Paul Scholes | 2012/13 Performances

[Brightonian]

Basically, what Cina said. Last three or four comments anyway.

Scholes and Giggs should at best be occasional substitutes. Never starters, and not some constant bail-out option to be brought on just when it gets much easier. It's unfair on the players they replace, who put in the effort to tire out a dogged opposition, and then don't get to capitalise on that when the inevitable gaps start to appear.

Cleverley can do anything Scholes can do at twice the speed these days, excluding those balls out wide. And those just aren't worth much when our style of play is changing to a more central, patient game (and our wingers all refuse to take on their man anyway). Besides, Rooney does those as well as Scholes these days.

 

[kps88]

Once again kps, this misses the point entirely. It's as if our defensive limitations in midfield mean zilch when it comes to Scholes. If Scholes starts in midfield, it better be quite balanced otherwise when we come up against teams with pace and energy, we're putting our backline under a lot of pressure.

Forget about the wings. Forget about our attacking players. Look at our midfield and backline and how the two should correspond to make sure both are working in tandem to be more effective defensively. Against teams with pace and energy, do we honestly think Carrick and Scholes in a midfield 2 is going to offer enough protection from midfield? Or does Scholes' attacking qualities override these issues? With Carrick looking less than arsed, it really highlights how this partnership fails to do the basics at times and it's quite disturbing.

Scholes will turn in great performances because he's Scholes. This shouldn't have to come at the expense of our defensive solidity and if it continues to do so, why start him?

There's this myth that Scholes is the only reason we lose all defensive solidity. Are you saying Scholes' legs have suddenly gone over the last few months and he's the main reason behind our leaky defence? We haven't achieved "defensive solidity" yet this season. We've been leaking goals even when he's not been playing and we've tried all sorts of midfield combinations.

Here are stats -

Games in which Scholes started - Played 6 Conceded 8 Avg 1.33 goals

Games in which Scholes did not start - Played 11 Conceded 18 Avg 1.63 goals

Our defensive problems are because we've not been defending well as a team, no matter the midfield we've started with. I agree we should not start him against high energy opposition, especially with an out of sorts Carrick, but to say he shouldn't be starting any game for us is silly.

 

[Platato]

There's this myth that Scholes is the only reason we lose all defensive solidity. Are you saying Scholes' legs have suddenly gone over the last few months and he's the main reason behind our leaky defence? We haven't achieved "defensive solidity" yet this season. We've been leaking goals even when he's not been playing and we've tried all sorts of midfield combinations.

Here are stats -

Games in which Scholes started - Played 6 Conceded 8 Avg 1.33 goals

Games in which Scholes did not start - Played 11 Conceded 18 Avg 1.63 goals

Our defensive problems are because we've not been defending well as a team, no matter the midfield we've started with. I agree we should not start him against high energy opposition, especially with an out of sorts Carrick, but to say he shouldn't be starting any game for us is silly.

You post stats but then use statements that border on exaggeration. Of course we've achieved defensive solidity. They've just been in one or two games which is obviously not good enough. Those stats don't prove anything except what's been known all season. We've conceded buttloads of goals. At the same time, we have fielded midfield combinations which have looked more defensively solid than when Scholes has been playing. Every time he's played, it's with Carrick and it's more often than not, been subpar and quite leaky defensively. Does this mean we should still start Scholes which potentially carries more defensive risk just because we're still conceding goals?

This is part of the reason I'm not big on using stats. Devoid of context. In football especially, it's important to use statistics with context. In those games we conceded goals, who played? Who started in midfield? What was our formation and who was our opposition? How exactly were those goals conceded and how were we defending as a team? All questions which can't be answered by the above stats.

I don't think anyone think he's the sole reason for our lack of defensive solidity. Notice I said him and Carrick in a situation like Saturday. I acknowledge it's a team issue. When we put Scholes in there and we're not well-balanced, it makes it even worse. He doesn't have the legs to cut it against pacier teams. Period. There really shouldn't be any discussion about that. If we want him to start, it can't be in a midfield 2 unless the opposition wont threaten us much with a pacy counterattack. It is in such games where we can get away with it. Other than that, it shouldn't be an option.

 

[kps88]

Notice I said him and Carrick in a situation like Saturday. I acknowledge it's a team issue. When we put Scholes in there and we're not well-balanced, it makes it even worse. He doesn't have the legs to cut it against pacier teams. Period. There really shouldn't be any discussion about that. If we want him to start, it can't be in a midfield 2 unless the opposition wont threaten us much with a pacy counterattack. It is in such games where we can get away with it. Other than that, it shouldn't be an option.

That's all I was saying really; was disagreeing with people who said he should never be starting for us and should only be used as a sub. It's obvious at the moment his partnership with Carrick isn't working, and it's made to look even worse when some of our other players (wingers) aren't in form. I'd say Carrick's slackness is to blame for this as well, but that's for the Carrick thread. Scholes will still be a valuable starter for us in certain types of games, especially at OT.

 

[finneh]

That's all I was saying really; was disagreeing with people who said he should never be starting for us and should only be used as a sub. It's obvious at the moment his partnership with Carrick isn't working, and it's made to look even worse when some of our other players (wingers) aren't in form. I'd say Carrick's slackness is to blame for this as well, but that's for the Carrick thread. Scholes will still be a valuable starter for us in certain types of games, especially at OT.

Agreed. You look at the Scholes - Carrick pairing when the latter was on form from mid January last season and everyone was championing it. Carrick offers the protection, Scholes offers the threat. It worked brilliantly and was one of the main reasons why we were still in the title running up until the final day.

The problem is when Carrick is off form and offering no protection we have zero defensive cover with Scholes. This problem is worsened by the fact that an on form Valencia could and arguably should have had 2-3 assists from the amount of possession in good areas, and an on form Young might have actually been an option.

Also bear in mind against Villa how tight Ireland was to Scholes... and that he seemed to foul him every 5 minutes.

 

[Moriarty]

I'm one of those fans who can't bear the thought of United without Scholes. But I don't think he should be starting every game in partnership with Carrick. At his age, he needs protection; i.e. more time on the ball to make the killer pass. When Scholes played alongside Keane, he was mustard and a lot of that was down to Keane's ability to break down the opponent's attack and win the time and space for Scholes to do what he does best. As Finneh points out, Ireland was virtually superglued onto Schole's arse against Villa and that really diminished his input. I see the same thing with Cleverley. We really could do with a ball winner in the side.

 

[Platato]

I think those who say he shouldn't be starting for us say it from the viewpoint that we shouldn't be relying on him anymore. Although I agree with this, I still like seeing Scholes out there. Just start him in a game where he has the platform to stroke his stuff. That's all I ask.

 

[Beachryan]

What is most worrying is that Lambert was able to easily identify such a simple game plan against us, and that it was so simple to carry out.

Pressure Scholes with an AMF as soon as he gets the ball. Won't work all the time, but he's never going to run past the AMF (and if he does the AMF can just job back and overtake him) and Scholes will screw up trying to beat that AMF at least a couple times during the match - at which point the entire team will be pouring forward and unbalanced.

No matter how amazing he can be, if playing him in a midfield 2 makes us that easy to play against then it's not worth it.

Similar to when we start Welbeck/Giggs/Park out on the left flank. It was basically an invitation for the opponents to move their defensive midfield responsibilities over to the right, choking off our useful supply.

 

[gooDevil]

Everyone seems to agree he should be used in a 3 man midfield. Giggs was fairly effective against Braga in such a role, surely Scholes would be even better.

 

[Varun]

I disagree, he should be used like Giggs this season, nothing more.

I dont want him starting much but he still has much more to offer than giggsy imo.

 

[surf]

Scholes is just not mobile enough, hence he plays too deep for the attacking player he is.

Rooney can control games from higher up, with 2 midfielders behind and 3 forwards in front. I'd prefer that to seeing Rooney out on the left.

 

[NinjaFletch]

There was problems with Carrick-Scholes last year. Lets not forget that. We never played good football and, if we were honest, it was the difference between us and almost everyone else that even meant we competed. It was typical United at the back end of last season, grinding out results without ever playing well.

We won 8 games in a row before our loss to Wigan in the league, but only took apart one team, the worst Wolves team I've ever seen. We then improved after that in an attacking sense, admittedly both with Scholes and Carrick in the team, and put 4 past Villa and Everton before going back to being, broadly speaking, impotent against Man City, Swansea and Sunderland.

The point is, Scholes/Carrick gave us stability last year and played a part in a team that got by on experience and determination rather than footballing brilliance. It can't be over-stated how valuable he was in that, but it can be over-stated why he was valuable. This season, he has been culpable for playing too slowly and slowing us down and at his age, sadly, you're only as good as your last game.

 

[Adebesi]

Heretical Post Alert.

Knowing what we know now - i.e. that we did not win the league last year - and looking back, do you think bringing back Scholes has done more harm than good?

Here is the balance of factors as I see it:

On the one hand, Scholes kept us competitive last year, and in my judgement it is fair to say he saved us, especially when he first came back. You have to make a judgement call about how we would have coped without him, assuming it was him or nothing, as opposed to some other signing. We didnt win the league anyway, but would we have come second without him? Throw in on the positive column the influence he presumably continues to have on the younger players, especially the likes of Clev and Anderson.

On the other hand you have the possibility that he is now stunting the development of other players by limiting their chances. If Scholes was not in the squad last weekend, SAF would have picked a different midfield and the flow of the game (hopefully not the result) might have been different.

There is a question of formations, but whether SAF would be more inclined to change the shape of the team in the absence of Scholes is probably unknowable.

I guess what I am saying is, and still with all possible respect to Scholes, but given so many people on here prefer to see others selected ahead of him, for one reason or another, would we be better off if he hadnt come out of retirement? Put another way, if he announced his retirement with immediate effect this afternoon, does anyone think it would have a dramatic impact on our title chances? To me it felt like he did last year, but less so this year.... but I guess if we lost one or two of our other midfielders, it would be a very different calculation. Last year he was making up for the absence of Fletcher, Anderson and Cleverley. This season we have all three available.

 

[marjen]

I think him coming back helped us and without him we wouldn't have gotten as close to the title.

But I think in the long term, we've developed some sort of dependancy on him that's not at all reflective of what he adds and substracts from the team in terms of quality.

Him retiring now is neither here nor there, as he still has a role to play and he can undoubtedly still be an asset in some matches. But he needs to be carefully managed, and protected if he's going to start matches for us.

I'd say I want him around as a mentor and as someone who can offload our other squad members, he's still brilliant on his day. But he can't or at least shouldn't be depended on week in-week out, because I think at the moment we've got other midfield combinations that allows the team to function much better as a unit.

 

[Revan]

I would have used Scholes just as emergency player this season, and I prefer everytime Ando and Cleverley starting before him.

About the question hard to answer, if ACC () would be injury free I don't think that if Scholes will retire in this moment would lose us the title, but I think that he can play some games and we are in a more comfortable season with him. And while he will probably delay the development of Ando and Cleverley by taking their place, I think that both of them (especially Cleverley) can learn a lot from him. Also I think that his presence in the dressing room is a good thing.

 

[Adebesi]

He didnt play for 3 weeks before the Villa game. Three weeks or three matches? Anyway, one or the other. He was well rested. But in retrospect, it feels like he shouldnt have played. I guess part of the issue is that when he is around there is a strong temptation to play him - to rely on him, as you say - rather than put more trust in other combinations.

 

[Adebesi]

I must say I always thought Scholes coming back was a mistake. Because of the dependency issue. My initial response to the news was:

It's a pretty transparent move designed to appease fans and put a plaster over the sceptic wound that is our midfield. It smacks of desperation - and poverty. It's nice to see him back, sure, and his stats were great today. But we need to be looking to the future, just as we did last year, before he retired in the first place.

I felt like I had been proved wrong pretty quickly. But given that he did not win us the league, the end that would have justified the means, now I am not so sure.

Just feels like while he is around, SAF will keep turning to him. If he was going to be kept around, purely and simply in case of emergencies, as people have said would be ideal, that would be good. It remains to be seen whether he will be used that way though.

I just want to see ACC more.

 

[marjen]

Stop doing that. Or else I will see to it that Paul Scholes will always start for us in CM for at least 7 more years.

 

[Adebesi]

Ha ha, you really hate that acronym eh? Is it all acronyms? Or just that one?

 

[marjen]

Ha ha, you really hate that acronym eh? Is it all acronyms? Or just that one?

Far from all acronyms.

It's just that one, it's just not... right. Also, I don't want a trio of those three in the middle. I want Carrick/Not Allowed or Carrick/Cleverley. With Rooney ahead of them.

Also, while the thing you said is clearly unacceptable, by no means does it bear as gruesome a punishment with it as referring to the Chelsea-trio of attacking midfielders as MaZaCar.

 

[Platato]

You're not the only one simon

 

[Commadus]

Those that are hoping to see Cleverley, Carrick, Ando playing will be waiting a long long time. Fergies doesnt like playing 4-3-3 for him its out of form wingers > in form midfielders.

Fergie indulged Neville for far too long and if it wasn for Neville accpeting his retirement I suspect fergie would continue to have played him. I just dont want to see Giggs/Scholes starting anymore - but thats not going to happen.

 

[finneh]

I felt like I had been proved wrong pretty quickly. But given that he did not win us the league, the end that would have justified the means, now I am not so sure.

Just feels like while he is around, SAF will keep turning to him. If he was going to be kept around, purely and simply in case of emergencies, as people have said would be ideal, that would be good. It remains to be seen whether he will be used that way though.

I just want to see ACC more.

The problem is that had Scholes stayed retired, we wouldn't have signed anyone regardless, as was the case last year. If you think that Anderson/Cleverley aren't playing enough because of Scholes then I'd say you are mistaken (see Hernandez with Rooney/RVP).

The saddest thing of all is we know deep down that if Scholes had stayed retired, it'd be the likes of Giggs getting games in his place. From that respect I am exceptionally glad he came back, as on form he is still our best central midfielder.

 

[Adebesi]

We might see the three of them playing together in the diamond though. But yes, seems like whatever we do it will have to be a form of 442.

 

[Adebesi]

I think the reason Anderson and Cleverley are not playing as much as I would like is because SAF is terrified one of them will get a long term injury. I feel like he is trying to coax them through as much of the season as possible, as though if they can make it till January without getting injured then they are somehow home and dry.

If I think about it rationally it doesnt make a great deal of sense. But in my gut it does.

 

[Commadus]

We might see the three of them playing together in the diamond though. But yes, seems like whatever we do it will have to be a form of 442.

There is no point thinking about what could have been. My only concern is Fergie is still trusting Shcoles/giggs when its evident that its not working effectively.

Also when Carrick/Cleverly or Ando play then everyone expects an immediate improvement but it can take a while for players to adapt and adjust but with so much chopping and changing at times its no wonder we look a bit lost at times.

 

[Adebesi]

There is no point thinking about what could have been.

Im not looking backwards here, Im saying we might see Carrick, Anderson and Cleverley playing in the same side in the diamond formation in future.

Also when Carrick/Cleverly or Ando play then everyone expects an immediate improvement but it can take a while for players to adapt and adjust but with so much chopping and changing at times its no wonder we look a bit lost at times.

Definitely agree with that. But I still think they are adapting and adjusting on the job, through the chopping and changing. I think midfield confusion is causing our sub-par performances, but it will all come good soon.

 

[Commadus]

Even though we have conceded a fair few goals I dont think its the defence that has been performing too badly. Our attackers are in great form but its in midfield where we have the most out of form players.

Its not often that the midfield, defence and attack are always firing on all cylinders.

 

[Joemo]

Had Scholes not returned last season, I've no doubt that we wouldn't have pushed City all the way to the final game and they would have waltzed to the title. His comeback offered stability that we desperately needed, and he really showed his class and to be truthful looked a class above almost every other midfielder in the league, despite not playing for months. I didn't see it as desperate, as far as I'm concerned if you've got a player of Scholes' ilk sat around capable of playing then he should play.

This debate has been done in the Pogba thread too. Before the last game of the season people were calling Scholes' recall a masterstroke from Fergie, and that it would mean we'd have a strong chance of winning title number 20. As it so happened, we brought back a great player who is in the twilight of his career and pushed young midfield options such as Pogba out, and yet we still won nothing. If we had beat City to the title, then I think a lot of opinions about Scholes' inclusion would be different, but what happened has happened. I don't think you'll find a poster in this thread or indeed this forum who would disagree when I say that we definitely need to start moving away from relying on Scholes, and he should be playing as little as possible.

It's not like he even looks to be declining with his age (although his legs have obviously gone) it's just that we need to be realistic and see that we have players in Cleverley and Anderson who can become fantastic if given the chance. If we can get a bit of stability in the defence, hopefully with the return of Smalling (in terms of no rotation or injuries) then we should definitely start implementing a Carrick-Cleverley-Anderson midfield trio, as that is what it will be for the next few seasons. They might need a few games to find their feet, which I think should be the CL games that are worthless now.

 

[I'm always right]

Had Scholes not returned last season, I've no doubt that we wouldn't have pushed City all the way to the final game and they would have waltzed to the title..

Had Anderson and Cleverley stayed fit then we would have pushed City just as hard, if not harder.

Scholes helped a lot, because it was either him or Giggs.

 

[Ash_G]

Yeah think his return gets taken out of context on the sense that its often referred too as it being about scholes himself rather than the fact that he actually gave us an actual midfielder rather than giggs or jones which was all we had when scholes came back.

Still though I still think he and carrick get made scapegoats on here. They're not a combination suited to most games but some games they're fine and I think against villa they did their jobs fine, we dominated the ball and got it to the creative players in the areas they'd want, they can't be held accountable for the wingers doing nothing with it and rvp and Rooney not taking reaponsibility to get on the ball. If Chelsea are dominating the ball and aren't creating you look at mata, hazard etc you don't point the finger at mikel an Ramirez.

 

[Platato]

Yeah think his return gets taken out of context on the sense that its often referred too as it being about scholes himself rather than the fact that he actually gave us an actual midfielder rather than giggs or jones which was all we had when scholes came back.

Still though I still think he and carrick get made scapegoats on here. They're not a combination suited to most games but some games they're fine and I think against villa they did their jobs fine, we dominated the ball and got it to the creative players in the areas they'd want, they can't be held accountable for the wingers doing nothing with it and rvp and Rooney not taking reaponsibility to get on the ball. If Chelsea are dominating the ball and aren't creating you look at mata, hazard etc you don't point the finger at mikel an Ramirez.

They should be held accountable for providing next to no protection of our defense. It's absurd

 

[Ash_G]

They should be held accountable for providing next to no protection of our defense. It's absurd

That's true but as long as we play a really wide system that requires all our midfielders/ attackers to be spread out and we don't use two proper all rounders in the middle than we're going to be susceptible to the counter. More so with someone like scholes there, no arguments about that but had the front four actually played with any urgency in the first half we would likely have killed the game and the Villa threat anyway.

 

[Platato]

I'd say our wingers really but from a offensive standpoint, Carrick and Scholes weren't great either. Most of the time, too slow to move the ball.

 

[Ash_G]

Personally I think they distributed it fine, there was a clear change in the second half when rvp dropped a little deeper in terms in the positions he took up. Rooney despite offering lots defensively simply wasn't taking enough if a creative responsibility and was just as guilty of spreading the ball to the wingers as carrick and scholes were in the first half.

 

[Rossa]

Personally I think they distributed it fine, there was a clear change in the second half when rvp dropped a little deeper in terms in the positions he took up. Rooney despite offering lots defensively simply wasn't taking enough if a creative responsibility and was just as guilty of spreading the ball to the wingers as carrick and scholes were in the first half.

I agree. Many seem to criticise their lacklustre attacking qualities, but it seems fairly obvious that they are not told to join in attack much. Carrick has shown that he can do this, but he seems to have orders to stay back. When we have RVp, Rooney, Chicarito and Valencia on the pitch, we don't really need our CMs to be all that creative. We managed to keep 70% possession against Villa, and subsequently our midfield did their job well for the most part. That Agbonlahor sprints away from Scholes, well, he would outpace Toure and Ramirez too, and they're not slow.

 

[Platato]

Personally I think they distributed it fine, there was a clear change in the second half when rvp dropped a little deeper in terms in the positions he took up. Rooney despite offering lots defensively simply wasn't taking enough if a creative responsibility and was just as guilty of spreading the ball to the wingers as carrick and scholes were in the first half.

That's interesting. So you saw no problem with our tempo for most of the match? Rooney was just having a mediocre game. He dropped incredibly deep because that's how slow we were playing. In essence, he separated himself from the rest of the attack and we were left with RVP isolated up front and our wingers hugging the touchline.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. We played it to the wings incessantly when our wingers weren't producing much. Until Villa's second goal, we didn't even attempt to look towards playing through the middle. It was just too slow and I'm not sure how anyone can absolve our midfield 2 from that. Our wingers had a part to play with the static movement from the front 4 but then again, we're looking to implement a system away from home which works best at home! We made it easy for Villa to suss out any attacks we had. We never really broke Villa down until Paul's assist for the first goal. We just played it wide in hopes that our wingers could break them down. It was predictable and left our attack mostly isolated and disjointed.

We talk about the importance of our midfielders being able to dictate the tempo of the match, but then when we get down to it, we just settle on "oh the wingers are to blame because they're off form" blah blah blah. With the capabilities in this team and let alone the qualities Carrick and Scholes have, we at least could have changed tact with the amount of possession we had. We needed to up the tempo. But no. We just did the same thing over and over again when it was clear it just wasn't going to work. Why should we settle on being so one-dimensional?

It's fine criticizing our wingers for being poor but our CMs were just as culpable. They were playing too deep and our gamble that our wingers would produce fell flat. It played right into Villa's hands as they knew as long as they remained compact, we wouldn't threaten much. Putting Ireland on Scholes made us even less effective. IMO, we shouldn't have to rely on them so much but we did and we almost paid the price for it.

 

[Platato]

I agree. Many seem to criticise their lacklustre attacking qualities, but it seems fairly obvious that they are not told to join in attack much. Carrick has shown that he can do this, but he seems to have orders to stay back. When we have RVp, Rooney, Chicarito and Valencia on the pitch, we don't really need our CMs to be all that creative. We managed to keep 70% possession against Villa, and subsequently our midfield did their job well for the most part. That Agbonlahor sprints away from Scholes, well, he would outpace Toure and Ramirez too, and they're not slow.

I'm not sure the possession stats mean much from the match against Villa. They practically let us have the ball and only upped the pressure in certain areas of the pitch. Also, it's not a matter of creativity, it was a matter of tempo and not finding our forwards enough. Failing to do one led to the downfall of the other. Our midfield did not do a good job other than keeping the ball. Our use of it was very poor. If you're fine with us being predictable and lethargic then suit yourself.

Your post is just strange. Agbonlahor sprinting away from Scholes? FFS, him and Carrick left our not so coherent backline stranded by trying to cope with their inadequacies. On the second goal, they were in our half and simply marking space. Villa played the ball right between both of them and then our backline's organization got fecked up and Weimann exposed it. Our midfield did not do their job. The fact that Rooney was the furthest back, other than our defenders, on the first goal is an indication of that. Sorry mate, but that's not good enough. If that was Cleverley/Ando, some of you would have been foaming at the mouth if they had jogged back in the same manner. It's just not acceptable and no distortion of the facts or exaggeration or sentiment should make that notion void.

Not sure what the deal is really. Saturday and Sunday, most felt Carrick and Scholes in a 2 just don't do enough in these games to give us much of a chance but now it seems like some of us are warming up to the idea again. Intriguing.

 

[Ash_G]

That's interesting. So you saw no problem with our tempo for most of the match? Rooney was just having a mediocre game. He dropped incredibly deep because that's how slow we were playing. In essence, he separated himself from the rest of the attack and we were left with RVP isolated up front and our wingers hugging the touchline.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. We played it to the wings incessantly when our wingers weren't producing much. Until Villa's second goal, we didn't even attempt to look towards playing through the middle. It was just too slow and I'm not sure how anyone can absolve our midfield 2 from that. Our wingers had a part to play with the static movement from the front 4 but then again, we're looking to implement a system away from home which works best at home! We made it easy for Villa to suss out any attacks we had. We never really broke Villa down until Paul's assist for the first goal. We just played it wide in hopes that our wingers could break them down. It was predictable and left our attack mostly isolated and disjointed.

We talk about the importance of our midfielders being able to dictate the tempo of the match, but then when we get down to it, we just settle on "oh the wingers are to blame because they're off form" blah blah blah. With the capabilities in this team and let alone the qualities Carrick and Scholes have, we at least could have changed tact with the amount of possession we had. We needed to up the tempo. But no. We just did the same thing over and over again when it was clear it just wasn't going to work. Why should we settle on being so one-dimensional?

It's fine criticizing our wingers for being poor but our CMs were just as culpable. They were playing too deep and our gamble that our wingers would produce fell flat. It played right into Villa's hands as they knew as long as they remained compact, we wouldn't threaten much. Putting Ireland on Scholes made us even less effective. IMO, we shouldn't have to rely on them so much but we did and we almost paid the price for it.

But the thing is the argument is that we kept playing it out to the wingers who did nothing, how is that the midfielders fault? Say at Chelsea, Mata and Hazard are having an off game, you don't go and blame Mikel and Ramirez for that, their job is to make sure those guys get the ball in good areas, they can't be held accountable for them not using it well. And it's not like it's a one off game where the attack was just having an off day, we've seen this slow, urgency lacking attack many times now, whether Scholes plays or not.

Like I said there was a marked difference between how the front four played in the second half compared to the first. Firstly there was definitely more movement from them, if the attackers stay fixed in their positions, then the midfielders have limited options which is what they had in the first half, did Rooney offer the movement that RVP did in the second half? Not in my opinion, and RVP was willing to get on the ball and come inside with it, Rooney in the first half rarely turned to face Villa's goal with the ball at his feet, he either played it back/sideways or spread it wide. Again to compare to Chelsea if you want central penetration you look at Oscar, what's he doing? Same with Rooney if he's playing in that deeper role.

When Rooney did move to the left over Young he offered a bigger threat as he linked up better, again that option wasn't there in the first half.

If we struggled for possession or couldn't get it to our attacking players in the final third then I'd say offensively the midfielders caused problems but that wasn't the case. Certainly because of their depth they were more restricted in the way they could get involved but it wasn't like Young and Valencia were having to constantly track back and get the ball deep, they got it high up the pitch. Defensively Rooney came deep, but when we had the ball he saw it plenty of times relatively high up the pitch.

Again like I said we had, according to some, roughly 70% of the ball, we definitely weren't just passing it on the half way line and the 3 main creators, Valencia, Rooney and Young got the ball where they'd want it, defensive issues aside, the offensive issues were with those guys not doing anything with it and not trying to change it when it wasn't working.

 

[Platato]

Ash you need to stop focusing on the fact that our wingers did nothing and consider why our midfield consistently did the same thing over and over again when it wasn't working. They have the ability to dictate play you know.

I'm not sure Rooney always got it where he wanted it. You're misconstruing my point. I'm not saying they're accountable for our attackers. FFS, think man. Failing to get it to our forwards in good positions meant we mostly played it out wide. Most of the time when Rooney received the ball, he didn't have much time on the ball and he didn't really have much options other than playing it out wide or back to midfield. Again, Scholes and Carrick elected to stay deep and since our wingers showed no intention of coming inward, we restricted ourselves to playing out wide. It was all one big clusterfeck and I don't see how the midfield can not be at fault for at least part of it.