RVN,OLE,DIEGO vs COLE,SHERI,OLE,YORKIE...is 3 as good as 4?

buzet44

Guest
Surely we all agree we need to have 4 top class forwards to pick from, ideally in a 4-4-2. Proper forwards not midfield converts like Scholes or even Giggs.
Why did we let Cole go.....answer, because he was too much like Nistelrooy. Surely that was the one reason why we should have kept him......like for like.Damn,they could even have played together...stranger things have happened.
We let Sheri go...ok...debatable...he wanted a 2 year contract...nevermind he's as fit as a fiddle and playing fantastic for Spurs now surprise surprise.
Yorkie...hmmmmmmm....everybody wanted to see the back of him...playboy layabout.
What did we get for him in the end after freezing him out for a season...£2 million?
There is nothing wrong with a turnover of players if you replace them with the same quality or better. The point is...were we stronger 2 seasons ago in attack than we are today, RVN and all?
 
Because Fergie's obsession with 4-5-1 made a 4th striker seem less important.
 
so really...this season will probably pan out much like the last. Lose to Bolton at home...fanny about playing 4-4-2 one game, 4-5-1 the next. Chop and change...chop and change. Still, at least with the injuries and shallowness of sqaud these days, we might get some consistency in team selection?
 
Originally posted by buzet44:
<strong>so really...this season will probably pan out much like the last. Lose to Bolton at home...fanny about playing 4-4-2 one game, 4-5-1 the next. Chop and change...chop and change. Still, at least with the injuries and shallowness of sqaud these days, we might get some consistency in team selection?</strong><hr></blockquote>

We need to get back to a settled team and a settled formation. Once we did that last year we went on a good run.
Click to expand...
 
True. But can we claim to be the same indomitable United if we lose to Bolton at home 2 seasons running. Because make no bones about it, the team that beat us today will do well to finish 19th.
 
One of the factors that always set us apart was the goal that our midfield generated. We won title with our strikers scoring less than 20 a season in the league, until 1998/99. We have 3 attack minded midfielders and one holding player. Until last year you could almost guarentee that Scholes would get between 10 & 15, Giggs would weigh in with between 8 & 10 with the others picking up goals along the way. Giggs has been a regular fixture for just over 10 years and he has just over 100 goals, about 10 a season, and on average say 8 of those were league goals. This didn't happen last year and our midfield is struggling to gain the upperhand this season (granted giggs has scored a few). Our strikers or lack of them, and their form, is not the only problem
 
Originally posted by Livvie20:
<strong>Because Fergie's obsession with 4-5-1 made a 4th striker seem less important.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think you're right. I think that's why he decided not to go for a 4th striker. I remember Fergie saying in an interview as the transfer window was about to closed that we had options up front. I'm sure "those options" he was talking about was Giggs and Scholes in a 4-5-1 formation.

Although I think the system is useful at times, my main frustration with that system is that we're trying to force square pegs into round holes with too many players...

Scholes struggled with the system all last year. Everyone says he had a bad year. Personally, I think the formation simply didn't suit him. And as for Giggs, he isn't a good finisher. How can you consistently play him as a second striker when finishing is one of the weakest parts of his game? Finally, we've spent over £19 million on RVN. Why spend that much money on a player and then stick him in a system that doesn't really suit him? I think he's the kind of player that needs to have a 2nd striker playing with him week in, week out for us get the best out of him.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Ever hopefull:
<strong>One of the factors that always set us apart was the goal that our midfield generated. We won title with our strikers scoring less than 20 a season in the league, until 1998/99. We have 3 attack minded midfielders and one holding player. Until last year you could almost guarentee that Scholes would get between 10 & 15, Giggs would weigh in with between 8 & 10 with the others picking up goals along the way. Giggs has been a regular fixture for just over 10 years and he has just over 100 goals, about 10 a season, and on average say 8 of those were league goals. This didn't happen last year and our midfield is struggling to gain the upperhand this season (granted giggs has scored a few). Our strikers or lack of them, and their form, is not the only problem</strong><hr></blockquote>
Beckham scored an amazing amount last season, Giggs a little less than normal, Scholes a fair amount less than normal, but Veron and Keane a very poor amount and Keano used to score lots of important goals for us. Butt never scores, so from our midfield today, only Giggs and Beckham were goalscoring threats.
Click to expand...
 
In my opinion, Yorke and Cole (the starters) weren't as good as Solksjaer and Sheringham (the subs). Therefore when the subs came on, there was a big impact.

Now, with RVN and OGS starting, and Forlan on the bench, there's no impact. You'd be taking off a world class striker and replacing him with an inferior player.
 
I agree that the fourth striker didnt seem as important to Fergie with the new system. I think we desperately need something new up front and a settled 4-4-2 formation, everyone can see we are a far far better team with that. Giggs just isnt a striker, by playing him up front we are losing his wide play, same goes for Beckham coming so far in to the middle of the park, remember when he used to stay wide and put in those glorious crosses?

Scholes is more dangerous to opposition teams from centre midfield, again recall those stunning goals from outside the box? something needs to be chaged or we are in for another season of inconsistantancy. The signs are already there.
 
The four strikers in 1999 are definitely much, much better than the front line we have today. They have class, and they have variation: each one of them add something different to the team: Cole-pace, Yorke-skill, Ole-killer instinct, Sheri-header and linkup. Someone said we play 4-5-1 so we didn't need many striker, and someone said because Ruud and Ole are so good we don't need too many other strikers, but they are all wrong. The reason behind "four striker theory" is sharpness and variation. Striker can't stay sharp in 60 matches per season, and one type of striker can beat every type of defender in this world. That's why I said "sharpness" and "variation" are the key point for a front line.

Ole and Sheri are great players, while people may think that Yorke and Cole may not be world class, but as a partnership they are awesome and can tear nearly everything before them apart. But in the current front line, only Ruud and Ole are good enough. When they lack sharpness we have no one to replace them. Moreover, there still isn't any spark between them as a partnership. That's one of the main reason why it is obvious that the current front line is not as sharp and deadly as the front line in treble season.
 
Originally posted by Jason F:
<strong>
Scholes is more dangerous to opposition teams from centre midfield, again recall those stunning goals from outside the box? something needs to be chaged or we are in for another season of inconsistantancy. The signs are already there.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have already said long ago that we really miss Scholes long bang and his dash into the area. But when the manager and some other fans think that a player who cannot shoot and who overhit nearly every long pass are better than Scholes, we know that the sign can't be any worse.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by uranushk1:
<strong>

I have already said long ago that we really miss Scholes long bang and his dash into the area. But when the manager and some other fans think that a player who cannot shoot and who overhit nearly every long pass are better than Scholes, we know that the sign can't be any worse.</strong><hr></blockquote>


I assume that you mean Veron and I couldn't agree with you more. Let's see. Scholes is a better shoot and header than Veron. A better and more effective passer than Veron. Neither are very good tacklers but ATLEAST SCHOLES MAKES AN EFFORT TO TACKLE. Veron is probably faster but rarely finds the need to play a full speed.

Probably the biggest problem has been the undervalue of Scholes in the side. I really dread the fact that he'll be out for 6 weeks. Veron has to show what he's worth now. The side needs him. If can't produce now then I think he'll never produce at United.

As for the strikers, I'll take the four of Cole, Yorke, OGS and Sheringham over the current three. As far as I'm concerned United have no depth at the position. Forlan hasn't scored and untill he does, I consider him a wasted body. I'm really disappointed that Yorke left considering United didn't make a real effort to sign another striker. IMO, letting Andy Cole cost United a trip to the CL final last season.
Click to expand...
 
I was never a Cole fan but I do think we missed him because of his pace. He was the over the top ball that we could play, we cant do that now. 4 strikers that kept everyone guessing (which combo, high ball/to feet/pace etc) We have no imagination up front at the moment as well as no pace and unless we get some (and Ronaldinho is not the answer, can U see him scoring 20 a season?) we are in for another bitch of a season.
 
Originally posted by thumper:
<strong>I was never a Cole fan but I do think we missed him because of his pace. He was the over the top ball that we could play, we cant do that now. 4 strikers that kept everyone guessing (which combo, high ball/to feet/pace etc) We have no imagination up front at the moment as well as no pace and unless we get some (and Ronaldinho is not the answer, can U see him scoring 20 a season?) we are in for another bitch of a season.</strong><hr></blockquote>

"Pace and flair", that's what we need in our attack. I don't know how Ronaldinho played in France. So I won't comment on whether he is suitable to us or not. But we need someone with the skill and flair to open defence. Whether that person is a high scorer or not is not the most important IMO.
Click to expand...
 
Surely the forward who opens up the defence has to be worth 10-15 goals minimum per season otherwise whats the point, just revert to 4-4-2? <img src="graemlins/angel.gif" border="0" alt="[Angel]" />
 
I think Cole was very underrated. Maybe he wasn't media savy or something. I can't understand why he is not considered among the OT all time greats.
 
He was top class IMO, but only as a real striker - first choice striker. With Ruud coming along, and SAF wanting to play with his 4-5-1, he couldn't leave Cole on the bench - he's no Solskjaer!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.