Darron Gibson - is he good enough for Everton?

He was ill and not fully fit mate, that's why he wasn't played.

He shouldn't have been on the bench then...Bebe travelled to the game.

On the match its self it just reminded me of when we played Burnley away last season. Narrow pitch with 3 in the middle and very little space.

Sir Alex pointed out in his post match interview, that St.Andrews is a hard place to visit as it is narrow. I was surprised when I saw Anderson, Carrick and Gibson all playing, especially as Birmingham also had a 3 men in the middle. There was just no space in there for any of our midfielders to really stamp any authority on the game, it was very conjested. Rooney on the left and Giggs on the right was also hard to watch, both looking to cut in and not really bringing in Evra and Rafael who didn't over lap as much as they usually do.


Hopefully WBA will be more open.
 
Given that your economy is infernally shit, let me be buying the drinks, eh - if we're to have any at all, that is.

(And that, my dear fella, is a 'dig,' unlike anything in my original post - again, you could do worse than make a dictionary your best friend and ally...)

Let me mimic your verbiage and say again, for your clarity, that my 'objection' was to your dismissive reaction to an eminently sensible sentiment - in fact, one that you've yourself spent the better part of the last two pages making...

What's that then? Top Redding? No, I was wrong. It's Top RedCafing is what it is. And the fact of your online persona occupying an incredible amount of your everyday psyche would be the bit where you were pinned down. Denial as they say, flows not only in North Africa. (Actually, maybe they say something else. Bu tyou get the point.)

And I'm not even commenting on the irony of someone who enjoys dishing out playground insults using the word 'juvenile' yet. (Pls refer to the bit about the dictionary above.)


Holy feck, that's one disturbed poster! :eek:
 
The first team selection was okay but the formation was in tatters tbh

i thought the selection led to the malformation. that one simple change with gibson changed the entire set up.

and I would agree - if obertan wasn't fit then don't put him on the bench.

it was like having 9 men out there.
 
i thought the selection led to the malformation. that one simple change with gibson changed the entire set up.

and I would agree - if obertan wasn't fit then don't put him on the bench.

it was like having 9 men out there.

He wasn't injured. He just had flu so would have been on the bench in case of emergency, if we ended up chasing the game as we did against Villa, for example. There's an argument he should have been thrown on after we conceded but meh, there was bugger all time left at that point. He would have been a terrible replacement for Gibson though. That would have just invited more pressure. Obertan's an interesting player but he's gash at ball retention. Not the type of player you want on the pitch when you're trying to close out a game.
 
Look at the ratings, there's only one person who thought Gibson outperformed Anderson. I actually think people are rating Gibson more favourably because of his age and inexperience, not rating him poorly because of some kinf of conspiracy. The O'Shea stuff is the same, people don't just randomly make people scapegoats, they watch the games and call it as they see it.

I don't think some of them do though, repeatedly saying the same old stuff like he can't pass for shite & is practically invisible in games etc is getting a bit sickening, especially when a blind man can see that he is better or no worse than those around him the majority of the time.

Fans lining up a player to be a scapegoat a hour before kick off & before the lad has even kicked a ball its a sad state of affairs on their behalf.

When someone singles Gibson out & says he can't pass a ball for shit on the back of a game & the stats say Gibson was on a par if not better than those around him it sort of says they haven't a clue what the feck they are on about.
 
Anderson is still very inconsistent, you never know what you're going to get with the lad

I'd agree HOWEVER this season he's developed a basic level of competence so that even if he is playing a poor game, he's still managing a 5-6. So there is consistency in that he's never playing a 2-3 any more. It's building and I for one thought he played well last night given the circumstances.

Gibson was left wanting yet again in my opinion.
 
nothing against gibson but we should of sticked to 442 with a natural wide man in obertan, but he got a chance gibson and sad to see besides the pass he did not even get in the game. Didnt even see him shoot like normal
 
He wasn't injured. He just had flu so would have been on the bench in case of emergency, if we ended up chasing the game as we did against Villa, for example. There's an argument he should have been thrown on after we conceded but meh, there was bugger all time left at that point. He would have been a terrible replacement for Gibson though. That would have just invited more pressure. Obertan's an interesting player but he's gash at ball retention. Not the type of player you want on the pitch when you're trying to close out a game.

not after we conceded but maybe a bit before , hell if nothing more than to get it a bit more width. i just hate rooney out wide , takes away from the whole 11 players. that's why I posted it was like we had 9 men out there.

but I agree after that went in no point really. I would have liked to see fresh legs in nearer the end to chase and harass.
 
nothing against gibson but we should of sticked to 442 with a natural wide man in obertan, but he got a chance gibson and sad to see besides the pass he did not even get in the game. Didnt even see him shoot like normal

Sorry, but this really, really, really gets on my wick.

It is should HAVE not should OF!!!!

Have: a verb. Transitive. Used in this sense to denote being in a certain state (i.e. being stuck in a 4-4-2)

Of: a preposition. Prepositions are generally used to denote a relation between nouns and other nouns, or between nouns and verbs; e.g. he is ahead of her.
 
Sorry, but this really, really, really gets on my wick.

It is should HAVE not should OF!!!!

Have: a verb. Transitive. Used in this sense to denote being in a certain state (i.e. being stuck in a 4-4-2)

Of: a preposition. Prepositions are generally used to denote a relation between nouns and other nouns, or between nouns and verbs; e.g. he is ahead of her.

We should of put this as a sticky in every forum.
 
I don't think some of them do though, repeatedly saying the same old stuff like he can't pass for shite & is practically invisible in games etc is getting a bit sickening, especially when a blind man can see that he is better or no worse than those around him the majority of the time.

Fans lining up a player to be a scapegoat a hour before kick off & before the lad has even kicked a ball its a sad state of affairs on their behalf.

When someone singles Gibson out & says he can't pass a ball for shit on the back of a game & the stats say Gibson was on a par if not better than those around him it sort of says they haven't a clue what the feck they are on about.

If you look at the man of the match thread I think the converse is true. I think people want to be controversial and so chose Gibson as one of the best players on the night when in reality everyone knows he was one of the worse (3-4 people thought he was in the top 3 and 1 even thought he was the best player on the night, complete delusion).

Either way he seems to split opinion, it seems to me like the realists see that he had an exceptionally poor game, whilst the standard group of people that always refuse to acknowledge that a player is/was totally useless chose to try and intentionally create friction on the Cafe by trying to say the opposite of what they know is true.

Also stats mean absolutely nothing in this situation, any idiot could predict that Anderson would have a lower pass quantity and completion % (in probably every game) because he is a totally different player who rarely passes backward and tries a lot more cutting passes which on another day could have won us the game (it was one of those days for Anderson that despite all his effort absolutely nothing came off).
 
If you look at the man of the match thread I think the converse is true. I think people want to be controversial and so chose Gibson as one of the best players on the night when in reality everyone knows he was one of the worse (3-4 people thought he was in the top 3 and 1 even thought he was the best player on the night, complete delusion).

Either way he seems to split opinion, it seems to me like the realists see that he had an exceptionally poor game, whilst the standard group of people that always refuse to acknowledge that a player is/was totally useless chose to try and intentionally create friction on the Cafe by trying to say the opposite of what they know is true.

Also stats mean absolutely nothing in this situation, any idiot could predict that Anderson would have a lower pass quantity and completion % (in probably every game) because he is a totally different player who rarely passes backward and tries a lot more cutting passes which on another day could have won us the game (it was one of those days for Anderson that despite all his effort absolutely nothing came off).

You're not a "realist"! You have no objective understanding of football if you think Anderson played better than Gibson last night. Who promoted you? All you seem to do is "intentionally create friction on the Cafe" yourself!
 
Er... Strange rant, seeing as the post you were responding to wasn't trying to justify his place in our squad. I was simply pointing out the annoyance of a young player being consistently scape-goated whether or not the dropped points were anything to do with his own failings. He's being accused in this thread of creating nothing all game. This is patently bollox as he linked up nicely with Berbatov to create a goal. Something no other United player could manage on the night.

Gibson did ok last night but tired towards the end. That may be because, I dunno, he hasn't played a game of football in months? Unfortunately his midfield partner, who should be a lot fitter, got the hook half an hour before the end after a dire display and Fergue had no other midfielders on the bench. This is all Darron Gibson's fault, apparently. It's also his fault we dropped points. It's all Gibson's fault you see. It always is.

As for squad places, there will always be a place in our squad for one or two home-grown players who might or might not develop into a useful and loyal squad player, despite not being as talented as their more illustrious peers. I have no problem with this, although the lack of opportunities for Gibson this season would imply Gibson won't get a place next season. I've no problem with that either. I don't think he's good enough, personally, as I've always thought he only had an outside chance of a long career at United. I'm glad he's been given a fair crack of the whip though and got one more season on the back of some decent performances last season, while providing a goal threat from range that nobody else in our squad possesses.

He'll probably be off in the summer and the fans who love a scape-goat can get their knives out for another youngster instead. That's the way they roll. It's all about the blame game.

Have to agree with Pogue here, what frustrates people here is that Gibson yet again delivered at the business end of things again yet his performance was "terrible". It's crank idealism to nitpick the absence of the effective out of the presence of aesthetics.

Let's talk about his involvement in the United goal.

The movement for the goal Darron Gibson was involved from start to finish:

Edwin took a short goal kick to Evra ... who passed to Gibson in a deep position who played it wide to Rafael.... who passed it to Carrick who passed it to Giggs centrally who passed it to Berbatov who was just outside the centre circle who passed it to Gibson just on the right side of the middle third of the pitch, who played it straight to Berbatov who got into the box and finished it.

The movement wasn't that great, indeed the movement for the Birmingham goal was fantastic by comparison ... yet it got the job done.

I won't say that Gibson wasn't beyond fault for the Birmingham goal but if you look logically at the movement, from flank to flank, anyone from Fletcher, Gibson, Carrick, Giggs and the forward two who could've been back defending could've done better while Birmingham were passing left right and centre across midfield. A cross that Evra didn't stop and which Rafael didn't clear as Hleb and Bowyer were giving them the run around ... and perhaps Vida, Rio and Edwin could've done more to prevent Zigic and Bowyer doing the damage in the box ... even though they were offside and they did cheat a little. Basically United had been exposed in every area come the end, and were unlucky to conceed.

There was probably a level of fatigue, but Birmingham were allowed to keep the ball for a good spell of 2 minutes and they managed to punish United for it. The sad reality is that even the more favoured players are going to give the ball away after all that.

Part of the reason why people want to cynically attack Gibson for the Birmingham goal was because ironically he was the last United person to touch the ball before the goal, when his misplaced pass was claimed/saved by Ben Foster... but it's rather juvenile to blame him for a goal that happened two minutes later particularly a move where the ball was played all the way back to Ben Foster half way through it.

The only United player who didn't have a bad pass or misplaced shot was Darren Fletcher. The other twelve players from Edwin to Chichorito gave away possession, and often closer to their own goal than to the opposition's goal.

United do need to work on defending leads, you have three players in Gibson, Carrick and Fletcher all three of whom, are considered "defensive players" and all their attempts to pressurise the opposition counter-attack, which essentially this goal was appeared uneffective. Perhaps United do need a specialist/orthodox defensive midfielder rather than an intermediate, someone who can read when the game is swinging the other way and can make interventions and organise the midfield á lá Keane or Hargreaves.

The fact is attacking individuals for a team responsibility, is equally so.
 
You're not a "realist"! You have no objective understanding of football if you think Anderson played better than Gibson last night. Who promoted you? All you seem to do is "intentionally create friction on the Cafe" yourself!

All I would say is have a look at all the websites that allow fans to rate the players to create a mean average, Anderson is rated higher than Gibson on all of them.

I'm sick of replying in this thread as all my points have been made and we're just going in circles, we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
All I would say is have a look at all the websites that allow fans to rate the players to create a mean average, Anderson is rated higher than Gibson on all of them.

I'm sick of replying in this thread as all my points have been made and we're just going in circles, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'd rather trust the judgement of Sir Alex Ferguson than 'fans' thank you very much. If Ferguson decides Gibson was good enough to merit another chance in the next game then that's fine by me, if Red Cafe has taught me one thing it's that there are a lot of football fans who seem to think they know best when in reality they know feck all.
 
why didn't we buy Van der Vaart? were we even interested?

Without changing our system, or preventing Anderson from getting regular playing time, where would VdV have fitted in for us?

I think Fergie was/is well within his rights to feel that the likes of Nani and Valencia are his first choice attacking players on the flanks. And Anderson is coming strong in the centre of the park. We don't really play the split striker system, so he wouldn't have fitted in here without a change in tactics. Sure he could have played in the hole when we play 4-4-2, but I'm more than happy with a Rooney-Berbatov pair there.

In my opinion, we sometimes enviously cast glances at other squads and don't appreciate the quality and depth of options we have here.

At the risk of coming across Scholesyesque, if there is a Spurs player that I think would fit in absolutely beautifully here, it is Luka Modric.
 
Without changing our system, or preventing Anderson from getting regular playing time, where would VdV have fitted in for us?
The left flank. Nani down the right:drool:

In my opinion, we sometimes enviously cast glances at other squads and don't appreciate the quality and depth of options we have here.
Indeed

At the risk of coming across Scholesyesque, if there is a Spurs player that I think would fit in absolutely beautifully here, it is Luka Modric.
Yea. The lad is very ''mode rich'':D
 
is darron gibson good enough? - well if you look at his status with the club , 5th choice ctr mid , i'd say at this point yes. look at other clubs and who they have as 5th choice and compare.
 
And discard Valencia after a cracking first season? That makes sense.
Who said anything about discarding Valencia? I was asked how RVDV would have fitted in our team. Not who he'd start games ahead of. Besides, that is just one of the ways he'd fit in. We'd have been able to play him in 4-3-3 instead of men like Gibson and at times in a 4-4-2. There's little doubt that Spurs man would have been good for us if we had been interested. Having him around would never have meant discarding a Valencia.
 
VDV is pretty versatile so I think he'd fit into almost every system, obviously he wouldn't play every game but who does at United:

4-5-1 with him playing behind a lone striker (Berbatov doesn't play lone striker great so VDV would play behind Rooney with any 4 from Carrick/Park/Fletcher/Scholes/Giggs/Nani/Anderson in midfield)

4-4-2 at Old Trafford with him playing a free role behind Rooney/Berbatov or moving in from the left (with a more industrious midfield 3 such as Valencia/Park/Anderson/Fletcher or Carrick).

The only time I think he wouldn't really fit in is when we play 4-4-2 against a tough team since I don't think we could afford to have two strikers and VDV playing, but in all fairness we rarely do this nowadays so.

It wouldn't be the case of dropping anyone, plus with the imminent retiree's it wouldn't be the worse thing in the world having an extra attacking midfielder in the squad. Have we "discarded" Park because of Valencia? No.
 
i dont think that he is manchester united quality, i hope that he can prove me wrong but at the moment besides his shooting talent their is not a lot more to his games
 
good match for the lad today.

he's good enough for this squad.

however with the new squad rules and whatnot, i can't see him getting the 100+ games it took fletch.

To better his career, I can see him asking for a move.
 
Was better than Obertan, that's for sure. Coming on as a sub doesn't suit him in some ways because he's more considered and less explosive. And he's definitely not a winger. But he did a good shift today.
 
He had a superb pass which put Hernandez through on goal; unfortunately the keeper came out and collected it. It would have been a cracker though.
 
I thought he did well when he came on, didn't stop some tossers in the match thread criticising the odd small error though.