However, after Giggs came on, (not because), he settled into the game, and played some wonderful balls around.

I don't want them to start together, and they don't need the demands of playing in a two. We will see in the freshness of our team, as the season progresses, why our manager is using them to bolster the team now.

Giggs was unreal at Chelsea in the Capitol one cup, and can still make the difference in tight games, (If used wisely)
Scholes was the biggest single reason we pushed City to the end, last year.
If some can't recognise that, it's upto us to point that out.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I'm not sure if he worked harder, but he did drop deeper. In the first half, he would pass the ball to Carrick than move forward to a more attacking position. Once Scholes came on he did less of this and rightly so.

I love what Scholes and Giggs bring to the team but I'm not going to sit here and gloss over the fact, the way we played them yesterday wasn't imbalanced. It was a risk. We got away with it. End of story. IMO, I think they could be used better as it's becoming increasingly obvious, they can't get up and down the pitch as effectively as they used to. Plus, Giggs doesn't really play as a CM but that's another matter entirely.

Someone made the point, we should enjoy their final games here at United. It's not easy to enjoy it when we're not using them correctly! I don't mind them coming on but at the expense of our shape and defensive solidity? It seems to be for rotational reasons, which I understand. I just don't see why it has to come at the expense of our balance. Is there no other option?

It's sad seeing these boys develop and now look like has-beens. How we're playing them makes it no better. I don't want them to be remembered like this. They should have went out on a high!!

I think it only really became a risk when Giggs came on. My point basically was that Cleverley and Scholes had been working fine together and wasn't really detrimental to the team... and we really should have been 4 or 5 up by the time that Cleverley was subbed off.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Yeah, some people fail to acknowledge that, while they are not in their prime, they still offer something to the team. The disrespect is unnecessary and inexcusable.

Annihilate, I apologise if my terminology, "How could you say that?" appeared confrontational or inflammatory, it was used more as a lead-in than in that way.
I have discussed this elsewhere, mainly due to the tirade aimed at Scholes, by the prick who sits next to me at OT.
I'll admit Scholes was sloppy when he came on. He gave the ball away, and was caught in possession, not befitting the previous high standards he has set. However, after Giggs came on, (not because), he settled into the game, and played some wonderful balls around.

I don't want them to start together, and they don't need the demands of playing in a two. We will see in the freshness of our team, as the season progresses, why our manager is using them to bolster the team now.

Giggs was unreal at Chelsea in the Capitol one cup, and can still make the difference in tight games, (If used wisely)
Scholes was the biggest single reason we pushed City to the end, last year.
If some can't recognise that, it's upto us to point that out.

No worries, and agreed... Scholes and Giggs still have a place in our squad in my opinion, but should be used wisely and never together unless we're 4 or 5 up!

 

[marjen]

I think it only really became a risk when Giggs came on. My point basically was that Cleverley and Scholes had been working fine together and wasn't really detrimental to the team... and we really should have been 4 or 5 up by the time that Cleverley was subbed off.

I disagree. We instantly became twice as sloppy and far less cohesive as soon as Scholes entered the pitch. I remember thinking to myself "well the game's done anyway it won't matter" but then noticing just how much his arrival impacted our game.

Usually it's an indirect consequence of him playing in a midfield two(not got the legs) but when he's having a shocker as well it's not really something that's not going to let itself get noticed.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I disagree. We instantly became twice as sloppy and far less cohesive as soon as Scholes entered the pitch. I remember thinking to myself "well the game's done anyway it won't matter" but then noticing just how much his arrival impacted our game.

Usually it's an indirect consequence of him playing in a midfield two(not got the legs) but when he's having a shocker as well it's not really something that's not going to let itself get noticed.

I would disagree entirely. Twice as sloppy? No chance. We weren't quite as impressive, but we still had totally control over the match and were carving out some excellent chances. Apart from the goal, we had 2 big moments we could/should have scored from, as well as other chances or instances where we could have scored had the final ball been a bit better (so basically, same as the first half).

Plus, I also don't think Scholesy had a "shocker" when he came on either... he misplaced about 3 or 4 passes the entire half.