Again, personal attack? What for ?
Picking stupid teams
- Thread starter marjen
- Start date
There's obviously a reason why Anderson isn't being picked. One that isn't apparent to us in the few hours per month thatwe get to see Anderson play.
I think that says more about the rest of our midfielders than it does about Anderson personally. When you compare him to two previously retired players and a 39 year old it shouldn't be too difficult to be preferred as first choice.
Fair enough, I imagine you do. It's not that I don't trust him to start the right team, it's just that a great deal of evidence suggests that at the moment he isn't.
To be honest Nev, I think the majority on the Caf simply want a midfielder who plays with pace and urgency, be that Anderson, Clev or someone outside of the club. The reason so many are backing Anderson is because he currently fits the bill, I find it largely concerning that Anderson has only played 8mins more than Fletcher this season in the PL. What exactly is going on, why do we bother keeping Anderson at the club if he doesn't play football. If Ferguson doesn't trust his fitness then frankly he shouldn't be at United.
And against Arsenal, Chelsea and Newcastle where we took the lead and put in three of our better performances this season.....The midfield was??????????
What's the point in keeping him here if Giggs and Scholes are still considered better options than him? Apart from resting him for important dead rubber CL games of course.
I think it says more that Anderson is a good player, who hasn't as yet totally fulfilled his potential, but who Ferguson clearly so enough in to stick with him in spite of him being underwhelming for a few yard now. And Ferguson has quite clearly decided to manage him effectively to try and get more of those flashes of quality out if him. Just how I see it. Feel free to shoot my opinion down.
Do you actually need an answer to that or is that just another moan?
That doesn't excuse playing a side which is unbalanced. We played RVP and Rooney out there. One of them a player who has been known to injury prone so I'm not really sure your point really stands up. Also, we could have played with Anderson and Fletcher from the start. Scholes and Cleverley would have been on the bench if we needed to change tact.
We're at a point where we cant rely on Scholes to pull us through. He doesn't play well with Cleverley or Anderson for tactical reasons. We can't afford to play him with Carrick or Fletcher because we're just too one-paced and there's not enough dynamism in midfield. It's an unnecessary risk. You say we shouldn't put our best team out there but considering the circumstances, that was pretty close to our best team bar the midfield selection.
We made QPR look good today and a large part had to do with picking a team that simply wasn't balanced. Is it really too much to ask us getting it right from the start?
Looks like a response to someone else's post to me, so you can probably choose. This being a forum and all.
seems to me that when we play Chico and Anderson from the start, they aren't half as effective as bringing them on later in the game. They appear to be great super subs!!
It's a reasonable view of things but again, I just disagree. Firstly, Anderson hasn't just shown flashes this season. He's been very good every time he's played (excusing once alongside Giggs in midfield - anyone would struggle). Secondly, Fergie's job is to make the team play well, not manage one player. Giggs and Scholes have been putting in performances worse than even Anderson's lacklustre ones over the years. They've been failing to perform the basics properly. Regardless of any concerns about managing Anderson, do you not think he should be starting ahead of those two for the sake of the team?
Cheers for that.
I suppose he is keeping him because there is more to his career than just the early part of this season, like say later in the season, next season, or the season after? I'm not sure, it may be too much to comprehend, but I think, I think , that's why SAF may be keeping him around.
I do need an answer. He's 24, will turn 25 this season, it's his sixth season at the club yet he's still not trusted ahead of two veterans who have been quite underwhelming for quite a while now.
If Fergie doesn't consider him good enough: get rid.
If Fergie doesn't consider him fit enough: get rid.
If he genuinely believes Scholes and Giggs are playing well so Anderson is only needed as a backup... well then I'm truly concerned.
You're using the fact that people want to see Anderson in the team as some sort of justification that Sir Alex was right to stick by him all these years, I just think that's more of a result of him refusing to invest in central midfielders thus leaving Anderson as our best option (along with Cleverley).
The problem with Anderson is that it's not that he hasn't 'totally' fulfilled his potential, he hasn't at all. If Fergie has belief in Anderson then we have to wonder why he's not featuring.
He may be trying to manage him effectively, but Anderson's not a kid anymore. He's at the age where if he wants to make it here, then he has to be playing. I'm not Anderson's biggest fan and I wouldn't lose sleep over him leaving should it happen at some stage, but at the moment it seems that he'd fit for what we need until Fergie actually buys a world class player. Why's he not getting that chance when he needs it, and the team seems to need some of the urgency which he can bring on his day?
So I can't state my opinion? Cmon mate you're not setting me straight with that shit. We're talking about an imbalance in midfield and it affects the rest of the team.
Those were different times. Scholes hasn't got any younger. Fletch is still feeling his way back. Carrick is still in his shell. Giggs has shown despite his ability to play the killer ball, he's not effective as a CM. We left two energetic midfielders on the bench for two consecutive weeks as if they have fitness issues (maybe Ando does). What justification is there starting Scholes when we know he doesn't have the legs to do a job in midfield? It's clear to me we're taking a risk. IMO, it's an unnecessary one. I have said for a while I dont think we're using Scholes effectively and the only time we did was when we saw him at his best. Southampton away.
I dont doubt Fergie's management skills. I question why we're picking the same ineffective midfield selections.
Aha, so he's saving him for the SEVENTH or EIGHTH season of his Manchester United career.
See above.
Makes sense. At 35, he might get to start three league games in a row and at 38 he'll be first choice for the biggest games!
But that makes no sense. He's playing well now. Giggs and Scholes are playing very badly and causing us to lose games now. What is Fergie keeping him for, whether for later in the season or next season or whenever, if he isn't willing to play him ahead of Giggs and Scholes at the moment?
He's been injured for a lot of his career.
Please don't try make out that SAF has never given him a chance, he started CL final ffs!
See what question I was answering, and what conversation you waded into, and you might understand a little better.
The reasons I pointed out, are reasons why SAF is keeping him, despite favouring Scholes and Giggs in recent games.
We had 20 good minutes against Chelsea. Then only looked good when they had a man sent off.
Cleverley played against both Arsenal and Newcastle so I'm not sure what your point is regarding those two matches.
It wasn't just 20 minutes. We did well for most of the first half.
Yeah I know he played, what do you think I'm arguing against?
My point is in three games where we didn't fall behind and where we put in three very good performances against three good sides. We did it without an immobile midfield pairing and without a centre forward on the wing. Yet everytime we revert to the latter it ends with us falling behind (against usually weak opposition) and playing quite poorly.
I never said he hadn't given him a chance. I'm saying that if he doesn't trust him any more then why didn't he get rid of him? If he only considers him as backup, why didn't he strengthen the midfield with better players? Does he really believe that Scholes and Giggs are top drawer midfielders?
Anderson got more opportunities here when he was 19 and we had a much better midfield than now. I was one of those who kept saying his injury record is a concern and that he's been underwhelming but in that case it seems that by not strengthening the midfield Fergie really plans to rely on Giggs and Scholes mostly. And that's mental.
Ah, in that case, I agree with you.Yeah I know he played, what do you think I'm arguing against?
My point is in three games where we didn't fall behind and where we put in three very good performances against three good sides. We did it without an immobile midfield pairing and without a centre forward on the wing. Yet everytime we revert to the latter it ends with us falling behind (against usually weak opposition) and playing quite poorly.
You're having a 'mare here. Surprisingly, I am actually reading the thread. I understand perfectly. What I was saying is that you haven't really answered Siorac's question. He asked:
After an unnecessarily snide jab about him moaning, you got round to answering:
Essentially, you're saying SAF is keeping Anderson around for later. Dazzling insight. But you still haven't answered the question: why is he keeping him around for later if he's unwilling to play him now, when it is such an obvious and risk-free thing to do? (Risk free because he can't possibly do worse than the midfields which Fergie keeps starting, featuring Scholes and Giggs.)
See how I understand? Btw, it's not 'wading in' when more than one person wants to point out why one of your posts is idiotic. If two is too many for you, have your arguments via private message.
Yeah, Brightonian seems to understand it pretty well.
I mean what's the risk? Giggs and Scholes are playing shite. They're not gonna improve.
If we play Anderson and Cleverley regularly, they might still improve. Because they're not near 40 yet.
I mean what's the risk? Giggs and Scholes are playing shite. They're not gonna improve.
If we play Anderson and Cleverley regularly, they might still improve. Because they're not near 40 yet.
He wasn't "very good" midweek, so that's not strictly true.
I've said on more than one occasion how much I rate Anderson. I've been one of his biggest supporters both on here and offline, and have taken stick before for suggesting I think we should persevere with him. Fergie has stuck with him for 5 years, and in many games throughout those seasons he has underwhelmed, or struggled to get any rhythm through lack of fitness. Plenty would have agreed with his decision if he'd fecked him off. The reason he's still here is clearly because Fergie rates him highly enough to keep him.
It looks to me that he's simply trying to manage his fitness better and try to cut out the niggly injuries that have put an end to any run of form he's ever built up in his time here, and I see that as a sensible thing. It's clear what he brings, it's clear Fergie sees it too, and I've no doubt if he builds up his fitness and stamina reserves that he'll play an integral part in our team later in the season.
Fergies world its 442 - he will play out of form players, players out of position, players way past their best if it means he can play his beloved 442.
Whats the point of his assistants? If they agree with him they are just as bad, if he keeps on overruling them then he doesnr respect them enough - so again pointless.
Whats the point of his assistants? If they agree with him they are just as bad, if he keeps on overruling them then he doesnr respect them enough - so again pointless.
So he can't win? He keeps a player you want to see play, when he would have been justified in fecking him off, and it's a case of he only kept him because he had nobody else? Don't you think there is a reason why he didn't buy a midfielder, that reason being that he wanted to give Anderson an opportunity to fulfil the potential he has? It's what all those who thought we didn't necessarily need to replace Anderson and buy a midfielder were saying in the endless midfield threads.
When he didn't buy a midfielder everyone questioned him for having faith in Anderson, now he's being questioned for not starting him at home to QPR and supposedly not having enough faith in him.
You couldn't make this up.
You know what I mean. Don't give me a smart-ass comment. I've read your stuff, your better than that.
If you genuinely believe that the starting eleven we put out today wasn't good enough to lead at half time, which is what I asked, then you are one pessimistic fan.
I he wants to make it here he needs to improve his stamina and fitness, which it looks for all the world to me exactly what Fergie is trying to do.
Why can't more people look at the long view, this is how Ferguson has always managed, he's never been one for short-termism.
What happened today when the team needed some urgency? He put Anderson on, and it worked, so what exactly is the problem? He got his chance and took it, let's see how things go from here on in eh?
Whenever we need to bring them on we are behind. So it is easy for them as the team pushes forward. We usually play crap so no wonder that Chicharito cant do much without a single good ball
You make a fair point; it's just the fact that at 24(?) years of age, we shouldn't still be phasing him into the team. If he's going to make it then he has to start showing us he can play from the start and properly sustain that soon.
I appreciate Fergie's not about the short term, but Anderson's in the middle of his 6th season now. There's got to be a time when he trusts in him and can start him.
And Anderson has to improve his fitness and show that he can last longer than an hour without needing resuscitated.
Fergie is managing his fitness, it's blatantly obvious.
Fair enough, I understand you a little better now. I've been part of the 'keep Ando, he'll come good' camp all along, so I didn't really see that what you're really talking about is the hypocrisy of criticising Fergie sticking with him and then criticising him for now playing with him. To be fair though, I think there's also a case that the situation has changed. He's still inconsistent, but he shows up much more regularly than he used to, and he's better when he does.
If you're right, though, then why did Fergie play him in the CL dead rubber? Why rest him when he's needed but start him in a pointless match requiring a long plane journey and against a notoriously rough team?
Have you not seen how consistently shit we've been when we start without Cleverley or Anderson this season?
Anderson is still the same inconsistent player he's always been, but at least you can hope that he has a good performance. When any combination of Carrick, Giggs, Scholes, and Fletcher make up our midfield two there is almost no chance we're going to put in a good performance. It's basically come to the point where we've let ourselves get down to the bare minimum of players therefore leaving Anderson as our best option.
If Sir Alex planned on using Anderson this way then what would the harm have been in bringing in a new central midfielder anyway. If you have a player who you just don't trust to start for whatever reason don't you think it'd be wise to bring in someone capable of starting and performing well in most games?
We clearly can't keep relying on Giggs and Scholes to hold over until Anderson is ready, that should be obvious by now.
Oh do be quiet.
I asked if it really needed answering because the answer was so evident without anyone saying it, I never claimed to have 'dazzling insight'. He's keeping him around because he sees him as the future, be that next season or next month.