Borys
Statistics Wizard
So I hear this a lot around here: "Fred - McTominay midfield offers next to nothing going forward", or "it's overkill defensively".
We've played the last 3 games with this combo behind Bruno. This was the first time in a while we've had some control over midfield (at the very least).
We've conceded 2 goals, both own goals (1 against Newcastle, 1 against PSG, clean sheet against Chelsea). Our defenders are having much less to do, which should be the case with well-functioning midfield shielding them.
At the same time, team has created a number of chances in open gameplay and let me quote from another thread after Chelse game:
Firstly, you need quality in attack in the first place - we had only Rashford who can be called that.
Secondly, it would be nice if fullbacks were joining the attack. Yesterday not only we played two conservative fullbacks, but also they were asked to stay back.
Thirdly, the midfield. It would be nice if McTominay and Fred were better passers, or could carry the ball better but with the way we were set up yesterday, I don't think it would've made much of a difference.
Now if we consider our options, it's possible we would be more dangerous playing Pogba instead of Fred or McTominay. But do you really think it would've made such a difference, if he had James and Mata up front against 5 Chelsea defenders? Rashford has been pretty good with limited service he got but I don't think sacrificing midfield balance for Pogba is the right way forward. Van de Beek at this moment I don't even consider as an option to replace either Fred/McTominay for obvious reasons.
"This midfield offers next to nothing going forward" is an accusation easily fixed if we start playing our best attackers in Greenwood and Martial, and be more brave with fullbacks.
"It's overkill defensively" is a weak argument as if there was Pogba in midfield against Chelsea, I'm pretty sure they would be attacking us more through the middle like all teams have done with Paul starting in deep midfield.
"Fred/McTominay would be better with a playmaker next to him" is obviously true, but firstly we don't have that player, and secondly, the way we're doing moves in transfer market, I don't have any hopes we're getting that kind of player anytime soon.
Although we're not scoring as many goals as we would've liked, chances are being created with limited attacking options we have right now.
So is this midfield really a problem?
We've played the last 3 games with this combo behind Bruno. This was the first time in a while we've had some control over midfield (at the very least).
We've conceded 2 goals, both own goals (1 against Newcastle, 1 against PSG, clean sheet against Chelsea). Our defenders are having much less to do, which should be the case with well-functioning midfield shielding them.
At the same time, team has created a number of chances in open gameplay and let me quote from another thread after Chelse game:
It is a part of the reason we looked offensively blunt, but the smallest part.That said we shouldn't forget that part of this game plan I think is capitalising of mistakes that will arise during the game whether forced through pressing or unforced and if Rashford had scored the opp in the first half then actually we might well be praising a clinical performance, it is fine margins.
Firstly, you need quality in attack in the first place - we had only Rashford who can be called that.
Secondly, it would be nice if fullbacks were joining the attack. Yesterday not only we played two conservative fullbacks, but also they were asked to stay back.
Thirdly, the midfield. It would be nice if McTominay and Fred were better passers, or could carry the ball better but with the way we were set up yesterday, I don't think it would've made much of a difference.
Now if we consider our options, it's possible we would be more dangerous playing Pogba instead of Fred or McTominay. But do you really think it would've made such a difference, if he had James and Mata up front against 5 Chelsea defenders? Rashford has been pretty good with limited service he got but I don't think sacrificing midfield balance for Pogba is the right way forward. Van de Beek at this moment I don't even consider as an option to replace either Fred/McTominay for obvious reasons.
"This midfield offers next to nothing going forward" is an accusation easily fixed if we start playing our best attackers in Greenwood and Martial, and be more brave with fullbacks.
"It's overkill defensively" is a weak argument as if there was Pogba in midfield against Chelsea, I'm pretty sure they would be attacking us more through the middle like all teams have done with Paul starting in deep midfield.
"Fred/McTominay would be better with a playmaker next to him" is obviously true, but firstly we don't have that player, and secondly, the way we're doing moves in transfer market, I don't have any hopes we're getting that kind of player anytime soon.
Although we're not scoring as many goals as we would've liked, chances are being created with limited attacking options we have right now.
So is this midfield really a problem?