Bryan_Munich
Aka RichieRich12
Exactly.Fergie's comments on Giggs suggests he wasn't rested. Anderson was obviously deemed too big a risk to start the game having just returned from a two month absence.
Exactly.Fergie's comments on Giggs suggests he wasn't rested. Anderson was obviously deemed too big a risk to start the game having just returned from a two month absence.
Well, Carrick and Jones partnered each other in defence, and it was Carrick who gave Blackburn one of the goals.Fergie's comments on Giggs suggests he wasn't rested. Anderson was obviously deemed too big a risk to start the game having just returned from a two month absence.
If you can't understand why Fergie wanted to avoid partnering Fryers and Jones in central defence then god help you quite frankly.
They suggested Evra and Jones - doesnt make it that much better thoughFergie's comments on Giggs suggests he wasn't rested. Anderson was obviously deemed too big a risk to start the game having just returned from a two month absence.
If you can't understand why Fergie wanted to avoid partnering Fryers and Jones in central defence then god help you quite frankly.
It's perfectly feasible that mistakes from Fryers or Evra in central defence would have led to further chances and goals. And Fergie, rightly imo, wouldn't have gone into the game expecting Carrick to make that mistake (there was an element of luck about that goal anyway).Well, Carrick and Jones partnered each other in defence, and it was Carrick who gave Blackburn one of the goals.
Also, it meant partnering Rafael and Park in CM. If anyone had suggested that as a solution before the game kicked off, I'd say they would have been laughed off the website. And rightly so.
And that's the key point with the team selection in general. With the resources that Fergie had available to him there wasn't anything he could have done to make it ''that much better''. I think that's pretty obvious unless you're one of the people who has spent the last few days pretending that Antonio Valencia is actually Andres Iniesta in disguise or that Zeki Fryers is the second coming of Paolo Maldini.They suggested Evra and Jones - doesnt make it that much better though
He is well within his rights to go with his instincts Pogue, but in effect he threw 3 points away that day with his recklessness. If we had won we would all be marvelling at his genius. He didn't, he fecked it right up and threw away the precious momentum he is always harping on about as being so vital to any teams progress.This is the madness in all of this to me.
We've been arguing the toss for ages about minor changes he could or could not have made. Taking a punt on a Fryers-Jones combo in central defence in order to play Carrick in the centre, taking Valencia off the flank to help out in central midfield, maybe risk an injury to Anderson by starting him (and possibly having to play the full 90 minutes.
There are pros and cons to each of these decisions. It's definitely not black and white. But they key thing here is we weren't playing "someone much stronger". We were playing a Blackburn side in free-fall, missing half their team through injury. People can piss and moan all they want about playing the strongest team possible in every game (and God knows they will) but the fact is, with a large squad and a long season Fergie will not do this. If this annoys some of our fans they need to live with it. It's the approach he's used throughout the most succesful era in the history of the club. He'll keep doing this until the day he retires.
He will always pick fixtures where he thinks he can take a few risks with his selection because he figures an under-strength United side will be too good for a very poor opposition. If that Blackburn side didn't constitute very poor opposition than no other team in the league does. In a game coming just a few days after spanking Blackburn with a weakened team (again, no Wayne Rooney) after our best away performance of the last two seasons against Fulham, I think he was absolutely entitled to go with his instincts and take a few punts with his team selection, in the assumption that we'd still be too good for them. Obviously, you disagree with this. You always do. Ho hum.
He is well within his rights to go with his instincts Pogue, but in effect he threw 3 points away that day with his recklessness. If we had won we would all be marvelling at his genius. He didn't, he fecked it right up and threw away the precious momentum he is always harping on about as being so vital to any teams progress.
If you are happy with that fine, but don't moan when others are not.
So don't try changing the argument from one saying the selection had no bearing on the result which i have argued aginst all along. To one where Fergie should be allowed to take risks.
No-one is suggesting he should play the strongest team in every game, i am arguing against him picking the weakest possible team and then fecking about with the positions for any PL game.
He could have picked a stronger CM if he had wanted to using the players he named in the squad, he chose not to.Jeez, you guys are still going round in circles days after the result.
Giggs is 38 and was saved for the Newcastle game - Smalling and Rio weren't available.
I don't understand why, given the City result, you can't just deal with it and move on. You can't expect Ferguson to win every game for us, and you've turned him into a scapegoat by questioning the integrity behind his disciplinary decision and his not selecting of other unfit players. Isn't it more likely that his hands were genuinely tied in terms of who he could pick, and he did the best job possible? I'm sure he'd liked to have picked a stronger CM or central defence if he'd been able to...
Jones was the only one dealing with Yakubu anyway (and Yakubu was giving him a going over), so I don't get why it was so vital Carrick play in defence ahead of a young defender.You're ignoring the obvious positives of having Valencia in his most dangerous position the whole match, a Carrick pulling the strings in CM, Rafael in his full-back position, and Welbeck up front alongside Berba, for the potential struggles Fryers would have against Yakubu, ignoring the fact that one of Yak's goals came because of a big mistake from the man Fryers would've replaced in defence?
I think you're a bit off in this one Pogue. IMO, play as many players as you can in their natural positions. Resting people isn't the issue, experimenting with players in crazy positions is.
I can absolutely understand that. But his desire to avoid that ought to have been trumped by his desire to avoid Park and Rafel in centre mid, in front of Carrick at centre-half. As noods says, it's one novice and one player out of position versus five players out of position - one of whom is effectively a novice as he's never played there before.If you can't understand why Fergie wanted to avoid partnering Fryers and Jones in central defence then god help you quite frankly.
By the same rule Fergie's comments on Rooney suggested he was injured rather than disciplined GCHQ. So really you can't put any real faith in what Fergie says, it is simply a question of politics. He will say whatever he deems appropriate to justify his actions, how much of it is true is up for debate.Fergie's comments on Giggs suggests he wasn't rested. Anderson was obviously deemed too big a risk to start the game having just returned from a two month absence.
Even hindsight doesn't support that opinion, bearing in mind we dominated possession for 90 minutes (>60%) and lost due to sloppy defensive errors.I can absolutely understand that. But his desire to avoid that ought to have been trumped by his desire to avoid Park and Rafel in centre mid, in front of Carrick at centre-half. As noods says, it's one novice and one player out of position versus five players out of position - one of whom is effectively a novice as he's never played there before.
And besides, it seems he could have picked Gibson. In which case, his inflexibility and stubbornness probably cost us the points.
It's always amazing how authoritarian people are on here. Fergie has been responsible for decades of glory and we all adore him. But like anyone, every now and again he makes a bad judgment call. No-one's saying it's unacceptable to lose the odd home game against shit sides. They're just discussing how it came about, and it seems unlikely that it was unrelated to Fergie surrendering midfield before the game began, with a ropey defence behind it.
It was down to the training performance after rather than meal if reports are to believed, I think SAF was right to drop them on that basis. Obviously in hindsight we think he could have been a bit more pragmatic but we should have been able to get the job done without them and would have had we not made so many individual errors.Even hindsight doesn't support that opinion, bearing in mind we dominated possession for 90 minutes (>60%) and lost due to sloppy defensive errors.
I also disagree with your inference that anyone who doesn't think Fergie dropped a bollock in his team selection believes he is some kind of infallible genius, who never makes any mistakes ever. In the context of the game and the limited options available to them, I don't think his team selection was anything like as fool-hardy as some of the more hysterical opinions in this thread seem to imply. He took one or two calculated gambles in the team he selected and is so much better informed than any of us gobshites about the capability of the players concerned it just seems daft for people to wade in saying Fryers would have done a great job in central defence or Valencia would categorically have out-performed Rafael in midfield, without significantly weakening our right flank.
This doesn't, by any means, absolve him of any responsibility for what happened.
I personally think the decision to (allgedly) drop Rooney and Gibson over a late night out 4 days beforehand was an over the top punishment and the single biggest factor in our defeat. Start Gibson and Park in midfield, with Rooney instead of the abject Javier Hernandez and we'd be a vastly superior side. I think they deserved some sort of reprimand but not something so clearly detrimental to our league campaign. There must have been another way to teach them a lesson.
If the rumours are to be believed the night out was on december 26th and they were hungover on the 27th. Even if they spent the whole day chucking their rings up, they'd have been right as rain by Jan 1st. They're young lads in their 20s. They don't get two or three day hangovers the way old cnuts like me do.It was down to the training performance after rather than meal if reports are to believed, I think SAF was right to drop them on that basis. Obviously in hindsight we think he could have been a bit more pragmatic but we should have been able to get the job done without them and would have had we not made so many individual errors.
That wasn't the point though, I believe, on SAF's part. If you are training the day after you shouldn't be going out 'til late, SAF said Rooney missed a few training sessions too, for me it's a bad message to send out when a senior player like Rooney can turn up to training and not perform well and get away with it. Same applies to Gibson who should be desperate to save his United career. What message does that send to the younger players?If the rumours are to be believed the night out was on december 26th and they were hungover on the 27th. Even if they spent the whole day chucking their rings up, they'd have been right as rain by Jan 1st. They're young lads in their 20s. They don't get two or three day hangovers the way old cnuts like me do.
By all means punish them, using whatever creative means possible. Not making them available for selection on a day when we had so many other key players unavailable was cutting off his nose to spite his face.
Pogue you are such an exaggerator. It was not one or two calculated gambles. It was 5 players playing out of position.. He took one or two calculated gambles in the team he selected and is so much better informed than any of us gobshites about the capability of the players concerned it just seems daft for people to wade in saying Fryers would have done a great job in central defence or Valencia would categorically have out-performed Rafael in midfield, without significantly weakening our right flank.This doesn't, by any means, absolve him of any responsibility for what happened.
Agreed. At last.I personally think the decision to (allgedly) drop Rooney and Gibson over a late night out 4 days beforehand was an over the top punishment and the single biggest factor in our defeat. Start Gibson and Park in midfield, with Rooney instead of the abject Javier Hernandez and we'd be a vastly superior side. I think they deserved some sort of reprimand but not something so clearly detrimental to our league campaign. There must have been another way to teach them a lesson.
Ideally that is probably a fair assessment, but Fergie could have banned Wayne for repeatedly neglecting training, and warned Gibson considering the limited options we were alleged to have.That wasn't the point though, I believe, on SAF's part. If you are training the day after you shouldn't be going out 'til late, SAF said Rooney missed a few training sessions too, for me it's a bad message to send out when a senior player like Rooney can turn up to training and not perform well and get away with it. Same applies to Gibson who should be desperate to save his United career. What message does that send to the younger players?
For me SAF made a pointed statement with his bench. It was like he was saying to his young players that if they put the effort in they'll reap the rewards but if you don't, no matter how good you are you will have to face the consequences. You can't have double standards.
Hmmm perhaps, SAF dropped Rooney out of the firing line for Liverpool this year and Everton last year, he's dropped many a big player before. It's always about doing what's right in the long-term rather than the short-term.Ideally that is probably a fair assessment, but Fergie could have banned Wayne for repeatedly neglecting training, and warned Gibson considering the limited options we were alleged to have.
He weakened our team with his stance and we lost as a result. Surely he could have posponed the punishment for a game or so. That would have been more in the interests of the club, than immediately weakening our side to prove a point, which cost us 3.
As i said though i don't believe his hands were tied. In my view he picked a carling cup team for a weakened opponent and it backfired. He picked the team he wanted to pick, not the only team he was able to.
How can you point to individual errors as the cause for our defeat, yet not accept that playing 5 players out of position in an experimental and unfamilar set up, had no bearing whatsoever on the players capacity to make mistakes?It was down to the training performance after rather than meal if reports are to believed, I think SAF was right to drop them on that basis. Obviously in hindsight we think he could have been a bit more pragmatic but we should have been able to get the job done without them and would have had we not made so many individual errors.
Yeah I'm surprised by the possession stats, but as you know the stats don't always show the full story. If a lot of their attacks were quick counters, that doesn't mean they didn't slice through us too easily.Even hindsight doesn't support that opinion, bearing in mind we dominated possession for 90 minutes (>60%) and lost due to sloppy defensive errors.
I think that's the implication of all the hindsight and scapegoat stuff. If it's reasonable to be critical of team selection after a loss, how can we do it in a way that doesn't involve 'hindsight' - given that we don't know the line-up until shortly before the game? If it's acceptable to look for causes for a bad performance, how can we do it in a way that isn't 'scapegoating'? Aside from all just posting vague generalities that don't make for very interesting discussion.I also disagree with your inference that anyone who doesn't think Fergie dropped a bollock in his team selection believes he is some kind of infallible genius, who never makes any mistakes ever.
Not sure anyone's saying Fryers would have done a great job. The question is, which would have been the worst of two evils - one novice CB, or several players playing out of position, including one who'd never played there before, and one who's in the same position the novice CB would have been in?In the context of the game and the limited options available to them, I don't think his team selection was anything like as fool-hardy as some of the more hysterical opinions in this thread seem to imply. He took one or two calculated gambles in the team he selected and is so much better informed than any of us gobshites about the capability of the players concerned it just seems daft for people to wade in saying Fryers would have done a great job in central defence or Valencia would categorically have out-performed Rafael in midfield, without significantly weakening our right flank.
Spot onThis doesn't, by any means, absolve him of any responsibility for what happened.
I personally think the decision to (allgedly) drop Rooney and Gibson over a late night out 4 days beforehand was an over the top punishment and the single biggest factor in our defeat. Start Gibson and Park in midfield, with Rooney instead of the abject Javier Hernandez and we'd be a vastly superior side. I think they deserved some sort of reprimand but not something so clearly detrimental to our league campaign. There must have been another way to teach them a lesson.
Berbatov defending from a set-piece has nowt to do with Rafael in the middle, Rafa was RB when he failed to clear the ball and De Gea not catching the ball has nowt to do with us chasing the game. Obviously the events that lead up to the goals might have something to with them but it doesn't stop the players dealing with the situation correctly at that time. The unfamiliarity of players with positions shouldn't stop them dealing with these innocuous isolated situations. You could see the main problem in the First Half was the final ball, despite our imbalance we had a lot of possession. All of this is in hindsight, had we won, we'd all be praising SAF's strong man-management.How can you point to individual errors as the cause for our defeat, yet not accept that playing 5 players out of position in an experimental and unfamilar set up, had no bearing whatsoever on the players capacity to make mistakes?
From my way of thinking playing players in roles unfamilar to them directly increases the capacity for mistakes to be made. Even when he changed it at HT, the performance had already been affected and we were chasing the game at that point at home to the worst team in the division.
Surely you can see how bundled all together it all contributed ot an uncertain and disjointed performance, and an avoidable defeat.
Agreed. But what if the alternative was playing Ji-Sung Park and Rafael in centre midfield, in front of Michael Carrick?Put it this way about Gibson. You have a massive injury crisis and you are forced bring back a player who was on his way out, as a player this is your last chance to make it at one of the biggest clubs in the World. If I was the manager and I saw this player turning up to training and playing shit after a night out when he has an opportunity to save his United career (slight exaggeration), I wouldn't hesitate to show him the door.
Of course, it goes without saying the Gibson discussion is speculative.As Baldwin said though we don't know what actually happened.
I'd be pretty pissed off and still tell him to swivel, SAF was always taking a risk but he was applying the same standards as he always has done.Agreed. But what if the alternative was playing Ji-Sung Park and Rafael in centre midfield, in front of Michael Carrick?
Of course, it goes without saying the Gibson discussion is speculative.
If what Armchair speculates is true then I kind of admire Fergie for having the bottle to go with the above line up and not only dropping Gibson but likely selling him to Everton today... Armchair makes a fair point - if it's your last chance to impress at United then you don't turn up worse for wear when the team need you that badly.Agreed. But what if the alternative was playing Ji-Sung Park and Rafael in centre midfield, in front of Michael Carrick?
Obviously not ideal but I don't believe it was key reason for our defeat, it was contributing factor yes but not the key.I'd have played him, then sold him... that way I'd have punished/got shot of him, while at the same time not having to play Park and Rafael in CM.
Park and Rafael, lads! FFS!
I would agree to a point AC, but i would also point out that putting players outside of their comfort zones, is not conducive to them playing at their usual level. Which i felt affected the whole team throughout the game.Berbatov defending from a set-piece has nowt to do with Rafael in the middle, Rafa was RB when he failed to clear the ball and De Gea not catching the ball has nowt to do with us chasing the game. Obviously the events that lead up to the goals might have something to with them but it doesn't stop the players dealing with the situation correctly at that time. The unfamiliarity of players with positions shouldn't stop them dealing with these innocuous isolated situations. You could see the main problem in the First Half was the final ball, despite our imbalance we had a lot of possession. All of this is in hindsight, had we won, we'd all be praising SAF's strong man-management.
I was suggesting exactly the same scenario Giggs/Park first half, Anderson/Park in the second, until Bryan Munich informed me he had been deemed unfit to play. By who is another question entirely.Does anyone know what SAF said about Giggs? I felt leaving Giggs out completely was an error, he could have split mins equally between him and Anderson.
What Twitter is not to be believed? Who would have thought it?Fair enough, I think it's time we move on. if Twitter is to believed we could be having this discussion again in a few hours but with different players.
EDIT: Twitter is not to be believed fortunately.