Picking stupid teams

[Fergus' son]

All our CMs have had a weeks rest in between games, rest that they apparently/evidently need.

You saying that team selections of late had 'nothing to do at all with the West Ham match' was wrong.

Anyway, forget it.

There was some sound thinking behind SAF selections. Shock, horror. That's all.

 

[marjen]

Yup, and I feel he's played his cards slightly wrong.

The Gala-match was sacrificed correctly, but the Norwich-match cried out for energy in CM and we opted for zombie instead.

 

[Fergus' son]

And I trust his judgement on these matters rather than yours, seeing as he actually has the information required to make these decisions.

He thought they needed a weeks rest in between games probably and nothing I have seen goes against that.

 

[marjen]

Well then we should just pack up our things and stop posting on a discussion-forum, because SAF's always right and no matter what we think the standard answer is "well SAF knows better so I'm going to blindly defend it every time he decides to pick his nose in public".

It's not how it works.

 

[Fergus' son]

Well then we should just pack up our things and stop posting on a discussion-forum, because SAF's always right and no matter what we think the standard answer is "well SAF knows better so I'm going to blindly defend it every time he decides to pick his nose in public".

It's not how it works.

Many times I wish you would pack up and leave.

I wasnt 'blindly' defending him, I was defending him because in my experience there is usually a method to his perceived 'madness' and now, everything has suggested to me that there was this time too.

 

[marjen]

Why are you calling it "madness"? Straw man?

I'm all for squad rotation, but not at the cost of winning. IMO the team selection vs Norwich was blatantly unsuited to the team we were up against, and I'm not surprised it backfired. The same were true vs QPR, but we turned it around by subbing in the player who should've started the game and got away with it since QPR are undeniably shit.

It's one thing to rotate your squad but at the same time you need to make sure you're giving yourselves a good chance to win the match. We didn't do that vs Norwich and it cost us three points against a Norwich side who weren't even any good on the day. If that's what I think, I'm not going to pretend it didn't happen just because SAF "had his reasons". Of course he does, it's his job, but that doesn't mean he didn't get that one wrong.

I'll care feck all about the Norwich-match if we win the league, but if it ends up like last season and we're losing it on goal difference or with a couple of points, then it's going to be just a bitter a pill to swallow as the infamous Blackburn-calamity with Rafael/Park as a CM. That game IMO cost us the entire league last season, and I'm sure SAF "had his reasons" at the time.

 

[Fergus' son]

Didn't read.

 

[Platato]

It all goes back to his squad rotation policy. As I've said before, if he wants to rotate fine, but it shouldn't mean the teams we put out are not balanced. I don't care if on paper, the lineup is good enough to win the game. If you don't get the balance right, any team will suffer.

 

[marjen]

Didn't read.

I'll sum it up for you.

Blackburn last season. Cost us the league. Shocking team selection. Fergie surely "had his reasons". He was still wrong, and it cost us the league.

Better?

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Personally I think the more important question is why? Its obvious with hindsight that SAF is trying to manage the fitness of Cleverly and Anderson, what Id like to know is why to supposed professional athletes who are both young enough to, apparently cannt manage to play two games in a week? Are they not fit enough? If not why the feck not? If they ARE fit enough and SAF is trying to ease them through the first half of the season so they are ready for the buisness end does that not point to an obvious deficiency in the squad that really should have been taken care of by now?

 

[marjen]

What, you're implying SAF's got it wrong not making sure we've got a midfielder that isn't Scholes/Giggs to rotate with, seeing as we're required to switch out three of our midfielders for every match or else they'll burn out?

Nah, he's got his reasons. We don't need a midfielder.

 

[Fergus' son]

I'll sum it up for you.

Blackburn last season. Cost us the league. Shocking team selection. Fergie surely "had his reasons". He was still wrong, and it cost us the league.

Better?

We beat Blackburn/Norwich, we may end up losing to QPR and West Ham, costing us even more points.

Why do you claim the Bkackburn game cost us the league and not any other loss? Because it doesn't suit your agenda? Thought so.

 

[Fergus' son]

Personally I think the more important question is why? Its obvious with hindsight that SAF is trying to manage the fitness of Cleverly and Anderson, what Id like to know is why to supposed professional athletes who are both young enough to, apparently cannt manage to play two games in a week? Are they not fit enough? If not why the feck not? If they ARE fit enough and SAF is trying to ease them through the first half of the season so they are ready for the buisness end does that not point to an obvious deficiency in the squad that really should have been taken care of by now?

He obviously still trusts Giggs and Scholes, rightly or wrongly, to do a job for us when needed.

I still maintain that it was the inept performance of our players, rather than the players picked, which cost us at Norwich.

 

[marjen]

We beat Bkackburn/Norwich, we may end up losing to QPR and West Ham, costing us even more points.

Why do you claim the Bkackburn game let us the league and not any other loss? Because it doesn't suit your agenda? Thought so.

No, I claim the Blackburn-match cost us the league because it was by far the easiest home game we had all season, and we made it difficult to ourselves not by resting players but putting out a retarded team with no balance. See Rafael/Park as CMs and Carrick as CB for examples. We could just as easily have rested players and still win comfortably against that lot, but Fergie chose not to, for reasons unknown. I don't think not playing people in retarded positions in that match would have cost us a loss in subsequent matches. In fact, we lost the very next match either way with our "best" side playing.

I'm not against the notion of squad rotation, but you need to put out teams that at least got a decent chance of doing their jobs.

 

[Fergus' son]

So we lose games even with our best side playing? It's not always SAFs fault for picking stupid teams? I'm glad you realise this.

Let's just leave it at that, I really can't be arsed having a discussion with you. The point I initially made today, that there does seem to be method to SAFs apparently 'mad' team line ups of late, was the only one I wanted to make.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

No, I claim the Blackburn-match cost us the league because it was by far the easiest home game we had all season, and we made it difficult to ourselves not by resting players but putting out a retarded team with no balance. See Rafael/Park as CMs and Carrick as CB for examples. We could just as easily have rested players and still win comfortably against that lot, but Fergie chose not to, for reasons unknown. I don't think not playing people in retarded positions in that match would have cost us a loss in subsequent matches. In fact, we lost the very next match either way with our "best" side playing.

I'm not against the notion of squad rotation, but you need to put out teams that at least got a decent chance of doing their jobs.

This.

 

[marjen]

Let's just leave it at that, I really can't be arsed having a discussion with you. The point I initially made today, that there does seem to be method to SAFs apparently 'mad' team line ups of late, was the only one I wanted to make.

Which, to be fair, no one in the entire history of the earth has argued against. Of course it's method to his team selections. He's a human being, it's not like we act on instinct for no apparent reason. Christ.

You're arguing against no one that SAF actually thinks before he picks his teams out, but you're not interested in debating whether it costs us points, in a thread about whether or not his tinkering costs us points. Well done, Martin. (See what I did there?)

 

[Fergus' son]

Which, to be fair, no one in the entire history of the earth has argued against. Of course it's method to his team selections. He's a human being, it's not like we act on instinct for no apparent reason. Christ.

You're arguing against no one that SAF actually thinks before he picks his teams out, but you're not interested in debating whether it costs us points, in a thread about whether or not his tinkering costs us points. Well done, Martin. (See what I did there?)

I think the players cost us points, by playing poorly, rather than the team selection which I don't think was necessarily 'wrong', and was probably the best team to be picked for us in the long run.

 

[Burrow]

I'm quite certain that the teams we've put out so far this season has been more than good enough on paper to do alot better than they did. What people need to remember is that Ferguson has been doing this for ages, having to rotate a huge squad to make sure everyone is ready if needed.

And to be honest, Fergie has not really been helped by having to deal with tons of injuries so far this season. Because of this, he has to ease the recovered players into the team and it's bound to cause some less-than-consistent performances.

Yes, I would also love to see our best XI play every single game but that will be a problem due to many reasons. Firstly, I dont really think that we got a best XI, but rather a best XI for most situations (i.e when wanting to play narrow, with wingers, vs physical teams etc).

The other reason is one I mentioned earlier, which is Fergie having been in this situation so many times before. He know that you have to keep the players ready, fresh and able to step in whenever they're needed. We might not like it, but we probably will play Jones in midfield or Giggs on the wing because unlike our competition, we got a huge squad.

And who are we to be happy about having a huge squad when we keep complaining when we use the squad? Are we spoilt, or is reason and logic thrown out the window when it comes to supporting our club? Yes, we might would love to see RvP, Anderson, Cleverley and the likes to start every single game but if we want to win the league in may, not in January, we cant.

 

[marjen]

Players tend to play poorly when asked to do jobs they're no longer capable of.

See Giggs vs Norwich.

 

[Fergus' son]

Players tend to play poorly when asked to do jobs they're no longer capable of.

See Giggs vs Norwich.

Or they play poorly, when they are not playing well. See Cleverley vs West Ham or RVP vs QPR.

Can we leave it now or must we continue?

 

[Fergus' son]

I'm quite certain that the teams we've put out so far this season has been more than good enough on paper to do alot better than they did. What people need to remember is that Ferguson has been doing this for ages, having to rotate a huge squad to make sure everyone is ready if needed.

And to be honest, Fergie has not really been helped by having to deal with tons of injuries so far this season. Because of this, he has to ease the recovered players into the team and it's bound to cause some less-than-consistent performances.

Yes, I would also love to see our best XI play every single game but that will be a problem due to many reasons. Firstly, I dont really think that we got a best XI, but rather a best XI for most situations (i.e when wanting to play narrow, with wingers, vs physical teams etc).

The other reason is one I mentioned earlier, which is Fergie having been in this situation so many times before. He know that you have to keep the players ready, fresh and able to step in whenever they're needed. We might not like it, but we probably will play Jones in midfield or Giggs on the wing because unlike our competition, we got a huge squad.

And who are we to be happy about having a huge squad when we keep complaining when we use the squad? Are we spoilt, or is reason and logic thrown out the window when it comes to supporting our club? Yes, we might would love to see RvP, Anderson, Cleverley and the likes to start every single game but if we want to win the league in may, not in January, we cant.

Yeah, I like that post!

 

[marjen]

Anyway, I'm hoping we'll start to see a settled team in the run before christmas, and I hope we pick the matches where we feck around with the team carefully.

 

[Burrow]

Anyway, I'm hoping we'll start to see a settled team in the run before christmas, and I hope we pick the matches where we feck around with the team carefully.

Well, I really doubt that we'll see a settled team during the periode with the most games during the year. This is where a huge squad comes in handy, and I'm convinced that we'll use it to it's full extent.

 

[marjen]

I'm quite certain that the teams we've put out so far this season has been more than good enough on paper to do alot better than they did. What people need to remember is that Ferguson has been doing this for ages, having to rotate a huge squad to make sure everyone is ready if needed.

And to be honest, Fergie has not really been helped by having to deal with tons of injuries so far this season. Because of this, he has to ease the recovered players into the team and it's bound to cause some less-than-consistent performances.

Yes, I would also love to see our best XI play every single game but that will be a problem due to many reasons. Firstly, I dont really think that we got a best XI, but rather a best XI for most situations (i.e when wanting to play narrow, with wingers, vs physical teams etc).

The other reason is one I mentioned earlier, which is Fergie having been in this situation so many times before. He know that you have to keep the players ready, fresh and able to step in whenever they're needed. We might not like it, but we probably will play Jones in midfield or Giggs on the wing because unlike our competition, we got a huge squad.

And who are we to be happy about having a huge squad when we keep complaining when we use the squad? Are we spoilt, or is reason and logic thrown out the window when it comes to supporting our club? Yes, we might would love to see RvP, Anderson, Cleverley and the likes to start every single game but if we want to win the league in may, not in January, we cant.

Missing the point by a fecking mile.

It's a nice long post and you're correct on all accounts, but it's not adressing the point of this thread.

It's entirely possible to rotate your squad, ease players back from injury and give players playing time without compromising your chances of winning severely by playing unbalanced and unsuited teams.

At times I think Fergie's cocked it up this season. Tottenham at home was a case in point, Norwich another. Arguably Everton too, although that's a fecking tough place to go regardless.

 

[Fletcher's Jilted Lover]

He has picked stupid teams of late, for the formation he played, he picked the right personnel last night, for a change! We lacked the width in midfield so alot of the play was narrow, so we needed Rooney to be on form in that role for it to work, but he wasn't.

If we play that midfield of Cleverley, Carrick and Anderson, it'll be good to see Kagawa in for Hernandez so that formation can work better.

And I trust his judgement on these matters rather than yours, seeing as he actually has the information required to make these decisions.

He thought they needed a weeks rest in between games probably and nothing I have seen goes against that.

You missed the Norwich game?

 

[Burrow]

Missing the point by a fecking mile.

It's a nice long post and you're correct on all accounts, but it's not adressing the point of this thread.

It's entirely possible to rotate your squad, ease players back from injury and give players playing time without compromising your chances of winning severely by playing unbalanced and unsuited teams.

At times I think Fergie's cocked it up this season. Tottenham at home was a case in point, Norwich another. Arguably Everton too, although that's a fecking tough place to go regardless.

Well, I dont really think it's missing the point. I said that we put out teams that are more than capable of winning games but the players do not perform to their potential because we have to rotate.

I'm not sure I like that condensending tone of yours, and I would say it doesnt spark a good debate by doing so, but I guess that's what debating on an internet forum is all about.

I agree that the Blackburn-game last year was one of those times where we had to field an unbalanced team and it cost us dearly but so many times this season we've fielded a team that's been more than capable but still got slated on the caf by the likes of you. Yes, a midfield consisting of Giggs and Scholes is not going to work, which is why we dont play those two together as a midfield two. With Giggs as a winger though, it's more than balanced and it should produce a better display than we've seen so far.

What was unbalanced in the team against Norwich? De Gea was out injured, Evans was hurt and Smalling/Rio was the only CB-pairing available to us (unless you wanted us to play Jones, who was on the back of an 8-month recovery). Or does this boil down to us playing Giggs once more? How is a midfield of Valencia, Carrick, Giggs and Young not balanced? Plenty of creativity, defensive ability, workrate, pace and experience. I'm not sure how it could get any more balanced than that.Or was it the RvP-Hernandez combination you were unhappy with?

 

[Fergus' son]

He has picked stupid teams of late, for the formation he played, he picked the right personnel last night, for a change! We lacked the width in midfield so alot of the play was narrow, so we needed Rooney to be on form in that role for it to work, but he wasn't.

If we play that midfield of Cleverley, Carrick and Anderson, it'll be good to see Kagawa in for Hernandez so that formation can work better.




You missed the Norwich game?

No, I saw it.

 

[marjen]

Well, I dont really think it's missing the point. I said that we put out teams that are more than capable of winning games but the players do not perform to their potential because we have to rotate.

I'm not sure I like that condensending tone of yours, and I would say it doesnt spark a good debate by doing so, but I guess that's what debating on an internet forum is all about.

I agree that the Blackburn-game last year was one of those times where we had to field an unbalanced team and it cost us dearly but so many times this season we've fielded a team that's been more than capable but still got slated on the caf by the likes of you. Yes, a midfield consisting of Giggs and Scholes is not going to work, which is why we dont play those two together as a midfield two. With Giggs as a winger though, it's more than balanced and it should produce a better display than we've seen so far.

What was unbalanced in the team against Norwich? De Gea was out injured, Evans was hurt and Smalling/Rio was the only CB-pairing available to us (unless you wanted us to play Jones, who was on the back of an 8-month recovery). Or does this boil down to us playing Giggs once more? How is a midfield of Valencia, Carrick, Giggs and Young not balanced? Plenty of creativity, defensive ability, workrate, pace and experience. I'm not sure how it could get any more balanced than that.Or was it the RvP-Hernandez combination you were unhappy with?

Scholes and Giggs on the pitch together is a bad idea at this point no matter where they play. It boils down to the fact that they simply cannot be asked to cover that much ground anymore.

Norwich: What was unbalanced was playing a static midfield duo with no tempo to it against a side which ONLY actual quality in CM is energy, only to proceed to play our two most energetic players in a dead rubber match vs Galatasaray.

It's perfectly possible to both rotate the squad and avoid doing the above mentioned things. What's condescending about pointing this out?

 

[Burrow]

Scholes and Giggs on the pitch together is a bad idea at this point no matter where they play. It boils down to the fact that they simply cannot be asked to cover that much ground anymore.

Norwich: What was unbalanced was playing a static midfield duo with no tempo to it against a side which ONLY actual quality in CM is energy, only to proceed to play our two most energetic players in a dead rubber match vs Galatasaray.

It's perfectly possible to both rotate the squad and avoid doing the above mentioned things. What's condescending about pointing this out?

I agree that playing Giggs and Scholes against the likes of Tottenham is not the greatest idea, but just like any player they need to get games to get in form. We makes excuses for the likes of Rooney and Nani and keep saying that they just need to play to get in form, but we refuse to give the same shot to players like Giggs and Scholes and we rather write them off as "too old" and "not good enough" despite them proving us wrong every other game.

There are games where they simply dont need to cover that much ground because we as a team should be surperior but when the entire team fails then the blame goes straight to Giggs and Scholes. I'm not stupid, and I am aware that both players have been playing below par for quite a few games. Still, we refuse to give them a shot but still plenty of us keeps complaining about not starting others to give them a chance to pick up some sort of form.

Then we can start an entire discussion about if we're willing to "sacrifice" the chance of younger players to allow our legends to show their best side. If we'd rather do our best to get Anderson and Cleverley to their top of their game and hope that Giggs/Scholes have a good day whenever they're thrown in there. Which brings us back to the point of squad rotation and might explain why we're not starting the players we want to see week in and week out.

Are we starting the likes of Giggs and Scholes once in a while because we know they can deal with a poor performance better than our younger players? Is Fergie throwing them out there, knowing that they might not be in the best of forms, just so they can ease the younger players into the team and allow them to ease themself into some sort of form? It's been working wonders with Anderson so far, allowing him to build on both his fitness and confidence. In turn, it leads to our own supporters slating Giggs and Scholes because they've not been able to perform at the top of their game.

I know I sort of turned away from the original issue here, but I think it might answer the question about the Norwich/Gala-game nicely. And it's not condesending to make a point, it's all about how you present that point. But I'm sure you know that. See what I mean? Hah..

 

[marjen]

It's possible to play both Giggs and Scholes into form while at the same time give chances to Cleverley/Anderson, while still putting out teams that are balanced.

The Norwich/Gala-games were an error of judgement as far as I'm concerned. If you had switched Anderson and Giggs's roles in those games, they would both have been just as fresh by now, and we would have a team more suited to the occasion out against Norwich.

 

[Burrow]

Well, that answer was sort of underwhelming.

 

[Cina]

Giving Rooney, Nani and co games to regain their form is totally different to giving 38 and 39 year olds games.

 

[apotheosis]

I agree that playing Giggs and Scholes against the likes of Tottenham is not the greatest idea, but just like any player they need to get games to get in form. We makes excuses for the likes of Rooney and Nani and keep saying that they just need to play to get in form, but we refuse to give the same shot to players like Giggs and Scholes and we rather write them off as "too old" and "not good enough" despite them proving us wrong every other game.

Burrow you are missing the point. Scholes and Giggs should not be starting games any longer. That is the point. Especially when it proves detrimental to the team, and tbh it is not fair on either Giggs or Scholes.

If you want to play them, then adopt a system that allows us to benefit from their quality, without being ridiculously exposed whenever we lose possession.

Scholes and Giggs are great with the ball, and a liability without it. Why not play Anderson or Clevs, and then replace them with Scholes or Giggs? That way they are coming on when opponents are tired, and they will be better able to do what we want them to do.

There are games where they simply dont need to cover that much ground because we as a team should be surperior but when the entire team fails then the blame goes straight to Giggs and Scholes. I'm not stupid, and I am aware that both players have been playing below par for quite a few games. Still, we refuse to give them a shot but still plenty of us keeps complaining about not starting others to give them a chance to pick up some sort of form.

That is rubbish mate. The blame goes rightly on SAF, not Scholes or Giggs. There are no games when you don't have to cover ground when you lose the ball. It doesn't matter if we have 80% possession in a match, when we lose the ball, we have to be equipped to get it back before our opponeents create a chance from it. That is when playing either Scholes or Giggs in our ususal winger based system costs us.

Teams don't require huge spells of possession to score goals, what they require is space to create chances. That is why we are conceding goals, because we cannot cover enough ground quickly enough to prevent our opponents from creating chances.

Wingers simply compound the issue. Players too far apart leaves huge gaps which are regularly being exploited. We can play Scholes or Giggs still, i agree they still have something to offer. But we have to give them more help in the middle, by either playing 3 in there or doing what we did last night, by sacrificing width to gain better control in the centre.

We have kept 2 clean sheets against WH, and away at Newcastle. In neither of those games did we play with only 2 central players, or wingers. 4-3-3 against Newcastle, and 4-4-2 diamond with 4 central players and no wingers against West ham. Coincidence? I think not personally.

 

[Nathan]

I dont agree that stupid teams are picked. My only concern is when do you effect a change. Sometimes we wait too long (my opinion) when it is almost too late for the player to make an impact.

The players on the picth have to execute the plan and must take responsibility, if they are are not able to then they must be substituted.

 

[Bilbo]

We all argue these cases thinking that we have the same amount of data available as the manager does when he picks a team. We don't, and because we don't it makes a lot of this discussion largely pointless.

Its worth debating, but lets not anybody kid themselves that they are seeing things that the club are not.

 

[apotheosis]

I dont agree that stupid teams are picked. My only concern is when do you effect a change. Sometimes we wait too long (my opinion) when it is almost too late for the player to make an impact.

The players on the picth have to execute the plan and must take responsibility, if they are are not able to then they must be substituted.

If you don't get the tactics wrong so often then maybe changes won't be needed to be implemented so often. We have had to make personnel changes so often this season to change the manner of the game, for no other reason than the initial tactics did not work. In the majority of those games we have played Scholes in a midfield 2 with wingers.

So Scholes should take responsibility for tracking back midfield runners at 38?

Or should the management take responsibility for not putting the team in a position where we are depending on Scholes to fulfill a requirement that is now beyond his physical capabilities?

Why would you suggest it is not asking for trouble to pick Scholes in a 2 man midfield against Spurs? Or Giggs in a 2 man midfield away at Norwich? We asked for exactly what we got in those games, by allowing opponents to run through our midfield. Why do we never see Scholes or Giggs played in 3 man midfields? Surely noone can argue they and the team generally, would surely benefit from the extra legs around them.

Imo we have got the tactics right in only 3 league games this season. Last night against WH, away at Newcastle, and at home to Arsenal. All 3 were comfortable victories where we controlled the game from start to finish, didn't concede chances too often, and got the result the selection deserved.

 

[Hectic]

We all argue these cases thinking that we have the same amount of data available as the manager does when he picks a team. We don't, and because we don't it makes a lot of this discussion largely pointless.

Its worth debating, but lets not anybody kid themselves that they are seeing things that the club are not.

Pretty much it.

 

[Brwned]

We all argue these cases thinking that we have the same amount of data available as the manager does when he picks a team. We don't, and because we don't it makes a lot of this discussion largely pointless.

Its worth debating, but lets not anybody kid themselves that they are seeing things that the club are not.

It could be a case of too much information clouds your judgement, but yes, I agree in general. Second-guessing a top class manager's decisions is such a futile exercise that I don't know why anyone bothers devoting so much time to it. Far more worthwhile trying to understand why they make the decisions they do, IMO.

 

[apotheosis]

We all argue these cases thinking that we have the same amount of data available as the manager does when he picks a team. We don't, and because we don't it makes a lot of this discussion largely pointless.

Its worth debating, but lets not anybody kid themselves that they are seeing things that the club are not.

No we don't. We argue these points based upon how our performances are regularly affected by team selection and tactics.

I have never read one single person on here claim to know more or even as much as those in charge at OT. So to suggest there may be secret mitigating circumstances why Scholes is continually being played in a midfield 2 that is regularly detrimental to the teams performances is plain wrong imo.

Last season we had injuries, this season we do not. We have Powell, Clevs, Ando, Fletcher, Carrick and Rooney as well as Giggs and Scholes. That is 8 midfielders vying for what is far too often in my view only 2 spots. So for me there is no reason why, when we choose to play Giggs or Scholes, they cannot be given the added protection of an additional body in midfield to better cover what, they are no longer physically capable of fulfilling in a pair. Nor should they reasonably be expected to be, that is the issue.

How playing Scholes in a 2 is good for either him or the team in general, is certainly not highlighted by the performances and the manner of the goals we have regularly conceded when we have adopted that tactic. It just doesn't work, and while we have other options, there is little or no justification for persisting with it.