Static, slow motion zombie passing

What's annoyed me more is how slow they've been at covering in the middle. Its been too easy for the likes of Ireland to ghost past the two CMs.

Even on the goal, Rooney was the furthest player back.
 
They are SO slow covering the middle. Its shocking considering neither even get far up the pitch anyways. Carrick was supposed to be covering weimann for the goal and he just seems to be about 5 yards behind everytime.
 
Ainu said:
Tactically we must be the worst top club in Europe by a country mile.
Click to expand...

Tactically we're fine. The problem is sentimentality.

We have the exact same problems with Giggs and Scholes, both should be put out to pasture but Fergie is too attached to them.

The same happened with Neville, it was a long long time before his awful performances at the back end of his career forced him to retire, and that was his decision not Fergies.
 
Ainu said:
Tactically we must be the worst top club in Europe by a country mile.
Click to expand...

That idea doesn't really marry up with the consensus out there that Ferguson has done a fine job in squeezing the best out of this team.
 
In the first half we must've played the most boring football ever.

We need to sort this out, as we can't continue to play like and concede goals.
 
Gio said:
That idea doesn't really marry up with the consensus out there that Ferguson has done a fine job in squeezing the best out of this team.
Click to expand...

There's no manager in the world who can inspire a team as Fergie does, that's probably the biggest factor. And we have a few world class players, which helps. But I agree with another poster that sentimentality might be his biggest problem at the moment.
 
Maybe at last Ferguson will see that a 2 men midfield consisting of Scholes and Carrick just doesnt work anymore. We are far too predictable and play without any pace or penetration.
 
Nate Dogg said:
For how long? When we play the bigger teams it wont be as easy as a shiite Villa or Wigan etc.
Click to expand...

Like Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and Newcastle?

We're breathtaking going forwards at the moment and that comes at the expense of being lighter defensively. Nervy stuff but becoming more defensive will affect our attack too.
 
Gio said:
That idea doesn't really marry up with the consensus out there that Ferguson has done a fine job in squeezing the best out of this team.
Click to expand...

Good man-management should not be confused with being tactically astute.
 
We got exposed at times on the counter as Scholes simply can't keep pace but on the ball they did their job fine. It's not them who are meant to put in the final pass that's what the four attacking players ahead of them are there to do. Their job is to get it to them in good areas and they did that, Young and Valencia got the ball exactly where they'd want it and did nothing with it. Rooney and RVP weren't dropping off much or taking responsibility to try something different.

At City if they dominate the ball but aren't creating you look at Silva, Nasri, Tevez etc, at Chelsea you'd look at Hazard, Mata, Oscar. We dominated the ball and got it in the right areas with players in one on one situations in space and they did very little.

What I will say we lack though is when Nani isn't there there is no one really except maybe Welbeck or Young sparodically who will offer a varied threat from out wide. There's just not a variety there particularly in terms of players coming inside, linking up or making inside runs to open up space for others, or just to provide an option.
 
acrebo said:
Like Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and Newcastle?

We're breathtaking going forwards at the moment and that comes at the expense of being lighter defensively. Nervy stuff but becoming more defensive will affect our attack too.
Click to expand...

I just don't see it. We score plenty of goals through the individual quality and goal threat we have. But I'm not seeing breathtaking, exciting football.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
I just don't see it. We score plenty of goals through the individual quality and goal threat we have. But I'm not seeing breathtaking, exciting football.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The idea that we sacrifice stability for our commitment to attacking is wide of the mark: we simply make appalling mistakes defensively and are generally bad at retrieving the ball early enough. There are some concentration issues as well. In attack, we're usually predictable and unimaginative - fortunately we have the sheer firepower to scrape through most of the time.

We might click if SAF stumbles upon a line-up and formation that works or we might continue scraping through or we could get brutally found out after a while.
 
This will happen when you play Scholes and Carrick together. It will continue to happen with Scholes in a two-man midfield as has been apparent for God knows how long.
 
Godfather said:
Maybe at last Ferguson will see that a 2 men midfield consisting of Scholes and Carrick just doesnt work anymore. We are far too predictable and play without any pace or penetration.
Click to expand...

That and we let barry fecking bannan create a goal and a few other opportunities.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
I just don't see it. We score plenty of goals through the individual quality and goal threat we have. But I'm not seeing breathtaking, exciting football.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I'll rephrase to say that the attacking options we have are breathtaking.
 
Sorry but teams know if Scholes starts put him under and with his old legs he can't hack it and needs more time. Shouldn't be starting any games in the PL.

Fantastic player in his day but give it up SAF.
 
Pronewbie said:
Good man-management should not be confused with being tactically astute.
Click to expand...

The idea that United are tactically a country mile behind their peers is borne part out of the myth that Ferguson is a poor/average tactician, and part out of the fact that fans scrutinising their own team spot flaws which they don't see in other teams because they're not analysing them to the same extent (much like the whole "we're shit at corners" gripe, which every set of fans have).
 
Gio said:
The idea that United are tactically a country mile behind their peers is borne part out of the myth that Ferguson is a poor/average tactician, and part out of the fact that fans scrutinising their own team spot flaws which they don't see in other teams because they're not analysing them to the same extent (much like the whole "we're shit at corners" gripe, which every set of fans have).
Click to expand...

Exactly. You can't be the greatest manager in the English league by being an average/poor tactician.
 
acrebo said:
Like Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and Newcastle?

We're breathtaking going forwards at the moment and that comes at the expense of being lighter defensively. Nervy stuff but becoming more defensive will affect our attack too.
Click to expand...

All four listed are just as bad as other teams, defensively shiite.
 
Was hard tonight as Villa just parked the bus.
 
Lawman said:
Was hard tonight as Villa just parked the bus.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and this was supposed to be remedied by taking an absolute eternity on the ball, not moving around, and watching Carrick and Scholes pass the ball to each other?
 
KM said:
Exactly. You can't be the greatest manager in the English league by being an average/poor tactician.
Click to expand...

Aye Ferguson is very underrated tactically. He usually gets it spot on bar the odd brainfart, it's occassionally his team selection that lets him down.
 
I thought we improved upon the lack of penetration we've suffered from in other games. Or we at least looked like we were trying to.
 
People were crying out for Anderson and Cleverley, but we weren't much more dynamic or creative, or any better defensively, with them than without.

By the time Cleverley came on we were back level. He did inject a bit more pace into midfield, as subs will. But then Rooney went off and we lost a lot of our coherence.

Paul Scholes is the best midfielder at United currently. I wouldn't start him in a midfield two either, but the idea that he's been surpassed by other players at the club is rubbish. Cleverley and Anderson are promising players who've done nothing in football yet. Carrick is Carrick.

Given our perennial lack of a top CM, I see nothing wrong with playing Scholes (or Giggs) as part of a three. He made three bad errors today, and increasingly he has them in him, but he's often been among our best players this season.
 
Plechazunga said:
People were crying out for Anderson and Cleverley, but we weren't much more dynamic or creative, or any better defensively, with them than without.

By the time Cleverley came on we were back in it. He did inject a bit more pace into midfield, as subs will. But then Rooney went off and we lost a lot of our coherence.

Paul Scholes is the best midfielder at the club. I wouldn't start him in a midfield two either, but the idea that he's been surpassed by other players at the club is rubbish. Cleverley and Anderson are promising players who've done nothing in football yet. Carrick is Carrick.

Given our perennial lack of a top CM, I see nothing wrong with playing Scholes (or Giggs) as part of a three. He made three bad errors today, and increasingly he has them in him, but he's often been among our best players this season.
Click to expand...

The issue I have with Scholes isn't how good he is but how reliant we are on him with him on the pitch, we look to him too much. His brilliance is unquestionable, even if he had a shocker tonight. I just feel players shirk creative responsibility when Scholes plays. He's also a defensive non-entity unfortunately. However his ability to pass a Football really well outweighs that, unfortunately tonight he didn't pass it as well and he stuck out like a sore thumb and even then he still played the best (and most crucial) pass of the night.
 
Ash_G said:
We got exposed at times on the counter as Scholes simply can't keep pace but on the ball they did their job fine. It's not them who are meant to put in the final pass that's what the four attacking players ahead of them are there to do. Their job is to get it to them in good areas and they did that, Young and Valencia got the ball exactly where they'd want it and did nothing with it. Rooney and RVP weren't dropping off much or taking responsibility to try something different.

At City if they dominate the ball but aren't creating you look at Silva, Nasri, Tevez etc, at Chelsea you'd look at Hazard, Mata, Oscar. We dominated the ball and got it in the right areas with players in one on one situations in space and they did very little.

What I will say we lack though is when Nani isn't there there is no one really except maybe Welbeck or Young sparodically who will offer a varied threat from out wide. There's just not a variety there particularly in terms of players coming inside, linking up or making inside runs to open up space for others, or just to provide an option.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Toure's the only CM from Chelsea or City who you'd consider vital to their attacking. The team which depends mostly on it's CMs for the creativity is Arsenal. United, City, Chelsea and Spurs get their creativity mostly from the AMs and wingers.

What our CM lacks that those teams have is the mobility and defensive awareness. Plus their wingers/AMs are in better form.
 
Plechazunga said:
People were crying out for Anderson and Cleverley, but we weren't much more dynamic or creative, or any better defensively, with them than without.

By the time Cleverley came on we were back level. He did inject a bit more pace into midfield, as subs will. But then Rooney went off and we lost a lot of our coherence.

Paul Scholes is the best midfielder at United currently. I wouldn't start him in a midfield two either, but the idea that he's been surpassed by other players at the club is rubbish. Cleverley and Anderson are promising players who've done nothing in football yet. Carrick is Carrick.

Given our perennial lack of a top CM, I see nothing wrong with playing Scholes (or Giggs) as part of a three. He made three bad errors today, and increasingly he has them in him, but he's often been among our best players this season.
Click to expand...
And I don't think any of our other midfielders (barring perhaps Rooney) are capable of that pass which led to our first goal.

I also find it amusing how SAF can be considered both sentimental and ruthless, depending on whose worldview he's offending. Perhaps he still rates Scholes and Giggs, and realizes that they still enough quality to make a valuable contribution.
 
Plechazunga said:
People were crying out for Anderson and Cleverley, but we weren't much more dynamic or creative, or any better defensively, with them than without.

By the time Cleverley came on we were back level. He did inject a bit more pace into midfield, as subs will. But then Rooney went off and we lost a lot of our coherence.

Paul Scholes is the best midfielder at United currently. I wouldn't start him in a midfield two either, but the idea that he's been surpassed by other players at the club is rubbish. Cleverley and Anderson are promising players who've done nothing in football yet. Carrick is Carrick.

Given our perennial lack of a top CM, I see nothing wrong with playing Scholes (or Giggs) as part of a three. He made three bad errors today, and increasingly he has them in him, but he's often been among our best players this season.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is more we lose the directness and the pace of our attack when we play Scholes/Giggs + Carrick. Both like to sit deep and dictate play which given the usual bus parking we come up against can present problems. Those problems were compounded when Scholes had an poor half and both were expose leading to numerous counters. Cleverely and Anderson attack the space and follow runs into the box but can bust a gut to get back (like anderson covering a counter vs Braga even after playing nearly the whole match). Scholes makes smart runs but cannot get back if we do turn it over so he tends to hover around the edge of the box. With the two wingers that liked to stay wide and Carrick/Scholes staying outside the area we basically had Rooney and RvP trying to make runs vs 4 players.

I agree with you that scholes would be great in a midfield three but today just didnt work and luckily we were able to bail ourself out.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
The issue I have with Scholes isn't how good he is but how reliant we are on him with him on the pitch, we look to him too much. His brilliance is unquestionable, even if he had a shocker tonight. I just feel players shirk creative responsibility when Scholes plays. He's also a defensive non-entity unfortunately. However his ability to pass a Football really well outweighs that, unfortunately tonight he didn't pass it as well and he stuck out like a sore thumb and even then he still played the best (and most crucial) pass of the night.
Click to expand...

He wasn;t that bad in the first half. He made two bad errors that could have cost us (and one in the second half that did). But he also played a lot of good balls. The one to Valencia out wide, just before the one for Hernandez was a peach.

jem said:
And I don't think any of our other midfielders (barring perhaps Rooney) are capable of that pass which led to our first goal.
Click to expand...

Carrick and Anderson have it in their locker, but Scholes' long passing is staggering in its accuracy, and his short passing is actually more progressive and less predictable than Carrick's (even if not today).

Sojiro said:
I think the issue is more we lose the directness and the pace of our attack when we play Scholes/Giggs + Carrick. Both like to sit deep and dictate play which given the usual bus parking we come up against can present problems. Those problems were compounded when Scholes had an poor half and both were expose leading to numerous counters. Cleverely and Anderson attack the space and follow runs into the box but can bust a gut to get back (like anderson covering a counter vs Braga even after playing nearly the whole match). Scholes makes smart runs but cannot get back if we do turn it over so he tends to hover around the edge of the box. With the two wingers that liked to stay wide and Carrick/Scholes staying outside the area we basically had Rooney and RvP trying to make runs vs 4 players.

I agree with you that scholes would be great in a midfield three but today just didnt work and luckily we were able to bail ourself out.
Click to expand...

I agree. The reason I wouldn't play them as a two is that they can't make runs forward without totally gutting us defensively, so they both sit and our attacks go nowhere. Even at home against shit teams I'd be loath to start them in a two, though I don't mind reverting to it later if we're ahead and can sit back.
 
roseguy64 said:
Exactly. Toure's the only CM from Chelsea or City who you'd consider vital to their attacking. The team which depends mostly on it's CMs for the creativity is Arsenal. United, City, Chelsea and Spurs get their creativity mostly from the AMs and wingers.

What our CM lacks that those teams have is the mobility and defensive awareness. Plus their wingers/AMs are in better form.
Click to expand...

Yeah I always find people seem to want our midfielders to do a lot more than other midfielders, Toure is probably one of the issues with that because people see him scoring/creating but don't usually consider that he's probably playing as an a/m more in Rooney's role than Carricks/Scholes's. As you said at other clubs their midfielders aren't expected to be the main creators. Even at Arsenal you're looking at Carzola, Podolski, Walcott etc. The midfielders have their part to play but as I said that's mainly to make sure the attacking players see the ball enough, and where they'd want, not having to come short for it etc.
 
Plechazunga said:
People were crying out for Anderson and Cleverley, but we weren't much more dynamic or creative, or any better defensively, with them than without.

By the time Cleverley came on we were back level. He did inject a bit more pace into midfield, as subs will. But then Rooney went off and we lost a lot of our coherence.

Paul Scholes is the best midfielder at United currently. I wouldn't start him in a midfield two either, but the idea that he's been surpassed by other players at the club is rubbish. Cleverley and Anderson are promising players who've done nothing in football yet. Carrick is Carrick.

Given our perennial lack of a top CM, I see nothing wrong with playing Scholes (or Giggs) as part of a three. He made three bad errors today, and increasingly he has them in him, but he's often been among our best players this season.
Click to expand...
My semtiments exactly Va;encia was a little Awol in the first half but scholes kept probing one goal in the first half would have changed everything. We have too many supporters who think should lie down before us are deluded
 
Plechazunga said:
I see nothing wrong with playing Scholes (or Giggs) as part of a three..
Click to expand...

This version of Scholes would be perfect in a midfield three. He is still quality to have on the pitch in terms of his movement and general ability on the ball; we just need 2 other people next to him to make up for what he lacks. In theory, Carrick, Anderson and Scholes in a midfield three should work a treat. The defensive ability of Carrick, the sort shit out factor of Anderson and the control of Scholes...it should work. I don't know if it'd be better than having Cleverley in instead of Scholes, but it'd be far, far better playing those three and dropping Young instead of having Scholes/Giggs in a midfield two.

It's not like it's gone wrong just once or twice. We've put in dreadful performances over and over again lining up like that.
 
KingEric7 said:
This version of Scholes would be perfect in a midfield three. He is still quality to have on the pitch in terms of his movement and general ability on the ball; we just need 2 other people next to him to make up for what he lacks. In theory, Carrick, Anderson and Scholes in a midfield three should work a treat. The defensive ability of Carrick, the sort shit out factor of Anderson and the control of Scholes...it should work. I don't know if it'd be better than having Cleverley in instead of Scholes, but it'd be far, far better playing those three and dropping Young instead of having Scholes/Giggs in a midfield two.

It's not like it's gone wrong just once or twice. We've put in dreadful performances over and over again lining up like that.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But then instead of one person giving the ball to Scholes and stopping there would be two. Or maybe he would have two runners who'd split off, but then he wouldn't have the legs to match the counters. Whatever, it's looking like when he plays we have to construct the team around him, which memory says never seems good, be it for Blanc, Keane, whoever - a club with our resources shouldn't have to be doing that.
 
I think constructing the midfield around Scholes is essentially a good idea given how good at football he is (see Italy-Pirlo), but we just need to make sure it's not at the cost of removing every other facet a quality midfield should have. That's why I said in theory having Anderson and Carrick should be the way to go, because at least with Anderson in there you'd think we'd have someone who could help to fill this void we have between the midfield and attack. It's no certainty that it'd sort us out given how strange a season it's been (you get the sense that there's always going to be 'something' amiss no matter what we do), but we just need to try something like this at some point at least to see if it works or not.

It seems harsh and I said it on here somewhere the other day, but I think it's Carrick that is every bit as much of a problem as Scholes in any formation. Carrick is a good player no doubt, but by having such a deep and inexpressive player in any two man midfield drags the whole team back in a way. Carrick's unwillingness to run forward with the ball is hugely detrimental, because it means whoever is playing with him is constantly having to come back to receive the pass (not helped also by Carrick's drop in creativity when it comes to his passing). When this player dropping back is also someone that doesn't tend to drive forward with the ball - Cleverley and Scholes, for example - the same thing happens with Rooney dropping back. The whole thing becomes too static and it starts with Carrick a lot of the time. This is what causes the void between midfield and attack and gives us so little room to work with upfront, and it makes us much more predictable and easy to defend against given how isolated the front men will be (due to everyone else coming deep).

This isn't the full picture obviously, but it's a huge reason as to why we have the problems we do.
 
All 3 United said:
Sorry but teams know if Scholes starts put him under and with his old legs he can't hack it and needs more time. Shouldn't be starting any games in the PL.

Fantastic player in his day but give it up SAF.
Click to expand...

So all those games he started earlier this year after coming out of retirement were a mistake? Or are you suggesting a precipitous decline since last spring? Or, and this seems most likely, are you getting a bit hysterical based on one bad game (a bad game which nevertheless contained the sort of game-changing moment of brilliance that none of our other midfielders are capable of?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.