Tom Cleverley | 2012-14 Performances

[Cina]

Brophs made a great point in another thread. He basically said that our midfield has been solid in the last 5 years (up until last season) without ever being great or a key factor in our success. It was just a reliable entity amidst an array of brilliant wingers, goalscorers and defenders. Or something along those lines.

Ultimately I think we reached the stage last season where our midfield was no longer reliable and actually really got in the way of us winning things, and I think it will continue to do so if it's not addressed.

 

[marjen]

Put it this way - the last truely excellent season from one of our midfielders came in 06/07, courtesy of a certain Mr. Scholes. Since then, he himself has had a couple of good/decent contributions(although he's aged and it's taken some of his legs obviously), Carrick has more often than not performed well but not spectacularly, and Fletcher had one very good season(08-09, where we lacked creativity in CM due to Fletch/Carrick often being picked and them not really sparkling offensively).

Anderson had a season of promise in his first year, since then very little. Others I don't even want to mention.

Compare that to the rest of our side, and I could pick exceptional season after exceptional season from players in virtually every other position, possibly bar RB(but even there Neville in 06/07 and Brown the year after springs to mind).

Central midfield is such a vital part of a football team, and I'm hoping we can provide som spark from there this season, as opposed to it simply being functional at times, and non-existing at other times.

 

[Adebesi]

In 2010 Darren Fletcher was in the PFA team of the season. Our only problem whatsoever that season was Rooney getting injured. I suppose we also had the obscene injury crisis in December, but we bounced back from that in style. You guys need to stop rewriting history, we never had any pressing need to reinforce the midfield until last summer.

You might have felt that way. But I can say, hand on heart, I have felt we needed strengthening in midfield all this time, as per previous few posts. Starting to the Keane replacements - rather like the Scholes replacements, being brought in while he was still around - through until now. At times the need has seemed more pressing, at times it seemed less urgent (because of Fletcher coming good etc) but we never had that authority, that midfield picking itself, that consistency where the players we had there performed week in week out without getting injured - as we had with Scholes and Keane.

 

[Widnes]

I'd say that even in our 07-08 double winning season, CM was THE part of the team that was the weakest. It wasn't weak, as in depending on Tom Cleverley and the geriatrics weak, but it wasn't as strong as VdS, that brilliant defense with Rio/Vidic as stalwarts, and the three-headed attack of Ronaldo/Rooney/Tevez.

Hargreaves never really impressed me in CM, his best performances came as a wide player. Anderson impressed at times, and showed promise, true enough. Fletcher had a decent to good season, before having a very good one the next year(and even at his best Fletcher still wasn't a top, top player in CM) and Giggs wasn't fully converted into a CM. Scholes and Carrick was a good pairing, if not as good as the year before.

Even at that time, it looked absolutely certain that a Scholes-replacement would need to be a priority in a year or two, and it just hasn't happened. Obviouslly, Fergie thought Anderson would be that player, but now he needs to wake up and acknowledge that is not going to happen.

Well it been the weakest part of the team that year isn't a good indication of it's quality because we probably had the best defence and attack in the world that year, and in 2008-09 Fletcher was easily one of the best midfield players his development was astonishing to be honest and the midfield 3 we had of Carrick-Fletcher-Anderson was fantastic with Rooney often wide and Ronaldo up top in Europe it was a superb side, fact is if it wasn't for a injury crisis in defence in 2007 and I'm we would have reached 3 CL finals in a row and won 2 of them, won 3 league titles. As good as Cristiano Ronaldo was and as good as our defence was you simply don't do that with a weak Midfield,

I think we all agree we need to add there now I just too exception to the comment that the position has been weak since Roy Keane left, now Roy Keane is one of the best midfielders I've ever seen but looking back parting ways when we did was one of the best decisions SAF as ever made and I am so happy we didn't keep him and end up convincing him to stay on for the 2006/7 season which we no doubt would have done if it wasn't for the events that followed the Boro game in 2005.

 

[Cina]

In 2010 Darren Fletcher was in the PFA team of the season. Our only problem whatsoever that season was Rooney getting injured. I suppose we also had the obscene injury crisis in December, but we bounced back from that in style. You guys need to stop rewriting history, we never had any pressing need to reinforce the midfield until last summer.

Nonsense, a lot of us on here have been saying for years that we need to sort out midfield. It's been obvious for quite some while that it's on the decline.

 

[Ash_G]

Sorry but Fletcher and Carrick was a terrible combo. 2 very good midfielders who just did not suit each other at all. It was always an issue because they both generally needed Scholes or Giggs alongside them to play at their best.

I personally don't think that, when they played together Carrick just wasn't at his best and looked a bit out of sorts with everyone. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to play with each other. The Carrick of this season or his first two years and the Fletch of a few years back would have been excellent imo. Either way like I said when they did play they weren't amazing but they were solid, our defensive record with them was great if i remember correct.

 

[Chabon]

Put it this way - the last truely excellent season from one of our midfielders came in 06/07, courtesy of a certain Mr. Scholes.

Fun fact, our midfield's best performance, and indeed the best team performance full stop, came in the absence of Scholes. Also Fletch had two and a half excellent seasons and then developed a very serious illness. His development was no flash in the pan.

 

[Adebesi]

I just too exception to the comment that the position has been weak since Roy Keane left

To be clear, I said: "Midfield has been our weak link since arguably before Keane left."

That makes it worse for you, I know.

But you are also misunderstanding the meaning of this, evidently. Weak link doesnt necessarily mean weak in absolute terms. It just means weaker than what is either side of it. The weakest part of a very strong chain / team.

 

[marjen]

Fun fact, our midfield's best performance, and indeed the best team performance full stop, came in the absence of Scholes. Also Fletch had two and a half excellent seasons and then developed a very serious illness. His development was no flash in the pan.

Even at his very best Fletcher IMO was never top class. A good Premiership footballer, but not a top class midfielder. Comparing him at his best to Scholes in 06-07, which as I said was the last truly excellent season one of our CM's had, is just.. well, unfair.

 

[Chabon]

we never had that authority, that midfield picking itself, that consistency where the players we had there performed week in week out without getting injured - as we had with Scholes and Keane.

So what if we never had that, the team was in an era of absolutely unprecedented success. People's hazy nostalgia for the Keane-Scholes era is getting very tiresome, making out as if we dominated every midfield we ever played against and played the same pairing every week. If they were so bloody good, why did we never get back to the final after 99, and why did Fergie spend so much signing Veron? And if they were so consistently selected, why did Nicky Butt always rack up so many appearances?

While Ronaldo was with the club we were a better team than we'd ever been with Roy Keane, and the midfield, whilst lacking the once in a lifetime quality of Keane and playing in a consciously more functional manner, was a big part of that.

 

[Cina]

I personally don't think that, when they played together Carrick just wasn't at his best and looked a bit out of sorts with everyone. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to play with each other. The Carrick of this season or his first two years and the Fletch of a few years back would have been excellent imo. Either way like I said when they did play they weren't amazing but they were solid, our defensive record with them was great if i remember correct.

You realize you just agreed that they never played well with each other

'would' and 'could' are irrelevant. Fletcher is gone now anyway, so we won't see it again.

 

[marjen]

So what if we never had that, the team was in an era of absolutely unprecedented success. People's hazy nostalgia for the Keane-Scholes era is getting very tiresome, making out as if we dominated every midfield we ever played against and played the same pairing every week. If they were so bloody good, why did we never get back to the final after 99, and why did Fergie spend so much signing Veron?

While Ronaldo was with the club we were a better team than we'd ever been with Roy Keane, and the midfield, whilst lacking the once in a lifetime quality of Keane and playing in a consciously more functional manner, was a big part of that.

Well, newsflash, we don't have a Ronaldo-esque player as of now, and last season our midfield wasn't even non-functional, it was at times non-existing! Of course, if we had Messi and Ronaldo up front, I'm sure we could've coped with a slightly less able CM. But even those two would struggle if Jones/Park/Giggs lined up behind them every week.

I'm not in the Keano/Scholes-nostalgia camp btw. I just wish we had more than one CM of good quality who could be expected to play every week. Is that too much to ask for a team of United's quality? And if it meant getting rid of Anderson, so what, it's not like he's proven himself to be irreplacable, is it?

Also, I maintain that during the last six years, midfield has consistantly been the least strong part of our team, and that was kind of my point.

 

[Adebesi]

So what if we never had that, the team was in an era of absolutely unprecedented success. People's hazy nostalgia for the Keane-Scholes era is getting very tiresome, making out as if we dominated every midfield we ever played against and played the same pairing every week. If they were so bloody good, why did we never get back to the final after 99, and why did Fergie spend so much signing Veron? And if they were so consistently selected, why did Nicky Butt always rack up so many appearances?

While Ronaldo was with the club we were a better team than we'd ever been with Roy Keane, and the midfield, whilst lacking the once in a lifetime quality of Keane and playing in a consciously more functional manner, was a big part of that.

How dare you!

But yes, I am given to bouts of nostalgia. What of it?

feck all this. We need a midfielder, we wont sign one, so lets just hope for the best with Clev and Anderson, I am going to try and get off this merry-go-round conversation for now though, it never gets anywhere and while it is all very entertaining I need to finish some work.

 

[Widnes]

To be clear, I said: "Midfield has been our weak link since arguably before Keane left."

That makes it worse for you, I know.

But you are also misunderstanding the meaning of this, evidently. Weak link doesnt necessarily mean weak in absolute terms. It just means weaker than what is either side of it. The weakest part of a very strong chain / team.

Well thats a fair point because in them days we probably had the best defence in the world (when fit) and the best attack with Rooney, Ronnie and Tevez.

Although you could argue that in recent years since 2007 our weak link has been the defence not through quality but through fitness as that has probably been more costly than the midfield. I must stress that is a fitness thing and not quality which i know can not be helped but has happened to many times over the years and has played a big part in us missing out on some of the bigger compititions in recent years.

I do see the point your making just stating that there hasn't been a ongoing issue in midfield, we made some poor signings in around 2004 and we addressed the issue when they never worked out developed another really good midfield which for numerous reason has began to appear weak and I do agree it needs to be dealt with again (maybe 1 signing would be enough)

I apologise i seem to have got the wrong end of the stick with what you are saying but there are some on here that would have you believe we had our success carrying a shit midfield.

 

[Ash_G]

You realize you just agreed that they never played well with each other

'would' and 'could' are irrelevant. Fletcher is gone now anyway, so we won't see it again.

lol, well there's a decent size line between not playing at their best together and playing terrible.

But I agree we're unlikely to see it which is a shame, as I said I think at their best together they'd be excellent, off their best they're still solid and with this current team would work well.

Either way we need some cover in the middle as Fletcher isn't around and if he does get back he's unlikely to be the player he was or reliable fitness wise. If he was though then I'd be happy with the midfield.

 

[marjen]

Well thats a fair point because in them days we probably had the best defence in the world (when fit) and the best attack with Rooney, Ronnie and Tevez.

Although you could argue that in recent years since 2007 our weak link has been the defence not through quality but through fitness as that has probably been more costly than the midfield. I must stress that is a fitness thing and not quality which i know can not be helped but has happened to many times over the years and has played a big part in us missing out on some of the bigger compititions in recent years.

I do see the point your making just stating that there hasn't been a ongoing issue in midfield, we made some poor signings in around 2004 and we addressed the issue when they never worked out developed another really good midfield which for numerous reason has began to appear weak and I do agree it needs to be dealt with again (maybe 1 signing would be enough)

I apologise i seem to have got the wrong end of the stick with what you are saying but there are some on here that would have you believe we had our success carrying a shit midfield.

We've never had a shit midfield, not even last year, where Scholes and Carrick performed amongst the best in the league post new year.

That doesn't mean that our midfield is strong enough though. Everything is relative as you say. Compared to the strength and quality available to us on the wings(some might claim that excessive even) the strength and quality in CM is, well, weak.

If you asked me would I have the midfield of 08-09 over the midfield of today, I'd say yes, obviously. Scholes a couple of years younger, Giggs as well, Carrick as well, and Anderson still promising, with Fletcher having his best season ever. That is better than what we have, but even then, our success in 08-09 were built on a strong defensive foundation, and individual brilliance of Ronaldo/Rooney, and the midfield we had were functional as opposed to very good. We won a hell of a lot of matches 1-0, due to our ability to close out cagey matches(Fletcher was great at this) and Ronaldo nicking a goal.

But our midfield wasn't particularly great, and that were probably the strongest of our seasons in midfield terms since 06-07(when we actually absolutely schooled most teams we met in the league, and dominated them in CM more often than not). Even the 08-09 midfield would get some stick due to not contributing enough on the ball, and not controlling matches well enough, today, even if it would be stronger in relation to the rest of the team than it were back then.

 

[marjen]

lol, well there's a decent size line between not playing at their best together and playing terrible.

But I agree we're unlikely to see it which is a shame, as I said I think at their best together they'd be excellent, off their best they're still solid and with this current team would work well.

Either way we need some cover in the middle as Fletcher isn't around and if he does get back he's unlikely to be the player he was or reliable fitness wise. If he was though then I'd be happy with the midfield.

Fletcher/Carrick, even at their individual and collective best, never were, and never will be, excellent. At their very best they were a fine defensive foundation for an attacking midfielder and a three-pronged attack to work from, although their distribution left a little to be desired.

The 08-09-version of Fletch/Carrick would be a decent platform for Kagawa/Rooney/Valencia/Nani to work from, but it would never have been excellent. Far from it.

And that's all hypotethical anyway, but there you go.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Fletcher/Carrick, even at their individual and collective best, never were, and never will be, excellent. At their very best they were a fine defensive foundation for an attacking midfielder and a three-pronged attack to work from, although their distribution left a little to be desired.

The 08-09-version of Fletch/Carrick would be a decent platform for Kagawa/Rooney/Valencia/Nani to work from, but it would never have been excellent. Far from it.

And that's all hypotethical anyway, but there you go.

Yeah they were. The best game to use as an example would be in '09 when they wiped the floor with Inter (managed by Mourinho at the time) only for our forwards to mix a string of chances which resulted in the most one-sided nil all draw you've ever seen. Carrick and Fletcher were completely imperious in that game. Inter were out-classed.

 

[Cina]

Try and put bias aside here, Carrick and Fletcher have never been in the top tier of midfielders in the world, even at their best.

 

[marjen]

Yeah they were. The best game to use as an example would be in '09 when they wiped the floor with Inter (managed by Mourinho at the time) only for our forwards to mix a string of chances which resulted in the most one-sided nil all draw you've ever seen. Carrick and Fletcher were completely imperious in that game. Inter were out-classed.

Carrick was having IMO his best game in a United shirt, and Giggs was sensational as an AM in that match. Can't recollect Fletcher having a particularly outstanding game, although I'm sure he performed fine as was his custom that season.

That was an exception to the rule that season though, and although some of our performances during the latter stages of the season were really good, it stemmed from a fantastic attack and an ability to close matches off and contain teams in midfield, rather than dictate proceedings. One game, where admittedly Carrick DID orchestrate proceedings completely, is a very, very rare counterexample, and doesn't take anything away from the fact that as a partnership, Carrick/Fletcher at their best were good, but not ideally suited to each other, and certaintly not excellent.

Other times we simply countered teams apart, like the Arsenal-semi, or won cagey affairs due to our firepower up front and our terrific defence.

 

[Ash_G]

I don't see why it wouldn't be excellent. Both are strong defensively and together complement each other in that regard. Attackinly neither are great but neither are poor and good in their own ways. Carrick showed last season that when he's switched on, attackingly he has something to offer, he should do more no doubt but the talent is there. Unfortunately as all his midfield partners require him to stay deeper then he can't get forward too much, Fletcher on the other hand is perfectly capable of sitting if Carrick does venture forward. Likewise Carrick can obviously sit and allow Fletcher to get forward, who has then energy to play box to box. Fletcher was improving his goal tally as well and personally I think he would have gotten even better in that regard, especialy as in the last season or so our delivery from wide has been very consistent. Fletcher has shown that he's got good timing for runs and a good header.

So as I said, personally I think they'd work fine. They didn't show their best when they did play together but they were far from bad and personally I think that 2010 season when they played, we were overly reliant of Rooney which made the team look poor when he was off form. Our attacking options and players have improved since then.

But as you said all hypothetical.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Try and put bias aside here, Carrick and Fletcher have never been in the top tier of midfielders in the world, even at their best.

Of course they bloody were.

Honestly, the way some people manage to gloss over our results in the Champion's League this last half a dozen years or so is beyond bizarre. You just do not get that kind of record without having midfielders who are very much "in the top tier" (is this the new "world class"?) It's all very well talking up the contribution of Ronaldo and our central defenders but we achieved that incredible run of results by consistently having more possession than the opposition. Beggars belief that people watched all these games - saw all this possession - and still think whoever we played in midfield was not "in the top tier".

Granted, there's always room for improvement and Scholes' age combined with Fletcher's illness means that Carrick is probably our only established "top tier" CM. Cleverley and Anderson still have it all to prove. On his day, Giggs would definitely be up there too but I don't think we can expect him to be "on his day" much longer. That said, he's been one of the stand-out performers in the olympics, at 52 years old. So there's life in the old dog yet.

 

[marjen]

Of course they bloody were.

Honestly, the way some people manage to gloss over our results in the Champion's League this last half a dozen years or so is beyond bizarre. You just do not get that kind of record without having midfielders who are very much "in the top tier" (is this the new "world class"?) It's all very well talking up the contribution of Ronaldo and our central defenders but we achieved that incredible run of results by consistently having more possession than the opposition. Beggars belief that people watched all these games - saw all this possession - and still think whoever we played in midfield was not "in the top tier".

Granted, there's always room for improvement and Scholes' age combined with Fletcher's illness means that Carrick is probably our only established "top tier" CM. Cleverley and Anderson still have it all to prove. On his day, Giggs would definitely be up there too but I don't think we can expect him to be "on his day" much longer. That said, he's been one of the stand-out performers in the olympics, at 52 years old. So there's life in the old dog yet.

I think it's possible for teams to perform very well without having more than merely "good" players in some positions, relatively speaking.

Michael Carrick is just a little bit short of being a top tier midfielder IMO, lacks the mentality and perhaps a bit of drive to truly be in that bracket.

Fletcher was a bracket below that IMO, although at his best he did a fine job in CM.

Of course an in-form Fletcher would be a nice option to have now as well, but he wouldn't be the solution to our midfield puzzle IMO.

 

[Cina]

Of course they bloody were.

Honestly, the way some people manage to gloss over our results in the Champion's League this last half a dozen years or so is beyond bizarre. You just do not get that kind of record without having midfielders who are very much "in the top tier" (is this the new "world class"?) It's all very well talking up the contribution of Ronaldo and our central defenders but we achieved that incredible run of results by consistently having more possession than the opposition. Beggars belief that people watched all these games - saw all this possession - and still think whoever we played in midfield was not "in the top tier".

Granted, there's always room for improvement and Scholes' age combined with Fletcher's illness means that Carrick is probably our only established "top tier" CM. Cleverley and Anderson still have it all to prove. On his day, Giggs would definitely be up there too but I don't think we can expect him to be "on his day" much longer. That said, he's been one of the stand-out performers in the olympics, at 52 years old. So there's life in the old dog yet.

I just can't agree. Fletcher and Carrick are good midfielders, more than good enough to play at this club but they've never really been great, obviously you could single out certain games where they've been brilliant but what good player can't you do that with?

Surely you can acknowledge that our success from 06 - 11 was far more down to our stellar defense, brilliant wingers and having goalscorers like Rooney and Ronaldo?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I just can't agree. Fletcher and Carrick are good midfielders, more than good enough to play at this club but they've never really been great, obviously you could single out certain games where they've been brilliant but what good player can't you do that with?

Surely you can acknowledge that our success from 06 - 11 was far more down to our stellar defense, brilliant wingers and having goalscorers like Rooney and Ronaldo?

I honestly don't think any part of the team deserves more credit than the others. What I do know is that our European results picked up significantly once we settled on our latest/current batch of CMs. This was despite previously having strikers of the calibre of Ruud Van Nistelrooy and Rooney, with Ferdinand at the back and Beckham/Giggs on the wings.

Not to mention an 8 years younger version of Paul Scholes in midfield. He couldn't do it on his own, though, which is where the signing of Carrick and Fletcher's eventual emergence as a CM of real quality made such a huge difference to our team.

 

[Cina]

I honestly don't think any part of the team deserves more credit than the others. What I do know is that our European results picked up significantly once we settled on our latest/current batch of CMs. This was despite previously having strikers of the calibre of Ruud Van Nistelrooy and Rooney, with Ferdinand at the back and Beckham/Giggs on the wings.

Of course they did, because it became stable, and back in 06/07 (and to a lesser extent 07/08) we still had Scholes at the peak of his powers. It doesn't mean it was great. Our dominance was far more to do with Ronaldo turning into the worlds best player, Rio and Vidic striking up an amazing defensive partnership, Rooney becoming a consistent goalscorer, having some of Europe's best wingers etc. Other than 06/07 our midfield has just sort of ... been there, never great, never shit, usually good and reliable, until last season. Last season it was pretty fecking shit at times.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Of course they did, because it became stable, and back in 06/07 (and to a lesser extent 07/08) we still had Scholes at the peak of his powers. It doesn't mean it was great. Our dominance was far more to do with Ronaldo turning into the worlds best player, Rio and Vidic striking up an amazing defensive partnership, Rooney becoming a consistent goalscorer, having some of Europe's best wingers etc. Other than 06/07 our midfield has just sort of ... been there, never great, never shit, usually good and reliable, until last season. Last season it was pretty fecking shit at times.

Those are all factors, sure. Although it's worth noting that Ronaldo's departure didn't have all that much of an effect on our campaigns in Europe and I don't think may people would agree that we had our options on the wings were significantly better than Becks and Giggs in their prime.

Basically, you're massively down-playing the quality of our midfield by implying they only turned up in 06/07. You're not the only one, though and it's something that was going on at the time too. Yes, our midfield looks in need of a revamp but I just don't get this idea people have that we've been basically carrying them throughout such a brilliant run of results. The facts just don't bear it out. Not when getting central midfield right is so critical to every succesful team.

 

[Lynk]

So what if we never had that, the team was in an era of absolutely unprecedented success. People's hazy nostalgia for the Keane-Scholes era is getting very tiresome, making out as if we dominated every midfield we ever played against and played the same pairing every week. If they were so bloody good, why did we never get back to the final after 99, and why did Fergie spend so much signing Veron? And if they were so consistently selected, why did Nicky Butt always rack up so many appearances?

While Ronaldo was with the club we were a better team than we'd ever been with Roy Keane, and the midfield, whilst lacking the once in a lifetime quality of Keane and playing in a consciously more functional manner, was a big part of that.

That's bollocks, sorry mate. The shape of the team had to altered because of Ronaldo's work etiquette (or lack of) What's more, our greatest season happened when Keane was at the heart of the midfield. The '99 team was a better "team" simple because that midfield had every trait imaginable, our strike partnership worked in tandem brilliantly, we had a solid defence (not as good as '08, but still good) and we had the greatest goalkeeper of the modern era.



EDIT: Also, we never had to alter our first XI to suit one player as blatantly as we did to suit Ronaldo.

 

[Chabon]

Okay, so if it's bollocks, and the 99 team were the best, why didn't they win football matches nearly as consistently?

 

[ben_foster]

The only midfielder out of those you've mentioned that has been anywhere near a first team regular feature, is Anderson, which let's face it isn't a very good footballer on the evidence of his years at OT, nor likely to, say, become reasonably fit or not get injured for 5 months a season. He cost more than Young and Jones, by all accounts.

I don't even think we need this world class midfielder you talk about, another proven, reliable midfielder of good PL quality with the ability to stay fit from time to time would do rather nicely. Then we could've afforded to flog Anderson, or let Scholes enjoy his retirement, and still be able to blood the likes of Powell and Petrucci.

i disagree with you on andersons ability but lets for arguements sake your right, he isnt good enough.

that would mean fergie has spent £19m on him, plus £28.5 on veron, plus djemba djemba, kleberson, liam miller, hargreaves etc etc and whilst there was anarguement for the siging of those players (veron was the best in the business at the time, djemba djemba had put in some top performances, kleberson / hargreaves was the best player at the world cup) its fair to say all have flopped.

so maybe he is reluctant to sign a centre midfielder because he doesnt trust himself to buy one. it is for this reason im in the "what the feck does phelan contrubute" camp. a more forward thinking manager capable of challenging fergie as opposed to being his yes man may result in taking a plunge on somebody. but thats another thread.

personally im against us signiing some average joe who can do a job. id rather bring through youth or sign somebody to walk into the side and boss the middle of the park.

 

[Lynk]

Okay, so if it's bollocks, and the 99 team were the best, why didn't they win football matches nearly as consistently?

The 99 team had a insanely tough fixtures that season, with a very small squad.


In the league, they were battling Chelsea and reigning champions Arsenal

FA Cup:
Liverpool
Chelsea
Arsenal
Newcastle (final)

Champions League:
Group:
Bayern
Bronby
Barcelona

Knockout

Inter Milan
Juventus
Bayern Munich

 

[Cina]

Those are all factors, sure. Although it's worth noting that Ronaldo's departure didn't have all that much of an effect on our campaigns in Europe and I don't think may people would agree that we had our options on the wings were significantly better than Becks and Giggs in their prime.

Basically, you're massively down-playing the quality of our midfield by implying they only turned up in 06/07. You're not the only one, though and it's something that was going on at the time too. Yes, our midfield looks in need of a revamp but I just don't get this idea people have that we've been basically carrying them throughout such a brilliant run of results. The facts just don't bear it out. Not when getting central midfield right is so critical to every succesful team.

I haven't said that though, have I? All I've said is that it's not been as critical to our success as other areas. I don't agree with the idea that every aspect of the team contributes as much.

What I think is that we've had a solid and reliable midfield in those 5 years, but not one that ever really (bar the odd time, like with Inter) won us games or was overly pivotal in our dominance, I contribute that far more to the other areas that I mentioned above. I don't think, (bar an aging Scholes) that we've had anyone of the sort of level of the likes of Ronaldo, Rio, Rooney, Vidic there, or even at the level of Evra, Nani or Valencia when at their best. A number of good, reliable midfielders but none that contribute critically towards success like Real, Barca, Inter under Mourinho, City this season have.

EDIT: Apart from 06/07 that is, when Scholes was still amazing.

 

[Chabon]

The 99 team had a insanely tough fixtures that season, with a very small squad.

I don't really buy that, the European run was perhaps harder, but it was also less demanding due to the shorter format. It's also worth remembering that United won the CL that year with the least wins in the tournament's history. And the league was on another level between 2006 and 2009.

In the each team's best season their results (across the three main competitions) were as follows:

1998/99: 33-21-3
2007/08: 39-10-6

And that's just taking their best seasons into account. Over the course of each team's three year peak the Ronaldo team, if we can call it that, really outshone their predecessors, even if they were never quite able to turn that into the trophies it probably deserved.

 

[Ash_G]

Well they contributed by giving the foundations to allow the likes of Ronaldo to attack as freely as he did. We basically carried him in matches which meant that the midfield was constantly having to do additional work for his lack of tracking. Additionally unlike those other teams we're one of the only top teams to have been operating in a form of 442 at the top level. Given virtually every other top team plays 5 in the middle and in general plays narrow, our midfield had plenty of defensive work to do. They were up against at least 3 players and then had to contend with Ronaldo not helping. Without them doing as well as they did defensively, we would have been exposed. I don't really understand why people think they could have given significantly more in attack as they were under a lot of pressure.

When Ronaldo left, there was a point where Carrick and Fletcher as a combo then had a chance to do more, unfortunately they didn't really show they're best. But as I said before there were other issues in the team once Ronaldo left, there was a hole in the attack and players like Nani hadn't stepped up yet. We were overly reliant on Rooney. Still though we only missed out on the title by a point and were unlucky not to progress further in the CL.

The following season we were in a much better position from an attacking point but unfortunately had to deal with Fletcher's illness and Rooney going awol for half a season.

Had Fletcher stayed fit though, then in this current side I really think that the midfield options would be strong. This midfield has always been underrated becuase it's usually compared to other teams who are specifically set up to allow the middle to be the strong point.

 

[SharkyMcShark]

EDIT: Apart from 06/07 that is, when Scholes was still amazing.

Paul Scholes is still amazing.

 

[Cina]

Paul Scholes is still amazing.

Obviously, but I mean amazing throughout a full season, still at his peak.

 

[Chabon]

Right, for the sake of posterity, here are the records in all competitive fixtures for the two teams I was comparing earlier at their three season long peaks:

1998-2001
179: 106-45-28

2006-2009
183: 125-33-25

Of course, in terms of actual trophies, it's near enough exactly the same, but the later team got more points in the league (16 more, to be precise) and reached far more semi-finals and finals. I don't think it should be considered controversial to suggest that the Ronaldo era side were a better team, especially when you consider the European records.

 

[Cina]

That debate has been done to death and this thread is not the place for it.

 

[Plechazunga]

I think it's possible for teams to perform very well without having more than merely "good" players in some positions, relatively speaking.

Michael Carrick is just a little bit short of being a top tier midfielder IMO, lacks the mentality and perhaps a bit of drive to truly be in that bracket.

Fletcher was a bracket below that IMO, although at his best he did a fine job in CM.

Of course an in-form Fletcher would be a nice option to have now as well, but he wouldn't be the solution to our midfield puzzle IMO.

I'd say Carrick is third-tier, if we're doing it like that:

Top tier - Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo and Scholes at their best
2nd tier - Alonso, Fabregas (currently), Yaya Toure, Schweinsteiger, Sneijder, Gerrard and Essien at their best
3rd tier - Carrick, Van Bommel, Ambrosini
4th tier - Fletcher, Barry, Song, Lucas Leiva (currently)
Tiers of a clown - Adam, Henderson, Spearing

Modric is somewhere between 3 and 2, as was Lampard at his best.

 

[Cheesy]

I'd say Carrick is third-tier, if we're doing it like that:

Top tier - Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo and Scholes at their best
2nd tier - Alonso, Fabregas (currently), Yaya Toure, Schweinsteiger, Sneijder, Gerrard and Essien at their best
3rd tier - Carrick, Van Bommel, Ambrosini
4th tier - Fletcher, Barry, Song, Lucas Leiva (currently)
Tiers of a clown - Adam, Henderson, Spearing

Modric is somewhere between 3 and 2, as was Lampard at his best.

That's a pretty fair assessment actually. I'm not so sure if Pirlo and Scholes were so good as to be on the top tier though. I'd have maybe had them somewhere between one and two, perhaps closer to two. The rest of it is a good assessment though.