Static, slow motion zombie passing

KingEric7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I've always thought Carrick would be at his best alongside a genuinely box-to-box player. He's a catalyst. In 06-8 he worked very well with Scholes, but even then he was Scholesy's foil, he was fairly creative but much less so than Scholes.

At the moment when he's out we have no-one really reliable, and that's a shitty situation to be in because he's only fecking Michael Carrick. I mean, good player and all that, but we've got an amazing set of (admittedly crocked) defenders and one of the best forward lines in the world, it's frustrating that we struggle so much in the middle.
 
It's an honour, Plato. For what it's worth, I am a huge fan of your Republic. ;)
 
If we had midfielders protecting Carrick/Scholes like Juventus do for Pirlo both would look more comfortable. Both would be far more effective defensively with two shuttlers allowing them to focus more on closing off passing lanes in front of the back four than being asked to do more man marking and closing down.

I don't think they can play together because they both bring the exact same thing to our attack and they create a feedback loop when paired together. If the object of football was to get the ball out to the winger they would be a world class pairing.
 
acrebo said:
Perhaps. I'll rephrase to say that the attacking options we have are breathtaking.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The quality of our attackers and the mentality that Fergie instills is why were scoring so many goals and winning so much. In terms of the actual football, it's not actually very entertaining imo.
 
I've said it before but carrick simply can't push up when next to scholes regularly because scholes offers zero cover, that's the problem with him, he can't push up for most the game and so has to stay quite deep but as defensively he can't offer much then it means his partner has to stay deeper as well to fufil the function of the screening player. If carrick didn't do that then we'd end up being even more open in the middle. It doesn't help though that scholes is most effective on the ball in a wide system because this also puts the most strain in the midfielders as there's more room to exploit.

What they need though is someone who actually will come in to an a/m like role to make sure there isn't a big gap between them and the attackers. Rooney is starting to do that and he needs to keep doing it, kagawa clev and ando can also do that. Yesterday though personally irony think they were the problem, they did what was required and the front four didnt.

It's not carrick that causes part of the problem it's just scholes and his limitations, he's a deep lying player with no pace, who can't cover the ground and offer any real defensive cover either for his partner or the defence. If we brought in someone next to him who kept trying to push up we'd be so open to the counter its not even funny and scholes wouldn't probably last half an hour before getting sent off.
 
Plechazunga said:
Carrick is Carrick.
Click to expand...

I wish he'd start being Carrick again.

If Michael Carrick was being Carrick, Villa's first goal yesterday doesn't happen. Even on the second he was caught being a semi-alseep moron.

I'm sick of his consistent shite performances. He is offering nothing to the team but problems this season.


Plechazunga said:
Paul Scholes is the best midfielder at United currently.
Click to expand...

He's the most talented midfielder at the club...but you could probably still say that if he was at Barcelona. I'm not sure it's accurate to say a player is our best midfielder when at the same time you have to concede that he's so bad at doing certain parts of his job, you have to put an extra midfielder in the team that you otherwise wouldn't need, just to cover him. Why not just play that extra midfielder instead of Scholes so you don't have to drop Rooney or Van Persie?

He was great at moving the ball really slowly around the pitch in front of the Villa team...the problem is this is an extremely pointless thing to be great at. It tricks people into thinking you're amazing if you're called Modric and play for Tottenham, but that's about it. I'd much rather our midfield actually did it's job, or at least half of it's job.

How many times did he play that pointless predictable ball out to Valencia yesterday btw? It must have been in double figures before half time...and how many times was it effective? I counted zero.
 
Well the gameplan was clearly to get it out to the wings and put crosses in. He did it all day till he'd had enough and decided to split the defence and put Hernandez through. You can't really blame him for doing what he was sent out to do.

Your Carrick thing just isn't true.
 
Plechazunga said:
Well the gameplan was clearly to get it out to the wings and put crosses in. He did it all day till he'd had enough and decided to split the defence and put Hernandez through. You can't really blame him for doing what he was sent out to do.

Your Carrick thing just isn't true.
Click to expand...

He probably cost us on both goals not being able to track back. I'm not saying he was solely responsible as he certainly wasn't, but I'd say the assist only evens the bad stuff out.
 
There's only so much tracking back you can do, when we play that system there is always room centrally because our players are so spread apart, couple that with Scholes who can't even cover his half of the middle and it's a near impossible job for Carrick to offer full protection. That's why we looked a lot more stable in the diamond because the players are really close together, the only space was outwide which less teams exploit and is generally less dangerous. Carrick/Fletcher themselves looked more effective because the amount of protection they have to give is more reasonable. Again if someone can think of a top team out there who play a really wide formation and then only play 2 in the middle, one of whom offers very little defensively then I'd be surprised. There's only so much Carrick can do, he wasn't great yesterday but he was good and did his job.
 
Plechazunga said:
Well the gameplan was clearly to get it out to the wings and put crosses in. He did it all day till he'd had enough and decided to split the defence and put Hernandez through. You can't really blame him for doing what he was sent out to do.

Your Carrick thing just isn't true.
Click to expand...

He did what he was sent out to do when in possession. But that's not his only job. Or at least I'd hope so.
 
To say Scholes was responsible for the two goals is ludicrous. He was instrumental in 2 of ours, but the two we conceded were largely due to poor defending from the defenders. One of them was a cross from the wing, what the feck sort of tracking back is a centre mid supposed to be doing that stops a cross? I'd love Scholesy to be a bit better at tackling back but I really don't want him to end up playing as a right back.
 
Ryan's Beard said:
To say Scholes was responsible for the two goals is ludicrous. He was instrumental in 2 of ours, but the two we conceded were largely due to poor defending from the defenders. One of them was a cross from the wing, what the feck sort of tracking back is a centre mid supposed to be doing that stops a cross? I'd love Scholesy to be a bit better at tackling back but I really don't want him to end up playing as a right back.
Click to expand...

Mate seriously, stop being so blind. What do you think is a by-product of our backline backtracking as a result of oncoming attackers with gaps in the middle? I hope you can answer this question.
 
Plato said:
Mate seriously, stop being so blind. What do you think is a by-product of our backline backtracking as a result of oncoming attackers with gaps in the middle? I hope you can answer this question.
Click to expand...

I'm not being blind at all, have a bit of common sense though.

I know Scholes doesn't put the best defensive shift in, we all know that, but to pin both of yesterday's goals on him is just strange. If the backline was backtracking as a result of Scholes and yet was still unable to defend a cross, I'd hate to think what it would be like without Scholes there and the back 4 were all lovely and free flowing and 2/3rds of the way up the pitch.

Breakaways happen and sometimes they lead to goals if you don't stop the cross or defend it well enough, to lump that on one of our midfielders is hilarious.
 
Ryan's Beard said:
I'm not being blind at all, have a bit of common sense though.

I know Scholes doesn't put the best defensive shift in, we all know that, but to pin both of yesterday's goals on him is just strange. If the backline was backtracking as a result of Scholes and yet was still unable to defend a cross, I'd hate to think what it would be like without Scholes there and the back 4 were all lovely and free flowing and 2/3rds of the way up the pitch.

Breakaways happen and sometimes they lead to goals if you don't stop the cross or defend it well enough, to lump that on one of our midfielders is hilarious.
Click to expand...

Let me break it down for you.

We started the 1st half off in the same lethargic manner as we did against Spurs at home. As a result, we had difficulty breaking the opposition down. Due to this difficulty, we tried to push up to gain more of a foothold on the game and score the opener. Our midfield is now too far forward leaving a massive gap between our defensive line and midfield. With Rio in the side, the backline won't push up too far because he doesn't want to get caught for pace. So what does this mean? The gap remains. Due to our lethargic play, we gift away the ball cheaply, leaving us open to the counterattack. Both Scholes and Carrick lack the mobility or the pace to cover the gap initially left by them pushing up and our backline is at our opposition's mercy. This has been a constant theme with the Scholes/Carrick combo this season. No defender likes to have an onrushing attacking coming at them full pelt. As poorly as our backline managed Villa's two goals, the problem started with our ineffective wings, our play in midfield which led to a static attacking front. Obviously teams will catch us on the break every now and then but it's even more suicidal when Carrick and Scholes are your CMs and neither of the two are covering the space! Seriously. These are the basics.

If you want to make it work, don't put them in a midfield 2. It's silly to pin it on solely on Scholes but it's even easier sillier to suggest he's not part of the problem. Unless Carrick bucks up as the season progresses, we're going to see more games like this. Scholesy's talent will always shine through even on his bad days but is that enough to dismiss his limitations especially when we setup like we did yesterday?
 
Plechazunga said:
Well the gameplan was clearly to get it out to the wings and put crosses in. He did it all day till he'd had enough and decided to split the defence and put Hernandez through. You can't really blame him for doing what he was sent out to do.
Click to expand...

He got it out to the wings far too slowly. By the time he'd played his not actually always that accurate 50 yard pass, he may as well have just run the ball over there himself. What's the point in risking a long ball if you're passing it to someone who's double marked?

I don't think that was our gameplan. I just think Carrick and Scholes are so fecking slow in the middle of the pitch that playing it out wide is the only viable attacking outlet. He did try to play it through the middle a bit anyway...but again, it was so slow Villa players were just reading it every single time.

The ball to Hernandez was good, but that's a very small return for having a non functioning midfield. Him and Carrick shouldn't be playing alongside each other in a two anymore. Ever...and I just don't see the point in dropping an attacking player to accomodate Scholes. It's our attacking players who keep bailing us out.

To be fair I could sort of understand yesterday with Anderson playing midweek and Cleverley likely to play a majority of some pointless friendly in Sweden on Wednesday, but it's just going to be more of a problem than a solution every tme we play Carrick and Scholes together.


Plechazunga said:
Your Carrick thing just isn't true.
Click to expand...


What was actually the point in him yesterday? Or against Chelsea, or Liverpool, Spurs, Southampton, etc?

Is he protecting the defence? Is he orchestrating our offensive play? What is he actually meant to be doing this season?

Every single time teams attack us he seems to have taken himself out of the game positionally, or just doesn't react in time to make himself effective, and his ncisive forward passing sees to have more or less died a death. Zombie Scott Parker.
 
Plato said:
Let me break it down for you.

If you want to make it work, don't put them in a midfield 2. It's silly to pin it on solely on Scholes but it's even easier sillier to suggest he's not part of the problem. Unless Carrick bucks up as the season progresses, we're going to see more games like this. Scholesy's talent will always shine through even on his bad days but is that enough to dismiss his limitations especially when we setup like we did yesterday?
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to suggest he wasn't part of it, in fact I pretty much agree with everything you've said. My issue was with the suggestion that Scholes was somehow personally at fault, rather than the entire system and set up.

You're right to say the midfield 2 isn't the best, especially with those two. The thing is, though, if you had Anderson, Cleverly or any other super-mobile centre mid engine in there instead of Scholes in that game, we'd still be susceptible to counter attacks. Any team that holds the ball and rolls it around like we do are going to open themselves up to that, it's just a fact. Without Scholes in there yesterday, who'd have created those goals that got us level? The system as a whole is an issue, I agree, I'm not sure Scholes particularly is though.
 
Ryan's Beard said:
I wasn't trying to suggest he wasn't part of it, in fact I pretty much agree with everything you've said. My issue was with the suggestion that Scholes was somehow personally at fault, rather than the entire system and set up.

You're right to say the midfield 2 isn't the best, especially with those two. The thing is, though, if you had Anderson, Cleverly or any other super-mobile centre mid engine in there instead of Scholes in that game, we'd still be susceptible to counter attacks. Any team that holds the ball and rolls it around like we do are going to open themselves up to that, it's just a fact. Without Scholes in there yesterday, who'd have created those goals that got us level? The system as a whole is an issue, I agree, I'm not sure Scholes particularly is though.
Click to expand...

When Cleverley and Anderson came on, our play became quicker and it would be better than what we see with Carrick and Scholes in midfield. I think for now, since SAF has his love-in with strikers, go with Carrick and Cleverley in midfield with Rooney at the tip of midfield. Heck, I'd even go Cleverley and Anderson at this point.

The susceptibility to counterattacks isn't as bad as leaving massive holes in midfield. When you play 3 in midfield or at least have someone covering the space, you're better able to deal with the counterattack.
 
Plato said:
The susceptibility to counterattacks isn't as bad as leaving massive holes in midfield. When you play 3 in midfield or at least have someone covering the space, you're better able to deal with the counterattack.
Click to expand...

Oh definitely and I'd much rather see Cleverly or Anderson in there in a 3 to give us more mobility and cover. Scholes as he is now is still an excellent asset though and if we can make sure the players around him can cover (Juve-Pirlo was a good example) he's still very a dangerous option for certain games.
 
I'm sure but when was the last time we played Scholes in an actual midfield 3? SAF seems to think it limits Scholes from doing his thing.
 
noodlehair said:
He got it out to the wings far too slowly. By the time he'd played his not actually always that accurate 50 yard pass, he may as well have just run the ball over there himself. What's the point in risking a long ball if you're passing it to someone who's double marked?

I don't think that was our gameplan. I just think Carrick and Scholes are so fecking slow in the middle of the pitch that playing it out wide is the only viable attacking outlet. He did try to play it through the middle a bit anyway...but again, it was so slow Villa players were just reading it every single time.

The ball to Hernandez was good, but that's a very small return for having a non functioning midfield. Him and Carrick shouldn't be playing alongside each other in a two anymore. Ever...and I just don't see the point in dropping an attacking player to accomodate Scholes. It's our attacking players who keep bailing us out.

To be fair I could sort of understand yesterday with Anderson playing midweek and Cleverley likely to play a majority of some pointless friendly in Sweden on Wednesday, but it's just going to be more of a problem than a solution every tme we play Carrick and Scholes together.





What was actually the point in him yesterday? Or against Chelsea, or Liverpool, Spurs, Southampton, etc?

Is he protecting the defence? Is he orchestrating our offensive play? What is he actually meant to be doing this season?

Every single time teams attack us he seems to have taken himself out of the game positionally, or just doesn't react in time to make himself effective, and his ncisive forward passing sees to have more or less died a death. Zombie Scott Parker.
Click to expand...

I agree they shouldn't play together in a 4-4-2, and I wouldn't start Scholes or Giggs in a 2 with anyone.

I think Carrick is protecting the defence. it's just this season he's either been in the defence, or protecting it on his own. A whole game of him trying to cover for everyone while screening the defence is going to result in a fair few gaps.
 
Your post isn't even relevant to the discussion. Go to the "we're crap" thread where it's more appropriate.
 
jem said:
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?)
Click to expand...

No I've always maintained that for the last 2 to 3 seasons Scholes has slowed our play down, when playing alongside either carrick or fletcher.
 
When Scholes plays in a 442 he plays deep and like a quarterback he just spreads the play wide. But this leaves a big gap between the midfield and forwards. If the attack is building slowly and Scholes moves up all it takes is a simple ball over the top and the opposition are in on our defenders. So our defenders are too often caught in a situation running back towards our goals. It's been a combination of poor finishing, great defending and keeping that has kept the already hefty goal conceded tally down.

Any opposition manager with any tactical acumen will know just to press our central two when Scholes plays and they will crumble - no balls out wide and there goes our threat.

I dont think fergie is that great tactically primarily because he hasnt needed to be great tactically in the Premier League because of the quality of the opposition and general gameplay. In Europe Fergies taticall weakness have been exposed.

Our best performance against Barca came in the 2008 semi final where we played a more controlled and defensive game and beat Barca - any surprise this was with Queiroz as coach. The two times we played them since we had been brutally exposed with the poor tactics laid to bare.
 
Plechazunga said:
I think Carrick is protecting the defence. it's just this season he's either been in the defence, or protecting it on his own. A whole game of him trying to cover for everyone while screening the defence is going to result in a fair few gaps.
Click to expand...

But again, yesterday, he was the one not picking up the guy closest to him on the first goal...he was the one who ran over and needlessly opened up a gap for Villa on the second goal. Against Chelsea, he was the one who kept letting players run directly past him with the ball. That's not down to other players. Those are his responsabilities.

The can't do it on his own thing might be somethingI could agree on if it wasn't for the fact that over half the problems go directly through him and its other players who often get back to bail him out.

Also, it takes him an absolute fecking age to show for the ball at the moment. The games I've watched from the stands this season he's been an absolute fecking joke for this. On a par with Darron Gibson at times.

I know this sounds harsh but he's off his game to the point that the rest of the team is having to carry him, and that isn't good enough for any player in any team, let alone at United.

If it's down to the system we play asking too much of someone with his abilities, then he either needs to adapt or we need to replace him with someone more useful...he doesn't do nearly enough to justify changing the system to accomodate him, especially not when it's actually the same system he's never struggled with in the past anyway.
 
noodlehair said:
But again, yesterday, he was the one not picking up the guy closest to him on the first goal...he was the one who ran over and needlessly opened up a gap for Villa on the second goal. Against Chelsea, he was the one who kept letting players run directly past him with the ball. That's not down to other players. Those are his responsabilities.

The can't do it on his own thing might be somethingI could agree on if it wasn't for the fact that over half the problems go directly through him and its other players who often get back to bail him out.

Also, it takes him an absolute fecking age to show for the ball at the moment. The games I've watched from the stands this season he's been an absolute fecking joke for this. On a par with Darron Gibson at times.

I know this sounds harsh but he's off his game to the point that the rest of the team is having to carry him, and that isn't good enough for any player in any team, let alone at United.

If it's down to the system we play asking too much of someone with his abilities, then he either needs to adapt or we need to replace him with someone more useful...he doesn't do nearly enough to justify changing the system to accomodate him, especially not when it's actually the same system he's never struggled with in the past anyway.
Click to expand...
I think what scares me with Carrick is that, whether he's the problem or not (an obvious point of contention around here,) we really have no one who can replace him (or at least challenge him for his spot.) It boggles the mind that SAF hasn't brought in that player at some point over the last few years.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I watched the second half again earlier and I'm not sure I was right about this. We pretty much camped in their half with those two on, and our play was a bit snappier too. It was after Rooney went off that we lost our bite a bit, but that can't really be blamed on C&A.

That said, the criticisms of our midfield in the attacking area is only really valid for the first half. Scholes had a good second and was instrumental in us drawing level, Carrick's passing was accurate and pretty progressive.
 
Scholrs was on the ESPN team of the week if his job was to spread the ball to the wings and forward, yes he had a couple og dodgy passes as well\. But i think he did ok not great but decent
 
noodlehair said:
But again, yesterday, he was the one not picking up the guy closest to him on the first goal...he was the one who ran over and needlessly opened up a gap for Villa on the second goal. Against Chelsea, he was the one who kept letting players run directly past him with the ball. That's not down to other players. Those are his responsabilities.

The can't do it on his own thing might be somethingI could agree on if it wasn't for the fact that over half the problems go directly through him and its other players who often get back to bail him out.

Also, it takes him an absolute fecking age to show for the ball at the moment. The games I've watched from the stands this season he's been an absolute fecking joke for this. On a par with Darron Gibson at times.

I know this sounds harsh but he's off his game to the point that the rest of the team is having to carry him, and that isn't good enough for any player in any team, let alone at United.

If it's down to the system we play asking too much of someone with his abilities, then he either needs to adapt or we need to replace him with someone more useful...he doesn't do nearly enough to justify changing the system to accomodate him, especially not when it's actually the same system he's never struggled with in the past anyway.
Click to expand...

Carrick unfortunately is way behind his form from last year.

More like the Carrick from 2009 and 2010 who looks to mentally and physically too slow for the modern game.

I mean we know he can do more then he does atm and that is probably the most frustrating about him.

I want the Carrick from last season back.
 
Plechazunga said:
I watched the second half again earlier and I'm not sure I was right about this. We pretty much camped in their half with those two on, and our play was a bit snappier too. It was after Rooney went off that we lost our bite a bit, but that can't really be blamed on C&A.

That said, the criticisms of our midfield in the attacking area is only really valid for the first half. Scholes had a good second and was instrumental in us drawing level, Carrick's passing was accurate and pretty progressive.
Click to expand...

I think you have a sentimental attachment to Scholes. I watched the game with Mike and as soon as the teams were announced we both said "Ah shit, we're fecked"....His bro was the only one confused by why we were playing shite.

Its become almost second nature now. The sad thing is we're almost always right. It's like Fergie is deliberately defying the Caf.
 
I've seen some bad cases of static, slow motion zombie passing but feck me today was insane.

Van Persie was the only player apart from our right back that.. made runs.

I just don't understand why we insist on standing perfectly still, and rolling the ball between Rio, Carrick and one of our two geriatrics so agonisingly slow, and more important, I don't understand why this isn't rectified by Fergie killing them at the break? It's completely pointless, and it just makes it impossible to play through teams. Movement and tempo are the absolute basics of every decent footballing side whichever playing style they use.

And we're absolutely horrible to watch these days as well as a result.
 
Marjen, it's so bad that when we play a tad bit faster, people become pleased and think we're doing something. It's that sad.
 
I've noticed in the last few games we seem intent to get a ball, pass it and then just jog in the general direction of goal. Is this considered SSMZP?

Hernandez and RvP have been the ones always making a quick run from deep, it seems nobody else ever wants to do that, regardless. The system is so rigid.

Our creativity has always come from movement and then with slick passing due to the good movement. It seems our style has evolved into pass the ball off for someone else to do it and then be there if something goes wrong.

It's just weird. Strange to me that these seem to be basic coaching identifiers but nothing is being done about it.
 
marjen said:
I've seen some bad cases of static, slow motion zombie passing but feck me today was insane.

Van Persie was the only player apart from our right back that.. made runs.

I just don't understand why we insist on standing perfectly still, and rolling the ball between Rio, Carrick and one of our two geriatrics so agonisingly slow, and more important, I don't understand why this isn't rectified by Fergie killing them at the break? It's completely pointless, and it just makes it impossible to play through teams. Movement and tempo are the absolute basics of every decent footballing side whichever playing style they use.

And we're absolutely horrible to watch these days as well as a result.
Click to expand...
It is agonizing to watch. It reminds me of this:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.