Darron Gibson - is he good enough for Everton?

he was one of the better players last night, though granted that isn't saying much

as for people complaining he took too many shots id argue he didnt take enough. He was our only genuine goal threat, rangers spent the entire game with 6 men in their own box and it was clear after the 1st 30mins we were getting through them and yet we kept trying to create little openings or putting crosses in when there was no space to do so.

i was dissappointed we, and gibson in particular, didnt take more shots on from distance, Rangers were too comfortable sitting back and had we pummeled them from distance might have drawn them out a little
 
I'm not sure he is going to make it. Grand, he can see and make a pass when he has time but I do not think he does enough in midfield.
I watched him carefully last night and he was on the ball about half the amount of time that Fletcher was. I think this is the main issue Trappatoni was aluding to last week. He does not seem to want the ball enough. He needs to be available more for his own team mates when he does not have the ball and he needs to use the ball better around the pitch when he is on it.
It seemed that when we regained possession he was legging it forward and Fletcher was the one trying to carry it forward and dictate play. Gibson needs to dictate play from deeper more and not just perk up when he is 20 yards from goal.
 
I hope he will make it ? but his passing and vision lets him down .It says everything that he was out biggest threat to a below average side like Rangers ! However it is worth considering that he gets far more abuse than others on this forum who have played just as average and worse for longer but dont get half the abuse ...people like Anderson, Nani at times, Carrick ,park, Rio,Berba, and others! ....says everything about United at the moment that Scholes is still our best midfielder at his age ...but for how much longer ?
 
No he is not good enough. Last night proved that we will have no decent creative midfielders once Scholes and Giggs go. FFS - why cant SAF see that?
 
Escobar said:
Shooting from everywhere and from all positions is not a real goal threat in my book, especially when others were in better positions infront of goal
Click to expand...
That often pisses me off about him, but that really didn't happen against Rangers. There was only once when he shot from too far away, and there was never anyone else in good positions screaming for the ball.

His shooting was good (well, his decision-making for when to shoot anyway), but once again the rest of his game was borderline anonymous. Which is the big problem with him.
 
He takes a lot of shots, great shots, as his shooting technique is fantastic. I don't think he contributes much else though. In comparison with Fletcher who played with him last night, Fletcher was constantly on the ball and played deeper than Gibson and also more forward at the same time. Personally, I was disappointed with Gibson but got excited every time the ball came near him 25 yards out.
 
I don't think he's anywhere near good enough.

We've had this discussion before, but the main thing for me is that he doesn't even do the basic things which any central midfielder should be required to. Simplistic stuff like, making yourself available to receive passes, looking for people in space or making runs into space, getting yourself goal side and pressing the ball when the opposition have it, etc.

It's not that he's rubbish at it. He simply doesn't bother doing any of it at all, and it infuriates me every time I watch him play. Our midfield is effectively handicapped every time, and he shouldn't be getting anywhere near a first team midfield spot if he isn't even prepared to play the position properly.

Last night summed him up for me. I never saw him attempt to receive a ball from the back four...not once. He didn't play any effective passes, he didn't press the ball. He basically stood in Rooney's position all night, just so he could have shots all the time. Even Ronaldo had to put more work in to make himself effective.

I think he'd be better if he was played in addition to the midfield, like he was against Bayern, or similar to how Lampard is used at Chelsea, but even so he'd need to up his game considerably from just shooting every time he gets the ball.
 
noodlehair said:
I don't think he's anywhere near good enough.

We've had this discussion before, but the main thing for me is that he doesn't even do the basic things which any central midfielder should be required to. Simplistic stuff like, making yourself available to receive passes, looking for people in space or making runs into space, getting yourself goal side and pressing the ball when the opposition have it, etc.

It's not that he's rubbish at it. He simply doesn't bother doing any of it at all, and it infuriates me every time I watch him play. Our midfield is effectively handicapped every time, and he shouldn't be getting anywhere near a first team midfield spot if he isn't even prepared to play the position properly.

Last night summed him up for me. I never saw him attempt to receive a ball from the back four...not once. He didn't play any effective passes, he didn't press the ball. He basically stood in Rooney's position all night, just so he could have shots all the time. Even Ronaldo had to put more work in to make himself effective.

I think he'd be better if he was played in addition to the midfield, like he was against Bayern, or similar to how Lampard is used at Chelsea, but even so he'd need to up his game considerably from just shooting every time he gets the ball.
Click to expand...

Yup. I've heard people claim he has more to his game, but so far all I can see is good long range shooting. He doesn't even have the legs and the drive that normally goes with good goalscoring midfielders. The likes of Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard get there goals making late bursts into the box. Gibson just hangs around the pitch hoping to get some room to shoot. I've never seen any talent in him that suggest he's going to make it at United, which is why I hope Anderson starts getting more opportunities to make it because that kid is DEFINITELY good enough, he's a top talent.
 
He did play some effective passes. He wasn't that bad.

The problem I have with him is that the only thing he does really well is shoot, and you kind of get the impression that he knows it, and doesn't care... sort of like - 'ok I'm a bit shit, but feck me I can shoot - watch'.

This is sort of harsh because he might improve but I don't see him as nearly as promising as some of our other young players.
 
noodlehair said:
I don't think he's anywhere near good enough.

We've had this discussion before, but the main thing for me is that he doesn't even do the basic things which any central midfielder should be required to. Simplistic stuff like, making yourself available to receive passes, looking for people in space or making runs into space, getting yourself goal side and pressing the ball when the opposition have it, etc.

It's not that he's rubbish at it. He simply doesn't bother doing any of it at all, and it infuriates me every time I watch him play. Our midfield is effectively handicapped every time, and he shouldn't be getting anywhere near a first team midfield spot if he isn't even prepared to play the position properly.

Last night summed him up for me. I never saw him attempt to receive a ball from the back four...not once. He didn't play any effective passes, he didn't press the ball. He basically stood in Rooney's position all night, just so he could have shots all the time. Even Ronaldo had to put more work in to make himself effective.

I think he'd be better if he was played in addition to the midfield, like he was against Bayern, or similar to how Lampard is used at Chelsea, but even so he'd need to up his game considerably from just shooting every time he gets the ball.
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums up the way I feel about Gibson. And his performance last night.

I know it's unfair, but I can't help but to think his presence in the team was the key factor in us not really creating anything last night.
I know Rooney was gash, Valencia and Park invisible, Fabio weird and Javier isolated, while Gibson was the only player who looked like scoring, but I just reckon his 2-3 shots on goal would have been replaced by more big chances during the match, had he not played.

I just don't quite see it with Gibbo to be honest.
 
Name Changed said:
He takes a lot of shots, great shots, as his shooting technique is fantastic. I don't think he contributes much else though. In comparison with Fletcher who played with him last night, Fletcher was constantly on the ball and played deeper than Gibson and also more forward at the same time. Personally, I was disappointed with Gibson but got excited every time the ball came near him 25 yards out.
Click to expand...
Fair summary. All our best chances were Gibson firing from distance. His shot is so consistently dangerous, never wild ones far from target. I hope he can improve on his other sides because his shooting ability isn't just great, it's pretty fecking special.
 
But Fletch was trying to drive us forward. Gibson was - as usual - standing in the field waiting for someone to give him the ball so he could shoot at someone's legs.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
Indeed. I thought Fletcher's passing was very poor. Same as Park, Valencia and Rooney.
Click to expand...

Yep. Hate to say it but I spend half the match criticising the four players you mentioned and then Valencia got injured and felt pretty guilty.

Overall though Gibson had a better match than those four players but he still isn't suited in a 2 man midfield.
 
My problem with Gibson is that he doesn't have enough creativity to be a Scholes-esque player, and he doesn't have enough stamina and defensive ability to be a Fletcher-esque player. He has a good shot, and other than that he's pretty darn average.

I know Fletcher proved a lot of folk wrong, but he always clearly had more talent than Gibson.
 
sincher said:
But Fletch was trying to drive us forward. Gibson was - as usual - standing in the field waiting for someone to give him the ball so he could shoot at someone's legs.
Click to expand...
The problem is people wanted Gibson to do a Scholes impression yet he isn't that type of player. Gibson was playing as a pure AM, with Fletcher the one to dictate play Keane style. But Fletcher only did getting forward well. In the final third he was wanting with his passes.

Gibson kept giving simple balls to Fletcher who kept making awfull passes. I lost count of the number of times Gibson gave it to Fletcher and Fletcher's pass was either too short or too long in the final third. during all of second half. Rooney was the same. The less said about Park and the unfortunate Valencia the better. The only time things improved was when Giggs came on. But one man couldn't make the difference with so many doing nada with the ball. Gibson and Hernandez were simply fighting a losing battle trying to impress amongst a sea of so many off the pace people.
 
I don't think Gibson is effective in a two-man central midfield.

The times he has been effective it has been with Scholes and Fletcher behind him in a three man midfield, or as a substitute when United are throwing everything into the attack.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
Yep. Hate to say it but I spend half the match criticising the four players you mentioned and then Valencia got injured and felt pretty guilty.
Click to expand...
Same here.


FlawlessThaw said:
Overall though Gibson had a better match than those four players but he still isn't suited in a 2 man midfield.
Click to expand...
Especially one without a deep lying playmaker or a flank playmaker like Giggs was late on.
 
cina said:
My problem with Gibson is that he doesn't have enough creativity to be a Scholes-esque player, and he doesn't have enough stamina and defensive ability to be a Fletcher-esque player. He has a good shot, and other than that he's pretty darn average....
Click to expand...
That is because he is nothing like either of them. He is a Lampard type. He will always look miles better in a 3 man midfield or at the apex of a diamond.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
The problem is people wanted Gibson to do a Scholes impression yet he isn't that type of player. Gibson was playing as a pure AM, with Fletcher the one to dictate play Keane style. But Fletcher only did getting forward well. In the final third he was wanting with his passes.

Gibson kept giving simple balls to Fletcher who kept making awfull passes. I lost count of the number of times Gibson gave it to Fletcher and Fletcher's pass was either too short or too long in the final third. during all of second half. Rooney was the same. The lass said about Park and the unfortunate Valencia the better. The only time things improved was when Giggs came on. But one man couldnt make the difference with so many doing nada with the ball. Gibson and Hernandez were simply fighting a losing battle trying to impress amongst a sea of so many off the pace people.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's all fair enough. All in all, unfair to single out Gibson for last night's failure to break through.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
That is because he is nothing like either of them. He isa Lampard type. He will always look miles better in a 3 man midfield.
Click to expand...

I don't think Gibson has the passing or vision of a player like Lampard, nor is he capable of getting into the box like he does.

But yes, he will look better in a 3 man midfield, and he will continue to look poor in a 2 man midfield.
 
Eventually if we play him often enough then teams will get clever and start using a player to drop off and stay on Gibson when we have the ball, which won't allow him the room to shoot from distance. It will be interesting to see if he can adapt to that.
 
cina said:
I don't think Gibson has the passing or vision of a player like Lampard, nor is he capable of getting into the box like he does.....
Click to expand...
Lampard passing isn't exceptional and neither is his vision. You ahev tor ember Gibson is still mastering hsi trade. When he matures his passing will be better than it is now and he will attack the box better. But a Lampard is the type of player he will become.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
Lampard passing isn't exceptional and neither is his vision. You ahev tor ember Gibson is still mastering hsi trade. When he matures his passing will be better than it is now and he will attack the box better. But a Lampard is the type of player he will become.
Click to expand...

Type maybe, but you actually think he'll be as good? I think Lampard gets a bit under-rated cause he's so shit for England.
 
Brophs said:
Eventually if we play him often enough then teams will get clever and start using a player to drop off and stay on Gibson when we have the ball, which won't allow him the room to shoot from distance. It will be interesting to see if he can adapt to that.
Click to expand...
He will have to. He will have to learn to make runs from deep Lampard style. Plus to make more adventurous passes in forward areas than the lay offs he kept giving to Fletcher and then Giggs in second half.
 
cina said:
Type maybe, but you actually think he'll be as good? I think Lampard gets a bit under-rated cause he's so shit for England.
Click to expand...
He could become as good, no one can say for sure. But he is the type of player. For the record, I've never thought Lampard shit. The same way I don't think Gibson is shit. People are just way to impatient when it comes to midfielder development. They want every young midfielder to perform like the established midfield stars around. Yet only a handful were as good as they are now at that age.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
He could become as good, no one can say for sure. But he is the type of player. For the record, I've never thought Lampard shit. The same way I don't think Gibson is shit. People are just way to impatient when it comes to midfielder development. They want every young midfielder to perform like the established midfield stars around. Yet only a handful were as good as they are now at that age.
Click to expand...

Well by 22 I think Lampard had shown a lot more than Gibson.

We'll see I guess, I'm not entirely dismissing him, maybe he'll prove to be a good player for us, but I don't think he'll ever become more than a squad player. I hope I'm left eating my words, I mean, I am Irish after all!
 
I seriously doubt Gibson will ever be a very good player. I also doubt he's got a long-term future at United.

If he can build upon the performance he put in last night he's got a chance though. That's what I find so baffling about all the comments in this thread. He had a good game last night, one of his better ones for United so far. I can only assume a lot of opinions have been coloured by the last 10 minutes when the whole team got a bit panicky and hurried, with Gibson losing the excellent composure and decision-making he had displayed so well up until that point.

At the end of the day, I don't know how anyone can watch two central midfielders take such a prolonged and complete strangle-hold of the middle of the park, despite being up against a team that played three CMs, and come away from the game claiming that one of our two CMs did nothing but hang around outside the box and take pot-shots whenever the ball came near him. That's mental.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
At the end of the day, I don't know how anyone can watch two central midfielders take such a prolonged and complete strangle-hold of the middle of the park, despite being up against a team that played three CMs, and come away from the game claiming that one of our two CMs did nothing but hang around outside the box and take pot-shots whenever the ball came near him. That's mental.
Click to expand...

That's RedCafe. It's RAWK with slightly less phlegm.
 
Come on Pogue, it's not hard to take control of the middle of the park when the opposition's midfield are all playing ahead of you as a line of defenders. They didn't even contest the midfield really. Fletcher - Gibson looked a very pedestrian midfield - that's not to be critical of either player particularly as I thought both performed to expectations. Their attempts at creativity were rare and occasionally hilarious though.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
At the end of the day, I don't know how anyone can watch two central midfielders take such a prolonged and complete strangle-hold of the middle of the park, despite being up against a team that played three CMs, and come away from the game claiming that one of our two CMs did nothing but hang around outside the box and take pot-shots whenever the ball came near him. That's mental.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

Sure, Rangers played three in midfield - nominally. But they did, for instance, what we did against Barcelona a couple of seasons ago at the Camp Nou: concede the midfield and essentially drop the midfielders on top of the back four (in their case, five).

Didn't you see the number of bodies they had centrally right on top of their box?

It was a very effective tactic, and it restricted us to potshots for our best chances of the game.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Here's a shocking concept. How about you back up your own retarded claims?

Failing that, don't make them.
Click to expand...

Here's another shocking concept. How about your do some work instead and prove my 'retarded claim' is false. You're the one with plenty of time on your hands, net ranger Mahone. I already told you how to verify my claim. Instead of doing that you've stayed true to your internet warrior character and responded with petty personal attacks. (Pogue picking an e-fight...shocking!)

My comment was aimed at those who over hyped Gibsons potential and called him the next Keano. I didn't make that up. It's a matter of record. Google it and find out. You chose to answer my post like I was speaking about you directly. Your massive ego and arrogance aside, I wasn't.

Don't get mad cause someone has the temerity to disagree with you. fecking deal with it.
 
Devilton said:
Here's another shocking concept. How about your do some work instead and prove my 'retarded claim' is false. You're the one with plenty of time on your hands, net ranger Mahone. I already told you how to verify my claim. Instead of doing that you've stayed true to your internet warrior character and responded with petty personal attacks. (Pogue picking an e-fight...shocking!)

My comment was aimed at those who over hyped Gibsons potential and called him the next Keano. I didn't make that up. It's a matter of record. Google it and find out. You chose to answer my post like I was speaking about you directly. Your massive ego and arrogance aside, I wasn't.
Click to expand...

Who, exactly? If you can find a single post where anyone claimed anything of the sort, you should have quoted it. Otherwise spare us your straw man arguments.

Don't get mad cause someone has the temerity to disagree with you. fecking deal with it.
Click to expand...

Eh? What are you on about? Are you disagreeing with me now? I thought you said the comment about "the next Keano" wasn't aimed at me?

Don't worry, I'm not mad at all. Just bemused. Weirdo.
 
Dans said:
He's heading towards 23 years of old btw. Hardly a youngster. He's had his chance at United and he's proved very little apart from he can blast the ball a few inches over or wide of the post, often.
Click to expand...
Most CMs and youngsters in general mature when they get to 25. That's when they get their game together and able to produce it consistently. Carrick, Lampard, Fletcher, Schweinsteiger in recent times. I'm not saying Gibson will develop and be as good as those guys, but it's natural for players to improve as they get older. He looks far more comfortable on the ball then Fletcher was at the same stage. He uses the ball better IMO. But he tends to hide away from things, like how Fletcher was in those days. But he won't shy away for too long now. This and next season we will see the progress of him and Ando from a young inconsistent player to something more. In Ando's case, he could really be the 'star' that the muppets and most of us crave for in the middle. Just need Scholes and Giggs to hold on a bit longer and for Carrick to show up.
 
You might have a point - of course it would be fantastic if he does develop and I hope you're right. Nobody WANTS a player to fail, despite what some on here think. What I have seen from him to date though leaves me with the impression that he's another player who Ferguson will have given every chance to prove himself but who just didn't cut it in the end.
 
Come on lads, I mean of course he didn't show world class potential VS Rangers.. Actually no one in our team did... I was wondering why Fabio didn't get the same thread... Fabio is he good enough ???

I'd say their performances were rather the same, a hit and miss but with plenty of positives and just a few negatives..

We all know Gibsons weakness is his off the ball movement, and asking for the ball which people so call basics in football.. But hey it is quite hard with 10 men behind the ball playing very deep and very well organized, was the best defense I've seen in years imo...

The played an ultra defensive tactic against us to gain one point and they succeeded, Gibson was came closest in making us lead 1-0 so I can hardly tell the Negatives from that...

Gibson is no Xavi, No Ineista, No Scholes, No Fabregas, but his shooting potential is still VERY good and we can count on him that if he gets 10 shots on goal, there should be around 1-2 goals that possibly will pop in...

I'm sure he'll work on more with understanding the game and so on, as it is very hard to learn that if your not playing day in and day out.

So judge him what ever you like, but from my eyes, I'd say he's already a good weapon we can use when we want to break up defenses, he's ahead of Carrick in terms of attacking for me...
 
Wan said:
[Bold]Most CMs and youngsters in general mature when they get to 25.[/Bold] That's when they get their game together and able to produce it consistently. Carrick, Lampard, Fletcher, Schweinsteiger in recent times. I'm not saying Gibson will develop and be as good as those guys, but it's natural for players to improve as they get older. He looks far more comfortable on the ball then Fletcher was at the same stage. He uses the ball better IMO. But he tends to hide away from things, like how Fletcher was in those days. But he won't shy away for too long now. This and next season we will see the progress of him and Ando from a young inconsistent player to something more. In Ando's case, he could really be the 'star' that the muppets and most of us crave for in the middle. Just need Scholes and Giggs to hold on a bit longer and for Carrick to show up.
Click to expand...

I think this is wrong, the word generally mature should not be used... it's really up to the styles of play from the footballer and the team he is in...

Was Lampard really super good for Westham playing 4-4-2 ? I thought he lacked discipline and he didn't really look outstanding but his shooting tecnique was always there and once he moved to Chelsea it really shined.

Fabregas to me, was just superb at the age of 18, he's still only 23 now but plays like a Xavi already...

Not to mention Wilshere who is 18 but damn, looks so mature... But I mean Arsenal is Arsenal, however they play they will always have a MF that will make them flow... Denilson looked bad but he was actually decent in most games I've seen, Flamini ? Viera ? Gilberto Silva ? Who actually failed at Arsenal ? Lass ? he just wanted to play and was a wuss complaining every time...

As a United player, of course Scholes has spoilt us for like 15 years as his passing has been ever so phenomenal since i ever started to watch United...

Gibson for me has all the chances to succeed, given the luck and hopes he continuously improves his game... His movment, his passing, his understanding... If he doesn't I'm sure if he gets the right move, gets a good team and if they possibly play 4-3-3, I'm sure Gibson will be a MF who consistently Scores 10 goals a season.
 
RedThaiDevils#7 said:
Come on lads, I mean of course he didn't show world class potential VS Rangers.. Actually no one in our team did... I was wondering why Fabio didn't get the same thread... Fabio is he good enough ???

I'd say their performances were rather the same, a hit and miss but with plenty of positives and just a few negatives..

We all know Gibsons weakness is his off the ball movement, and asking for the ball which people so call basics in football.. But hey it is quite hard with 10 men behind the ball playing very deep and very well organized, was the best defense I've seen in years imo...

The played an ultra defensive tactic against us to gain one point and they succeeded, Gibson was came closest in making us lead 1-0 so I can hardly tell the Negatives from that...

Gibson is no Xavi, No Ineista, No Scholes, No Fabregas, but his shooting potential is still VERY good and we can count on him that if he gets 10 shots on goal, there should be around 1-2 goals that possibly will pop in...

I'm sure he'll work on more with understanding the game and so on, as it is very hard to learn that if your not playing day in and day out.

So judge him what ever you like, but from my eyes, I'd say he's already a good weapon we can use when we want to break up defenses, he's ahead of Carrick in terms of attacking for me...
Click to expand...

If you throw enough shit at a wall some of it is going to stick.

There's no doubting Gibson has a decent shot on him but it's nowhere near as good as some people on here like to make out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.