We need a Witsel. Not a Sahin.
Nuri Sahin
- Thread starter SiYuan
- Start date
Still only seeing one top CM under 38 there, and that's Carrick. No offence to Fletcher. And Carrick's only Carrick, no offence to Carrick.
Agreed, it's only really Giggs in our midfield who regularly has that sort of defence-splitting pass in him. People often talk about Scholes that way but in reality he's not set up a huge amount of goals like that.
We've always tried to have a progressive footballer in our midfield. Scholes was always a very creative player when he played closer to goal, Veron and Kleberson were brought in for that role with mixed results and Anderson was certainly seen as a player who could make something happen in midfield. Likewise that's why he fits Giggs in there so often and why he started last season with Cleverson, open at the back though we were.
Ultimately, though, the point I was making was that our midfield has been functional for quite a while without ever being outstanding. We have good players - quite a few of them, in fact - but few that really make the difference at the highest level and, IMHO, few if not none who would get into the midfields of the other top sides in Europe.
I think this is probably the most accurate and simple summary that can be given.
See, I agree with that. I guess where I differ with a lot of people on here is that I'm ok with "functional" so long as I can see some sort of a strategy in place to improve on that. If that strategy involves showing a bit of patience to developing and/or injury prone players then I can live with that too.
Obviously, Fergie ran out of patience with Hargreaves and Anderson must surely be starting a make or break season. Add to that Fletcher's illness, Gibson moving on and Pogba pissing off to Italy and I think Fergie's long to mid-term midfield plans aren't looking too hot anymore. This has really only come to a head in the last 12 months or so. The signing of Kagawa and Powell helps but, as I keep saying, I think we need to sign another CM this summer.
Well to be honest I wasn't sure whether or not he'd had injury issues before, I just know he had problems last year. I was simply saying that if we were going to sign someone on a one year loan with no option of purchasing him then it would be pretty important we could rely on him to stay fit.
if anything it'd be less important, seeing as his injuries wouldn't cost us anything because we haven't paid a fee for him. Loans are basically the least risky thing a club can possibly do in terms of 'signing' players.
Well I'd assume we'd be paying his wages and there is always a chance of a loan fee as well. I do understand your point but I can also see why United might not be interested.
Lets go one year at a time:
Summer 2007: We signed Hargreaves and Anderson in addition to our midfield of Carrick, Scholes and Fletcher. All that year, the stretch on our squad was visible and SAF decided to add numbers. Carrick and Scholes were tearing it up and we were very good.
Summer 2008: Hargreaves had had a good year albeit on the right. Fletcher had put in some great performances. Scholes was still good enough and as was Carrick. Added to that we had Giggs, who SAF said would be played more centrally to save his legs. Gibson was supposed to make the step up and Anderson had a great first year. Again, we didn't feel the need to sign anyone there, understandably.
Summer 2009: We won the league and reached the CL final by being solid. It was a year where our midfield was more functional but great as a unit. Fletcher was outstanding, Carrick decent, Scholes could still hack it and Giggs was an absolute revelation. Gibson hopes were high and Anderson seemed to have a year or settling. He was still regarded highly. Hargreaves had a bad injury ridden year but all indication were, IIRC, that he would make the new season. Again, stacked in numbers and quality. Move on.
Summer 2010: Hargreaves never made it. Scholes looked old. Anderson was mediocre. Carrick's form was woeful. We, however, managed to eke out a year and didn't do too bad in the league. Hopes of Anderson making it were still high. Carrick was supposed to return to form and Fletcher was supposed to continue in great vein. Giggs again was relied on for creativity. So thats, in the least, Carrick, Fletcher, Anderson, Gibson with Scholes and Giggs to add the experience. In retrospect, one could make out why we continued to rely on them because everyone though Anderson was going to finally fulfill his talent and Fletcher and Carrick would give the support in a 442 now that Ronaldo was gone.
Summer 2011: This is probably the first year that we can question why a midfielder wasn't signed. We had Anderson who wasn't progressing. Carrick was slowly showing some form towards the end. Scholes was gone though Giggs remained. And Fletch had a mystery illness but was supposed to be back for the start of the season. We added Cleverley to that fold who SAF rated seemingly very high. Now all indications are that we DID try for a few midfielders but SAF didn't seem to be convinced. He though a season of Fletcher, Carrick, Anderson, Cleverley and Giggs is still quite competitive and he doesn't need to go overboard in signing someone. Lets not forget he still had/has high hopes of Anderson.
Frankly, it makes sense in retrospect. But apart from 2011 when we can probably say a central midfielder could be welcome, I can't think of anytime where you could've accused SAF of being sloppy or stubborn or wrong. You could see where he was coming from. Even 2011, you could say that he was stretching it, but with Fletcher seemingly going to join the squad, he had every reason to believe he could give another shot for Cleverley and Anderson to develop.
Summer 2007: We signed Hargreaves and Anderson in addition to our midfield of Carrick, Scholes and Fletcher. All that year, the stretch on our squad was visible and SAF decided to add numbers. Carrick and Scholes were tearing it up and we were very good.
Summer 2008: Hargreaves had had a good year albeit on the right. Fletcher had put in some great performances. Scholes was still good enough and as was Carrick. Added to that we had Giggs, who SAF said would be played more centrally to save his legs. Gibson was supposed to make the step up and Anderson had a great first year. Again, we didn't feel the need to sign anyone there, understandably.
Summer 2009: We won the league and reached the CL final by being solid. It was a year where our midfield was more functional but great as a unit. Fletcher was outstanding, Carrick decent, Scholes could still hack it and Giggs was an absolute revelation. Gibson hopes were high and Anderson seemed to have a year or settling. He was still regarded highly. Hargreaves had a bad injury ridden year but all indication were, IIRC, that he would make the new season. Again, stacked in numbers and quality. Move on.
Summer 2010: Hargreaves never made it. Scholes looked old. Anderson was mediocre. Carrick's form was woeful. We, however, managed to eke out a year and didn't do too bad in the league. Hopes of Anderson making it were still high. Carrick was supposed to return to form and Fletcher was supposed to continue in great vein. Giggs again was relied on for creativity. So thats, in the least, Carrick, Fletcher, Anderson, Gibson with Scholes and Giggs to add the experience. In retrospect, one could make out why we continued to rely on them because everyone though Anderson was going to finally fulfill his talent and Fletcher and Carrick would give the support in a 442 now that Ronaldo was gone.
Summer 2011: This is probably the first year that we can question why a midfielder wasn't signed. We had Anderson who wasn't progressing. Carrick was slowly showing some form towards the end. Scholes was gone though Giggs remained. And Fletch had a mystery illness but was supposed to be back for the start of the season. We added Cleverley to that fold who SAF rated seemingly very high. Now all indications are that we DID try for a few midfielders but SAF didn't seem to be convinced. He though a season of Fletcher, Carrick, Anderson, Cleverley and Giggs is still quite competitive and he doesn't need to go overboard in signing someone. Lets not forget he still had/has high hopes of Anderson.
Frankly, it makes sense in retrospect. But apart from 2011 when we can probably say a central midfielder could be welcome, I can't think of anytime where you could've accused SAF of being sloppy or stubborn or wrong. You could see where he was coming from. Even 2011, you could say that he was stretching it, but with Fletcher seemingly going to join the squad, he had every reason to believe he could give another shot for Cleverley and Anderson to develop.
Yeah good summary though I think given the seriousness of fletchers illness they must have known it was a gamble to rely on fetcher being fit. I can see him wanting to give him a chance but at the same time it was an unneccessary gamble. Personally I think if he didnt want to sign anyone in the summer he should have kept o'shea for one more season. He's not a good midfielder but he can do a job there. Then he could have had that safety net if fletcher didn't recover and ando/clev didn't step up or stay fit.
By January though I think not getting anyone in, even a stop gap was a mistake.
By January though I think not getting anyone in, even a stop gap was a mistake.
We really should be interested in bagging a player of his ilk on loan.
Taking Nuri Sahin on loan is the move of a small time club. I've said since his last season at Dortmund that he's not ready yet. He'd be a back up player at most and im not sure how reliable he'd be. He's only worth taking on a permanent deal for when he matures and hopefully fulfills his potential.
We don't need a midfielder with potential for one season. That's desperate.
We don't need a midfielder with potential for one season. That's desperate.
Doesn't sound like it's Arsenal, unless Wenger is fibbing:
"... Arsenal, who are expected to be without Jack Wilshere for the start of the Premier League campaign, were heavily linked with a move to sign Sahin on a season-long loan deal on Friday.
But Wenger rubbished the speculation and revealed the club are not close to making any new signings at the moment.
"We did not sign anybody today, this report is wrong. We are not signing anybody at the moment – we are not close. In the future you never know ...”
http://www.thesportreview.com/tsr/2012/07/arsenal-arsenewenger-nuri-sahin-reports/
So it could be Spurs I suppose ... presumably as part of a Modric deal.
"... Arsenal, who are expected to be without Jack Wilshere for the start of the Premier League campaign, were heavily linked with a move to sign Sahin on a season-long loan deal on Friday.
But Wenger rubbished the speculation and revealed the club are not close to making any new signings at the moment.
"We did not sign anybody today, this report is wrong. We are not signing anybody at the moment – we are not close. In the future you never know ...”
http://www.thesportreview.com/tsr/2012/07/arsenal-arsenewenger-nuri-sahin-reports/
So it could be Spurs I suppose ... presumably as part of a Modric deal.
Sahin and Bender bossed the champions league finalists midfield twice. I would say in top form he is more than ready - everything we need.
I agree that a 1 year loan would be pretty pointless, but if it was with an option to sign a permanent deal then i would be very game for it.
No point going for a loan deal without the option of making it a permanent on eon our terms.
In top form, yes. That is because he is a talented player. For me though, he still plays like a young midfield player, which he obviously is. He's hit and miss and for the sake of a season, not worth bothering with.
I did say though, that he would be a good signing on a permanent deal.
He would add a body to the squad though. Having said that, have we even been linked? I don't think we're interested are we?
Is that worth bringing him here for a season though? Considering we do have a good few options in midfield, especially if you count the likes of Powell and Petrucci.
The only link I've seen was from Goal.com saying he's an alternative to Lucas, which is just wrong in so many ways.
Naturally the idea would be to sign him if he does very well.
I would of thought you would approve of a loan. We would have no obligations to play him so if everyone is fit he sits the bench, if Carrick gets injured we have a decent back up. Seems win-win to me.
And the people you mention don't do what Carrick does, we have no one capable of that. Sahin would provide a much needed option for a more defense capable midfielder.
He's not a 19 y.o kid - he wouldn't come to sit on the bench. That would be a ridiculous way to mistreat a top player.
Not us, more likely to be dippers or even newcastle
If he comes to United on a loan deal, if he performs well without any injury, then more likely than not, we will resign him to a longer term deal. If he goes out on loan, then Madrid would be more willing to let him go rather than approaching them straight up for a transfer.
You would rather have Petrucci playing in midfield than Sahin?
The system we play only needs a functioning midfield. We generally spread our play to the wings. It's historically been the United way since Sir Matt became the manager. I'd agree we were found wanting in Europe last season, however, the very same "dire" midfield were certainly good enough over the previous seasons and would have gone onto win a few more European cups had we not encountered an amazing Barcelona team.
Without doubt we need a midfielder, but we need one who is better than what we have, fits into our system, has the right character and is available and willing to come to United. It's not just about identifying a midfielder and simply writing a cheque out when signing players.
Has to be given a chance sometime. I don't see us being interested in Sahin personally.
Whether that's been the case or not, we've still had much better midfield's in the past. Keane and Scholes in his prime was much better than what we have now, whether we prefer to spread our play to the wings or not.
No he said Sahin was not ready but what makes him think Petrucci is?
We've had similar or better success even without the previous greats such as Robson, and Keane. As I said, I don't deny needing a quality midfielder.
Still think he would be a great addition to our squad considering how injury prone our CMs were over the last two years.
I think the partnership between him and Carrick could work quite well.
Playing Carrick and Scholes has pretty much proven that it's possible to play two creative holding midfielders.
So getting him on loan with a buy option would be a good move imo.
I think the partnership between him and Carrick could work quite well.
Playing Carrick and Scholes has pretty much proven that it's possible to play two creative holding midfielders.
So getting him on loan with a buy option would be a good move imo.
He would do more than "add a body". This is the man who was an integral part to Dortmund's league winning side of 10-11, scoring 8 goals and setting up 14 in all competitions. He would be a first team player and start most games for us, and anybody who watched him throughout that season would know that.
None of them are ready in my opinion, though obviously there is a big gulf in experience between Sahin and Petrucci already. What I have said is purely based on the notion of us taking him on loan for one season then returning him to Madrid.
So, would I rather give a chance to one of our youngsters or see Sahin return to Madrid after playing here for a year? I think the answer is obvious. It won't get to that though. We have too many players standing in Petrucci's way at the moment and I don't think he'll be 'needed' this season.
Our reserve team players have to be slowly blended into our first team by playing them in the cup games first. Sahin is ready to go and play in any game.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree, sort of. If we are going to sign him after the one year loan then I'm all for it. If we are going to bring him in for one season only then I wouldn't see the point. I'll leave it at that because I can't see us being in for him any time soon.
Well the point of a loan would be to have less risk involved in the transfer. We test him for one year and if we like what we see we will buy him and if not, well then off he goes back to Madrid and he is their problem again.
There's a great old picture of Vermaelen and Van Persie getting into each other, and they seem like very close mates now. Things flare up in the heat of the moment, and unless someone did something particularly dog-like, then once you're off the field it's all good.
Wenger is known to talk out of his arse regarding transfers. I guarantee if you went through the papers weeks before any of our bigger signings lately - Arteta, Mertesacker, Podolski, Giroud, Arshavin, etc. you'll find he's said we are not interested in so-and-so, only for them to be signed shortly after.
Having said that it would definitely make sense if he moved as part of a Modric deal.
Yes but the idea wont be of much use if there's not a fixed sum for which we can sign him if we want. A simple loan deal would be impractical because if he shines for us, Real would want him back.
Mourinho has recently said that he should move though so interested clubs have an opening to buy him. No loans required.
Don't really understand this, if they are reluctant to sell him now then why would they be more likely to sell him after an impressive and injury free season at a top club in a top league?