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?
Slagging Giggs and Scholes off...
- Thread starter Danny1982
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
It was thought that because you associate wingers with things like pace. And Giggs's pace (unlike, say, Beckham) certainly was a major element to his game. But it seems like other elements that he has and developed compensate for that and allow him to be a good outlet on the wing even if he won't beat players for pace and leave them behind again.
It works on the wing, I don't think it does in midfield, not in a 4-4-2 anyway. And it's a little hard to miss the difference when we pick a midfield two that does not include Giggs or Scholes. It's just a better platform for the team.
It works on the wing, I don't think it does in midfield, not in a 4-4-2 anyway. And it's a little hard to miss the difference when we pick a midfield two that does not include Giggs or Scholes. It's just a better platform for the team.
Giggs has been consistently pinging some wonderful crosses recently. I'm very happy with his last few outings.
In the right games and in the right teams both giggs and scholes can contribute, their talent is still clearly there and although other teams may have squad players with more energy they don't have the technical ability nor experience of these two. 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.
Personally though I wouldn't want either starting in games like the spurs or Liverpool coming up, not unless there are injuries to the other players typically ahead of them as that's where I think their lack of energy will/does have a more serious impact.
Personally though I wouldn't want either starting in games like the spurs or Liverpool coming up, not unless there are injuries to the other players typically ahead of them as that's where I think their lack of energy will/does have a more serious impact.
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.
I think Giggs can do a job on the left against most teams. But I don't think he or Scholes will be enough in a middle two against any Premier League team.
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.
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.
They are both great players however our best option is to use them from the bench, they can keep the ball and pick passes out just like Giggs did today.
The problem with Scholes is he gets booked early in almost every game so his defensive play is limited for the rest unless he wants and early bath.
Both still have it, albeit best used from the bench these days.
Giggs has been brilliant in the last few games, I'm not sure who else in the squad has the vision to see a pass like that and the ability to pull it off.
Both still have it, albeit best used from the bench these days.
Giggs has been brilliant in the last few games, I'm not sure who else in the squad has the vision to see a pass like that and the ability to pull it off.
When did it become Paul Scholes job to mark every player on the pitch?
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.
Scholes didn't get close to him for the first and Cleverley didn't get close to him for the second, IMO - Hernández was back helping out but it was Cleverley's job. That's what happens when you play them as a duo. Some lovely possession play but we're getting slaughtered off the ball. If we throw Carrick into that team for Rafael it might work ok though. Surround Scholes with enough players who can play that short passing game and push the opposition back while still having the stability of Carrick there.
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.
Aren't we glad he didn't 'retire gracefully' in the summer?
Another game you can add to the 'Evidence Paul Scholes should not be playing in a midfield two' folder.
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..
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.
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.
He's not a replacement for Carrick as the defensive shield. He's off the pace without the ball, as he's been all season.
He is a more effective passer when protected by midfield runners though, which showed again today.
He is a more effective passer when protected by midfield runners though, which showed again today.
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?!
It's getting a habit for some to blame Scholes for anything bad that happens to us. I think some just try to save some face after some stupid remarks made by them recently (about the two pensioners), and I'm not talking here about the constructive objective criticism.
We have been clearly sh*t in dealing with crosses this year, and instead of pointing the fingers at the defense (all 4 defenders AND the marking inside the box), it's Scholes' fault every single time for letting the cross happen. WTF?! Even when he's not near the ball! Even when it's Cleverley or Hernandez who should have prevented the cross...
Yep and thankfully we've used giggs well recently. This is exactly how he should be used. well done from Giggs. What a peach of ball. Scholes had some quality balls to but his defensive frailties do not help.
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.
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.
What? So he was supposed to prevent the cross AND mark Collins?!
See that's what I'm talking about.. People will always try to invent/find reasons to make him at fault. Any reason will do.. I'm not saying he has NO role at ALL. Every player on the field has a role in the outcome (whatever it is!), but when there are far more obvious mistakes made, I think it's ridiculous to keep blaming Scholes for whatever reason.. Besides, Scholes would have been out-jumped for a header at any other stage of his career, nothing new about it. However, still, I have never seen us concede so many goals from crosses before..
Anyway...
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..
Scholes was never going to be great as a d/m, in possession he worked fine but off it he got exposed. Tbf if he didnt just do as many silly challenges he could probably do that role alright, his lack of legs will always be a problem but positionally he usually is in the right area, it's just the silly challenges that don't need to be made.
But tbf to him it was a tough role to have to play particularly without the work rate of Rooney as the a/m. I thought we really should have pulle back clev and and rafael more, it's something that I don't really get about this diamond. Those two and ando if he plays in it are seemingly allowed a lot of license to go forward and I just don't think the balance is right. Offensively it means the a/m either Rooney or kagawa is forced deep to give the d/m an option and defensively it leaves us open as the two flanking midfielders are usually quite advanced.
Still I thought scholes did alright given what was asked of him, thought he did the role better than clev did in his half hour where he seemed to vacate it often- not sure if he was actually doing that role but it looked like he had switched as the deeper player. Either way when we needed someone in the middle to keep our attack going in that last half hour or so no one was there half the time.
Giggs continued his good form, was a quality ball, that's the thing with giggs he's high risk, sometimes it'll frustrate but if it comes off you get a top quality ball like that, that makes all the difference. You need that blend between the players that will keep the ball moving and the ones who are both willing and capable to try a tough pass.
But tbf to him it was a tough role to have to play particularly without the work rate of Rooney as the a/m. I thought we really should have pulle back clev and and rafael more, it's something that I don't really get about this diamond. Those two and ando if he plays in it are seemingly allowed a lot of license to go forward and I just don't think the balance is right. Offensively it means the a/m either Rooney or kagawa is forced deep to give the d/m an option and defensively it leaves us open as the two flanking midfielders are usually quite advanced.
Still I thought scholes did alright given what was asked of him, thought he did the role better than clev did in his half hour where he seemed to vacate it often- not sure if he was actually doing that role but it looked like he had switched as the deeper player. Either way when we needed someone in the middle to keep our attack going in that last half hour or so no one was there half the time.
Giggs continued his good form, was a quality ball, that's the thing with giggs he's high risk, sometimes it'll frustrate but if it comes off you get a top quality ball like that, that makes all the difference. You need that blend between the players that will keep the ball moving and the ones who are both willing and capable to try a tough pass.
Great pass, long ball, whatever you want to call it from Giggs today. Magic
Danny I now see why Cina got frustrated with you. Stop having conversations with yourself and nitpicking points that arent there. Christ.
How the hell do you read that from the part you quoted (and highlighted)?
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.
In that situation, the onus is on your defence to clear the danger, not on a man to stop the cross coming in.
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!
Those are IMO two very different reasons to blame Scholes for the goal.. What impression do you get from that??
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??
I'll illustrate that here (sorry about the quality)
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
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]
Jesus.
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]
Collins should never be Scholes man, regardless of whether or not he is near to him. Collins should be picked up by whoever was originally picking him from the first set-play. If we are ever in a situation where a 6"4 centre back has to be picked up by our 5"7 midfielder, It's poor organisation from our defence. Simple as.
As for the first goal, again, your just criticising for the sake of criticising. Scholes is close enough to make a decent attempt at blocking the cross... if he moves in closer, Cole could just as easily take it past him, and we'd be having a go at him for getting too tight. Scholes tries to block the cross, it didn't work, but that doesn't mean he's at fault for the goal what-so-ever. In that sort of situation, you should be expecting your defence to deal with the cross and... once again, they quite simply didn't it.
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.
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.
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.
For the first goal, when the set-play comes in, Vidic has Collins, Welbeck has Cole. For some reason when the ball goes back out, Vidic decides to pick up Cole and Welbeck isn't picking up anybody. For me, you either have to stick with your man until the danger is clear, or organise your defence better so that everyone is being picked up. Forget about Cleverley, it was not his responsibility.
For the second goal, again, all the men in the box are being marked when the corner comes in. The problem comes from Rafael moving away from Nolan and again, going to mark nobody. He leaves Nolan free in the middle of the box, meaning Vidic has to pick him up (as he's closer to goal) which again leaves Collins (Vidic's original man) totally free. Again, the organisation has to be better, and Paul Scholes should not be picking anyone up.
If men are being picked up from a corner that happened 5 seconds ago, it is logical to thing that these men are still being marked whilst the danger hasn't been clear.
good points. Although on the first goal, I believe it was Scholes who was closer to the area than Cleverley.
When I first saw the replay for the first goal, I thought Scholes could have got a head on it since the cross was low enough.
At the end of the day, you hit the nail on the head. Our organization has to improve. Hard for me to blame for the defenders on the goals as they all picked up someone (except for Buttner maybe).
When I first saw the replay for the first goal, I thought Scholes could have got a head on it since the cross was low enough.
At the end of the day, you hit the nail on the head. Our organization has to improve. Hard for me to blame for the defenders on the goals as they all picked up someone (except for Buttner maybe).
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.
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.
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?
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.
So when he had a good game v Wigan from the start, that was just an anomaly?