apparently we're about to splash out £30m for a player we would like to have but dont really need, or maybe Clev and Anderson is the answer. they seem to fit the criteria.
Static, slow motion zombie passing
- Thread starter noodlehair
- Start date
All you can do is pray that Anderson and Cleverley realise their potential this season, and more importantly stay healthy. Oh and then there is some positive news that Fletcher might be coming back sooner than expected (someone posted on the Fletcher thread that he is training with Scotland).
I can't fathom us relying on an almost 40 year old Scholes for an entire season. Its just not realistic.
There's absolutely no chance of Fletcher coming back, I think that's pretty clear.
Problem is, that even if Cleverley and Anderson (the latter being less likely) reach their potential, we still have nobody who can do what Carrick does.
I am hopefull we do. If he turns into a world class footballer I dont care what position he is.
We dont want to be missing out on players like this.
I still have hopes for Anderson for some reason and Cleverley will be interesting.
I still think it will be our problem area next season but I am not sure what we can do.
Like I say I dont know if the player we need is available. So instead of signing someone who may be only be the same level as Clev and Ando, why not just give them another shot.
That thinking probably cost us the league last season. Probably cost us a decent run in the CL as well.
Moutinho would come for £25 million or so, and is a good age, with the right characteristics. Versatile in terms of who he could play with too, I'd think. And dynamic, which would go a way towards solving the issues noodlehair is talking about.
Kagawa must start games otherwise we will just pass wide all the time and hope for Nani or Valencia to put in endless amounts of crosses or produce some magic. So predictable, and also why players like Welbeck will stand out like a sore thumb because he actually runs about wanting the ball and tries things.
amazing how a club like ours cannot get their hands on a decent midfielder that will occupy that space. With all the resources we have I find it quite amazing that we're just so bad at getting the right players in sometimes. maybe we should spend money on a new scouting team this season.
without getting into muppet mode, i agree that we should just spend on that one player that will bring us that good pass and move game, yet able to defend when needed.
Im just afraid that Fergie will insist on playing Jones in midfield as a result. Its clearly not his best position and I would hate for us to go back to the days of forcing defenders to play in midfield (e.g. John O Shea, Phil Neville etc.).
Having said that, it doesn't seem like there will be any chance we will sign a "defensive midfielder" because Fergie has already come out and said he doesn't believe that position exists anymore and has never signed anyone that fits the description. That leaves very slim pickings to find a midfielder that can both defend and pass the ball as well as Carrick. Off the top of my head I really cant think of any that would make a difference if they joined us.
A lot of Phil Neville's games in midfield were excellent by the way. Around the time we spent a lot of cash on Veron. A player we all thought was going to be a superstar for us
This "passing the ball wide all the time" thing which seems to get noodle all worked up has been a feature of our play since most people on here were yet to hit puberty. When Scholes and Keane were in their pomp that was exactly how we won games. Get a grip of midfield, pin the opposition back, then work the ball out to our wide players and let them do their thing. Alternatively, our two strikers might be able to link up and work something through the middle, a la Rooney and Welbeck v Everton. In the whole of Fergie's reign we've never had the type of dribbling, attacking midfielder that so many people seem to think we need. Honestly, some of ye need to watch re-runs of old games if you're too young to remember them.
Obviously, Scholes can't get up and down the pitch as well as he used to so we're exposed at the back whenever we lose possession. We'll just have to live with that until Anderson, Cleverley or Jones come good and let Scholes take a back seat. Kagawa might work well just ahead of Carrick too. Time will tell. If there was a ready-mate replacement for Scholes out there who is good enough, available and willing to sign for United I'm sure Fergie would be interested. Modric would be ideal but looks like that's not gonna happen. Oh well.
Aye, his best season was probably 03/04 when he played a lot as a CM if I remember correctly.
I'd even argue he was a better CM than full back - or is that my mind playing tricks on me?
Cleverley, Kagawa, Scholes and Welbeck on the same pitch might change all this.
I don't believe in replacing players like for like. We're not going to sign "another Scholes", because a player like that who can play in a midfield two and still not get exposed defensively may not exist, and if he did, he'd even then probably need a beast like Keane alongside him to succeed.
I do think that Keano/Scholes is a perfect example of why we need a bit of change in the engine room - what those two in their pomp had in abundance was mobility and dynamism. Keane could get forward to support the attack willingly, and Scholes was a master at arriving in the box to get on the end of things, as well as both players being very proficient and progressive passers.
But even ignoring their individual qualities as players, I feel that mobility is much needed in central areas. I remember Scholes scoring a lot of goals from his nominal cenral midfield position, and he did so without us ever surrendering the grip on matches completely that often. Why? Because he got up AND down the field.
Those simple qualities, like a player like Cleverley's got, would make us function even better as a team. A quality CM like Moutinho, albeit not an absolute world class performer, would definitely give us some of that drive and variety.
Come on Pogue, it's not like Keane and Scholes stayed deep and passed the ball sideways to each other until Scholes decided to spank a 60-yard ball across to a static Beckham.
That's not what Carrick and Scholes do either.
They're not mobile enough to give us variety in terms of playing through teams, while at the same time being able to protect our defence reasonably enough IMO. At least not over a season.
And I don't think our other options are good enough/reliable enough to cover for them. Cleverley an exception if he can stay fit.
Do you disagree?
way back when Keane and Scholes were at the top of their game, we did become predictable though, but the key as merjen pointed out was that both were very mobile then. maybe not Scholes so much but certainly keane and in certain games Butt were preferred for his energy.
This thread will get bumped a lot of times this season.
The Berbatov effect, slowly affecting everyone mindset in the game without anyone noticing it.
Carrick's as mobile as Keane ever was. Scholes's aging legs are an issue, no doubt. Especially against top opposition when we play 442. That's stating the bleeding obvious though.
you doing Keane a disservice. Keane was everywhere and one of his great attributes were how well he got stuck in and his intensity all over the pitch. Comparing Carrick's mobility to that of Keane is laughable. Remember Turin in 99?
You're disagreeing for the sake of it, I'm sure.
Another midfielder of good quality who's mobile would add SO much to the current squad of players, and along with full-back cover is the two most pressing issues to rectify in what is a fine squad.
Both Scholes and Keane were mobile back then. Scholes could play in behind the striker or in the centre of midfield and was known as much for his pace as his passing then. Keane's mobility was notorious and it's ridiculous for Pogue to compare it to Carrick.
Scholes was known for his pace as much as his passing, was he?
Christ.
If you don't mind me asking, how old where you when we won the treble in '99?
Christ.
If you don't mind me asking, how old where you when we won the treble in '99?
It's increasingly common on this board. Pogue, for fans who have no idea about the 90s/early 00s to use players from that era as a stick with which to beat the current lot.
How is it a stick to beat Carrick with by saying he isn't as mobile as Keane?
It's hardly a big criticism.
It's hardly a big criticism.
Hell, I think we'd be a lot better off if more of the team played like Scholes. He may not be that fast but he's constantly moving, his head is constantly on a swivel to find the space and he knows where every player on the pitch is, so as soon as he gets the ball he moves it on to the point of the defense's weakness.
Scholes was as much of a second striker as a central midfielder in his earlier days with us. It's been more in recent years that he's developed into the deep lying playmaker-esque player he is now. That's not exactly a disservice to him.
Exactly, some are taking it as if it's a massive criticism and as if we're saying Carrick's shit, when that's quite clearly not true. It's no insult because Keane's mobility was excellent.
Bloody hell
Stick/criticism/whatever, it's just wrong. Carrick covers huge amounts of ground.
What he lacks is Keane's aggression, bite in the tackle and knack of scoring important goals. Not to mention his ability to inspire those around him. All important qualities that made Keane the better player of the two. In terms of getting round the pitch, though, there's feck all difference.
stay with us would you!
In terms of getting up the pitch and contribute in advanced areas, whether trough running with the ball or moving forward while Scholes went deeper to collect to create space and angles, there's massive difference though.
Keane was a proprer box-to-box-midfielder, Carrick prefers to sit while we're in possession. He's not comfortable taking up advanced positions, he doesn't do it often.
And Scholes naturally doesn't either at his age.
So that leaves us with wanting a bit more drive and a bit more dynamic CM.
I note you didn't answer my question.
Is it even worth asking how old you were when you were watching Scholes durimg his "earlier days with us"?
Scholes was never known for his pace. That has never been an attribute that stuck out for him above others.
You're not really believing this do you? Keane in his day were making tackles in our penalty box and helping out Gaz Neville and Irwin and was often found in the oppostion penalty box in the counter. when was the last time you saw Carrick involved in one of our counter attacks? C'mon this is not even worth arguing about. Everybody here knows Carrick is limited when it comes to his mobility.
The only difference, as I said, was Keane getting on the end of things in the opposition box. Carrick covers the same amount of ground but rarely makes that final dart into the box. Probably because he knows if we don't score, he'll be the only CM getting back to help out our defence. If there's any difference between the amount of ground the two of them cover/covered, it's minimal. Carrick regularly runs further than any other player on our team, even when we had Ronaldo doing his road-runner impressions.
Maybe our definition of "mobility" differs. I don't see amount of ground covered as part of the mobility argument. In that case Park should have been our most effective midfielder.
I think what I mean with getting a more mobile midfielder is probably your more typical "box-to-box" midfielder. The ones who can defend and does some sort of defensive role when we dont have the ball, but also comfortable at getting into advanced positions when we're on the attack. i think for this role you have to be mobile. Carrick can do both but not always in the same game.
It's only natural for a fan to long for perfection but we also need to be realistic. It's quite not possible to produce waves of sexy football moves one after the other like it's possible in video games. It's a tad more difficult in reality, as much as we like our team to score a dozen goals a game, collect clean sheets one after another and dominate every game with more than 60% possession that's just not going to happen. The current Barcelona squad does but they are obviously an exception and constant comparison with them is only going to leave us disappointed.
I can understand the complains about lack of mobility in midfield when Carrick and Scholes play but I think the expectation that a mobile or a dynamic midfielder as you call it will take our team a notch or two is rather wishful thinking. Football in my opinion is about choices, compromises and decisions but sometimes I get the feeling that fans expect a fixed 11 that will tear the world apart. I guess the days of that are long behind.
I am not sure if it's just me not remembering it well or something but even when we had Scholes and Keane we weren't really producing samba football. It was mostly crosses from wingers or overlapping fullbacks, that's considering Keane and Scholes used to have a lot more freedom to venture forward. I can remember quite a few games we were dire in terms of creativity and even some when I wished we had started with Butt rather.
What I'm saying is we should look to play to our strengths and accept the compromises. With Scholes, Kagawa and Carrick we have a very potent combo. Scholes can pick you out from any corner of the field and Kagawa could do the same within ten yards even with the most difficult of the angles and with Carrick we have probably one of the best readers of the game at current time who could also pass it a bit. Add Cleverley and Anderson to the mix and we have a very good set of players.
While Cleverley and Anderson is exciting players, I would be happy for them to be slowly integrated to the squad as the seasons goes so that they understand while our fans will cheer you like mental hillbillies when we are playing sexy football and winning but the same fickle bunch will be the first ones to say "meh, we played good football but we didn't win the game" specially towards the end of the season where the expectation is to win at any cost.
For some reasons, players get rated more when they are not actually playing till the reality dawns on us when they start to. It's not a dig at Cleverley/Anderson combo but I hope we have realistic expectations of them and not drum them up too much.
I think it will take a season or more to see a change in style and I believe psychologically a solid defense is important for the attacker to express themselves better. I don't have a problem with us starting slow and then shifting gears than going gung-ho and ending up Arsenal come new year.
I can understand the complains about lack of mobility in midfield when Carrick and Scholes play but I think the expectation that a mobile or a dynamic midfielder as you call it will take our team a notch or two is rather wishful thinking. Football in my opinion is about choices, compromises and decisions but sometimes I get the feeling that fans expect a fixed 11 that will tear the world apart. I guess the days of that are long behind.
I am not sure if it's just me not remembering it well or something but even when we had Scholes and Keane we weren't really producing samba football. It was mostly crosses from wingers or overlapping fullbacks, that's considering Keane and Scholes used to have a lot more freedom to venture forward. I can remember quite a few games we were dire in terms of creativity and even some when I wished we had started with Butt rather.
What I'm saying is we should look to play to our strengths and accept the compromises. With Scholes, Kagawa and Carrick we have a very potent combo. Scholes can pick you out from any corner of the field and Kagawa could do the same within ten yards even with the most difficult of the angles and with Carrick we have probably one of the best readers of the game at current time who could also pass it a bit. Add Cleverley and Anderson to the mix and we have a very good set of players.
While Cleverley and Anderson is exciting players, I would be happy for them to be slowly integrated to the squad as the seasons goes so that they understand while our fans will cheer you like mental hillbillies when we are playing sexy football and winning but the same fickle bunch will be the first ones to say "meh, we played good football but we didn't win the game" specially towards the end of the season where the expectation is to win at any cost.
For some reasons, players get rated more when they are not actually playing till the reality dawns on us when they start to. It's not a dig at Cleverley/Anderson combo but I hope we have realistic expectations of them and not drum them up too much.
I think it will take a season or more to see a change in style and I believe psychologically a solid defense is important for the attacker to express themselves better. I don't have a problem with us starting slow and then shifting gears than going gung-ho and ending up Arsenal come new year.
The difference between Keane and Carrick is the same between Ronaldo and Valencia. The latter is a good player, the former are world class/one in every generation ones.