Just wish he put away his chance from outside the box for Ireland vs France. Was easier than either of the two he scored against Tottenham.
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?!
with more games under his belt his 'footballing brain' is expected to improve but i cannot see him being more dynamic at 25 than he is at 22
If my post was slightly misleading than yours is very misleading. Carrick had just turned 25 when he joined United. (He was 24 in his last season at Spurs and at the 2006 World Cup).
Carrick also joined Spurs in 2004 so he was 22/23 at the time.
As for claiming Gibson is already at Huddlestone's level: either that's overrating Gibson's current level of ability or underrating Huddlestone... Probably a combination of the two.
Can you see Gibson becoming more than a first choice player at a club like Spurs? I can't. Hence me saying he'll do well to reach Huddlestone's level.
There are more failures and there are more good signings. Talk about finding a reason to pull out the top red shit.
Well you might try and find a better reason to criticise the manager than to bring up Ralph Milne. Have you actually been watching Utd for the last few years?
As for your 1st statement.It really beggars belief! You need to get back to supporting City
Couldn't disagree more. He has all the natural physical and technical attributes to be twice the player Fletcher could ever be, but his problem is mental. He's got a similar mentality to Carrick in that he's more of a follower than a leader, and he has also been known in the past to be a bit of a slacker.
That goal was my favourite of the two. Just passes it past the keeper, and puts enough air and width on the ball to give him no chance. Sign of a proper finisher that. Plenty players would just blast it in the general direction of the goal in that situation
When will people learn? Why on earth should he not improve? Where is it written that players peak at 21 and it's downhill from there? Have you not seen Fletcher this season? He's playing better than ever.
Yes you're right about joining ages, my bad.
But still, Carrick was not "on the verge of an £18m move" nor was their any indication of him being so in the near future. Spurs bought him for about £3m. I'd say that's what Gibson is worth now.
No, they are both at similar stages of their career, although Huddlestone is slightly older and has had far more first team experience. They are of a similar ability. Huddlestone is really nothing special and looks out of place in a Spurs side with aspirations of Europe (as would Gibson at this time). Gibson most probably will exceed Huddlestone's ability due to the fact, as Pogue put it so well, Huddlestone is a built like a WWE wrestler.
This was mentioned in another thread, but i think some people's conception of players has been misconstrued by the wonderkids. If someone isn't tearing teams apart at the age of 18 they aren't going to make it. Which is just not true and a completely unfair way to look at a player. Those types of player are few and far between, your normal player will take a few years of experience to get to a good level, Fletcher of course being the prime example. Carrick learnt his trade in the championship and progressed with his years at Tottenham, Vidic and Evra both had years of experience behind them before moving to a top European club (no offence to Monaco and Spartak).
I think you underestimate Fletchers physical prowess, his energy, stamina, strength, pace & agility is what he has always had ..what was lacking was the quality and discipline in his game.
Gibson is better than Fletch of old, technically but its physically not necessarily mentally where he is found wanting. His reaction speeds, ability to run and move into space and just constantly be alert and ready to recieve the ball is all a by product of him being quite a big lad and not a great athlete at that.
His journey if he wants to make it as a regular will be similar to Fletch but in reverse, wheras Fletch has developed alot technically i.e. hitting more long range passes, running past players, through balls, gibson has to enhance his physical attributes in order to showcase his technical ability.
I'm sure the likes of Xabi Alonso for instance are not that much faster than Darron, so I'm sure he can adapt his game in order to compensate for the aforementioned weaknesses.
I disagree.
As I say, United play 442 which requires the central midfielders to be more than a poor mans Frank Lampard. The defensive side of the game needs to be there and the ability to keep possession needs to be there too. I think Gibson lacks in these aspects.
Sure look at Scholes - he had to adapt his game to play 442, and he is a far better player than Gibson will ever be - and more of a goal threat at that age too imo.
I have seen him play for Ireland too - and apart from his ability to hit a cracking shot, he has never impressed me.
I do think he can be a usefull player for us, to bring on for the last 20 or so in those irritating 0-0 games where the opposition are camped in the box. Those games are made for him imo - and his ability and willingness to shoot from distance would force the opposition to push out to him too.
Gibson isn't the type of player who can make a poor team look good, as the case is with ireland. It's similar to Lampards time for england before Capello took over, why?
Well because if you watch the Chelsea years under mourinho and before Hiddink took over, Lampard literally didn't have much of a say in the 'running of a game'.. he would just his the occasional long pass and keep it neat and tidy, his game was geared totally for getting in and around the box and getting goals. Lazy midfielder but just the type of midfielder Chelsea could afford to have due to them being so strong with a 4-5-1 and the players at their disposal.
Yet when Lamps played for England he looked distinctly mediocre and was unable to exert any dominance on proceedings.. why? because no one around him to make him look good and his talents weren't being exploited.
Gibson I feel will be similar, put into a strong lineup and asked to shoot and get goals, he'll be successful..but asked to run a team and be the mainstay and playmaker of a team he'll struggle.
Well because if you watch the Chelsea years under mourinho and before Hiddink took over, Lampard literally didn't have much of a say in the 'running of a game'.. he would just his the occasional long pass and keep it neat and tidy, his game was geared totally for getting in and around the box and getting goals. Lazy midfielder but just the type of midfielder Chelsea could afford to have due to them being so strong with a 4-5-1 and the players at their disposal.
Yet when Lamps played for England he looked distinctly mediocre and was unable to exert any dominance on proceedings.. why? because no one around him to make him look good and his talents weren't being exploited.
Gibson I feel will be similar, put into a strong lineup and asked to shoot and get goals, he'll be successful..but asked to run a team and be the mainstay and playmaker of a team he'll struggle.
I can see him being a bit part player for Spurs, which is what Huddlestone's been up until now.
More top red stuff, bravo!
I think you'll find I've been on this site for quite some time and everyone knows who I support. I'll aslo add that not once have I ever mentioned getting rid of SAF. I've often praised the man for his greatness. So come off the high horse. No one's perfect.
Get a grip.
I felt Gibson was quite anonymous against Spurs. Other than scoring two goals of course. Which is pretty much how I've felt about him in most matches he's played. He has a fantastic shot on him, but otherwise there's not really anything about him that says Utd-quality player to me.
Spurs were completely dominant in the middle of the park most of the match. We rarely even attempted to pass it through there, Gibson and Anderson weren't making themselves available so our defenders generally just hoofed it up to the strikers or Obertan. That all changed when Carrick came on and started doing what the other two should've been doing all along - making himself available and actually controlling the team around, the most important thing for a midfielder to be doing. It was amazing the difference he made, the instant he came on we simply took control of the match.
Spurs were completely dominant in the middle of the park most of the match. We rarely even attempted to pass it through there, Gibson and Anderson weren't making themselves available so our defenders generally just hoofed it up to the strikers or Obertan. That all changed when Carrick came on and started doing what the other two should've been doing all along - making himself available and actually controlling the team around, the most important thing for a midfielder to be doing. It was amazing the difference he made, the instant he came on we simply took control of the match.
His long range shooting from midfield is something we do not have right now, so honestly if that is his special skill, he's worth keeping at the club.
On top of that he has a good long range pass as well, though he needs to learn to distribute the ball a bit quicker.
I'm assuming that's a TV view point. Live told a very different story. All the midfield were constantly available and wanting the ball. Gibson did a WHOLE lot more than just score. Just had a look for some pass completion stats for Gibson but couldnt find any. He and Anderson were very involved and covered a lot of ground, with and without the ball.
I thought Gibson did a lot more than just score but that last paragraph is true. I'm not sure Gibson is to blame for the problems in midfield beforehand though. When Carrick came on it was Gisbon that linked up the most with him, while Anderson ran amok making those marauding runs he does so well.
In fact, Gibson has always looked decent alongside Carrick and generally looks solid enough with a more senior partner, while Anderson's lack of intelligent movement has cause problems for most of our midfielders, not least Paul Scholes (on numerous occasions)
This is not to say Anderson isn't potentially a much better player than Gibson (before the the usual suspects jump down my throat) it's just that his lack of discipline has often made his partner look worse than they actually are and Gibson would be more vulnerable to this than most (seeing as he's nowhere near as good as, for example, Scholes).
These are direct quotes from an interview recently with Fletcher:
''I love the challenge of playing against the best players in the world. Lampard is the one who stands out in the Premiership. His movement is outstanding for such a big lad.
'He’s fit, runs all day, but if you turn your back and he gets blindside of you he’s gone. You have to be so aware of him for the whole game, concentrating 100 per cent.
'You can’t watch the ball; you have to watch the player. Lose your concentration and switch off and he will punish you.
'When we play against Chelsea, the manager asks me to get against him and stop him. Stop those runs into the box. I’ve managed to do that.'
So can Gibson make it ? I can't believe some of the post being made, I was wondering if they were actually watching the match...
He did defensively alot better than he usually does, tracked back alot, help G.Neville out a RB quite well, played the right passes at the right time, hardly gave the ball away and scored 2 fecking glorious goals. I thought he's performance was flawless for a MF who had hardly any chances. Why does it always come to comparing other players/ other teams. FFS, Messi didn't show anything for his Argentina side so why are we comparing Gibson in a medicore Ireland squad.
The lad has just put up a top notch performance lads, so let's back him to get more chances FFS not say that he wouldn't make it to a Spurs side that actually lost to us.
To be fair, I hardly recognized Spurs MF that they, Gibson/Anderson made way more interceptions and good passes than Spurs every did.
P.S.
If Anderson can cut those silly 50yrd through balls and just play it a bit simple, he'll get a lot more credit.
He did defensively alot better than he usually does, tracked back alot, help G.Neville out a RB quite well, played the right passes at the right time, hardly gave the ball away and scored 2 fecking glorious goals. I thought he's performance was flawless for a MF who had hardly any chances. Why does it always come to comparing other players/ other teams. FFS, Messi didn't show anything for his Argentina side so why are we comparing Gibson in a medicore Ireland squad.
The lad has just put up a top notch performance lads, so let's back him to get more chances FFS not say that he wouldn't make it to a Spurs side that actually lost to us.
To be fair, I hardly recognized Spurs MF that they, Gibson/Anderson made way more interceptions and good passes than Spurs every did.
P.S.
If Anderson can cut those silly 50yrd through balls and just play it a bit simple, he'll get a lot more credit.
He did well last night, not once was he caught in possession. When under pressure he played the easy back ball which was all do correct in my standards.
He certainly IS worth keeping as he could become a very good player for us.
No, you totally are wrong about dominating Midfied. If you watched the match you'd see an Anderson-Gibson combo totally dominant and were solid. I"m not sure if you watched the match. You can hardly see Huddlestone or who ever was next to him.
And you are wrong about they weren't available, Gibson - Anderson were totally fine. They were trying to find positions but were closed down so the defenders chose to hoof the ball. Not a mistake in my book.
Carrick came on and yes we looked more solid, but that was part of Obertan not performing as Bale was having a great match and once the MF cannot rely on the wing play then their only option was to pass back. Carrick wasn't an amazing difference but we had more control as Spurs knew they were going to lose as they could do nothing to penetrate the Serbinator.
Certainly Gibson - Anderson got more than an 8 in this match. Unless you were watching from a crappy stream.
Scholes wasn't the leader type ? Why would we need to box to box players ?
If you've read Scholes interview, the youngster Scholes looks at most is Gibson because we both play in the same position .
I'll tell you, If Gibson can,
1. Make more forward runs/ get in the box
2. Improve his off the ball and positioning
3. Improves his stamina and workrate.
He'll certainly make it here. Mark my words.
comparing Gibson with Scholes is nonsense, even from an early age Scholes was exceptional. The key word being 'exception', meaning exception to the rule
You're not supposed to use the word you're defining in the definition.
True - but not every aspect can be improved....
In other words, Fletcher's problem was physical and the gym did miracles for him. On the other hand if a player lacks dynamism, I cannot see the same room for improvement..
Hardly would have mattered, Fifa wanted Le Cheats at the World Cup and the Ref would probably disallowed it
define dynamism?
Ok..Good examples of Dynamic players for me are Fletcher and Hargreaves (when not in the treatment room), Essien, Gattuso...
Don't get me wrong, I actually prefer to see a homegrown player like Gibson becoming a top player and I sincerely wish that he ll prove me wrong.
Good goalscoring midfielder, wouldn't mind him scoring few goals even with average performance. Just wonder maybe Gibson could be our Lampard?
Bollocks. Carrick, Alonso and Pirlo are all pretty successful players and there's not one of them I'd call dynamic. You could hardly call the likes of Fabregas, Xavi or Iniesta 'dynamic' either
Good examples of Dynamic players for me are Fletcher and Hargreaves (when not in the treatment room), Essien, Gattuso...
Don't get me wrong, I actually prefer to see a homegrown player like Gibson becoming a top player and I sincerely wish that he ll prove me wrong.
so, unless he runs around like a maniac he'll never become a top player?
thats essentially what you're saying right?
you do realise that there are different types of footballer other than the midfield enforcer types?
And I couldn't disagree more with that. The attributes that Fletcher has now were all there earlier on but he was played out of position and he lacked consistency. The passing was there, the stamina was there, the tackling was there, the ability to get into goalscoring positions was there, the ability to boss a match was there. Do you honestly think Gibson can get to Fletcher's ability in three years? Gibson is 22 after all. Fletcher has become one of the best in the world at what he does so unless Gibson is going to do something similar in the next two or three years, then Fletcher is a bad example and comparing Darron with Darren is a bad idea. Carrick is more like the player Gibson could become, except Carrick is/was more talented.
Exactly the reason that I can't understand why some compare him to Fletcher. He's far more like a Carrick or a Barry.
No one thought Carrick would make it at a big club when he was 22.
I dont think people were comparing them as players, I certainly wasn't. I only used Fletcher as an example of a late developer when patience is shown.
The questions were more about his desire to become a top player rather than his ability.
Thats the point ive been trying to make.. none of us know. I just think its premature to right a young fella off at the moment, when he has done reasonably well in the limited chances he has been given. We need to get a good look at him in a settled team. I suspect we'll hang on to him for another 1-2 years by which time probably Scholes and Giggs will be gone, and then there will be opportunities.
It's easier for a player of Fletcher's type to become better. A lot of his best attributes are down to physical traits. The likes of Carrick tend to lean more towards the mental aspects of the game. Most either have it, or they don't.