Paul Scholes | 2012/13 Performances

Status
Not open for further replies.
But what are they meant to do, not play it to two of our players? If they're not having a good day they can't just try and avoid them, you have to trust that they will come good eventually. And then if the wide ball isn't working, i.e. Valencia can't beat his man, or Young is finding it tough out wide then those two need to do something about it. Did Valencia change his approach to the game? Not till after half time. Young didn't try and drift inside or anything.

As for Rooney he spread the ball wide plenty of times. That's the thing it's always the midifeld who is blamed for forcing us to use the wide ball but usually the deeper player behind the main striker does it as well. Where was Rooney getting the ball, turning and trying to do stuff centrally? Where was his movement , drifting out wide and getting someone like Young to drift inside to vary it up. When Hernadez came on, and RVP became the more deeper player he did this much better than Rooney was.

The midifelders can only work with the options presented to them. We had the ball, they got it to the attackers. Scholes can't force Rooney to get the ball and keep it central, he can't make Young drift inside. You can only dictate play to a certain extent, if there's no movement ahead of you what can you do?

Because the wingers stayed so fixed in their positions the wide ball was our chief outlet. If Scholes plays it too Rooney, then Rooney more often than not is gonna spread it wide anyway. That's the game plan Fergie was looking to play, you can't blame the midfielders for playing how we clearly set up to play. That's a fault in the way Fergie wants the team to play. Like I said I agree that playing Scholes causes restrictions, but we clearly could be effective with him on the pitch as we showed in the second half but the attackers actually have to play with some enthusiasm and intelligence.
 
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."

It is pointless and misguided to try and lay the blame at any one person's feet. It is a team game. If we kept trying the same avenue of attack and it wasnt working, there will be plenty of people to blame for that. Principally, you would have to say, SAF, whose job it is to identify and rectify these things. Which, to be fair, he did.
 
Ash_G said:
But what are they meant to do, not play it to two of our players? If they're not having a good day they can't just try and avoid them, you have to trust that they will come good eventually. And then if the wide ball isn't working, i.e. Valencia can't beat his man, or Young is finding it tough out wide then those two need to do something about it. Did Valencia change his approach to the game? Not till after half time. Young didn't try and drift inside or anything.

As for Rooney he spread the ball wide plenty of times. That's the thing it's always the midifeld who is blamed for forcing us to use the wide ball but usually the deeper player behind the main striker does it as well. Where was Rooney getting the ball, turning and trying to do stuff centrally? Where was his movement , drifting out wide and getting someone like Young to drift inside to vary it up. When Hernadez came on, and RVP became the more deeper player he did this much better than Rooney was.

The midifelders can only work with the options presented to them. We had the ball, they got it to the attackers. Scholes can't force Rooney to get the ball and keep it central, he can't make Young drift inside. You can only dictate play to a certain extent, if there's no movement ahead of you what can you do?

Because the wingers stayed so fixed in their positions the wide ball was our chief outlet. If Scholes plays it too Rooney, then Rooney more often than not is gonna spread it wide anyway. That's the game plan Fergie was looking to play, you can't blame the midfielders for playing how we clearly set up to play. That's a fault in the way Fergie wants the team to play. Like I said I agree that playing Scholes causes restrictions, but we clearly could be effective with him on the pitch as we showed in the second half but the attackers actually have to play with some enthusiasm and intelligence.
Click to expand...

And we can't be so one-dimensional. It will be exposed just like in all our other games where we play an expansive 4-4-2 against energetic teams. For the last time, stop misconstruing my point. I'm not saying the midfielders are responsible for the way our wingers or attackers directly play. I'm saying they at least could have upped the tempo and there are various ways to do this. No. They don't have to avoid our wingers but you act like we had no other options when we did. Because we were too slow in moving the ball,we couldn't exploit them through the middle or get it to Rooney quick enough to at least try something different. It goes hand in hand mate. You talk about the midfield having the options, if Rooney or RVP had more options centrally, don't you think we would have played differently? As much as our wingers are out of form, they've always had options to attack in various ways. That wasn't available Saturday. They were actually responsible for the majority of the creative burden when I really didn't see how they were going to do anything but attempt to beat their man and get a cross in. Tony V could have been much more forceful with his play and it could have made a difference but it's a shame it was basically his only option. Even if the emphasis is on the wingers to produce, you at least want to offer them an alternative so they can attack the opposition in more than one way. We didn't do that. Add their off form to the equation and the problem becomes even worse.

It does point to the way we were setup which is what I initially criticized. It didn't help our wingers were out of form. It didn't help everyone wanted to play it wide. It didn't help that our CMs moved the ball slowly as it largely lended us to playing one way. It didn't help our front 4 was mostly static in the first half. Like I said earlier, it was complete clusterfeck and I'm simply pointing why our midfield is culpable as well as everyone else in attack. All these issues tie together and when your midfield is left isolated from your attack, there's going to be problems.

The key part with Hernandez is his movement gave us more room. Room Rooney didn't really have to operate earlier in the match. This is why he mostly played the ball wide.

I see what you mean about the system. That's a fair point. Begs the question though should our experienced players have recognized the issue and taken the matter into their own hands rather than wait on the manager to say something? I think they could have but that's another discussion entirely.

As much as you could say Fergie is to blame for his tactical decisions, he's not responsible for our tempo being lethargic. This is another issue which needs to be rectified and it led from one issue to another.
 
My main two gripes are with the setup we use when Scholes is in the team and our tempo which leaves a lot to be desired.
 
Ok but a lot of those problems are bigger than the midfield. Out attack lacking urgency is something we've seen for a while now, it's not dependent on any one midfield as we've seen it in a variety of set ups this season. There's something Fergie needs to address with the mentality of the players when we start matches.

As for Rooney being ineffective because of them personally I don't think they hindered him that much. When Rooney plays that role his main move is to get some space and spread it wide, he rarely looks to pick the ball up, turn and advance through the middle. He doesn't carry the ball particularly well either. Like I said when RVP played there it was noticeable how much more willing he was to carry the ball, and turn towards Villa's goal as well as his movement in general. This gave us more options, it wasn't a case that carrick/scholes started it playing it that much more quicker imo.

In fairness to Rooney though, at least when he went to the left he offered more interplay than Young was. That's the other problem with trying a more central attack. You need more than one player for it. Going back to chelsea, it's noticeable how close Hazard, Mata and Oscar play, they need that to be able to have that interplay. With our wingers sticking to their positions it makes it tough for the central player, Rooney, to do that. Again Oscar doesn't look to Mikel/Lamps for this, he looks to the wide forwards. Ours don't even provide diagonal runs across. If they did they might open up some space for Rooney, or has Scholes showed with Hernandez, a passing option.


On the field there's only so much the likes of Scholes can do about it. Like I said they can't make Valencia try and do something different, or make Young better and they can't avoid using them as those two had the most space. But tbh like I said if the attackers had played with the same urgency and energy as they did in the second half we would most likely have won the game much quicker because Carrick and Scholes were dominating the ball. Had the attackers used it better, Villa would have likely been much less confident about taking the game to us and eventually we would have broken through.

But I agree that we need to change things up to improve our effectiveness and even that Scholes can cause restrictions. I just think the Villa game was another example of our poor mentality in attack at the start of games and the need to try and diversify how we attack which means the wingers have to be asked to try and vary it up in terms of how they attack, because regardless of who plays in the middle, if the options ahead aren't moving then all you can do is give it to them and hope for the best, you can't make them come inside, you can up the tempo but again they have to give you options, which they simply weren't in the first half.
 
Ash_G said:
Ok but a lot of those problems are bigger than the midfield. Out attack lacking urgency is something we've seen for a while now, it's not dependent on any one midfield as we've seen it in a variety of set ups this season. There's something Fergie needs to address with the mentality of the players when we start matches.

As for Rooney being ineffective because of them personally I don't think they hindered him that much. When Rooney plays that role his main move is to get some space and spread it wide, he rarely looks to pick the ball up, turn and advance through the middle. He doesn't carry the ball particularly well either. Like I said when RVP played there it was noticeable how much more willing he was to carry the ball, and turn towards Villa's goal as well as his movement in general. This gave us more options, it wasn't a case that carrick/scholes started it playing it that much more quicker imo.

In fairness to Rooney though, at least when he went to the left he offered more interplay than Young was. That's the other problem with trying a more central attack. You need more than one player for it. Going back to chelsea, it's noticeable how close Hazard, Mata and Oscar play, they need that to be able to have that interplay. With our wingers sticking to their positions it makes it tough for the central player, Rooney, to do that. Again Oscar doesn't look to Mikel/Lamps for this, he looks to the wide forwards. Ours don't even provide diagonal runs across. If they did they might open up some space for Rooney, or has Scholes showed with Hernandez, a passing option.


On the field there's only so much the likes of Scholes can do about it. Like I said they can't make Valencia try and do something different, or make Young better and they can't avoid using them as those two had the most space. But tbh like I said if the attackers had played with the same urgency and energy as they did in the second half we would most likely have won the game much quicker because Carrick and Scholes were dominating the ball. Had the attackers used it better, Villa would have likely been much less confident about taking the game to us and eventually we would have broken through.

But I agree that we need to change things up to improve our effectiveness and even that Scholes can cause restrictions. I just think the Villa game was another example of our poor mentality in attack at the start of games and the need to try and diversify how we attack which means the wingers have to be asked to try and vary it up in terms of how they attack, because regardless of who plays in the middle, if the options ahead aren't moving then all you can do is give it to them and hope for the best, you can't make them come inside, you can up the tempo but again they have to give you options, which they simply weren't in the first half.
Click to expand...

When we played against Newcastle, we weren't lethargic. When we played against Chelsea with Carrick, Cleverley and Rooney dropping into midfield we weren't lethargic. We just gave possession away cheaply. Against Braga at home, we weren't lethargic there either. There have been a good amount of games where our tempo has been okay but not slow. In all the games Carrick and Scholes have played together, bar one or two iirc, they have been slow. There's really no point defending this partnership in these type of games. It's just not effective. I do agree our attack has lacked urgency but this is more of a team issue than anything and my focus today is on the midfield mostly.

When Rooney has time and space in the middle or at least more than one option, he won't always default wide. It was simply due to the system which is why he played the wide 90% of the time.

The problem is how we're choosing to play. When Anderson and Cleverley are in the same midfield, there's always movement and that goes for the wingers and forwards. Why? Because now with the CMs more involved they have more than one outlet and their movement enables other players to advance or shift the play. Think about it, in the games where Carrick and Scholes look good, they're more involved in the attack. We saw that against Stoke at home. This idea that the attack solely revolves around the attackers and wingers simply doesn't function so well when our CMs aren't as involved. It's why Scholes is lauded any time his passes are effective for our attack. When that happens, we increase the likelihood of creating chances.

It all goes back to choosing sensible midfield combinations. Sure Carrick and Scholes would potentially thrive more if there was more movement, but at the same time, they were so deep against Villa most of the time, it wouldn't have mattered. The reason we looked better in the second half wasn't just because we moved around more. It was because Hernandez's movement gave other players more room to operate. RVP became a bit more involved and more link up play resulted between our midfield and attack. Also notice this pushed Villa back more into their own half which invariably meant Carrick and Scholes could join the attack more. While we weren't much better, you could see some signs of improvement. We looked better when Cleverley came on but the point still stands. Midfield and attack are somewhat inextricably linked. It's ridiculous to expect our attack to thrive when they're far apart from our midfield. It took way too long for us to reach this point and thankfully we got back into the match and won. In the future, we might not be so fortunate.

If you're upping the tempo, there has to be more options. The interplay is quicker which means there's more movement. Our midfield 2 were content with lateral movement more so than moving forward. The way Anderson, Cleverley, and Fletcher play the game lends the team to having more movement. It's just how it works. So even if we're not very incisive, you're at least guaranteed a reasonable tempo and more options on and off the ball. With Carrick and Scholes, it's hit and miss and while they can dominate possession, it forces the attack to carry most of the burden when it should be shared imo.
 
We were pretty lethargic against Southampton, and that was with, Clev, Welbeck and Kagawa all playing, personally I wouldn't say we were particularly creative when we played the diamond, we just kept the ball well, there was a real lack of pace in the attack. Against Arsenal I'd saw we really didn't show any real urgency in attack. One of our best games so far came with Scholes against Stoke.

I don't disagree with you that Scholes inhibits our play, there's probably a post of mine a few pages back where I say we should be focusing on including clev/ando as much as possible and use scholes more of a safety net if they aren't producing.

I just think in games such as the Villa one, it's a game that he is suited to and that whenever he plays and we're not on top form he and carrick are made scapegoats when in reality it is the one dimensional shape of the attack that is the real problem. Yes if Scholes could push up it would give us more options but the main problem was how poor the front four were in the first half and how rigid they played.

And this for me is something that exists regardless of whether Scholes plays. It's not always there but it's an aspect of our game that I think we can definitely work on, that balance between wide threat and central threat and the main problem there for me is the front four in terms of player choice and how they play. Get that right and then whilst Scholes isn't as effective at is as Clev/Ando cause of their energy, he will still find them. When Hernandez came on and actually exploited the space Scholes was the one to pick him out, but he needs those options, similarly clev/ando.

I guess that's my main point, there are issues in the middle, but the main problem for me in our attack and it's lack of variety is the front four, we could get a better balance there and at the very least an urgency. And if they had shown that as I've said we would likley have killed the game much earlier, avoiding Villa gaining confidence and attacking us as much.
 
Ash_G said:
We were pretty lethargic against Southampton, and that was with, Clev, Welbeck and Kagawa all playing, personally I wouldn't say we were particularly creative when we played the diamond, we just kept the ball well, there was a real lack of pace in the attack. Against Arsenal I'd saw we really didn't show any real urgency in attack. One of our best games so far came with Scholes against Stoke.

I don't disagree with you that Scholes inhibits our play, there's probably a post of mine a few pages back where I say we should be focusing on including clev/ando as much as possible and use scholes more of a safety net if they aren't producing.

I just think in games such as the Villa one, it's a game that he is suited to and that whenever he plays and we're not on top form he and carrick are made scapegoats when in reality it is the one dimensional shape of the attack that is the real problem. Yes if Scholes could push up it would give us more options but the main problem was how poor the front four were in the first half and how rigid they played.

And this for me is something that exists regardless of whether Scholes plays. It's not always there but it's an aspect of our game that I think we can definitely work on, that balance between wide threat and central threat and the main problem there for me is the front four in terms of player choice and how they play. Get that right and then whilst Scholes isn't as effective at is as Clev/Ando cause of their energy, he will still find them. When Hernandez came on and actually exploited the space Scholes was the one to pick him out, but he needs those options, similarly clev/ando.

I guess that's my main point, there are issues in the middle, but the main problem for me in our attack and it's lack of variety is the front four, we could get a better balance there and at the very least an urgency. And if they had shown that as I've said we would likley have killed the game much earlier, avoiding Villa gaining confidence and attacking us as much.
Click to expand...

You're confusing a few things here. Against Southampton, we lacked fluidity and struggled to build a good rhythm. That was also a game where Carrick was terribly off the pace. That's different than having the ball and taking ages to decide what to do with it.

About the diamond, I never really mentioned anything about creativity. At least in that formation we have a more uniform shape and our CMs are more involved in the attack. To get the right amount of incisiveness in the diamond, you need a certain mix of players to make it click otherwise it can become just as ineffective as Carrick and Scholes in a midfield 2 from an attacking standpoint.

I disagree about Scholes being suited for the Villa game. I mean that taking all things constant with the same shape and setup from both teams. I know you feel if our wingers were better, we would have won comfortably but we don't really know. We can only hope and we're better off dealing with what we actually know. Now if we played Scholes in a more balanced setup, I wouldn't be against him playing against Villa or even other teams. Problem is, it's always with Carrick and when Carrick isn't in good form, it just looks dreadful.

Not much I disagree with in the second bolded part. Only thing I would contest is how you argue about Clev/Ando needing options. While I see what you're saying, how they play almost forces our other players to move. With those two, there's no notion of deference like there is with Scholes. It's one of the reasons why I feel Scholes inhibits our play by simply being Scholes. I think until we find our best shape and team, we will continue to debate over what is best for the team.
 
Happy birthday to our maestro!
 
Happy Birthday Scholesy aka "Sat-Nav!" What a player.

Ravel Morrison tweeted this:
ravelmorrison23 ‏@morrisonravel

Wishing the best player I've played with and against one of the best footballers ever Paul Scholes happy birthday #legend
Click to expand...

And then recieved a load of stick about how he could still be playing with Scholes if he kept his head.

Scholesy should be a reminder to all the youngsters that ability isn't the only thing needed to get to the top.
 
Plato said:
You're confusing a few things here. Against Southampton, we lacked fluidity and struggled to build a good rhythm. That was also a game where Carrick was terribly off the pace. That's different than having the ball and taking ages to decide what to do with it.

About the diamond, I never really mentioned anything about creativity. At least in that formation we have a more uniform shape and our CMs are more involved in the attack. To get the right amount of incisiveness in the diamond, you need a certain mix of players to make it click otherwise it can become just as ineffective as Carrick and Scholes in a midfield 2 from an attacking standpoint.

I disagree about Scholes being suited for the Villa game. I mean that taking all things constant with the same shape and setup from both teams. I know you feel if our wingers were better, we would have won comfortably but we don't really know. We can only hope and we're better off dealing with what we actually know. Now if we played Scholes in a more balanced setup, I wouldn't be against him playing against Villa or even other teams. Problem is, it's always with Carrick and when Carrick isn't in good form, it just looks dreadful.

Not much I disagree with in the second bolded part. Only thing I would contest is how you argue about Clev/Ando needing options. While I see what you're saying, how they play almost forces our other players to move. With those two, there's no notion of deference like there is with Scholes. It's one of the reasons why I feel Scholes inhibits our play by simply being Scholes. I think until we find our best shape and team, we will continue to debate over what is best for the team.
Click to expand...

Lethargic probably wasn't the right description but it was more that we've looked a bit creatively lacking at times with or without Scholes and with or without players such as Clev and Kagawa who aren't so focused on the wings. I remember some people voicing their disappointment at Kagawa for continually spreading the ball wide and I think that goes back to the fact that yes, having someone with energy, willing to move with the ball, and come short etc does give different options, still you need the players in the wide areas to give different options other than just sticking to their flank to fully utilize it.

The diamond example was just highlighting that even when we've focused on a more narrow approach again we've still looked lacking in terms of cutting edge creativity. But I think we agree on that more or less.

We probably won't agree on Scholes being fine for the Villa game. I think they did a better job than most on him by having Ireland around but still I think our dominance of the ball showed the combo could work. Live I've said we're always going to be open to the counter in that sort of system, because we leave so much space centrally, and particularly with Scholes on the pitch we get our wingers to push up very high. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that normally even if the wingers were having an off day we could expect more from Rooney and had he or the wingers performed I'm sure our control of the ball would have paid off.

Clev and Ando as you say to at times force more movement but sometimes that comes at the cost of leaving lots of space to be exploited, they're better at getting back but the problem still gets created. But as I've said, in general I think one of them should play over Scholes, however I still think their are some games where Scholes's ability to spread the ball out to our wingers in 1 ball, especially against the weaker teams can be a massive weapon. If they don't play well it causes problems, but that could happen to anyone, there will be times where Clev/Ando are doing what we would want but the attacking players just can't do the last bit.

But I agree that we're still looking to find our best team, and I don't think Scholes will be part of that when we do find it. Personally I'm hoping for more of a 433 which I think will give us the best mix of width and central play, but I do think there are some games where Scholes can run the game.
 
Ash_G said:
Lethargic probably wasn't the right description but it was more that we've looked a bit creatively lacking at times with or without Scholes and with or without players such as Clev and Kagawa who aren't so focused on the wings. I remember some people voicing their disappointment at Kagawa for continually spreading the ball wide and I think that goes back to the fact that yes, having someone with energy, willing to move with the ball, and come short etc does give different options, still you need the players in the wide areas to give different options other than just sticking to their flank to fully utilize it.

The diamond example was just highlighting that even when we've focused on a more narrow approach again we've still looked lacking in terms of cutting edge creativity. But I think we agree on that more or less.

We probably won't agree on Scholes being fine for the Villa game. I think they did a better job than most on him by having Ireland around but still I think our dominance of the ball showed the combo could work. Live I've said we're always going to be open to the counter in that sort of system, because we leave so much space centrally, and particularly with Scholes on the pitch we get our wingers to push up very high. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that normally even if the wingers were having an off day we could expect more from Rooney and had he or the wingers performed I'm sure our control of the ball would have paid off.

Clev and Ando as you say to at times force more movement but sometimes that comes at the cost of leaving lots of space to be exploited, they're better at getting back but the problem still gets created. But as I've said, in general I think one of them should play over Scholes, however I still think their are some games where Scholes's ability to spread the ball out to our wingers in 1 ball, especially against the weaker teams can be a massive weapon. If they don't play well it causes problems, but that could happen to anyone, there will be times where Clev/Ando are doing what we would want but the attacking players just can't do the last bit.

But I agree that we're still looking to find our best team, and I don't think Scholes will be part of that when we do find it. Personally I'm hoping for more of a 433 which I think will give us the best mix of width and central play, but I do think there are some games where Scholes can run the game.
Click to expand...

Like I said I would only agree on Scholes playing if the midfield is more balanced. Every time we play him, it's with Carrick!!! Scholes and Carrick if not pressured will always dominate possession. The question is what we do with it. Our use of the ball and tempo could have been much better Saturday.

As for Cleverley and Anderson, if I can find it I will refer you to the post I wrote about the Cleverley/Ando parternship. While they do leave spaces, it's not as bad as Carrick/Scholes. At least the former two have the pace to get back in position. There's two problems when it comes to playing those two. Because they are so attack-minded, it leaves space in behind. The other problem is the space left in behind depends on who is playing in the backline. If it's Rio/Vidic, they're going to want to stay back which means the gaps will be even larger. If the future is Cleverley and Anderson as a midfield 2, we need a more compact system where we press higher up the field and defend from the front. Anderson has shown recently he has the ability to pressure defenders and nick the ball to start counterattacks. This ability could be exploited more if we pressed up high. As of recently, we have only done so in the diamond system and I would argue it's better served in a 4-3-3.
 
I don't think Scholes can play with anyone else, other than say Fletcher. His problem is that he can't be relied on to cover his partner, so you still need that person to stay deep. It wouldn't be such an issue if virtually every team didn't play with some sort of 451, but most do. Personally I think against some teams it's fine, it won't always work in those games but against Villa for example as I've said I think it was more to do with the failings of the front 4 rather than the limitations of the midfielders.

As for Clev and Ando, I agree they are better at getting back but I think when we're just being pressurized by the other team, not countered, than Scholes is actually probably better than them defensively, well maybe not Ando, but probably Clev, as I feel Clev does get attracted to the ball a little and can lose his tactical position. Even then though although they're better at recovering from a counter the damage might be done by that time, such as the Fulham game where Dembele was given tonnes of room to move into.

Still it's not a big deal, one of Ando and Clev, is the way forward and maybe long term both. Personally I'd like to see us work more on Rooney playing in a 3 with Carrick and one of clev or ando, with 2 players like Nani and Kagawa flanking RVP. There could be plenty of interplay in the front 4, whilst still maintaining the wide threat. The three in the middle and general way the two players either side of RVP could play would help to reduce the space centrally which would help us a lot imo.
 
Hehe Ash, we're slowly reaching an agreement now. Basically feel similarly to you.
 
Personally I hope he reverses his decision this January. He makes our whiles play slow and predictable.
 
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...l-next-summer-and-this-time-its-for-good.html

PAUL SCHOLES will quit football next summer — and this time there is no coming back.

The Manchester United legend, 38, has told people close to him this is definitely his final season.

Scholes first retired after the 2010-11 campaign, which saw United win a record 19th title.

He took up a role coaching the reserves but badly missed match days and training with the first team — and believed he still had something to offer.
SunSport exclusively revealed last January that he wanted to return as a player. He made his comeback as a substitute in United’s FA Cup victory over Manchester City on January 8.

Scholes, whose stunning trophy haul includes 10 Premier League crowns, two European Cups and three FA Cups, went on to play a big part as United pulled clear of City in the title race, only to eventually miss out on goal difference.
He was encouraged enough to carry on playing this season but the former England man has started just seven games.

Fellow veteran Ryan Giggs, 39, has also made only seven starts and could follow him into retirement.

Scholes is seen by some as United’s greatest player ever.

Legends such as Zinedine Zidane, Edgar Davids and Xavi have said he is the best midfielder they have faced.

Scholes has made 710 appearances for United since his debut in a League Cup win at Port Vale in 1994.
Click to expand...
 
Not a surprise if true. Though while highly likely I will take that report with a grain of salt as there is currently nothing on the United website and I would guess it would appear there first or at least have some quotes.
 
Anderson's Cat said:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...l-next-summer-and-this-time-its-for-good.html
Click to expand...

It's probably time but that should not erase the fact that there's no way we'd have been in the title race without Scholesy last season. I've moaned a lot about Scholes this year but the guy's legendary and I'm proud to have his name and number on the back of my Utd shirt. Absolute hero. I really hope he has one last big game to sign off his career with. Be grand if Scholes comes off the bench against Madrid, runs the show and sets up the goal that sends us through or something.
 
True, last year he saved our asses a bit and helped us while almost all our midfielders were injured. This year, things are a bit different and we should/will use him only partly and bring him on to keep the score if we're winning
 
Escobar said:
True, last year he saved our asses a bit and helped us while almost all our midfielders were injured. This year, things are a bit different and we should/will use him only partly and bring him on to keep the score if we're winning
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, after 60 minutes or so when most players start to tire, Scholes also has an effect on our offensive play where he is able to pick out players in tight corners better than any of our other players.
 
You don't really need to have connections in order to write Scholes will retire at the end of the season. It's obviously a strong possibility. And if he doesn't... Who'll remember what you've written in December anyway...
 
I'll never forget the day The Sun broke the news of Scholes' return a month before it actually happened.
 
I also have connections saying Scholes will retire after this season. You heard it here from the same guy who said Scholes will make a come back.
 
I'd say there's more chance of Celtic winning the CL than Scholes and Giggs being around next year.
 
Eyepopper said:
I'd say there's more chance of Celtic winning the CL than Scholes and Giggs being around next year.
Click to expand...

I really wouldn't be shocked if Giggs took another contract.
 
Fergie denied Scholes and Giggs will be off this summer and even said Giggs could play for another 2 years
 
Were you shocked at Wayne Rooney publicly questioning United’s ambition last season? Gary Neville said he told him to apologise, did you have a word with him too?
Scott Paynton, Salford
I think he learned his lesson very quickly after that. He knew what he did was wrong: that no player at Man United should ever publicly question the manager; that if they have a problem they should see the manager about it.
It wasn’t a nice time and Wayne might have been confused. We weren’t playing as well as he would’ve liked, but that happens sometimes. You just have to trust your team-mates. He apologised, the matter was done and dusted, and we ended up winning the league.
I never spoke to him about it, but I was surprised. It isn’t something you expect to happen at Manchester United, so it was disappointing. It was a bit disrespectful to the club.
Click to expand...

No mention of the alleged tackle from Scholes in training the day of Rooney's "ambition" statement, which put him out for a few weeks?
 
Made that horrible, rushed back pass to De Gea in the Newcastle game, and you saw the camera pan towards his face - his look said it all, he was completely knackered and wanted to be subbed off.

It's not fair to him and the club to start him in a 4-4-2. Either bring him on as a sub (which benefits the team and maybe not him as he wants to play more) or play him in a 4-3-3 (which would benefit him but maybe not the club as it blunts our attacking instincts).
 
We've conceded the first goal in each of the last five games he has started.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.