Static, slow motion zombie passing

I still find it hard to see Fergie not starting Scholes or Giggs in most games. We just don't have any other midfielders anywhere near as good at running a game as Scholes or as consistently creative as Giggs.

I'd rather see us invest in a midfielder, but of course I'm always delighted to see them play. I just pray he doesn't play them both at the same time, in any game.
 
Plechazunga said:
I still find it hard to see Fergie not starting Scholes or Giggs in most games. We just don't have any other midfielders anywhere near as good at running a game as Scholes or as consistently creative as Giggs.

I'd rather see us invest in a midfielder, but of course I'm always delighted to see them play. I just pray he doesn't play them both at the same time, in any game.
Click to expand...

I really think it's got to the point now where he can't play Carrick and Scholes in the same team. A few years ago yeah, Scholes could still run games at pace and be mobile enough to handle teams pressuring us. Now he can't...and we can't drop Carrick because he's the only midfielder we have who isn't shite defensively.

I think the best way to work it is play Carrick with one of Ando/Cleverley, and bring Scholes in mainly to give Carrick relief in the games we can get away with it...Giggs when one or both of the other two inevitably injure themselves.

Kagawa if he played there wouldn't be able to play instead of Carrick. I don't think Powell will be a realistic option for a couple of years, regardless of if he turns out to be good enough/a midfielder or not.
 
Well we need to see Clev and Ando next to Carrick before we can judge that. In terms of players who can do that orchestrating role that Scholes does, well at that particular aspect he's simply one of the best around, however a lot of that is down to experience as well as ability. Clev and Ando on the other hand don't have that range or experience yet, but they have other qualities that scholes doesn't. Clev has shown a lot in the Olympics for me, before I didn't rate him that highly because those few games at the start of the season last year weren't enough for me to judge given the few games he played and the weaknesses in the Arsenal and Spurs teams. However from the Olympics as I said I've seen a lot and with the right partner, which I think Carrick would be for him, and better supporting players in Kagawa, nani, rooney etc I think he could be excellent. Like I said though we need to see him stay fit and get a good run in the team before we can judge that.

As I said as the orchestrator than in certain games Scholes is just the best player you could want for them. But in the majority of games his lack of mobility inhibits us, certainly from the point of view that the midfield is usually far away from the forwards. His particular game can still work but it's not always the most ideal approach for us. Clev/Ando with Carrick would allow us to push higher up and attack in a different manner, if that would work better is hard to say but we need to see them stay fit to find out.

Personally I don't think we really need another creative player just yet, if those two can't stay fit or show a lack of quality than fair enough, but as I said we simply don't know how good they can be. Personally judging by how Clev has played in recent weeks I think if he's fit he'll get in the team soon enough and Scholes and Giggs will be used in certain games rather than by default.
 
noodlehair said:
I really think it's got to the point now where he can't play Carrick and Scholes in the same team. A few years ago yeah, Scholes could still run games at pace and be mobile enough to handle teams pressuring us. Now he can't...and we can't drop Carrick because he's the only midfielder we have who isn't shite defensively.

I think the best way to work it is play Carrick with one of Ando/Cleverley, and bring Scholes in mainly to give Carrick relief in the games we can get away with it...Giggs when one or both of the other two inevitably injure themselves.

Kagawa if he played there wouldn't be able to play instead of Carrick. I don't think Powell will be a realistic option for a couple of years, regardless of if he turns out to be good enough/a midfielder or not.
Click to expand...

If you can't play Scholes and Carrick together who would you partner Scholes with, when he does play? If you put in Ando/Clev you'll just end up with a massive hole in the team that Scholes can't cover if ando/clev play the way we've seen them, if they stay deeper which is that natural thing you'd expect to happen then you're gonna have the same situation as when Scholes and Carrick play together. Scholes needs protection, you can't leave him, clev and ando's style requires movement and energy, there will be times where the deeper midfielder is going to have to do a lot of covering, something scholes has never been good at.

Last season Scholes probably started more games than we would have liked simply because he was the only choice we had. I doubt Fergie would ideally have played him against Everton or City or even Wigan, or at least would have subbed him earlier had he had the choices available.
 
noodlehair said:
I really think it's got to the point now where he can't play Carrick and Scholes in the same team. A few years ago yeah, Scholes could still run games at pace and be mobile enough to handle teams pressuring us. Now he can't...and we can't drop Carrick because he's the only midfielder we have who isn't shite defensively.

I think the best way to work it is play Carrick with one of Ando/Cleverley, and bring Scholes in mainly to give Carrick relief in the games we can get away with it...Giggs when one or both of the other two inevitably injure themselves.

Kagawa if he played there wouldn't be able to play instead of Carrick. I don't think Powell will be a realistic option for a couple of years, regardless of if he turns out to be good enough/a midfielder or not.
Click to expand...

You can't play Scholes as the defensive midfielder. He'll play him alongside Carrick.

To be fair Scholes can still 'run games at pace'.
 
Ash_G said:
I think the issue with playing Kagawa there though is as it's likely only going to work against weaker teams you'd be taking time away from the likes of clev/ando/powell etc, particularly the latter two. I wouldn't be surprised to see Welbeck take up that wing role a few more times this season.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Too many central midfielders and not enough games for them all? That's not gonna be a popular opinion!
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Hmmm... Too many central midfielders and not enough games for them all? That's not gonna be a popular opinion!
Click to expand...

Too many attacking/Carrick dependent midfielders. May as well give them a chance to prove themselves both performance wise and fitness wise for clev and certainly Ando. I'm all for getting an alternative to Carrick though.
 
Plechazunga said:
You can't play Scholes as the defensive midfielder. He'll play him alongside Carrick.

TO be fair Scholes can still 'run games at pace'.
Click to expand...

You can't play any midfielder as the defensive midfielder other than Carrick...when Carrick isn't in the team we have to play without one no matter who we put there, and Scholes is better at playing from deep than the others.

The alternative is to play Michael Carrick in every single game for the entire season. Which means he'll either get injured or we'll feck him physically and his form will dip hugely.

I haven't seen Scholes run a game at pace in a long while. He sits behind the ball and picks passes forwards. He's reliant on the rest of the team to provide the movement and pace so he can pick off the gaps.

Ash_G said:
If you can't play Scholes and Carrick together who would you partner Scholes with, when he does play? If you put in Ando/Clev you'll just end up with a massive hole in the team that Scholes can't cover if ando/clev play the way we've seen them, if they stay deeper which is that natural thing you'd expect to happen then you're gonna have the same situation as when Scholes and Carrick play together. Scholes needs protection, you can't leave him, clev and ando's style requires movement and energy, there will be times where the deeper midfielder is going to have to do a lot of covering, something scholes has never been good at.

Last season Scholes probably started more games than we would have liked simply because he was the only choice we had. I doubt Fergie would ideally have played him against Everton or City or even Wigan, or at least would have subbed him earlier had he had the choices available.
Click to expand...

If Carrick gets injured, who would you play in midfield that wouldn't leave a huge hole in the midfield defensively?

Carrick and Scholes as a partnership seems to result in the proble that resulted in me creating this thread. I think we need to play one or ther other wherever possible. It's not ideal, but that's the situation with our midfield. We have one reliable midfielder, a couple of injury prone midfielders, and a couple of talented old men (in football terms) who we like to pretend can still do things they can't.
 
noodlehair said:
You can't play any midfielder as the defensive midfielder other than Carrick...when Carrick isn't in the team we have to play without one no matter who we put there, and Scholes is better at playing from deep than the others.

The alternative is to play Michael Carrick in every single game for the entire season. Which means he'll either get injured or we'll feck him physically and his form will dip hugely.
Click to expand...

I reckon if Carrick is injured we'll play Jones in there a lot. Not what I'd do, obviously - I'd buy another midfielder (or rather, I'd have bought one three years ago. Or rather, I'd have bought one five years ago that wasn't Owen Hargreaves who'd perhaps still have been with us). But I guess that's what he'll do. I suppose he might do what you're suggesting and play Scholes deep with Cleverley and Anderson and hope there's enough energy and skill there to keep the ball... except he won't, because they won't both be fit.

Carrick and Scholes as a partnership seems to result in the proble that resulted in me creating this thread. I think we need to play one or ther other wherever possible. It's not ideal, but that's the situation with our midfield. We have one reliable midfielder, a couple of injury prone midfielders, and a couple of talented old men (in football terms) who we like to pretend can still do things they can't.
Click to expand...

I think you're consistently underestimating Giggs and Scholes. I'm not pretending Giggs can beat four men or Scholes can get ten goals. But Giggs can still open up a defence, and Scholes can still run a game better than almost any midfielder in the league. Or at least, they could last season. They hardly ever let us down, though as I say they shouldn't both start.
 
noodlehair said:
I haven't seen Scholes run a game at pace in a long while. He sits behind the ball and picks passes forwards. He's reliant on the rest of the team to provide the movement and pace so he can pick off the gaps.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean, I thought you meant he couldn't run a fast game, a game where he was coming under pressure.

I'm not that bothered if he's less mobile if he's still running the game, which he usually is. There ought to be enough pace and movement in the rest of the side.
 
noodlehair said:
You can't play any midfielder as the defensive midfielder other than Carrick...when Carrick isn't in the team we have to play without one no matter who we put there, and Scholes is better at playing from deep than the others.

The alternative is to play Michael Carrick in every single game for the entire season. Which means he'll either get injured or we'll feck him physically and his form will dip hugely.

I haven't seen Scholes run a game at pace in a long while. He sits behind the ball and picks passes forwards. He's reliant on the rest of the team to provide the movement and pace so he can pick off the gaps.



If Carrick gets injured, who would you play in midfield that wouldn't leave a huge hole in the midfield defensively?

Carrick and Scholes as a partnership seems to result in the proble that resulted in me creating this thread. I think we need to play one or ther other wherever possible. It's not ideal, but that's the situation with our midfield. We have one reliable midfielder, a couple of injury prone midfielders, and a couple of talented old men (in football terms) who we like to pretend can still do things they can't.
Click to expand...

No one, which is why I want cover for him, but if he can't play then you can still give yourself a better chance by getting a balance in there which would probably be clev and ando.

Either way the point is about Scholes. You say one or the other but when Scholes came back there were games where he was man of the match and Carrick was excellent and we were great. In certain games scholes is still the king and our best and most important player let alone midfielder. Part of the reason he works so well though is that he has a solid midfielder in Carrick keeping things ticking over and covering for him defensively when he needs it.

However in other games he's just not suited to playing them and likely won't play unless there aren't other choices. You keep saying Scholes or Carrick but as I said it doesn't matter who you play scholes with, as a consequence of his limitations his midfield partner is either going to have to play a more disciplined role or risk leaving the midfield massively exposed. It's not about Carrick. Anyone else be it clev or Ando is going to have to play that way. Like I said there are some games where Scholes's limitations aren't as important such as against teams who stand off and he can destroy teams, you still need that protection. In other games we ideally wouldn't play Scholes as he isn't suited to them.
 
Plechazunga said:
I see what you mean, I thought you meant he couldn't run a fast game, a game where he was coming under pressure.

I'm not that bothered if he's less mobile if he's still running the game, which he usually is. There ought to be enough pace and movement in the rest of the side.
Click to expand...

Especially his partners in midfield. I watched a shitload of juve this past season and while pirlo is more mobile than scholes (shocking considering he was utter dross his last 2 years at milan and genuinely was a lazy immobile bastard), he gets helped immensely by marchisio (who covers more ground than almost anyone else in midfield I know on the planet and is quick) and vidal who works hard and is decently paced as well.

There was paper talk about us being in for marchisio last summer i believe...i wish it had gone through, he would be superb for us.
 
Plechazunga said:
I see what you mean, I thought you meant he couldn't run a fast game, a game where he was coming under pressure.

I'm not that bothered if he's less mobile if he's still running the game, which he usually is. There ought to be enough pace and movement in the rest of the side.
Click to expand...

Nah, him being ridiculously talented takes care of that...Carrick seems to struggle with being pressed more. Though I'm not sure why as occasionally it wont bother him at all.

Plechazunga said:
I reckon if Carrick is injured we'll play Jones in there a lot. Not what I'd do, obviously - I'd buy another midfielder (or rather, I'd have bought one three years ago. Or rather, I'd have bought one five years ago that wasn't Owen Hargreaves who'd perhaps still have been with us). But I guess that's what he'll do. I suppose he might do what you're suggesting and play Scholes deep with Cleverley and Anderson and hope there's enough energy and skill there to keep the ball... except he won't, because they won't both be fit.



I think you're consistently underestimating Giggs and Scholes. I'm not pretending Giggs can beat four men or Scholes can get ten goals. But Giggs can still open up a defence, and Scholes can still run a game better than almost any midfielder in the league. Or at least, they could last season. They hardly ever let us down, though as I say they shouldn't both start.
Click to expand...

The thing with Jones is, even when he plays in defence, he doesn't do much defending, and all of the good things he did in midfield last season involved him charging maniacly forwards with the ball...while Carrick covered him.

Cleverley and Ando probably wont both be fit together much, but we do also have Kagawa who could play in that kind of role without a problem.


Plechazunga said:
I think you're consistently underestimating Giggs and Scholes. I'm not pretending Giggs can beat four men or Scholes can get ten goals. But Giggs can still open up a defence, and Scholes can still run a game better than almost any midfielder in the league. Or at least, they could last season. They hardly ever let us down, though as I say they shouldn't both start.
Click to expand...

I think they're still both excellent players, but there's limits on what you can expect either of them to do now. We're going into another season relying on them both...we really, really need to be looking for ways to minimise doing that. One of them's already fecking retired once.
 
Plechazunga said:
I'm not that bothered if he's less mobile if he's still running the game, which he usually is. There ought to be enough pace and movement in the rest of the side.
Click to expand...

I am. I think it's a major factor in the reason I've ended up starting this thread.
 
noodlehair said:
I think they're still both excellent players, but there's limits on what you can expect either of them to do now. We're going into another season relying on them both...we really, really need to be looking for ways to minimise doing that. One of them's already fecking retired once.
Click to expand...

Agreed

The only thing about Scholes is he now gives the ball away once very dangerously every single game. That's new. But he only does it once. Giggs gives the ball away a fair bit, but then he always did.

noodlehair said:
I am. I think it's a major factor in the reason I've ended up starting this thread.
Click to expand...

Plenty of teams play with two deep-lying midfielders. And Scholes is still mobile enough that he's usually in space, and when he's not it doesn't matter much cos you can pass to him anyway. Provided there are four players in front of them who move - which there ought to be in a side with Wayne, Welbs, Hernandez, Nani, Valencia and Young to chose from - it shouldn't really be the problem you're suggesting it is, even when Cleverley's out.

Dunno about Kagawa as I've never seen him play. From what you and Pogue say he should be able to stand in for Scholes. All I really know about him is this song that appeared in the Kagawa Songs thread:

Viva Kagawa
Viva Kagawa
He loves little trees
Cos he's Japanese
Viva Kagawa
 
I think with the problem with us getting pressed gets overly simplified. We've struggled against certain teams and so the midfielders who have played in those games have been tarred with that brush. But personally I think there are a couple of factors which make us more prone to being pressed.

Firstly our set up. We play wide, with 2 wingers who generally stay wide. Other teams use their fallbacks for width and their wingers drift inside. Also typically they have 3 players in the middle. We typically play 2 central players and Rooney or someone else might occassionally drop but not consistently. So in the middle we're typically outnumbered at least 2 to 3 and then have the additional threat of their wingers in close proximity.

Simply our players are too far apart. When you look at teams who deal with pressing well they have similar things in common, one of the most important being that their players are close together. There are a couple of options all within a few yards. We rarely have that. If you're for example Carrick and you're getting pressed you've got either your midfield partner who's likely to be marked and then aside from a back pass not much on that you can easily get to. The wingers will be wide and the strikers will be high up the pitch. Contrast to say spain and if one of there players is under pressure they have a few options available for a short pass, we don't have that.

Additionally for Carrick in particular if you're partnered with scholes who doesn't really have the physical abilities needed to combat that style, particularly when you're outnumbered then it's going to make it tough. And because of scholes having to play deep it means that ther other team can push up hiogh against us making it even harder to get back and making the back pass to the defenders riskier.

That's why Kagawa, if he's used as an attacking mid will really help us in these situations. He'll provide an extra body in the middle as a passing option and give something for the opposition to worry about so they can't push up as much.

Personally I see no reason why Carrick would really struggle with being pressed. He's suffered in the past imo due to his own confidence issues and due to our set up and his partner, usually scholes. With someone like Clev and with Kagawa just ahead there's no reason he should struggle.

Look at the Olympics and how clev played. A big part of that was that he had Ramsey and Allen in close proximity. When we started last season Rooney was playing relatively deep. As the season went on though he reverted to more off a normal striker. You need that third man.
 
Ash_G said:
No one, which is why I want cover for him, but if he can't play then you can still give yourself a better chance by getting a balance in there which would probably be clev and ando.

Either way the point is about Scholes. You say one or the other but when Scholes came back there were games where he was man of the match and Carrick was excellent and we were great. In certain games scholes is still the king and our best and most important player let alone midfielder. Part of the reason he works so well though is that he has a solid midfielder in Carrick keeping things ticking over and covering for him defensively when he needs it.

However in other games he's just not suited to playing them and likely won't play unless there aren't other choices. You keep saying Scholes or Carrick but as I said it doesn't matter who you play scholes with, as a consequence of his limitations his midfield partner is either going to have to play a more disciplined role or risk leaving the midfield massively exposed. It's not about Carrick. Anyone else be it clev or Ando is going to have to play that way. Like I said there are some games where Scholes's limitations aren't as important such as against teams who stand off and he can destroy teams, you still need that protection. In other games we ideally wouldn't play Scholes as he isn't suited to them.
Click to expand...

Here's the game Scholes and Carrick started together in last season:

Bolton (h)
Liverpool (a - FA Cup)
Stoke (h)
Liverpool (h)
Norwich (a)
Spurs (a)
West Brom (h)
Wolves (a)
Blackburn (a)
QPR (h)
Villa (h)
Everton (h)
City (a)
Swansea (h)
Sunderland (a)

Admittedly there are a lot of wins in there, but there's a lot of games in there yu'd expect us to win, and not really any great performances at all. There's a few defeats and draws, very lucky wins against Spurs and Norwich where we were outplayed in midfield. The rest of the games mostly involved us passing the ball from side to side in a lifeless manner as described at the start of this thread. Only really Swansea and Villa where we had any real life in our play. Wolves don't count as anything because they were utterly pathetic.

The best performance in there was probably Blackburn, and even then, we just passed the ball lifelessly from side to side until Valencia created a goal all by himself.

Also, Ferguson didn't play Scholes unless he was alongside Carrick...not once, but Carrick played without Scholes quite a bit. Carrick was basically picked for every single game, which over the course of an entire season, and with the later stages of the CL an aim, just isn't a viable option this time around. Cleverley and Anderson will almost definitely both get injured for parts of the season. Neither have managed not to in their entire careers.
 
I'm always amazed by people's capacity to remember matches from even a season ago. Wolves away? If you'd asked me whether Wolves were even in the PL last season I'd have hesitated.

But yeah, I do remember we were pretty tumescent throughout that period.
 
noodlehair said:
Here's the game Scholes and Carrick started together in last season:

Bolton (h)
Liverpool (a - FA Cup)
Stoke (h)
Liverpool (h)
Norwich (a)
Spurs (a)
West Brom (h)
Wolves (a)
Blackburn (a)
QPR (h)
Villa (h)
Everton (h)
City (a)
Swansea (h)
Sunderland (a)

Admittedly there are a lot of wins in there, but there's a lot of games in there yu'd expect us to win, and not really any great performances at all. There's a few defeats and draws, very lucky wins against Spurs and Norwich where we were outplayed in midfield. The rest of the games mostly involved us passing the ball from side to side in a lifeless manner as described at the start of this thread. Only really Swansea and Villa where we had any real life in our play. Wolves don't count as anything because they were utterly pathetic.

The best performance in there was probably Blackburn, and even then, we just passed the ball lifelessly from side to side until Valencia created a goal all by himself.

Also, Ferguson didn't play Scholes unless he was alongside Carrick...not once, but Carrick played without Scholes quite a bit. Carrick was basically picked for every single game, which over the course of an entire season, and with the later stages of the CL an aim, just isn't a viable option this time around. Cleverley and Anderson will almost definitely both get injured for parts of the season. Neither have managed not to in their entire careers.
Click to expand...

Yet some of those games might be easy on paper but can be tough in reality. If scholes wasn't playing well in them then why was he bring raved about so much?

I'm not disagreeing with you that we can be slow with the passing or even that Scholes should play most games. I even agree that we can't expect Carrick to play every game, I've been pretty vocal in most midfield threads that we need an alternative to him.

My point is, you keep referring to scholes and Carrick not playing with each other because they cause slow passing etc and lack of movement, as if putting someone else instead of Carrick would change that. Scholes forces you to play deeper because of what his limitations are. It's not Carrick's fault and the alternative is for Carrick to push on and leave a big hole.

Look at Clev in the olympics. He showed great movement but a big part of that was that Ramsey and Allen showed similar movement. Scholes isn't capable of that so if he plays then you have to change your approach to the game. It's not a question of Scholes and Carrick being too slow or lacking in movement but just the affect of scholes in the team. He needs protection.

As I said there are games where this is fine because what he brings far outweighs what he's inhibits. A lot of those games you listed are tough, particularly when teams set up to defend. Scholes's range and ability to get the ball to our wingers in a one on one situation is often the deciding factor.

On the other hand there are games where Scholes shouldn't play as again like I said he wouldn't have played last season had their been viable alternatives. But with Fletcher, Ando and Clev all virtually missing the second half of the season then we didn't have that. Fergie has already said he see's about 20 games for him or so. So he's not expected to be first choice.

Additionally going back to the slow passing, part of that isn't just due to the midfielders but the set up off the team. Like I said with our players being so far apart it doesn't lend itself to quick passing on a regular basis. Kagawa can change that if Fergie wants. Last season Rooney started off a bit deeper but pushed up pretty high for the majority of the season leaving a big gap between the two midfielders and the strikers. As I said that makes it tough to do a quick style and particularly tough for the midfielders to get involved in that manner without leaving gaps in the middle.
 
Ash_G said:
Yet some of those games might be easy on paper but can be tough in reality. If scholes wasn't playing well in them then why was he bring raved about so much?

I'm not disagreeing with you that we can be slow with the passing or even that Scholes should play most games. I even agree that we can't expect Carrick to play every game, I've been pretty vocal in most midfield threads that we need an alternative to him.

My point is, you keep referring to scholes and Carrick not playing with each other because they cause slow passing etc and lack of movement, as if putting someone else instead of Carrick would change that. Scholes forces you to play deeper because of what his limitations are. It's not Carrick's fault and the alternative is for Carrick to push on and leave a big hole.

Look at Clev in the olympics. He showed great movement but a big part of that was that Ramsey and Allen showed similar movement. Scholes isn't capable of that so if he plays then you have to change your approach to the game. It's not a question of Scholes and Carrick being too slow or lacking in movement but just the affect of scholes in the team. He needs protection.

As I said there are games where this is fine because what he brings far outweighs what he's inhibits. A lot of those games you listed are tough, particularly when teams set up to defend. Scholes's range and ability to get the ball to our wingers in a one on one situation is often the deciding factor.

On the other hand there are games where Scholes shouldn't play as again like I said he wouldn't have played last season had their been viable alternatives. But with Fletcher, Ando and Clev all virtually missing the second half of the season then we didn't have that. Fergie has already said he see's about 20 games for him or so. So he's not expected to be first choice.

Additionally going back to the slow passing, part of that isn't just due to the midfielders but the set up off the team. Like I said with our players being so far apart it doesn't lend itself to quick passing on a regular basis. Kagawa can change that if Fergie wants. Last season Rooney started off a bit deeper but pushed up pretty high for the majority of the season leaving a big gap between the two midfielders and the strikers. As I said that makes it tough to do a quick style and particularly tough for the midfielders to get involved in that manner without leaving gaps in the middle.
Click to expand...

Hate to nitpick, but looking at those games again, I don't think there's a single one where Scholes ability to get the ball to our wingers in one on one situations was a deciding factor. Blackburn for example, Valencia scored after a number of our players combined to very, very slowly get the ball over to his side of the pitch. When we did get the ball to the wingers quickly enough for them to have space, it was usually via our strikers on the break.

Scholes did score a few important goals, and his passing is still nearly always spot on, but in anycase my point isn't about how well he does what he does, it's that him and Carrick as a partnership doesn't really do anything when we're in possession that one of them couldn't just do on their own. They both just sit from deep and either pick passes into feet, play balls out to the already marked winger, or play a ball into Hernandez so he can be flagged offside. No other team at our sort of level has two midfielders sitting from deep. They play one, and another one or two push on from there to link up play and allow the forwards to find space and have an extra option in possession.

Look at how Italy and Juve use Pirlo. He's always the one who sits and the other players push on. It leaves holes defensively but they just accept that, in the same way we'd have to without Carrick, whether we played Scholes or not. If we use Scholes it should be like that, not just to come in and do half of the job Carrick would have been doing anyway. That's just a waste of a player and makes it significantly more difficult for our forwards to make runs and find space, since no one from our midfield ever draws the opposition out or committs an opposition player anywhere.

It's either that or all of our players have inexplicably become lazy fecks who can't be arsed to make runs anymore, which seems unlikely.

As for Cleverley and the GB team...Giggs played in two of the games and sat deeper than the other midfielders, although even he was pushing on more than either Carrick or Scholes usually do between them.
 
noodlehair said:
Hate to nitpick, but looking at those games again, I don't think there's a single one where Scholes ability to get the ball to our wingers in one on one situations was a deciding factor. Blackburn for example, Valencia scored after a number of our players combined to very, very slowly get the ball over to his side of the pitch. When we did get the ball to the wingers quickly enough for them to have space, it was usually via our strikers on the break.

Scholes did score a few important goals, and his passing is still nearly always spot on, but in anycase my point isn't about how well he does what he does, it's that him and Carrick as a partnership doesn't really do anything when we're in possession that one of them couldn't just do on their own. They both just sit from deep and either pick passes into feet, play balls out to the already marked winger, or play a ball into Hernandez so he can be flagged offside. No other team at our sort of level has two midfielders sitting from deep. They play one, and another one or two push on from there to link up play and allow the forwards to find space and have an extra option in possession.

Look at how Italy and Juve use Pirlo. He's always the one who sits and the other players push on. It leaves holes defensively but they just accept that, in the same way we'd have to without Carrick, whether we played Scholes or not. If we use Scholes it should be like that, not just to come in and do half of the job Carrick would have been doing anyway. That's just a waste of a player and makes it significantly more difficult for our forwards to make runs and find space, since no one from our midfield ever draws the opposition out or committs an opposition player anywhere.

It's either that or all of our players have inexplicably become lazy fecks who can't be arsed to make runs anymore, which seems unlikely.

As for Cleverley and the GB team...Giggs played in two of the games and sat deeper than the other midfielders, although even he was pushing on more than either Carrick or Scholes usually do between them.
Click to expand...

I'm not gonna say that I remember each game but I definitely remember games where Scholes was brilliant and certainly where he was our best player. He was getting raved about for a reason bu most on here, the players, etc. Given his biggest weapon is that pinpoint pass to the flanks then I think it certainly helped us, even if we didn't always make the best use of it, the option itself was a big help.

Like I said though I'm not advocating Scholes and Carrick although I do feel for some games they can work very well. My point is that it's scholes who forces the deepness of our play and the slowness. I dunno what you're saying about Giggs and Pirlo. Giggs aside from the last game where he was buzzing around trying to get involved basically played as a striker most the time I saw, not to mention is so much more mobile than scholes. Secondly from what I saw of Prilo I definitely don't remember him being the deeper player. Pretty sure he had two other midfielders doing most the work and again he was buzzing around.

Either way Pirlo is still more mobile than scholes if not by much and better defensively. Like I've said Scholes needs protection, if he plays than in virtually every game it will be a slower game and a different approach to the game in comparison to a midfield of ando and clev or even clev and scholes because he has limitations that have to be protected.

I guess we're not gonna agree but if we ever do see Scholes and Clev/ando/giggs/powell/Jones whoever than I think if they try and push up they will get exposed unless it's an especially weak team, or they will approach it how we already do and have the other midfielder sit deep with scholes.

As I said Scholes's isn't suited to every game, some of the games he played last year he would unlikely have played had we had options but we didn't. But there are games where I feel anyway that his range and intelligence give us an edge that the likes of clev/ando don't give us yet.
 
As far as Pirlo goes, for the majority of his time at Milan he was played in a 2-man midfield alongside Gattuso, who did the vast majority of the gruntwork. Italian football's a bit slower so Milan could afford to have specialised midfielders like that in a way we can't. Scholes certainly does more defensively alongside Carrick than Pirlo did alongside Gattuso in that system. Both Carrick and Scholes can tackle and pass because they both have to because of the tempo of our league. Pirlo, at least during his time at Milan, was largely played as a pure deep-lying passer alongside a dedicated ball-winner, with a proper attacking midfielder (Kaká during Milan's most recent period of European success) in the hole ahead of both of them.
 
If anyone's not sure what constitutes zombie passing, watch the first half of the Aberdeen game for an absolute masterclass in lifeless, sulkey shite.

I mean, I know it's only a pre-season testimonial, but it was so bad it was like a pisstake of itself. United actually bought a bunch of old retired players on at half time and it's livened the game up!
 
I realise you are going to bump this thread every time you want to have a moan. But Try saving it for when we have a real side out
 
I wasn't aware a midfield of Scholes, Giggs, Anderson and Powell constituted a pretend one.

The game's been more fun since we started actually bringing players back from the dead...even real zombies are less zombie than zombie Manchester United
 
It's a fecking testimonial match, do you expect us to go at full high speed? . Surely a better way to judge our midfield/passing is by that 4-3 win against hamburg which was played at a good tempo.
 
Are we critiquing our performance in testimonials now?

Why the hell do you watch friendlies if you're so sick of boring football? Oh yeah, it's to have something to moan about.
 
I saw 20 minutes of the testimonial and I though the reason you didn't see penetration was because of the forward players on the pitch. Scholes and Anderson were passing is very crisply but when you have Bebe and Macheda up front instead of Nani and Rooney, then that keep ball in midfield goes nowhere.
 
Sigh. I don't suppose there's any point in pointing out that it's a meaningless testimonial match?

For gods sake lads can't you wait for the weekend at least when it all starts for real?
 
golden_blunder said:
Sigh. I don't suppose there's any point in pointing out that it's a meaningless testimonial match?

For gods sake lads can't you wait for the weekend at least when it all starts for real?
Click to expand...

I won't complain come next monday if we bring actual zombies along, and they turn out to be less zombielike than the one who's actually still contracted to Manchester United as players.
 
Bebe, Giggs and Macheda had average/poor first halves.

Our midfielders generally controlled the game. Powell had a good first half, Scholes made a shocking mistake but was good apart from that, and Anderson just had a good game in general. They weren't perfect, but the wingers and Macheda were more at fault.
 
The second half was fun, once we brought on the oldies and stopped being a depression festival. I was just pointing out the supreme example of zombie football on display in the first half, before you all came in here crying like little girls about it.

Carry on.
 
noodlehair said:
The second half was fun, once we brought on the oldies and stopped being a depression festival. I was just pointing out the supreme example of zombie football on display in the first half, before you all came in here crying like little girls about it.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was that fun being reminded that Clayton Blackmore is probably our 3rd choice full back this season, I have to admit.
 
marjen said:
I didn't think it was that fun being reminded that Clayton Blackmore is probably our 3rd choice full back this season, I have to admit.
Click to expand...

His crossing is better than Bebe's...although Bebe doesn't really cross it at all. He just power punts the ball in a direction.
 
Laphroaig said:
Is Noodles moaning about people moaning at his moaning?
Click to expand...

Yeah he's. Finding it quite ironical since he has been practically looking for moments to have a proper moan about little things i.e like playing in a testimonial.
 
Laphroaig said:
Is Noodles moaning about people moaning at his moaning?
Click to expand...

I was accused of moaning/doom mongering earlier because I pointed out that a random article in The Daily Mail might not be the most reliable source for verified news.

Angrycafe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.