If he's having his fitness managed and in need of game time to improve his stamina then maybe playing him in unimportant matches is what Fergie thinks is the best way to give him game time in a no risk way. If he dies after 60 minutes in the league cup or a dead rubber champions league match then it doesn't matter. If he does in the league it could affect us more. For all we know it was always Fergie's intention to give him half an hour today, irrespective of how the game went. I think he's trying to build him up, stamina wise, playing him here and there without just chucking him in and risking him getting crocked again, as has happened before.
Picking stupid teams
- Thread starter marjen
- Start date
He probably mistakenly thinks that Scholes and Giggs are better options than Anderson and Cleverley at the moment in certain games, doesn't mean he doesn't see a future for them at the cub, hence why he is keeping them around.
So is your annoyance that Anderson didn't start today or that we didn't sign a midfielder? I think your argument is getting a bit muddled here if I'm honest.
Ferguson kept Anderson because he rated him, and he's now clearly trying to manage and improve his fitness levels in the hope that he'll finally put his injury troubles behind him and become the player we all want him to be. Do you think he is wrong in doing this?
I'm annoyed that Anderson didn't start today. That doesn't mean I all of the sudden think Anderson is the answer to our midfield problems, just that he (and Cleverley) are currently our best options (which I also don't think is that big of a compliment given who he is competing with).
And no I don't think he's wrong, but if that was his plan for this season then he clearly should've bought someone to start.
You are just being a Fergie apologist here.....
Even if Fergie starts his wife as a striker, you would find an excuse for his decision. There's no justification for keeping Anderson and Cleverley on the bench like he did tonight and last weekend against Norwich. Giggs/Scholes have been putting in horrible shifts in the past few weeks and yet they keep getting games. If we had the young midfielders in the midfield last weekend, we would be 5 points clear now!
feck off you wanker.Fergie apologist for daring to think there is a reason behind his actions.
That being said, I reckon Lady Cathy would have a swift turn of pace, she looked sprightly going up those steps yesterday.
I've given up now when it comes to picking the right team.
If Fergie honestly thinks that playing a 38 year old in the centre of midfield, ahead of two 20+ years olds, in a two man midfield is okay, makes us a better team, and works, then fine. But he's wrong. And he continues to be proven wrong every single time he chooses to do so.
I've excepted that this isn't gonna change anytime soon, so can't even be bothered to get wound up by it anymore. I'll just look forward to the second half of matches from now on, when things are going wrong, and he's forced to change things.
If Fergie honestly thinks that playing a 38 year old in the centre of midfield, ahead of two 20+ years olds, in a two man midfield is okay, makes us a better team, and works, then fine. But he's wrong. And he continues to be proven wrong every single time he chooses to do so.
I've excepted that this isn't gonna change anytime soon, so can't even be bothered to get wound up by it anymore. I'll just look forward to the second half of matches from now on, when things are going wrong, and he's forced to change things.
SAF isn't insane/stupid, so no doubt he has reasons for how he is selecting teams so far; it's just that from this perspective, they don't seem like good reasons (yes, even the ones you mentioned).
Fergie apologist for daring to think there is a reason behind his actions.
That being said, I reckon Lady Cathy would have a swift turn of pace, she looked sprightly going up those steps yesterday.
If there's a reason, what is this reason?
Fergie apologist for daring to think there is a reason behind his actions.
That being said, I reckon Lady Cathy would have a swift turn of pace, she looked sprightly going up those steps yesterday.
He played Giggs ahead of Cleverley/Anderson last weekend when we needed 3 points and then started Cleverley/Anderson in Turkey in a dead rubber game. Is that not mismanagement, i dunno what else to call it....in the end we lost both games and we were losing until he changed the midfield and we looked like our old self! At what point would Fergie start trusting his young midfielders - they are not going to improve on the bench, are they? Fergie told us he let Berbatov leave because he wants to inject pace in United's game - how have Giggs/Scholes fared in the context of adding pace to our gameplay? Can you not see the decision to start Giggs/Scholes is borne out of favouritism instead of the excuses you are plucking out of the stratosphere?
Yeah, I get the premise. We don't understand the reasons so they're not good ones, right?
I don't understand his reasons all the time either, but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt under the belief that his 26 years at the helm has given him a bit of insight into how to run a football club effectively.
Fergie apologist I am.
You talk like it's a guarantee that last weeks result would've been different if he had played those players. We're talking about Cleverley and Anderson not Ronaldo and Messi.
If Andersons fitness is poor thennits one for the coach and assistant manager. If he is persistently out of shape as people contend then its for Ferguson to sort him out or sell him. Those who defend Ferguson blame Anderson for being unfit - if that's the case then ultimate responsibility falls to Fergie as he has the power to hire and fire.
If he hasn't fired Anderson then he feels he can still provide something to United. But if that is just cameo appearnces and Fergie is relying on a 39 year old then you have to question Ferguson logic in not strengthening the midfield.
If he hasn't fired Anderson then he feels he can still provide something to United. But if that is just cameo appearnces and Fergie is relying on a 39 year old then you have to question Ferguson logic in not strengthening the midfield.
I'm a Fergie apologist, so he's right in everything he does.
Simple fact is, I don't always agree with his decisions, nor do I always understand them, but I'm sure the reasons for them are there and I'm willing to take the risk that he knows what he's doing, you know, since he's only been doing it fecking successfully for 26 years at this club.
I'm not saying you shouldn't have an opinion on his decision either, you should, you're a supporter and you're entitled to want the best for the club. Fergie does too though, you know, and every decision he makes is because he thinks it's what is best for the club. You may not agree. I may not agree. He may well be wrong, I've no doubt he does get things wrong, but I guarantee the times he's wrong are far outweighed by the times he's right.
No, if they end up having an effect on game day performances and losing us games, they are not good reasons.
There's not much benefit of doubt that needs to be given to SAF. He's one of the greatest managers of all time and we all know that - but that is specifically why we are confused by the fact that he seems to be ignoring a problem in the team which even numpties in the match day thread can easily diagnose.
If you don't know the reasons how do you know if they are good reasons or not?
I've seen people here saying we should have played Anderson and Cleverley. What if that didn't work? What if we'd played those two and we didn't play well. Fergie would still have been wrong, wouldn't he? He picks the teams he sees fit to pick, knowing that no matter what decision he makes someone somewhere will disagree. You only have to look at a match day thread on here to see about 50 different variations of a team selection, from a variety of people, all with different opinions on what team should be played, what formation should be used etc. What makes a team selection right? You agreeing with it? What about the other guy who doesn't agree with you? It's a wrong decision as far as he's concerned, because he thinks someone else should play. Who then decides if a team selection is the right one?
A manager is never going to be right by everyone, not everyone will agree with his decisions. All he can do is pick the team he thinks will win the game, and make decisions during it that perhaps change the game if things aren't going well. Both these things he does correctly more often than not.
Why do you seem to think this is about agreeing or disagreeing with SAF's decisions? It's about performances on the pitch. Whether I disagree or not, if the team performs well and wins the game, what the hell can I say? However, on this particular point, SAF is clearly making the wrong decision because it is affecting performances, and losing games/points.
You are attempting to divert the discussion from being about players, tactics and performances to being about fans 'disagreeing' with a decision.
What's the complaint today then? We won.
Is it all about performances then? Is the winning not enough, but the nature of the win?
I'm not sure why you're deliberately trying to be so... dense. Good performances and good results have a very strong positive correlation - you would agree with that right? It's not possible to win the league by going into the season expecting to field weakened line-ups and 'do a Chelsea' every game. The better the team performs, the more chance of winning - you agree?
Now, even you noticed the stark difference in how the team was performing pre- and post-substitutions, right? All that is being said is, if we keep making the wrong selection decisions, and consequently putting in subpar performances, we will lose games we shouldn't be losing, and therefore shoot ourselves in the foot when it comes to winning the league.
Is that a precise enough explanation of the issue?
I'm not stupid dude, stop conversing with me as if I am.
Surely a team selection incorporates the subs on the bench and the ability of the manager to use them correctly and effectively? When other managers make decisions that change games it's genius. Mourinho consistently received praise for being able to use substitutions to change a game and get the result needed. When Fergie does it it's not genius, it's stupidity that he didn't pick the right team at the start.
We win to go top of the league and we're still shit and our manager is still getting it wrong, even when he gets it right.
I'd rather we played better football, but yeah, I'll take 3-1 wins without playing well if they're on offer.
The subs were a good idea, but seeing as you are not stupid, you should be able to see that the context of the performance and subs are what is affecting how fans view them. Scholes should not have started the match today. So it makes no sense whatsoever to credit someone with rectifying what was an obvious error of judgement to begin with.
People credit Mourinho (and SAF also) when he makes important tactical changes that affect the match. Today, SAF didn't make a tactical change, he merely noticed what should have been obvious 7-8 games ago: Scholes cannot move! Once he noticed that, the performance improved beyond recognition, lo and behold, we scored three goals and won the game.
Which is what we all want, the right selections that give us good performances, which ultimately gives us the victories. There is no dichotomy being created between performances and results here.
What Ferguson does is picking a team capable of beating the opponent while keeping players fresh enough to even win matches in march and april. Sure it backfires once in a while - but it also means that we're always competitive at the end of the season.
Frustrating to watch ? Yes now and then - but we are still top of the table and we have scored by far the most goals so surely he must have a clue what he is doing.
Frustrating to watch ? Yes now and then - but we are still top of the table and we have scored by far the most goals so surely he must have a clue what he is doing.
Yes that worked well towards the end of last season didn't it.
Sorry but Cleverley and Anderson need game time not the opposite.
It's guaranteed we would have won the game by a huge goal margin if we had started that duo rather than the insipid Giggs/Carrick combo. With Cleverley and Anderson, there would be a threat through the middle unlike the predictable pla of always looking for Valencia to drill a cross to the strikers......
I dare you to mention a league game Anderson/Cleverley started that we failed to batter the opposition to a pulp. They are miles ahead better than what Giggs/Carrick/Scholes combination can offer at the moment. Now that the 2 young players are fit and firing is when to use them not when both of them would get crocked in training and would disappear from the squad till May.
I don't think it's unrealistic to say that it's highly, highly likely that we would have won that match. Yes, you can't predict the future, they're not Messi and Ronaldo yada yada yada. But there is an extent to which you can watch football, understand what's happening, and predict how it might have gone differently under different circumstances. If Fergie said he was going to start Carrick and Fletcher at CB, you'd be pretty safe predicting that our defence would be wobbly, and probably ship goals. At the moment, that's really no more ludicrous than starting a midfield of just Fletcher and Scholes with Cleverley and Anderson available.
But why not let Scholes and Giggs play matches vs Galatasaray in the CL, not matches we actually need to win like the match against Norwich?
If you get me, isn't it absolutely irrelevant which matches Clev/Ando have started come april as long as they've been rested adequately? Wouldn't it then make more sense to play Clev/Ando in matches that we actually need a functioning midfield for us to win?
Such as midweek vs west ham?
Carrick and Giggs likes this.
Honestly, I reckon Anderson's earned himself a start with that cameo. He'll play alongside Carrick(who's out of form) and Cleverley will be sat on the bench.
Also, you've managed to completely miss the point. Let's look at last week. We played Norwich away(important match) and Galatasary away(terribly unimportant match). Since I'm going to assume that Fletch/Scholes would play against QPR anyway, let's talk about the other four involved midfielders.
Carrick/Giggs vs Norwich, and Cleverley/Anderson vs Gala.
Now tell me what part you don't get: If you're going to rest your in-form and best performing midfielders for one match that week, would it be the match you want to win, or the match you don't give a feck about? Because Fergie decided to play them in the latter, and I'm of the opinion it cost us three points. (Although that's higly hypothetical).
Nothing of this has anything to do at all with the match vs West Ham.
Think back from west ham midweek to the England friendly. If either Cleverley or Anderson start on Wednesday, then all of them have played with a games rest in between.
'nothing of this has to do with the West Ham match'? I'm not surprised you actually think that, given the things you say. However, it's a fact that decisions on team lineups s affected by upcoming fixtures.
International friendly Wednesday - Cleverley starts, not SAFs choice, not sure if Anderson played.
Norwich Saturday - rest Cleverley play the others.
Gala Wednesday - Play the well rested Cleverley and Andderson.
Saturday - play the rested Scholes
Wednesday - play the fresh Cleverley and Anderson.
Now you tell me, what part don't you get?
For the past few years on here people have been craving an attack minded CM to replace Scholes and partner Carrick. However with Cleverley and Anderson coming through, Kagawa too, Carrick himself struggling somewhat and Fletcher's illness then I think we should instead be looking at bringing in a midfielder who would best compliment Cleverley and Anderson. Presumably that means a more defensive/combative midfielder. That said, I certainly wouldn't say no to Wilshere!
We'll see if there's any legs in that theory on Wednesday I guess. To me it just looks like he's playing Scholes and Giggs in the games that matter.
Yeah, true, Wednesday's line up will tell us a great deal. I do think it's the most difficult fixture we've had in recent weeks.
I must say that I have been as frustrated as the next supporter about many of our team selections, and while my natural instinct is to act like a brat and complain about it, common sense has been reminding me one thing. One of Fergie's great strengths, for me, is his ability to manage and pace his entire squad over the course of a season, injury permitting of course.
I remember a few seasons ago when Nani really turned the corner in the second half of the season and came of age. He hardly featured in the first half of the season, and I remember telling my cousin (a fellow United man) that he will have a big part to play in the second half of the season, and the manager is probably just conditioning him to peak later. Fergie has often taken players out of the team for a while, even gone as far as to send them on holiday. I guess it's at the end of the season we can really see whether he called it right or not. This is a marathon, and nobody knows the requirements of running it better than him.
I personally believe that, so long as they are fit, Anderson and Cleverley will have a lot to say in the second half of the season. That said, I want to see them play next week as does everyone else, and will probably continue to criticise Fergie over the coming weeks for not playing them, despite this post.
I remember a few seasons ago when Nani really turned the corner in the second half of the season and came of age. He hardly featured in the first half of the season, and I remember telling my cousin (a fellow United man) that he will have a big part to play in the second half of the season, and the manager is probably just conditioning him to peak later. Fergie has often taken players out of the team for a while, even gone as far as to send them on holiday. I guess it's at the end of the season we can really see whether he called it right or not. This is a marathon, and nobody knows the requirements of running it better than him.
I personally believe that, so long as they are fit, Anderson and Cleverley will have a lot to say in the second half of the season. That said, I want to see them play next week as does everyone else, and will probably continue to criticise Fergie over the coming weeks for not playing them, despite this post.
The 'managing their fitness' argument is a nice one, and certainly the only convincing explanation I've heard so far for what seems pure madness sometimes.
I just worry that one of them will pick up an injury in training, and the whole approach will look very silly indeed.
I just worry that one of them will pick up an injury in training, and the whole approach will look very silly indeed.
Bound to happen given our luck with injuries!
Yep, if you look back at many of our seasons under Fergie, few people now remember that big players had spells out of the team. To be a constant, you had to be not only good, but in peak condition physically and mentally. Usually that was the players in their mid to late twenties.
The younger players and injury prone ones were always managed, as were new young foreign ones. I remember Rooney being subbed in every game (there or therabouts anyway) in his first season or so here. Ronaldo was similarly in and out of the side, often rotated with Darren Fletcher on the right wing!
It's always a long game with the manager, and a short game with the fans, so the differences in views and methods are natural. When Anderson/Cleverley are proper mid-twenties and comfortable in their own bodies to play a long season, trust me, they will have no hiding place then. Playing shite for long spells will probably get them sold even because only then will the manager truly judge them.
So this turned out to be fairly accurate, with our two young energetic CMs, both with their own fitness and perhaps form issues as evidenced by last nights performance, being well rested for a difficult game vs a tough Sam Allardyce team. Perhaps it doesn't fully justify the team selections of late for some people, but it does show that there was some method to SAFs 'madness'.
Shock, horror.
Yeah, it may be some method to SAFs decisions but IMO it's cost us three points vs Norwich.
Hope we "gain" those three points back over the course of the season due to having fresher players than our rival.
What remains to be seen though is whether or not Fergie actually believes either Scholes or Giggs in a midfield two is part of our strongest lineup - which I suspect he does.
Hope we "gain" those three points back over the course of the season due to having fresher players than our rival.
What remains to be seen though is whether or not Fergie actually believes either Scholes or Giggs in a midfield two is part of our strongest lineup - which I suspect he does.
I think that's where Chelsea went wrong. Especially looking at their team against us in the league cup for example. They didn't rotate and it cost them.
You're not going to get through to some people, those that think a team line up this week has no affect on a team line up 4 days later for example.
No one thinks that.
My point in that discussion with you was that we should have chosen the Galatasaray-match to rest Cleverley/Anderson(who did not play vs QPR either way) and not the Norwich-match. It would actually have made more sense, as we could've been able to rest Fletcher for the Gala-match in that case.