Fergus' son
Gets very easily confused
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2011
- Messages
- 11,161
Doesn't really explain why it was thought he doesn't have the legs to play on the wing a few years back but could play in the centre, and now it's the other way round?
Let's be fair here, Newcastle also had tons of players out. The two Taylors, Jonas, Cabaye, Tiote, Ben Arfa... Despite our injuries, we made it far too difficult against a side suffering just as much as us and also going on a bad run. They missed the best midfielders and still bossed us for periods.Like I said I doubt other teams in the league would have been able to deal with the injuries we had for the toon game as well as we could.
How can you blame Scholes for the 2nd goal? Hernandez didn't stop the cross, and Vidic didn't get close enough to Collins for the goal.Giggs showed some great quality from the bench, the super sub role is one that he can perform for at least another 18 months.
Scholes's passing is still top notch but for me, he was at fault for both goals tonight. He failed to get close to Cole for the first cross and he let Collins get beyond him and into the box for the second goal.
I would have to see the replay again, but as I saw it Vida had a man in the box and Collins drifted beyond Scholes and into the box. If you stand off a man and let him get a good cross into the box then you are at fault, it wasn't that far out either.How can you blame Scholes for the 2nd goal? Hernandez didn't stop the cross, and Vidic didn't get close enough to Collins for the goal.
And surely not stopping someone getting a cross in from that far out doesn't make you gulity of costing us the goal anyway!
Scholes and Giggs should start very rarely. Generally in games where we have a really dynamic team around them, usually involving Rooney in the deep role.
I think Scholes is certain to retire again this summer, whereas Giggsy will play on next year in a more limited role.
How about another game you can add to the 'Evidence our defense can't handle crosses this year' folder.Another game you can add to the 'Evidence Paul Scholes should not be playing in a midfield two' folder.
Not fully. Our centerhalves can't cover everyone in the box. On another day, Carrick could have helped out. With Cleverley and Scholes in midfield, we didn't have anyone who could really do that against a tall centerhalf. It's definitely not Scholes's fault but it's a case of not being the problem nor the solution.Clearly the one to blame in this game (as in many of our previous games) is our defense for its inability to deal with crosses..
I'm not blaming Scholes for the goals. In fact, I'm not blaming Scholes for anything. Its not his fault he's 38 years old, and doesn't have the legs or stamina to play in a midfield two anymore.How about another game you can add to the 'Evidence our defense can't handle crosses this year' folder.
By the way, Scholes is no more to blame for the first goal than Cleverley (and Hernandez) for the second goal, should we make a folder for them too?
Clearly the one to blame in this game (as in many of our previous games) is our defense for its inability to deal with crosses..
I'm not saying Scholes is playing better than ever, and I'm not even saying that our midfield is better with him.. What I don't understand though is how and why has every goal we concede (when Scholes is on the field) become Scholes' fault by default?!Not fully. Our centerhalves can't cover everyone in the box. On another day, Carrick could have helped out. With Cleverley and Scholes in midfield, we didn't have anyone who could really do that against a tall centerhalf. It's definitely not Scholes's fault but it's a case of not being the problem nor the solution.
Overall, it was a good performance from Scholes. And yet, it doesn't change the fact he's become more limited and it's a bigger struggle for us.
Always someone like that. Look at the threads of individual players. Almost each one of them has someone always trying to find a crack in that player's performance.It's getting a habit for some to blame Scholes for anything bad that happens to us.
What? So he was supposed to prevent the cross AND mark Collins?!Danny you confuse fault for inevitable hindrances. He can't offer the same cover Carrick does and it shows. That's all anyone has been saying. Theoretically, he should have marked Collins but he probably would have been outjumped anyway. At least have a body there.
That's true. I don't think I'll change anything about that anyway.. However I'm still expressing my opinion (and frustrations) here because, I thought, Giggs and Scholes should at least be given more of a break from "that kind of fans", considering their history, their undisputed legendary status at United, and their loyalty to the club..Always someone like that. Look at the threads of individual players. Almost each one of them has someone always trying to find a crack in that player's performance.
Scholes has kind of became the symbol of our trouble in midfield, and that's that really. People will always look at him extra critically.
How the hell do you read that from the part you quoted (and highlighted)?What? So he was supposed to prevent the cross AND mark Collins?!
Not really. He made an attempt to block the cross, and thats all he can really do in that situation. If he decides to close down Cole tighter, then Cole's very likely just going to knock it round him.Giggs showed some great quality from the bench, the super sub role is one that he can perform for at least another 18 months.
Scholes's passing is still top notch but for me, he was at fault for both goals tonight. He failed to get close to Cole for the first cross and he let Collins get beyond him and into the box for the second goal.
I was clearly pointing out to the fact that some here think that Scholes should have prevented the cross in the first place, and some think he should have marked Collins!How the hell do you read that from the part you quoted (and highlighted)?
Ummm...Danny I now see why Cina got frustrated with you. Stop having conversations with yourself and nitpicking points that arent there. Christ.
He failed to get close to Cole for the first cross
Got it?he should have marked Collins
Well the text you quoted only suggested he could have done better with the markingI was clearly pointing out to the fact that some here think that Scholes should have prevented the cross in the first place, and some think he should have marked Collins!
Those are IMO two very different reasons to blame Scholes for the goal.. What impression do you get from that??
Total and complete nonsense... in pictoral form no lessWell the text you quoted only suggested he could have done better with the marking
I'll illustrate that here (sorry about the quality)
Here Cole has just received the ball. Scholes is by far the closest available player to mark Collins
Cole has turned and is now facing the goal. Again Scholes is the closest player, yet nowhere near his man.
Cole kicks the ball and still Scholes is just standing there.
Of course there is no way of knowing if he had a chance of disrubting a much taller man in Collins but this is still abysmal defending.
--------
This was the second goal but his pressing of Joe Cole for their first was not much better
The moment Cole recieves the ball
Cole has turned around
The space he has
The pass is played and Scholes isn't close to prevent the pass.
Now don't get me wrong. There is no one marking Collins for their first goal. It seems to me that Cleverley is at fault there. I also don't think Scholes was poor today but the things I've pointed out are still frustating because they are costing goals and are frequent enough.
[this was all done on my ipad so I apologise for the picture quality and size]
No, the reason why Cleverley or Scholes shouldn't be on Collins is because that someone else should have and they simply lost their man.IIRC, Hernandez tried to block the cross from the first goal. Either way, our midfielders weren't doing shit when the ball was played in. All our defenders were occupied which begs the question, why are we letting Collins roam free then? Someone has to pick him up or at least close the space.
It's evident we stand off too much from our opponents and it costs us in times like these. West ham scored the exact same goal because we failed to mark. Just cause our midfielders are short doesn't mean they cant pick up someone. They could have at least tried to make it difficult for Collins. But no. They just stood there. A blatant sign we miss someone like Carrick in these situations. He's like an emergency CB sometimes.
The organization and marking was poor to begin with so even though you wouldn't want someone like Scholes or Cleverley on Collins, if they have no one to track while all the other defenders are occupied at least put Collins off from having a free header. fact is they just stood there marking grass. It was the one issue with our lineup. We needed one more player with height.
Basically the reasoning I'm seeing here is you shouldn't track someone who is much taller than you even if they're set to have a free header at goal and your CBs are already occupied.
I don't get it. You say they're past it... but then go on to say how they're not past it and have something to offer?Bottom line: Scholes and Giggs are past it. Not their fault. The fault lies with SAF and his insistence on using them in roles or systems that expose their obvious weaknesses. We have seen it time and again, being played in 2 man midfield's where we get bummed every time we lose the ball.
Giggs showed last night what he still has to offer when used correctly and needless to say the same applies to Scholes. No-one should be slagging Giggs or Scholes off for no longer being able to fulfill the same expectations we would have of players 10 yrs their junior!
The fault lies solely with the manager in my view. His ongoing reluctance to add to our midfield, has left us in a position where we still have to be somewhat reliant upon Giggs and Scholes. If he wants to use them, fine. But at least give us the chance to gain maximum benefit from what they can still offer, without the team suffering from what they can no longer, nor should reasonably be expected to provide.
Past it in terms of being integral, starting players. Still have a lot to offer from the bench against tiring defences, like Giggs' assist yesterday.I don't get it. You say they're past it... but then go on to say how they're not past it and have something to offer?