Nani will reignite our charge to the title

[dev1l]

much of united's attacking threat yesterday came from the right. Main difference between nani and valencia, work rate apart, was that valencia kept running into space, exposing jordan all the time, whilst nani kept running through the centre.
Tbf i do not know if this was something deliberate in order to make space for @Evra.

 

[Godfather]

How the hell is that a WUM? Do you watch the matches at all? If I said he was shite, that would be a wum. If I said he was good, that would be a wum. What I said was that Valencia was much better, which any idiot can see, and that Nani did not do enough to in anyway cement his place in the team. Hardly being a wum is it, considering both the things I said are most likely true. Go learn the definition of WUM.

Go and buy some feckin clue instead
He did absolutely nothing with the ball on his feet you ass shagger?
He had our best opportunity in the first half and put in some quality crosses, this has nothing to do with your comparision with Valencia, I agree that Valencia was better but he did absolutely nothing must be either a WUM or you are really plain stupid, hence all of your posts are pretty shit I think it the latter.

 

[Godfather]

feck off

Well I agree that was harsh on Berbatov, but no way Nani was worse than the others I've listed

 

[RedSky]

Nani clearly did enough to get another game or two as a starter. He hasn't played for a while and has just returned form injury. For me Valencia was nw where near as good as he could have been. I was far from happy with most of his crossing. Even though he was a constant threat down his wing.

feckin ell Chief, you've become a really good poster this decade

The above pretty much summarises what happened yesterday.

 

[Carl]

Don't want to get into that wum but: Carrick, Scholes, Neville, Brown, Rooney, Berbatov

You're going ott really. He wasnt as poor as some say but he wasnt better than Scholes + Rooney. I'd say he did perform better than Carrick though who was dreadful imo.

 

[RedSky]

Nothing like a Nani thread to get the CAF debating

He's the marmite of the footballing world.

 

[Carl]

Nothing like a Nani thread to get the CAF debating

He's the marmite of the footballing world.

I think there's too many people that let their dislike of Nani affect how they rate his performances. Which is silly really.

I'd give him a 6. Which is by no means shabby considering he's been out for a long time and how shit we've been playing. I don't think anyone scored an 8 yesterday (VDS the only possible candidate imo)

He looked too take on his man, get the ball in and have a shot on goal when it was on. Yes he gave the ball away a few too many times but that's sometimes a price to pay when you're trying to make something happen.

There was certainly a few worse performers yesterday. Carrick, Brown, Neville + Berbatov were all poor. Berbatov scored, which he obviously deserves credit for, but his contribution to the team before that was not very good at all. His movement when our midfield had the ball was fecking woeful most of the time too. That said, i'm a Berbafan so fingers crossed that goal will boost him a little.

Carrick is a favourite of mine too but yesterday he was far too negative. He gets slated for passing backwards and sideways too often but yesterday he looked like he only passed forwards if he really had too. That said he wasnt helped out by the movement of our forwards. It's no surprise he went off and Scholes stayed on.

Nani can just make something happen. Which is what we're looking for right now. I hope he's given a run in the team.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

feckin ell Chief, you've become a really good poster this decade .

hee hee

The above pretty much summarises what happened yesterday.

Glad you agree.

 

[Name Changed]

Go and buy some feckin clue instead
He did absolutely nothing with the ball on his feet you ass shagger?
He had our best opportunity in the first half and put in some quality crosses, this has nothing to do with your comparision with Valencia, I agree that Valencia was better but he did absolutely nothing must be either a WUM or you are really plain stupid, hence all of your posts are pretty shit I think it the latter.

He had 4 shots, one was a great effort that the keeper made a good save on. Two shots were very tame ones at the keeper. The other was 5 yards off the corner flag.

In relation to his crossing, it was not that good. Looking at the chalkboards, it does not look like he had one successful cross. It's funny that with all these quality crosses he supposedly put in, not one was successful. Check yourself if you don't believe me. Chalkboards | Create your chalkboard Chalkboards create | Football | guardian.co.uk

So, it is obviously you who is clearly quite stupid. All these quality crosses? Yet not one successful. Maybe they weren't actually quality. It's amazing how Valencia was able to make successful crosses.

Nani was not bad yesterday, but he wasn't that good either. But, as usual, you are overhyping an average performance by Nani to be a very good performance. You do it every time with Nani. You obviously have a horn for him.

And there is nothing wrong with comparing two wingers, since they play in the same position. One example was a winger playing well, ie getting on the ball, beating his player, getting good crosses in, and with some of them actually being successful. Nani did ok and was less frustrating because he did not run down blind alleys and he tried to get the ball in quicker.

But, looking at the facts, his distribution was not great. He was easily the worst of United's players when it came to distribution, 67%. He was by far the poorest United player on the pitch when it came to passing. Try and watch a match and try and give an unbiased opinion of a player rather than having a horn for him as you do in every single match.

 

[kikks]

I think there's too many people that let their dislike of Nani affect how they rate his performances. Which is silly really.

I'd give him a 6. Which is by no means shabby considering he's been out for a long time and how shit we've been playing. I don't think anyone scored an 8 yesterday (VDS the only possible candidate imo)

He looked too take on his man, get the ball in and have a shot on goal when it was on. Yes he gave the ball away a few too many times but that's sometimes a price to pay when you're trying to make something happen.

There was certainly a few worse performers yesterday. Carrick, Neville + Berbatov were all poor. Berbatov scored, which he obviously deserves credit for, but his contribution to the team before that was not very good at all. His movement when our midfield had the ball was fecking woeful most of the time too. That said, i'm a Berbafan so fingers crossed that goal will boost him a little.

Carrick is a favourite of mine too but yesterday he was far too negative. He gets slated for passing backwards and sideways too often but yesterday he looked like he only passed forwards if he really had too. That said he wasnt helped out by the movement of our forwards. It's no surprise he went off and Scholes stayed on.

Nani can just make something happen. Which is what we're looking for right now. I hope he's given a run in the team.

Good post.

I thought Nani looked alright yesterday. By no means MOM, but he had some good crosses, tested the keeper 3 (?) times and linked up well with Evra. I thought Valencia got into better positions than Nani, but some of his crosses let him down. Also, Jordan gave him sooo much space to run into, I mean he tucked in almost every time we attacked!

Any manager worth his salt these days will know that is imperative to stop Evra marauding down the flank, and as a result our left-hand side got doubled up on alot more. You could argue that the two of them should have done better, but when you face 2-3 players who don't want you to get a cross in, it's quite difficult to do so.

I'd give Nani a 6.5 and Valencia a 7. They both did well, and I'd like to see them both on the wings against City.

 

[Carl]

He had 4 shots, one was a great effort that the keeper made a good save on. Two shots were very tame ones at the keeper. The other was 5 yards off the corner flag.

In relation to his crossing, it was not that good. Looking at the chalkboards, it does not look like he had one successful cross. It's funny that with all these quality crosses he supposedly put in, not one was successful. Check yourself if you don't believe me. Chalkboards | Create your chalkboard Chalkboards create | Football | guardian.co.uk

So, it is obviously you who is clearly quite stupid. All these quality crosses? Yet not one successful. Maybe they weren't actually quality. It's amazing how Valencia was able to make successful crosses.

Nani was not bad yesterday, but he wasn't that good either. But, as usual, you are overhyping an average performance by Nani to be a very good performance. You do it every time with Nani. You obviously have a horn for him.

And there is nothing wrong with comparing two wingers, since they play in the same position. One example was a winger playing well, ie getting on the ball, beating his player, getting good crosses in, and with some of them actually being successful. Nani did ok and was less frustrating because he did not run down blind alleys and he tried to get the ball in quicker.

But, looking at the facts, his distribution was not great. He was easily the worst of United's players when it came to distribution, 67%. He was by far the poorest United player on the pitch when it came to passing. Try and watch a match and try and give an unbiased opinion of a player rather than having a horn for him as you do in every single match.

Agree with most of that but i will raise 2 points.

1) Valencia did not play well yesterday. He wasnt poor, but he wasnt good either. He had so much of the ball and the clear beating of the fullback but did nothing with it.

2) Just because a statistic says the cross was unsuccessful does not mean a bad cross. Valencia but a few shite crosses in that someone managed to get onto so that would be a successful cross according to the stats when actually it's pretty poor.

 

[Ixion]

Its funny, I like Nani and try to defend him, and after yesterday's match and the reaction he was getting from the fans in the crowd near me I was expecting him to be slated on here as usual. I thought I'd come on here and defend him and point out his positives but I see hes being touted as a MOM and thats just taking it to far He gave the ball away A LOT yesterday.

 

[kikks]

He had 4 shots, one was a great effort that the keeper made a good save on. Two shots were very tame ones at the keeper. The other was 5 yards off the corner flag.

In relation to his crossing, it was not that good. Looking at the chalkboards, it does not look like he had one successful cross. It's funny that with all these quality crosses he supposedly put in, not one was successful. Check yourself if you don't believe me. Chalkboards | Create your chalkboard Chalkboards create | Football | guardian.co.uk

So, it is obviously you who is clearly quite stupid. All these quality crosses? Yet not one successful. Maybe they weren't actually quality. It's amazing how Valencia was able to make successful crosses.

Nani was not bad yesterday, but he wasn't that good either. But, as usual, you are overhyping an average performance by Nani to be a very good performance. You do it every time with Nani. You obviously have a horn for him.

And there is nothing wrong with comparing two wingers, since they play in the same position. One example was a winger playing well, ie getting on the ball, beating his player, getting good crosses in, and with some of them actually being successful. Nani did ok and was less frustrating because he did not run down blind alleys and he tried to get the ball in quicker.

But, looking at the facts, his distribution was not great. He was easily the worst of United's players when it came to distribution, 67%. He was by far the poorest United player on the pitch when it came to passing. Try and watch a match and try and give an unbiased opinion of a player rather than having a horn for him as you do in every single match.

I agree that he wasn't amongst the better players, but I don't think he was the worst either. I feel that the stats lie a bit here, as Nani and Evra were up against a much more solid pairing. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought Jordan got close to feck all help from his winger, and to worsen that, he tucked in alot more than he should, allowing Valencia acres of space down the right. I might be viewing Nani's performance in a slightly better light then it maybe deserves, but I really want the lad to do well!

 

[kikks]

Its funny, I like Nani and try to defend him, and after yesterday's match and the reaction he was getting from the fans in the crowd near my I was expecting him to be slated on here as usual. I thought I'd come on here and defend him and point out his positives but I see hes being touted as a MOM and thats just taking it to far He gave the ball away A LOT yesterday.

Did he?

Someone once said on here (Domzi I think) that almost every game you have a moment where you go "For feck sake, Nani". I can't really remember doing that yesterday. Wait, yes I can, when his shot almost hit the cornerflag. But not with regards to his short passing, which has been a major irk with him in earlier games. Haven't checked the stats, though. But as I said, I can't remember any clear cut situations.

 

[Ixion]

The very start of the match the first two times he had possession of the ball he gave it away with awful passes down the line, the crowd really got on his back after it. And after his air-shot. I actually felt sorry for him because of the groans from the crowd, expected to have to come on here and defend him!

 

[kikks]

Ah, that explains it. I missed the first 10 or so minutes as my satelite dish decided to not work literally 45 seconds before kick-off.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Agree with most of that but i will raise 2 points.

1) Valencia did not play well yesterday. He wasnt poor, but he wasnt good either. He had so much of the ball and the clear beating of the fullback but did nothing with it.

2) Just because a statistic says the cross was unsuccessful does not mean a bad cross. Valencia but a few shite crosses in that someone managed to get onto so that would be a successful cross according to the stats when actually it's pretty poor.

That's not true though, is it?

He put a whole load of dangerous crosses into the box.

Those Guardian chalkboard stats show the majority of his crosses found a team-mate, which is always a sign of a cross being at least half-decent.

If you refuse to accept those stats, then watch the match again. feck it, even the MOTD highlights showed at least 4 or 5 really good situations created by Valencia crossing the ball into the box. He blatantly contributed much much more than "a few shite crosses"

I can't help thinking that a lot of people have been influenced by Macari's relentless and completely unjustified whinging into thinking that Valencia's end product was a lot worse than it was. It's the only possible explanation.

 

[Name Changed]

I agree that he wasn't amongst the better players, but I don't think he was the worst either. I feel that the stats lie a bit here, as Nani and Evra were up against a much more solid pairing. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought Jordan got close to feck all help from his winger, and to worsen that, he tucked in alot more than he should, allowing Valencia acres of space down the right. I might be viewing Nani's performance in a slightly better light then it maybe deserves, but I really want the lad to do well!

Don't get me wrong, I did not think he was that bad. I just did not think he was that good either. I thought Valencia and Van Der Sar were good, and the rest were fairly average. I did not say that Nani was bad or among the worst players, anything like that. I actually was less frustrated with him that I normally am.

Godfather's usual over-hyping of a Nani average performance just annoys me.

In relation to Burnley's tactics, I think it was clear what they were doing. They doubled up on the left, probably because of Evra. I also think their left back tucked in so much specifically to try and allow United attack more on the right. I thought it was clear that they wanted Gary Neville to attack, as it was him that they were trying to exploit at every opportunity. United were going to attack, but Burnley obviously wanted United to attack on the right hand side so they could exploit it on that side on the break, which they did. There's no point in doing that on United's left, as Evra has the pace to get back. That's what I thought when watching the game anyway.

 

[Name Changed]

That's not true though, is it?

He put a whole load of dangerous crosses into the box.

Those chalkboard stats show how many of his crosses found a team-mate, which is always a sign of a cross being at least half-decent.

If you refuse to accept those stats, then watch the match again. feck it, even the MOTD highlights showed at least 4 or 5 really good situations created by Valencia crossing the ball into the box.

I can't help thinking that a lot of people have been influenced by Macari's relentless and completely unjustified whinging into thinking that Valencia's end product was a lot worse than it was. It's the only possible explanation.

I agree with Pogue. Valencia was on the ball 67 times yesterday. The majority of our good work came down that side (due to Burnley's tactics) and a hell of a lot of Valencia's crosses found their target. He created a lot of chances. Macari is a knob anyway.

 

[Godfather]

He had 4 shots, one was a great effort that the keeper made a good save on. Two shots were very tame ones at the keeper. The other was 5 yards off the corner flag.

In relation to his crossing, it was not that good. Looking at the chalkboards, it does not look like he had one successful cross. It's funny that with all these quality crosses he supposedly put in, not one was successful. Check yourself if you don't believe me. Chalkboards | Create your chalkboard Chalkboards create | Football | guardian.co.uk

So, it is obviously you who is clearly quite stupid. All these quality crosses? Yet not one successful. Maybe they weren't actually quality. It's amazing how Valencia was able to make successful crosses.

Nani was not bad yesterday, but he wasn't that good either. But, as usual, you are overhyping an average performance by Nani to be a very good performance. You do it every time with Nani. You obviously have a horn for him.

And there is nothing wrong with comparing two wingers, since they play in the same position. One example was a winger playing well, ie getting on the ball, beating his player, getting good crosses in, and with some of them actually being successful. Nani did ok and was less frustrating because he did not run down blind alleys and he tried to get the ball in quicker.

But, looking at the facts, his distribution was not great. He was easily the worst of United's players when it came to distribution, 67%. He was by far the poorest United player on the pitch when it came to passing. Try and watch a match and try and give an unbiased opinion of a player rather than having a horn for him as you do in every single match.

Where did I say it was a very good performance from him? Where? It was a good one I thought especially if you keep in mind how long he has been out. And of course it is ok to compare two wingers, where did I say otherwise?

What you claimed was, that he did NOTHING with the ball in comparision to how often he had it, which is just not true and it has nothing to do with me overhyping him, he was pretty shit in most of his games for us this season and I have stated this more than once, it is people like you who just have a dig at him in every single game he has just because of a personal dislike.
So rather it's you who should give an unbiased opinion, because I wasn't one of those who said he was MotM or that his performance was worldclass, it wasnt by any means, but it was a good (better than average) one and he was better than half of our other players out there.

 

[Name Changed]

Did he?
.

Unfortunately, yet. 15 times out of 46 occasions he gave the ball away. Valencia, as an example, lost the ball 17 times but that was out of 67 occasions. Nani's distribution was by far the worst of the United's players, although that obviously doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[Godfather]

You're going ott really. He wasnt as poor as some say but he wasnt better than Scholes + Rooney. I'd say he did perform better than Carrick though who was dreadful imo.

Well in my opinion he was better than them, probably not better than Berbatov, I was harsh on him.

 

[kikks]

Don't get me wrong, I did not think he was that bad. I just did not think he was that good either. I thought Valencia and Van Der Sar were good, and the rest were fairly average. I did not say that Nani was bad or among the worst players, anything like that. I actually was less frustrated with him that I normally am.

In relation to Burnley's tactics, I think it was clear what they were doing. They doubled up on the left, probably because of Evra. I also think their left back tucked in so much specifically to try and allow United attack more on the right. I thought it was clear that they wanted Gary Neville to attack, as it was him that they were trying to exploit at every opportunity. United were going to attack, but Burnley obviously wanted United to attack on the right hand side so they could exploit it on that side on the break, which they did. There's no point in doing that on United's left, as Evra has the pace to get back. That's what I thought when watching the game anyway.

I know you didn't say that, mate, I might have phrased it badly. And I'm very pleased with the way Valencia is playing at the moment, I just thought he could have done slightly better with some of his crosses, especially with the time he was afforded with the ball. But it's bloody hard to pick someone out in a crowded box, so I guess I can't expect him to hit a friendly head every time.

 

[Godfather]

Unfortunately, yet. 15 times out of 46 occasions he gave the ball away. Valencia, as an example, lost the ball 17 times but that was out of 67 occasions. Nani's distribution was by far the worst of the United's players, although that obviously doesn't tell the whole story.

He started off very shaky, which is very normal considering how long he has been out but found into the match very well so this doenst even tell the whole story it doesnt really tell you anything.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Don't get me wrong, I did not think he was that bad. I just did not think he was that good either. I thought Valencia and Van Der Sar were good, and the rest were fairly average. I did not say that Nani was bad or among the worst players, anything like that. I actually was less frustrated with him that I normally am.

Godfather's usual over-hyping of a Nani average performance just annoys me.

In relation to Burnley's tactics, I think it was clear what they were doing. They doubled up on the left, probably because of Evra. I also think their left back tucked in so much specifically to try and allow United attack more on the right. I thought it was clear that they wanted Gary Neville to attack, as it was him that they were trying to exploit at every opportunity. United were going to attack, but Burnley obviously wanted United to attack on the right hand side so they could exploit it on that side on the break, which they did. There's no point in doing that on United's left, as Evra has the pace to get back. That's what I thought when watching the game anyway.

Spot on.

It's a shame that the people who are most vocal about Nani all season are over-hyping an encouraging performance from him and trying to belittle what Valencia did.

End result, this thread ends up with people putting down what Nani achieved and trying to big up Valencia's performance, which isn't what it should be about.

At the end of the day, Valencia was the more effective winger of the two but we've come to expect that level of performance from him and it shouldn't take away from Nani putting in one of the best shifts he's managed all season. We've always known he's capable of creating something out of nothing but it was great to see him put in a composed, sensible performance for most of the game and generally retain possession much better than usual. That's exactly what SAF will have been looking for from him and it explains why he lasted the full 90.

It was a really encouraging performance from a player who is understandably a bit ring rusty and will hopefully be the start of a decent run from him. Trying to portray it as more than it was is very unhelpful and will only trigger unnecessary criticism.

 

[Godfather]

Spot on.

It's a shame that the people who are most vocal about Nani all season are over-hyping an encouraging performance from him and trying to belittle what Valencia did.

End result, this thread ends up with people putting down what Nani achieved and trying to big up Valencia's performance, which isn't what it should be about.

At the end of the day, Valencia was clearly the more effective winger of the two but we've come to expect that level of performance from him and it shouldn't take away from Nani putting in one of the best shifts he's managed all season. We've always known he's capable of creating something out of nothing but it was great to see him put in a composed, sensible performance for most of the game and generally retain possession much better than usual. That's exactly what SAF will have been looking for from him and it explains why he lasted the full 90.

It was a really encouraging performance from a player who is understandably a bit ring rusty and will hopefully be the start of a decent run from him. Trying to portray it as more than it was is very unhelpful and will only trigger unnecessary criticism.

I agree with this

 

[Name Changed]

Where did I say it was a very good performance from him? Where? It was a good one I though especially if you keep in mind how long he has been out. And of course it is ok to compare two wingers, where did I say otherwise?

What you claimed was, that he did NOTHING with the ball in comparision to how often he had it, which is just not true and it has nothing to do with me overhyping him, he was pretty shit in most of his games for us this season and I have stated this more than once, it is people like you who just have a dig at him in every single game he has just because of a personal dislike.
So rather it's you who should give an unbiased opinion, because I wasn't one of those who said he was MotM or that his performance was worldclass, it wasnt by any means, but it was a good (better than average) one and he was better than half of our other players out there.

What did he do with the ball so? He did not have one successful cross. Can you not understand that? He had one good shot. That was it. So apart from the one overhead, he did nothing really with the ball, as none of his crosses were successful. Get it? Now, do you want me to explain how he did nothing with the ball again, or do you understand why I said that?

It was a good performance from Nani in comparison to his other performances, because he is normally one of our worst players. So, for Nani, it was a good performance, but obviously as he doesn't have that many the standards for a good performance for him are lower than the likes of Rooney. You could argue that he was better than half, you could also argue he was worse than half. Rooney, Van Der Sar, Berbatov, Valencia and Evra were clearly better in my opinion. The rest are a judgement call.

So it was a good performance in terms of Nani's performances, but overall it was an average performance. He certainly showed within that performance that he can put in better and more productive performances though.

I do not dislike Nani. I am not going to overhype him just for the sake of it. If his performances are good, I'll say that they are good. If they are not, I won't. Simple as.

 

[Godfather]

What did he do with the ball so? He did not have one successful cross. Can you not understand that? He had one good shot. That was it. So apart from the one overhead, he did nothing really with the ball, as none of his crosses were successful. Get it? Now, do you want me to explain how he did nothing with the ball again, or do you understand why I said that?

It was a good performance from Nani in comparison to his other performances, because he is normally one of our worst players. So, for Nani, it was a good performance, but obviously as he doesn't have that many the standards for a good performance for him are lower than the likes of Rooney. You could argue that he was better than half, you could also argue he was worse than half. Rooney, Van Der Sar, Berbatov, Valencia and Evra were clearly better in my opinion. The rest are a judgement call.

So it was a good performance in terms of Nani's performances, but overall it was an average performance. He certainly showed within that performance that he can put in better and more productive performances though.

I do not dislike Nani. I am not going to overhype him just for the sake of it. If his performances are good, I'll say that they are good. If they are not, I won't. Simple as.

Well then we will have to agree to disagree I think.

@ our explanation why he didnt do anything with the ball though, sorry but

 

[Pogue Mahone]

What did he do with the ball so? He did not have one successful cross. Can you not understand that? He had one good shot. That was it. So apart from the one overhead, he did nothing really with the ball, as none of his crosses were successful. Get it? Now, do you want me to explain how he did nothing with the ball again, or do you understand why I said that?

It was a good performance from Nani in comparison to his other performances, because he is normally one of our worst players. So, for Nani, it was a good performance, but obviously as he doesn't have that many the standards for a good performance for him are lower than the likes of Rooney. You could argue that he was better than half, you could also argue he was worse than half. Rooney, Van Der Sar, Berbatov, Valencia and Evra were clearly better in my opinion. The rest are a judgement call.

So it was a good performance in terms of Nani's performances, but overall it was an average performance. He certainly showed within that performance that he can put in better and more productive performances though.

I do not dislike Nani. I am not going to overhype him just for the sake of it. If his performances are good, I'll say that they are good. If they are not, I won't. Simple as.

Put in an absolute peach of a low cross to Rooney in the second half. I think he also put in a nice dinked cross to the far post in the first. Had 2 or 3 shots on target too. Saying he did "nothing really" is harsh.

 

[Name Changed]

I know you didn't say that, mate, I might have phrased it badly. And I'm very pleased with the way Valencia is playing at the moment, I just thought he could have done slightly better with some of his crosses, especially with the time he was afforded with the ball. But it's bloody hard to pick someone out in a crowded box, so I guess I can't expect him to hit a friendly head every time.

In the first half, Valencia's crosses were in general particularly good. The second not so much but statistically anyway they were very good. In general, I think it's hard for our wingers to pick out players in the air, as we have feck all height amongst our forward players apart from Berbatov, who is not that strong in the air. I think that Valencia anyway always tries to look up and find the right cross. He pulls it back an awful lot to a player outside the box when he doesn't think he can get a successful cross in.

 

[kikks]

Spot on.

It's a shame that the people who are most vocal about Nani all season are over-hyping an encouraging performance from him and trying to belittle what Valencia did.

End result, this thread ends up with people putting down what Nani achieved and trying to big up Valencia's performance, which isn't what it should be about.

At the end of the day, Valencia was the more effective winger of the two but we've come to expect that level of performance from him and it shouldn't take away from Nani putting in one of the best shifts he's managed all season. We've always known he's capable of creating something out of nothing but it was great to see him put in a composed, sensible performance for most of the game and generally retain possession much better than usual. That's exactly what SAF will have been looking for from him and it explains why he lasted the full 90.

It was a really encouraging performance from a player who is understandably a bit ring rusty and will hopefully be the start of a decent run from him. Trying to portray it as more than it was is very unhelpful and will only trigger unnecessary criticism.

Good post.

Allthough I don't think people have been too bad this time. I was expecting the normal slaughtering of Nani when I logged on yesterday, but most people seem to rate him fairly (some exceptions, as always). Hopefully he can grab some momentum and run with it. I'd love him to get a winner or atleast a goal against City.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

In the first half, Valencia's crosses were in general particularly good. The second not so much but statistically anyway they were very good. In general, I think it's hard for our wingers to pick out players in the air, as we have feck all height amongst our forward players apart from Berbatov, who is not that strong in the air. I think that Valencia anyway always tries to look up and find the right cross. He pulls it back an awful lot to a player outside the box when he doesn't think he can get a successful cross in.

True.

Good to see Diouf get his head to a cracking cross from Valencia late in the game. He's not tall but he's got a great spring. A striker like that makes a winger's job so much easier.

 

[Godfather]

Name Changed @ Valencia:

In the first half, Valencia's crosses were in general particularly good. The second not so much but statistically anyway they were very good. In general, I think it's hard for our wingers to pick out players in the air, as we have feck all height amongst our forward players apart from Berbatov, who is not that strong in the air.

Name Changed @ Nani:

What did he do with the ball so? He did not have one successful cross. Can you not understand that?So apart from the one overhead, he did nothing really with the ball, as none of his crosses were successful. Get it? Now, do you want me to explain how he did nothing with the ball again, or do you understand why I said that?

Sorry but you are reallly not a very good poster mate, probably it's not your intelligence, but your bias you have against Nani and your love for Valencia, but to tergiversate yourself within 2 or 3 posts is pretty hard tbh

 

[Scholesy]

I would Fergie to play him in the next 6 games.

 

[Oldham]

Nani was decent. Surely deserves a run of games, he has the talent and hopefully he'll step up soon. Time is running out though...

 

[Name Changed]

Put in an absolute peach of a low cross to Rooney in the second half. I think he also put in a nice dinked cross to the far post in the first. Had 2 or 3 shots on target too. Saying he did "nothing really" is harsh.

Apart from his overhead, he had 3 shots. One nearly hit the corner flag, forget about that. The other two were on target but were weak and straight enough at the keeper. I expected him at the time to actually score them knowing the shot he actually has on him.

I don't recall that particular cross to Rooney but if you say he did it, then fair enough. I did check the chaklboards and couldn't find a successful cross.

Even if you say that he had 3 shots on target and had one successful cross all match (and that is being really kind), it doesn't make it a good game or a productive game, because it wasn't. It was an average performance, but better than his normal. That's all I am saying!

 

[Dyslexic Untied]

How can none of Nanis crosses have been successful when Rooney nearly scored from a perfect left footed Nani cross?

edit: I see this has been mentioned already

 

[Godfather]

Apart from his overhead, he had 3 shots. One nearly hit the corner flag, forget about that. The other two were on target but were weak and straight enough at the keeper. I expected him at the time to actually score them knowing the shot he actually has on him.

I don't recall that particular cross to Rooney but if you say he did it, then fair enough. I did check the chaklboards and couldn't find a successful cross.

Even if you say that he had 3 shots on target and had one successful cross all match (and that is being really kind), it doesn't make it a good game or a productive game, because it wasn't. It was an average performance, but better than his normal. That's all I am saying!

Where do you get your stats from mate? I can recall at least 2 crosses in the first half where he found his target, but Rooney couldnt do too much with them. In the second half he started the attack to our first goal and set up rooney with a beatiful low cross so I really don't know whether you watched the game or not or where you get your informations from ^^

 

[Name Changed]

Name Changed @ Valencia:


Name Changed @ Nani:


Sorry but you are reallly not a very good poster mate, probably it's not your intelligence, but your bias you have against Nani and your love for Valencia, but to tergiversate yourself within 2 or 3 posts is pretty hard tbh

What the hell does tergiversate mean?

Anyway, Valencia had numerous successful crosses, Nani did not (Pogue said he had one, fair enough). So all these successful crosses from Valencia versus one from Nani. Obviously, it's Valencia who I am going to say was better with his crossing, it's hardly rocket science. By the way, I don't love Valencia, but I was impresses with his crossing yesterday.

 

[Name Changed]

Where do you get your stats form mate? I can recall at least 2 crosses in the first half where he found his target, but Rooney couldnt do too much with them. In the second half he started the attack to our first goal and set up rooney with a beatiful low cross so I really don't know whether you watched the game or not or where you get your informations from ^^

I check the Guardian chalkboards for stats. Check them there if you don't believe me.