True. But stats aside, when you're limiting quality sides like City, Chelsea and Arsenal to relatively (emphasis on relatively!) few opportunities, while coughing up chance after chance to poor teams teams like Leicester, West Ham or Everton (and they really were shite when we played them) then whoever played in midfield in those big games has done a better job at defending than whoever played against weaker opposition. Irrespective of what the stats say.
21
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 31
- Goals
- 8
- Assists
- 5
- Yellow cards
- 6
- Status
True. But stats aside, when you're limiting quality sides like City, Chelsea and Arsenal to relatively (emphasis on relatively!) few opportunities, while coughing up chance after chance to poor teams teams like Leicester, West Ham or Everton (and they really were shite when we played them) then whoever played in midfield in those big games has done a better job at defending than whoever played against weaker opposition. Irrespective of what the stats say.
I wouldn't be surprised if Felllaini did cover a lot of ground, as he is always in one penalty box or the other.
But I wouldn't think it was significantly more than Ander, who is a willing runner.
Milan could get a better and more sophisticated DM/CM than Gatusso. But everyone could see that Gatusso was perfect to the balance of that team. There are so many example that a 'less' footballer is preferred to the superior one, because of what the former could offer to the team is better than the latter.
I think you can also make a shout for it being the whole set up which was more balanced in these last few games. Before, we played di maria in midfield, next to Herrera, which would be fine if there wasn't also 3 strikers in front of them as well. Put Di maria and Herrera in midfield in the 4-1-4-1 and I'm sure it'd be a lot more balanced defensively.
Was gonna say this.
Quality of opposition is a massive factor when analysing performances.
I like Herrera and I like Fellaini, I find it sad and pathetic that folk on here go to such huge lengths to try to discredit one of our own players.
I would like to see us field both of them, along with Blind/Carrick in the holding role. Would be an excellent mix in my opinion.
Do you just not like Fellaini at all? That seems to be the only reason I can see based on performances so far you can say Herrera is miles better than Fellaini. Herrera has played 5 games for us and against opposition he should be miles better - especially if he is miles better than Fellaini - he should have absolutely bossed those games if he is miles better but, he didn't.
Herrera has the potential to be a very good player and once we do get our defense stablized and depending on the formations/personnel we play, he could offer more to the team. I really do want to see him in the team and I also am relishing the type of style of football we could play with him in the team however, I don't see yet him making our team far better than with Fellaini in it.
Herrera, Blind and di Maria in a midfield 3 could have actually seen us keep the ball a bit against Arsenal.
I'm glad we won, but we were not dominant in the game at all.
I'm glad we won, but we were not dominant in the game at all.
Di Maria was playing as a striker, so by the same logic - Blind, Fellaini and Di Maria could have done equally well.
As it was, we had a two man midfield of Carrick and Fellaini. I doubt Herrera being there instead of Fellaini would have changed the fact that we were outnumbered and dominated in the first half.
I like Herrera and think he will be a really good player for us, but he is definitely one whose reputation seems to have substantially increased while he has been out injured. He was/is a solid all-round midfielder - tenacious and tidy on the ball, but he wasnt the second coming of Messi. As @Shimo said, in the games Herrera played we were playing teams that we should have comfortably beat. It may not been Herrera's fault that we didnt meet expectation, but his performances were obviously not so good that he single handedly dragged us to victory in those games, which is what folk on here seem to be making out.
But the "lesser player" was superior to most players tactically, he was intelligent, had great stamina, great positioning and was positively aggressive. Bottom line he wasn't a lesser player.
In terms of defensive interventions (tackles, interceptions, clearances and blocks) Herrera averages 6.9 per 90 minutes; Fellaini averages 10. Not surprisingly, Fellaini has a 6-1 advantage in winning aerial duels. Herrera edges pass completion 88.5 - 87.9. Funnily enough, neither has been credited with a through ball or a cross and they've both played a total of 11 long balls. None of this tells us a lot about the players - there're a lot of other statistics that doubtless paint a different picture. As I said above, LvG is probably going to continue picking round pegs for round holes and square pegs for square holes. We may see the holes differently and have different views on the qualities of the pegs - it doesn't really matter, we aren't deciding the tactics or picking the team. For the last 3 games Fellaini has been a good fit for the tactics chosen - for Hull and Stoke the tactics will probably be different, so perhaps we'll see Herrera (or both of them).
Nothing you have said contradicts anything I said.
Instead of 3 in midfield it was 3 in central defense, but that may be because of losing Blind, Carrick is not good holding on his own, imho.
This way the constant outlet was the third cb instead of the third cm. And since Blind wasnt available is hard to say how Herrera would have done with say Carrick and Fellaini with Herrera. He's had Blind up till now to cover for his bombastic style.
Herrera never played against Everton! It was Valencia who played in his place! So many people have made this mistake, but no one ever corrected this!
Anyways in the matches that Herrera did play in, the only one where I would say he was defensively poor was against Swansea, where his weak man-marking and aggressiveness was exposed by Swansea's midfielders. Otherwise, he did very well defensively, and the opposition had to frequently play long balls to our aerially weak defenders to have a chance at attacking us.
The reason Fellaini's played so often ahead is because he's very strong in the air. This helps us out in set pieces, and it helps us out when we go forward as we'd have another target for the crosses.
Defensively, there's small differences between Herrera and Fellaini. Herrera reads the game better, but Fellaini's stronger and more aggressive.
Ever since we've played with Fellaini instead of Herrera, our attacking play has worsened, whilst our defensive game has slightly improved with Fellaini's extra strength and aggression along with his aerial strengths. Our wingers struggle because no central midfielder goes out to support them, which is what Herrera does very well (and Fellaini only did this against Chelsea with Januzaj but failed to do this since then). Without Herrera, we've had no one to dictate play from midfield and control our pace, rhythm, and tempo.
Fellaini may have his strengths, but without Herrera, our midfield cannot control the match, and our creative burden falls on the wingers who receive little to no support and are frequently closed down in numbers.
The whole "defensive" approach and "player`s work rate" is overrated anyway. Paul Scholes wasn't exactly great at defending and he controlled the United midfield for two decades. Give me a good passer of the ball over a "hard worker" any day of the week. The statistic approach to football is making us think that a player with a lot of tackles who can cover large parts of the pitch is better than the one that can control and pass the ball with ease, nonsense.
Play them both, Fellaini and Herrera. You can fit Carrick in there too and we will be good attacking-wise with Rooney and Di Maria attacking. Think Carrick and Herrera will be good together too. Our overall play will significantly be better too I feel and the defense won't be exposed.
It's arguable that the exact opposite has happened. Some strange accusations have been levelled at Herrera recently. Naturally, his slight frame has allowed for the physicality debate to open up, even though he's demonstrated he's more than capable of winning and shielding the ball. The "loose passing" accusation is another strange one and hasn't been in evidence since the second or third game of pre season. His statistics are very high considering the direct nature of his passes.
Herrera has had a good start to life at United, or as much as you can given a mere 5 games played. That shouldn't be forgotten either.
Scholes could do so much more than pass a ball though. There isn't a single player we have right now capable of controlling the midfield like he did. Knew exactly when to speed the game up and when to pass it around with the defence.
OT - Herrera will play when he's fully fit. A good player to transition the ball from defence to attack.
This would be more than welcome, giving us the best of both worlds. There's a great Dutch problem preventing that, however.
I know what you mean - he certainly isnt the typical Spanish playmaker, definitely has a bit more bite and tenacity to him. As usual people seem to either overrate or underrate him though.
It's no surprise that when he hasn't played in the past three/four games are football has been fairly dry and languid. He adds a much needed level of impetus and should play near to every match.
That fact that we have played Chelsea, City and Arsenal obviously cant have anything to do with it...
Granted, but a fairly complacent Chelsea who saw a 1-0 or even a draw away at Old Trafford as content, a fairly poor formed City (prior to Smalling's red) who were there to be matched (and we did so, could have been better with the tenacity Ander provides) and a very, very weak Arsenal side who were very reliant on one player. The latter game we did go with the game plan to absorb pressure and counter, but had Ander been fit and playing, our instigation into these attacks with the energy of Rooney and Di Maria upfront would have been more frequent. I'm not saying he would have completely revamped those games and been the absolute changer, but it's clear he adds an extra edge nobody else in central midfield does.
Arsenal aside since they could have ended the game in the first 25 minutes, that's a fair point, but I don't recall us giving much up to West Ham until right near the death and in the 3 games you mention we were still playing the diamond, a much more defensively open formation than the 4-3-3 we played against City and Chelsea. At the end of the day though it's fine margins and guessing, but one thing I think is undeniable is that even if it could be proven we are more secure with Fellaini than Herrera by even a narrow margin, we lose a lot in terms of our attacking play and passing tempo without him.
Even against Palace we were pretty pedestrian and looked out of ideas.
It's undoubted that Herrera massively adds to our attacking threat. He's the best number #8 at the club.
Some of the comment on the Caf about Ander has been ridiculous. Soft? He played on against West Ham after cracking his ribs in the first half. Definitely wet then..
He'll probably have to wait until Fellaini has a bad game, or the boss wants to make a tactical switch he suits, to get back in. However, making out that Herrera ain't up to it is silly.
I expect him to get about half an hour in the next game now that he's played for the reserves and if he does well, he could start the game after that.
Again I like Herrera, but I fail to see how he would have had any major impact in any of those three games (unless we are talking about including him and changing formation by dropping RVP or similar, which is a different debate).
Chelsea are the best in the league by far, we matched them for the most part.
City we were well on top until Smalling got sent off, after that we struggled.
Arsenal came out all guns blazing and put a lot of pressure on our inexperienced back line, after we survived their initial onslaught we were on top.
I dont think having Herrera would have changed much in any of those scenarios.
Again, good player and I want to see him with Carrick and Fellaini in a 3-man midfield (drop RVP), but he isnt the messiah.
Agreed about Herrera. The lad is a quality player. But you are doing what you accuse others of. You've correctly taken exception to the over the top negative comments on Herrera to justify his exclusion from starting XI, but then gone on to say we looked pedestrian against Palace and implied subtly that Herrera would have solved that problem. We didn't look pedestrian or out of ideas against Palace.
Err...?
Err what? They had one chance in the game due a to defensive mix up. We dominated possession, scored a goal, hit the post, substitutions were ok and we won. Granted the first half was a bit meh though.
Had plenty of other chances to score as well. Had Rooney scored one of his chances, RvP scored his rebound/ mata's post shot went in, it would've been a standard 3 or 4-0 win.
We won the game and it was fairly sound bar the communication mishap, but that doesn't change the fact that we were pedestrian or out of ideas.
Agree with you, we created feck all and it was so boring, hardly created clear cut chances.
We'll just have to agree to disagree then.
We were hideous against Palace. Moyesian.
We did look pedestrian, though.
Well there's no real reason to throw everyone forward and go gung ho considering how the game went. We just sustained pressure while they camped inside their box, and we eventually broke them down, and even after that they didn't really try to go forward, or at least never had the chance to because we kept the ball. The way the game went, there just wasn't too much of a reason to change it too much as we had the win in the bag pretty much. We could've been better going forward of course, better decision making, better finishing, but the pace of our passing wasn't the problem at all I don't think.
Back on Herrera though, I doubt he'll start on the weekend. More likely midweek next week or against Southampton the week after, same with Falcao. He played 90 minutes yesterday on his return from injury, the next logical step with how LvG likes to do things is a sub appearance in the next game before he starts. Nothing to do with him not being rated or whatever. No need to rush him back either as we have a few decent options there anyways.
I've got my stupid tag for saying the same.
I don't remember exactly what you said about him from back then, but I do believe that you went farther than just this and started to go over the top with the criticism.
Anyways, in terms of whether Herrera could have made an impact against the other teams, I believe he certainly would have helped make di Maria and Januzaj more influential than they were, particularly in the second half. The same goes for when we played against Man. City. Against Crystal Palace, we may have done well in terms of creating chances in the final third, but we were slow and static in our build-up, making it easy for Crystal Palace to organise themselves. Plus, our attack didn't have much support, particularly van Persie.
Herrera would certainly have improved us in all of those matches, I believe, including Arsenal, where, even if we were under the cosh, we wouldn't have been so disjointed in our possession play, particularly during the first half.
and Wilshere's head...
I'd say recently (mainly in the last couple of years) you seem to have developed a soft spot for players/personnel that work hard but ultimately lack that top quality. The grafters if you like. Whereas you have less time/patience for flair like players that are technically better but may not work as hard. You seem to be very quick to get onto the back of people like RVP, Nani, Kagawa, Di Maria, LVG yet spend a lot of time defending people like Moyes, Valencia, Fellaini, Rooney.
- Status