Darron Gibson - is he good enough for Everton?

noodlehair said:
It wasn't strange at all. Scholes was doing this amazingly simple thing where you either stand or move into a position where a team mate can actually pass the ball to you.

Something both Gibson and Fletcher failed to do a SINGLE feckING TIME for the entire game.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point but again i'd blame that slightly on the formation, Gibson and Fletcher stayed a bit further forward and it was Carrick's job to get the ball of the defence and then play it off. When Scholes came off he basically sat just behind the halfway line getting the ball off the back four, which is exactly what Carrick should have been doing all game but wasn't.

I think that's more Carrick's fault than Fletcher or Gibson.
 
He just looks lacking in something to me.
Can do some great stuff but does not fill me with confidence.
With him and Carrick central I am always afraid very afraid, cos we dont seem to create enough.
So in the answer to the question NO..But he may reach good enough ..Do we wait?
 
I thought that was his best performance in a United shirt that I have seen. Some good passing and pressing. My only complaint last night is he looked a little static when we had possession.
 
sglowrider said:
He will be our most important player for the next six matches -- so i am sure Fergie didn't want him to get injured by making silly decisions like marking or tackling the opposition.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate on that?

First of all how is Darron Gibson going to be our most important player for the next 6 matches? Important, possibly, but most important?? Can't agree with that one.

Secondly, what's the point in employing a 3 man centre midfield if one of them isn't going to mark or tackle anyone? And how do you injure yourself by simply marking someone? You do realise that means just tracking them?

Without meaning to sound like an arsehole, that post makes it seem like you know little to none about football.
 
Joey Mac said:
Care to elaborate on that?

First of all how is Darron Gibson going to be our most important player for the next 6 matches? Important, possibly, but most important?? Can't agree with that one.

Secondly, what's the point in employing a 3 man centre midfield if one of them isn't going to mark or tackle anyone? And how do you injure yourself by simply marking someone? You do realise that means just tracking them?

Without meaning to sound like an arsehole, that post makes it seem like you know little to none about football.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Xander45 said:
That's a fair point but again i'd blame that slightly on the formation, Gibson and Fletcher stayed a bit further forward and it was Carrick's job to get the ball of the defence and then play it off. When Scholes came off he basically sat just behind the halfway line getting the ball off the back four, which is exactly what Carrick should have been doing all game but wasn't.

I think that's more Carrick's fault than Fletcher or Gibson.
Click to expand...

Carrick spent literally the entire game sat behind the half way line getting the ball off the back four.

The difference when Scholes came on is that we had him and Carrick making themselves available, which actually made it possible for us to work the ball across the pitch a bit

You can blame the formation if you want, but I doubt Ferguson told Fletcher and Gibson both to spend the entire game not helping out in midfield, despite the fact they were both selected to pay in midfield...and I doubt he'd have become fed up and moved them both out of midfield if they were doing their jobs properly.

Too many people on here don't understand Carrick. If he wasn't playing last night we'd have lost the game quite easily. If he'd had someone decent alongside him all night we'd have probably won the game. You can't say the same for either Fletcher or Gibson.
 
mswiss said:
to be fair in this game and against crawly he has had a couple very nice passes, i can think in one in particular against crawly where he played a slide rule pass in to one of our forwards only for them to miss control it. If Scholes had played that pass everyone would be wanking and claiming hes a genius but gibbo just seems to gets everyones stick for the couple of bad things he does during a game :wenger:
Click to expand...

But then again, it was against Crawley..

Im not a fan of Gibson what so ever, thought he did a decent job yesterday. I'd say Carrick was our worst performer by far, some shocking missplaced passes from him.

But I don't think Gibson is good enough for United, he can perform once in a while, no doubt about it. But he can't perform every game, which is what you come to expect from a player at this club..
 
Last night was the first match Gibson played that slightly convinced me that there might be a place for him on the United team, and that he could become very, very good.

He made a few mistakes, sure, but his eye for a good pass has been steadily improving all season, we all know he has a decent shot, and he will become more relaxed on the ball the more he plays. The most telling thing was that Fergie trusted to play him last night. He didn't have to be played in such an important match, but he was anyway, so they must see something in him still.

The main issue is the way he can't control a midfield or really impose himself all that much. Like Berbatov in his first season, you can have all the nice touches and brilliant passes you want, but if you're not making an impact and controlling the flow of the game for midfield, you're not doing well enough.
 
RedSoul said:
I have this criticism of Fletcher almost every match, never see him read an opposition pass and intercept ( which Carrick still does ) , and almost never see him tackle a man one-on-one and come away with the ball, but no-one else ever seems to see this in Fletcher...? maybe I am unlucky and always momentarily looking away from the tv/pitch when this happens, or maybe people will even argue somehow this isn't his job....?
Click to expand...

I get your point but I honestly think Gibson hasn't got the speed or the fitness to get around like Fletcher, who at least puts players under pressure, and this is why he stands off/around too much for my liking. Last season Fletcher was tackling anything that moved (even his own team sometimes).
 
I don't rate this guy at all... utter shit... he really needs to worry about that or he'll be out at the end of the season...
 
Lets get this right shall we, he played well by his standards or rather better then he has before (which is promising) but then petered out as usual. Whether or not that is United standard is another matter altogether
 
Snow said:
Not badly and not being the worst of out players isn't playing well.

No one played well the last two games a part from our center backs.
Click to expand...

Yup. Our midfield has been rubbish in the last two games. Being the better player out of a rubbish 3 man midfield (on the day/days of course) is not really an achievement.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
Yup. Our midfield has been rubbish in the last two games. Being the better player out of a rubbish 3 man midfield (on the day/days of course) is not really an achievement.
Click to expand...

surely it is when you consider how poor Gibbo has been at times this season

he's conveying to us he can be reliable, even in important away games

he's of some use
 
Boss said:
surely it is when you consider how poor Gibbo has been at times this season

he's conveying to us he can be reliable, even in important away games

he's of some use
Click to expand...

He wasn't really an importance to our defense. It's most likely the reason he got subbed instead of Carrick and Fletcher. SAF wanted to keep it clean rather than go for one.
I think Berbatov does more defensively than Gibson.
We wouldn't have looked better nor worse with any other player on the pitch instead of him yesterday.
 
noodlehair said:
Carrick spent literally the entire game sat behind the half way line getting the ball off the back four.

The difference when Scholes came on is that we had him and Carrick making themselves available, which actually made it possible for us to work the ball across the pitch a bit

You can blame the formation if you want, but I doubt Ferguson told Fletcher and Gibson both to spend the entire game not helping out in midfield, despite the fact they were both selected to pay in midfield...and I doubt he'd have become fed up and moved them both out of midfield if they were doing their jobs properly.

Too many people on here don't understand Carrick. If he wasn't playing last night we'd have lost the game quite easily. If he'd had someone decent alongside him all night we'd have probably won the game. You can't say the same for either Fletcher or Gibson.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but i thought that far too often i saw our back four knocking it between themselves because no-one was showing, not even Carrick.

And i understand the job Carrick does, with him in the team we do look more solid. I'm not so sure we'd have lost easily if he hadn't played as even he was letting people through easily yesterday. I was trying to get a chalkboard up for Carrick's performance but i can't at work, i'd be interested to see it though.
 
noodlehair said:
Carrick spent literally the entire game sat behind the half way line getting the ball off the back four.

The difference when Scholes came on is that we had him and Carrick making themselves available, which actually made it possible for us to work the ball across the pitch a bit......
Click to expand...
Nah. That is just bollocks. Last night on many occasions Carrick insisted of passing the ball to the back 4 when both Fletcher and Gibson were available for him to play the pass up field, or Nani or Rooney were in space deep on the flank, inviting pressure on himself. That is how Smalling ended up with so much ball. Carrick really didn't play well at all. He was never bought to just be a shield for the defence and do nada with the ball. Our passing got better with Scholes on pitch simply because he is a far more intelligent user of the ball than any midfielder who was on that pitch. It had nothing at all to do with ''making himself available''.

Just because he did his defending well doesn't mean Carrick was more vital than Fletcher or Gibson. In fact he was a big part of the problem. For he was the best passer on pitch but wasn't passing the ball well.
 
For SAF to play him he must rate him, so can't be that bad. Sometimes i wonder if he plays him to simply increase his value so he could sell him at an inflated price...
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
Our passing got better with Scholes on pitch simply because he is a far more intelligent user of the ball than any midfielder who was on that pitch. It had nothing at all to do with ''making himself available''.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's bollocks.

Scholes is a master at 'making himself available' and he showed it again last night when he came on.

I watch Scholes a lot off the ball because quite frankly he's my favourite United player. Always looking around, always moving into space (sometimes by standing still and letting the opposing player move past), and always aware of what's going on.

He showed all that yesterday, as well as demonstrating the class of player we need to have in central midfield.

Seldom caught in possession; almost never at a loss of what to do when he has it; simply an intelligent and technical player. And part and parcel of that is always being available to relieve a teammate.
 
marcus agrippa said:
Sorry, but that's bollocks.

Scholes is a master at 'making himself available' and he showed it again last night when he came on. .
Click to expand...
That is pure bollocks. :lol:

Last night making one self available wasn't the problem. It was passing that was. Before Scholes came on we had no one passing the ball with any imagination on the field in the middle. Scholes came on and passed the ball to very available option. Not to just one like Carrick kept doing. Which in his case was the back 4.


marcus agrippa said:
Seldom caught in possession; almost never at a loss of what to do when he has it; simply an intelligent and technical player. And part and parcel of that is always being available to relieve a teammate.
Click to expand...
I repeat. It's not being available for a pass that was our problem last night. It was use of the ball. Anyone who thinks merely being available to pass to was why we improved when Scholes came on is mad.

Last night it was a case of ..''give the ball to Scholes and he'll know what to do''. Not ''Scholes is finally a man available, finally I can pass to some one else''....
 
If midfielders making themselves available for a pass wasn't the problem, why were our central defenders constantly lumping long balls forward until Scholes came on but didn't hit a single long pass afterwards, despite having one less central midfielder to pick out when we went 442?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
If midfielders making themselves available for a pass wasn't the problem, why were our central defenders constantly lumping long balls forward until Scholes came on but didn't hit a single long pass afterwards, despite having one less central midfielder to pick out when we went 442?
Click to expand...
Therein lies the 'how to handle United at home' solution. Press the middle of the park, because we don't have a midfield adept at outplaying their opponents. Defensively we are extremely solid, every man knows that role. What we do when we have the ball is a different story.

Oddly enough its not the same at Old Trafford. Whether that is down to a different mindset from the opposition, or (as I suspect) they just play with more confidence at home, its a problem. A big problem in fact, with the away games we have coming up. Draws are not going to cut it in the next three league games.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
If midfielders making themselves available for a pass wasn't the problem, why were our central defenders constantly lumping long balls forward until Scholes came on but didn't hit a single long pass afterwards, despite having one less central midfielder to pick out when we went 442?
Click to expand...

Maybe because Scholes demands the ball and is always looking to play Carrick and Gibson are always far too static!!
 
Pogue Mahone said:
If midfielders making themselves available for a pass wasn't the problem, why were our central defenders constantly lumping long balls forward until Scholes came on but didn't hit a single long pass afterwards, despite having one less central midfielder to pick out when we went 442?
Click to expand...
It can't be hard to get really. When we were using 4-3-3, Carrick, the player in the holding role kept passing the ball to the back 4. Even when Fletcher or Gibson were available to pass to, even when Nani and Rooney had come deep and were in space to receive a pass. Carrick repeatedly gave the ball back to either Vidic, Smalling or the keeper or Evra and O'shea on the flanks. Next to never to anyone further ahead. That is why the back 4 tended to try and force things and play a longer ball to people further ahead to involve everyone else.

Anyone further upfield who gave the ball to Carrick almost never received it back each time. So it reached a point when they preferred to not give it to him at all. Worsening our passing all the more.

With Scholes on pitch, whenever he got the ball he sought to pass to every option available. Instead of only passing to the back 4 Carrick style or only to Carrick.

He didn't need any long balls to find anyone. For whenever someone was free he'd give them the ball and get them involved. All Carrick did when Scholes came on was give him the ball because he knew what to do with it. Simples.


My point is even if Scholes had come on for Carrick himself our passing would still have improved. The notion that others didn't ''make themselves available for the pass'' that is why Carrick couldn't involve them in play is a a fallacy. For Scholes found it piss easy to involve everyone without even having to rely on long passes. Carrick passing last night was just shit period. It had feck all to do with his partners.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
If midfielders making themselves available for a pass wasn't the problem, why were our central defenders constantly lumping long balls forward until Scholes came on but didn't hit a single long pass afterwards, despite having one less central midfielder to pick out when we went 442?
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Love it how the Chief declares that "Scholes was simply passing to every available option", along with other empty phrases.

The trick to being effective in central midfield is finding the space to operate both off and on the ball. Scholes is quite adept at this.

No need to complicate things, Chief. It really is that simple, football.

Mainoldo said:
Maybe because Scholes demands the ball and is always looking to play Carrick and Gibson are always far too static!!
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
So basically it was all exclusively Carrick's fault, even though we visibly improved when Scholes replace Gibson. Interesting.
Click to expand...
Rather it was all Carrick's fault that his passing was poor.
Some people in here are trying their best to blame everything and everyone else for Carrick's lack of imagination and confidence on the ball last night.

Last night Scholes brought the one thing every one playing for us in midfield lacked. On the ball imagination and confidence. Carrick showed none of it through out, while Fletcher and Gibson showed mere dribbles of it. That is why we were so bland for most of the game when trying to attack.
 
Its unfair to pick out one individual. The blend just isn't right. Added to which not one of Fletcher/Carrick/Gibson is the type of player that can take a game by the scruff of the neck. Not even against Crawley or Southampton did we look like strangling the life out of our opponents. They just aren't that type of player.

Its wierd to be downbeat when we're in with a chance of another treble, however remote. For a while now I've had a horrible feeling that we're going to get found out when the chips are down, and I suspect we'll find out one way or the other by the end of next week.

A comforting thought is that we usually raise our game against the toughest opponents.
 
marcus agrippa said:
Love it how the Chief declares that "Scholes was simply passing to every available option", along with other empty phrases.
Click to expand...
:lol:
What phrase is more empty than claiming ''he was making himself available to pass to?''


marcus agrippa said:
The trick to being effective in central midfield is finding the space to operate both off and on the ball. Scholes is quite adept at this.
Click to expand...
So? Last night its only Scholes' passing we missed. Nothing else. It can't be that hard to grasp surely?

He didn't move better than any one else. He just used the ball 100 times better. Its not rocket science.


marcus agrippa said:
No need to complicate things, Chief. It really is that simple, football.
Click to expand...
Yes. Football is very simple. But alot of the time it gets totally misrepresented by people like you.
 
Gibson was the best of the midfield three by a distance in the first half. It was a strange decision to substitute him rather than Carrick or Fletcher who were both quite poor. Scholes made a massive difference when he came on but that is because he oozes class in every aspect of his play. He would have made a big difference whoever he replaced, and it's unfair to criticise Gibson for this.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
:lol:
What phrase is more empty than claiming ''he was making himself available to pass to?''


So? Last night its only Scholes' passing we missed. Nothing else. It can't be that hard to grasp surely?

He didn't move better than any one else. He just used the ball 100 times better. Its not rocket science.


Yes. Football is very simple. But alot of the time it gets totally misrepresented by people like you.
Click to expand...

I won't get involved in a back-and-forth with you. God knows I don't have the time/stamina for it.

I will say this much, though: you need to stop presenting your opinion as fact. You've done it in the CE forum before on a subject I can guarantee I know more about, so it's likely a trait. Just saying.

Carry on.
 
mufcwarm92 said:
Gibson was the best of the midfield three by a distance in the first half. It was a strange decision to substitute him rather than Carrick or Fletcher who were both quite poor. Scholes made a massive difference when he came on but that is because he oozes class in every aspect of his play. He would have made a big difference whoever he replaced, and it's unfair to criticise Gibson for this.
Click to expand...

I think carrick stayed on instead of Gibson because, poor and all as he was passing the ball, Carrick's departure would have significantly increased the risk of conceding a late goal. Which would have been a massive kick in the balls.
 
marcus agrippa said:
....I will say this much, though: you need to stop presenting your opinion as fact....
Click to expand...
You first mate. In case you haven't noticed you are currently in the camp of those trying to make it seem like the only reason why Carrick couldn't make a progressive pass last night was because it was all his partner's fault. Going as far as using excuses like ' 'football is simple' and ''people don't understand Carrick' to defend it. On top of referring to Scholes over all abilities as a midfielder rather than what he actually brought to the table last night.

 Also don't flatter yourself. You have no idea about how much I know about that topic in the CE forum. Besides, whatever happens there should stay there.
 
Nate Dogg said:
For SAF to play him he must rate him, so can't be that bad. Sometimes i wonder if he plays him to simply increase his value so he could sell him at an inflated price...
Click to expand...

He just past Djemba-Djemba in league games and has similar amount of games as Bellion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.