This forum exists to debate things. Now if a player really stands out as having very little talent, then it's not really wrong to say that. Fergie likes to have players in the first team who deeply understand what the club is all about and of course at the same time are good at football. Players like Oshea and Brown have contributed a lot to our recent successes and there are many such examples. Question is whether Gibson can be that sort of squad player for a number of years because we'll always need that. I don't see it personally, he seems a very ordinary footballer, but Fergie obviously either sees something or is giving him chances to see whether there is something so lets hope for the best.
Darron Gibson - is he good enough for Everton?
- Thread starter Name Changed
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
there is no problem with his attitude - if there was he wouldn't be getting games and would be most likely shipped out somewhere until we get a transfer sorted
I think the comparisons with fletcher are because Darren really developed in terms of influence - fletcher always had the raw materials though
i'm not sure gibson has the raw material to cut it at united - He's very average in his passing/shooting but his downfall for me is his lack of mobility which you dont exactly develop
gibson is 23 isn't he? he's a bit old to develop the way we want
I think the comparisons with fletcher are because Darren really developed in terms of influence - fletcher always had the raw materials though
i'm not sure gibson has the raw material to cut it at united - He's very average in his passing/shooting but his downfall for me is his lack of mobility which you dont exactly develop
gibson is 23 isn't he? he's a bit old to develop the way we want
I've said it a lot in this thread. I find it to be the main reason for him not to be able to cut the jib right here. He always seems angry. Everytime the referee calls a foul on him or someone close to him he goes mental.
He's often lazy in tracking back after making meaningless straighforward runs. Translation: He doesn't give 100%. If he is giving 100% then it's really his abilities that should be questioned.
Here we go again.Let's see who bites
I'm sorry snow but I don't see the connection with being angry at refereeing decisions and work ethic.
All footballers get annoyed at refs.
All footballers get annoyed at refs.
No not all players. Not for small meaningless things that you know you were in the wrong off. Only the stupid/angry ones are like that. Just look at his play and demeanor. You just don't see any playfulness or joy in the man. It's really annoying watching footballers who don't enjoy themselves.
So he doesn't play with a smile on his face....good basis for criticism.
I don't recall Keane smiling much either but I guess he was simply being professional.
Play with a smile on his face? The stick that chap gets is unbelievable. He's not dumb deaf and blind, I'm fairly sure he is aware of the stick he gets from his own supporters.
I think some people are obsessed with the idea of the first 11 and are always comparing Gibson on the basis of could he be a regular fixture in a first 11. There are a handful of players that are guaranteed a starting spot at United, it's a squad game (especially in the middle where heavy rotation is needed). I don't think anybody (and if there is they are the minority) are advocating that Gibson is the future of our midfield.
But what I and many other are asking in this thread is to let the bloke have a chance to prove that he could be a squad player in a game that is extremely dependent on squad players. If we were to get rid of Gibson now we might get between 7-9 million quid, we will never get a player for that money that will be happy to fill the gaps when needed.
I think some people are obsessed with the idea of the first 11 and are always comparing Gibson on the basis of could he be a regular fixture in a first 11. There are a handful of players that are guaranteed a starting spot at United, it's a squad game (especially in the middle where heavy rotation is needed). I don't think anybody (and if there is they are the minority) are advocating that Gibson is the future of our midfield.
But what I and many other are asking in this thread is to let the bloke have a chance to prove that he could be a squad player in a game that is extremely dependent on squad players. If we were to get rid of Gibson now we might get between 7-9 million quid, we will never get a player for that money that will be happy to fill the gaps when needed.
I'm never quite sure how serious Snow is being. He apparently makes a lving as a football journalist so surely can't be as clueless as he often comes across.
Don't think his football knowledge is in question but the assertion that footballers aren't enjoying themselves simply based on a subjective observation is a tad silly.
A tad?
The bit where he implies that "always being angry" is some kind of fundamental flaw which negatively affects Gibson's performances on the pitch is one of the daftest things I've ever read on here.
I disagree, I think there are many players between £7-9m that would be happy to fill the gaps we need. Given that these "gaps" would earn them 20-30~ games a season and a great chance of a trophy at the end (although I don't think Gibson will go for anywhere near £7-9m). In addition filling this "gap" well may lead to a consistant place in one of the best teams in the world, a great proposition for most players. In fact I think we have a few players already at the club who would do a better job just for their wage packet.
For one Charlie Adam might just be interested in that
Not too sure about that. Wasn't there a problem with him at Wolves when he went on loan there?
What about when Smalling over-hit a diagonal against Blackpool the other night, and Gibson belted it into the stands, instead of at least acknowledging to his teammate that it was a good idea?
I would much prefer to see a United player get angry with himself at two nil down to Blackpool than I would to see him have a big laugh and joke like his performance is alright for this club. He tried to make something happen and it wasn't working so he got frustrated.
Wayne Rooney is the exact same, as is Roy Keane and many others.
It is a necessity to succeed at a big club. Look when Javier Hernandez scored the second to tie the game up and he let the moment get to him a bit and started running about celebrating and kissing the badge, when the camera pans to Giggsy you can see him shouting at him to get the ball and get up the pitch. If Darron Gibson is being too hard on himself or not focusing on the game as much as he should be you have players like Giggs, Scholes and Neville about, who have all the experience in the world, and know exactly how to turn that frustration/inexperience into the right results.
It would be much more worrying if a player here walked about lifeless when we were getting beat as if it didn't bother him. I can't see any problems with his attitude in this regard.
I'm not a journalist no. My work does include football and I have both played it and watch it from more than a fan perspective in many many years.
I'm not always 100% serious though, you've got that right. But weather I'm wrong or not Gibson just doesn't look like everything in his head is in complete focus when he's playing. It either isn't or he just looks like that because he isn't good enough.
If he isn't good enough he can get better but it's harder to sort out his head if he hasn't in this point in his career having grown up pretty much in Manchester's academy.
So you reckon Charlie a lad thats playing week in week out for a club & could continue to do that for the majority of clubs in the Premier League would be happy to exchange that & come here to play 2nd fiddle to the likes of Fletcher, Carrick, Anderson & co. I doubt it & i doubt he'd be got for 7-9 million quid either, not where Holloway is concerned.
A tad?
The bit where he implies that "always being angry" is some kind of fundamental flaw which negatively affects Gibson's performances on the pitch is one of the daftest things I've ever read on here.
Not that kind of angry. Keane was passionate and gives 100%. Gibson doesn't give 100% and gets angry for nothing. Not just at the ref but as team mates as well. Like against Blackpool when there was a long ball from Carrick (?) to the left flank. He just gave up the last meters and didn't try to get his feet to the ball even though he was right at it. Got angry at the passer yet it was obvious him not getting the ball was in large part due to him not trying hard enough.
I don't think you've got the right to be angry like he does at team mates who have done so much more than you have and keep doing so much more.
Bullshit. Gibson has started 3 league games so far this season. A season in which Hargreaves has played a grand total of 6 minutes football, while Scholes, Carrick, Giggs, Anderson and Fletcher have all spent varying amounts of time out injured.
How many players worth that kind of fee would be happy to have such a marginal role in our squad?
More to the point, why on earth should we spend that kind of money on a player who will feature so infrequently?
Amazing. You've just made up a whole bunch of stuff completely out of thin air. How the feck do you know what was going through Gibson's mind in any of those scenarios?
Stick to writing about football, mate, your mind-reading skills leave a lot to be desired.
Did you watch the game? It's not about mind reading. It's about comparing the runner who is running and then slows down compared to the speed of the ball.
He lashes out at a team mate every game he plays. That's not a good quality to have. Why would you do that? Because you have a short fuse. Seriously, watch that feature specifically next game he starts. I'm not the only one who has spotted this. It's also been mentioned by others.
I've played with a lot of people who have acted like that. Difference between Gibson and them is that they had growing up to do. One of the played with every youth international teams and has now quite football.
Comparing him to our former club captain is not right. Compare him rather to Rafael if anything.
He lashes out at a team mate every game he plays. That's not a good quality to have. Why would you do that? Because you have a short fuse. Seriously, watch that feature specifically next game he starts. I'm not the only one who has spotted this. It's also been mentioned by others.
I've played with a lot of people who have acted like that. Difference between Gibson and them is that they had growing up to do. One of the played with every youth international teams and has now quite football.
Comparing him to our former club captain is not right. Compare him rather to Rafael if anything.
Gibson was ok in a two-man midfield against Birmingham City.
He was poor in a three-man midfield against Blackpool.
It isn't his fault that the team was lacking a proper winger on the left and lacking a second striker up top with Berbatov. I agree that Gibson has looked poor, but without the width that Giggs provided in the second half the spaces for Gibson to shoot won't appear.
My concern has been that Gibson has looked slow defensively and unimaginative in his distribution when in a two man central midfield partnership where the team depends upon him to provide good passes and to defend.
Against Birmingham City he made some incisive passes and was not exposed defensively which gave me some encouragement that he is developing into a player who can be relied upon. But, of course, it was a Birmingham team that lacked any punch in the goalscoring department and who are desperately trying to find someone like Kenny Miller or Robbie Keane to give them some threat going forward. Without that threat it is difficult to tell whether Gibson only flattered to deceive against lesser opposition or whether he would be able to cut it in a 4-4-2 with two proper wingers (with apologies to Rooney's excellent work on the wing when called for).
He was poor in a three-man midfield against Blackpool.
It isn't his fault that the team was lacking a proper winger on the left and lacking a second striker up top with Berbatov. I agree that Gibson has looked poor, but without the width that Giggs provided in the second half the spaces for Gibson to shoot won't appear.
My concern has been that Gibson has looked slow defensively and unimaginative in his distribution when in a two man central midfield partnership where the team depends upon him to provide good passes and to defend.
Against Birmingham City he made some incisive passes and was not exposed defensively which gave me some encouragement that he is developing into a player who can be relied upon. But, of course, it was a Birmingham team that lacked any punch in the goalscoring department and who are desperately trying to find someone like Kenny Miller or Robbie Keane to give them some threat going forward. Without that threat it is difficult to tell whether Gibson only flattered to deceive against lesser opposition or whether he would be able to cut it in a 4-4-2 with two proper wingers (with apologies to Rooney's excellent work on the wing when called for).
No
Yes
But possibly maybe too...
I reckon he'd be into winning trophies every year.
This is the type of shit that really gets my goat on here. So Gibson only performed well because ''it was just Birmingham''....
Why is it so hard for people on here to give credit where it is due?In 06/07 he played in five champions league matches, starting two of them. He didn't get to play in the later stages because we were knocked out in the group stage. Whilst he never started in a quarter final, the majority of Richardson's champions league appearances have been in matches that mattered. Most of Gibson's few appearances have been in dead rubbers.
He also started three times against Liverpool that season. (Twice in the league, once in the cup).
Overall (excluding the league cup) he played in 31 matches in 06/07 starting 18. Last season (excl league cup) Gibson played in 20 matches starting 10 of them.
Clearly, at a similar stage in their careers, Richardson was playing in a higher number of important matches than Gibson has been.
Richardson (81 apps), Bellion (40), Djemba-Djemba (39) Chadwick (39), Miller (22) Eagles (17) and Bardsley (18)
Not all of them were "shit" but none of them proved to be good enough.
Yes he is. See above.
Obviously he thinks Gibson (47 appearances) has a chance of making it.
But he also must have thought Richardson(81), Miller (22), Bellion (40), Djemba-Djemba (39) Chadwick (39), Eagles (17) and Bardsley (18) had a chance of making it.
Gibson starting that CL game against Bayern isn't as big a deal as you make out. Anderson and Hargreaves were injured. Scholes and Giggs had played against Chelsea a few days earlier so were unlikely to start. It would have been Scholes fourth start in 12 days; that was never going to happen. Who was Gibson actually starting ahead of? Park maybe? Park had also played against Chelsea, quite poorly in his case and looked very tired. From that point on he didn't start a game for the rest of the season. Also counting against Park and Giggs is that we played the match with two out and out wingers in Nani and Valencia so they may not have suited our formation.
So Gibson was not really starting ahead of anyone significant and Fergie probably fancied Gibson for this match because his one obvious major talent would be handy if Bayern decided to park the bus to protect their lead
Clearly Fergie sometimes does actually need quite a few matches to make up his mind about a young player. The ones who have shaky starts sometimes come good (Fletcher and ?) but more often they don't (Richardson, Bellion, Djemba-Djemba, Chadwick, Miller, Eagles, Bardsley).
The notion that Fergie sometimes takes a lot of games to decide if a player is going to make it isn't "laughable" at all. Based on past form it looks to be a fact.
1. Richardson never started in a single match as important as that Bayern game for us in the champions league.
2. Richardson never succeed at any point in taking the place of a bonafide starter fora significant period.
We could have easily played 4-4-2 instead of starting a Gibson. After all we were at home. To suggest his start was of no consequence or was by default because others were injured or tired is just clutching at straws.
Furthermore from that Bayern game till the end of that season Gibson took over Carrick's place in our starting sides.
The fact is SAF value the player way more than a lot of you. & way more than he values a lot of the fellas you mentioned.
What are you talking about? Gibson started once after that Bayern game, v City.
I don't think he is good enough for us, no.
It will be interesting to see if he gets a contract extension in the summer as he is into his last 18 months.
Yes he is good enough for us. You don't need to be a world class superstar to have a place in a squad.
He's played 11 times for us this season, by the end of the season that'll be between 20 and 30 games as I said. If someone came in they would be made aware that Giggs and Scholes only have one year left and that will give them a fantastic opportunity at regular football (if they are good enough).
I think you are overestimating what you can buy for £7-9m (again not that Gibson will fetch anything like this fee), it'd be a slightly more established Bebe type player with potential but still raw.
Finally I also said we wouldn't need to spend that kind of money because we already have players that play in a similar position that look to have far more promise (costing nothing).
Well I've always said he's a decent squad player who can do a job against the lesser teams, whether he wants to have that role for us or whether he wants regular football remains to be seen. But if he wants the latter then a mid-table club is his level.
Just the Chief making stuff up again.
Yeah, but nobody knows what he wants whether he demands regular football or whether he is happy to continue to learn and progress in a squad role because he knows there are better players currently in that position. It's just the Caf with the old 'if you're not a world class superstar you're not good enough to be in the Manchester United squad' which is a pathetically laughable viewpoint.
I think you are wrong on this one Chief.
I think SAF have no choice then to play Gibbo when we have so much injuries, and a crocked Hargreaves.
If you look at it from a neutral perspective United's midfield is weak. At this moment only Carrick and Ando is performing as expected. Fletcher is playing below his normal level, Scholes is OK when fit but against top teams his legs is not with him.
That means SAF has to rotate with four to five players. This week Carrick is out, Ando's knee is not fully OK and Scholes only played one game after latest injure.
Under normal circumstances Gibbo wouldn't be near a starting line if everybody was fit, remember that we have been without Hargo for over two season's. I expect us to have at least one, probably two (maybe three) new midfielder next season. That leave's Darron Gibson and Sir Alex with a difficult choice.
If Gibson isn't good enough to play more than a couple of games with so much injuries he can't expect more in the future, if he not improve his game.
I'm talking about our squads for the last games of that season. Carrick appeared 2 times again after that Bayern game, with Gibson either taking his place on either the bench or the pitch.
. I have little doubt SAF values Gibson more than he valued the likes of Richardson and Bellion. If that make me wrong so be it.
Gibson himself has been injured this season. For a good while too.
This season Gibson has been as affected with injuries the rest of our other midfielder's not named Hargreaves.