To be fair, there wasn't a lot of movement up front for him today.
That's not Paul Scholes?
- Thread starter e.cantona
- Start date
I forgot all about that, it really is terrible but they do like their mullets in Spain.
Scholes must play further forward. He cannot do this all round midfield role effectively anymore. He needs support and Hargreaves would be ideal if he could put a run of games together without crying off injured. In H's absence Carrick will have to play the holding role and release Scholesy to attack more - not the other way round.
Wrong Scholes needs to stop playing deeper than Carrick, like he did last night and passing the ball simple like a Makelele. That is not his game. Plus he needs to pick up the tempo of his passing. He and Carrick were the problem last night. They never provided any tempo for our wingers and Forwards to use.
No. He and Carrick's passing had no tempo. That had nothing to do with the strikers
we also need someone to carry the ball a bit more in central areas.
Scholes used to do it a bit, but he's stopped for some reason, and Carrick is often too static.
in the few times he's played for us, Hargreaves has shown himself to be extremely mobile. too bad he's going to be out so long.
Scholes used to do it a bit, but he's stopped for some reason, and Carrick is often too static.
in the few times he's played for us, Hargreaves has shown himself to be extremely mobile. too bad he's going to be out so long.
Roma's midfield was made up of 2 box to box midfielders(De Rossi - Perrotta) and a Pirlo's type of midfielder (Aquilani). We had little chance of dominating the central midfielder, expecially with Scholes in the team.
It wasn't about dominating the midfield. We didn't need to. We had enough possession to do something with it. But our midfield passing was too slow, and too simple. Too much side ways and backwards stuff with little imagination. Then useless long balls after creating no momentum of ball movement in the center.
I think you are right to a certain extent. However, we allowed Roma a lot of space and we were put under quite a bit of pressure from time to time - particularly towards the end. Had their finishing been better we may even have lost.
I don't think playing two central midfielders is going to be right for these type of games particularly. Admittedly Fergie had little choice with Hargeaves and Fletcher both out and JOS filling in at rb. I am starting to get a little concerned about PS in the role he is currently playing or being asked to play right now. I trhink his days of covering the midfield in a sort of holding role as well as prompting the attack in a more agressive role may be over - he can't do both. He should stick to the latter and our team set up should be arranged accordingly to allow him to do that, because he still has the capability to be highly effective behind the strikers.
That's true too. But had we used our possession well enough when we had it, since we had more ball than Roma, we would have ripped them to shreds. Nani and Ronaldo looked in the mood to kill. As did Rooney. But the midfeild just didn't provide them with a platform to do so. With that tempo less, unimaginative and overly simple passing. That they did all night
Maybe
He has never been able to do both in all honesty. Playing with Carrick forces him into such a role. He only gets away with it if Carrick is exceptionally playing well. Because they help cover each others defensive and mobility deficiencies . But when Carrick is average like last night, they become all to clear. Carrick makes Scholes play too deep. Where he is ineffective. Scholes should either play alongside Hargreaves or play infront of Carrick and Hargreaves/Fletcher in Europe.
I agree
No. There was no movement from Saha, Nani or even Ronaldo in the first half.
Scholes and Carrick had to either pass it between themselves or to one of the full-backs most of the time.
Were you watching the same game as we did? Ronaldo and Nani ran their socks off, also in the first half.
Agreed, it was all too sloooooowwww... Any fecker can pass the ball around sideways and backwards at that level, as saf said at half time we had to take a few more risks, and primarily that means scholes and carrick. We really need to up our tempo.
Yes, I was at Old Trafford actually.
That's very different to movement off the ball when the midfielders are looking for somebody to play it to.
My thoughts exactly
Mate, movement off the ball is determined by the rate at which the midfield is passing the ball around. If they are passing it slow the forwards & wingers don't bother making the runs. For they would get offside. Or like was the case against Roma, marked out easily. Carrick and Scholes were too slow in their passing. On top of unimaginative and simple. They would pass the ball amongst themselves, side ways and backwards, engage in a passing fest with our defence, then suddenly without warning release a pointless long ball that Nani and Ronaldo had to retrieve. To cross into a box were Saha and Rooney were well marked. It happened to often through out the 90 minutes. When ever they picked up the tempo, Ronaldo and Nani looked more dangerous and Rooney and Saha seemed to have more space to operate in. The midfield duo just never did it often enough. No to mention the fact Scholes as playing deeper than Carrick even.
You dont play at ease under such circumstances.
All due credit to Roma though. After last year they weren't going to give much away at the back. We were well marked and it was difficult for our midfield duo to create much as well as our front men to run off the ball into space of which there wasn't a great deal.
really you should take a pic of yourself naked with your finger up your bum and pm it to suresh
Scholes has been playing at that depth for some time. People talk about creativity but ive said it before and ill say it again..paul tends to play the percentage passes...the right one at the right time. His game has changed and now he keeps things ticking over and dictates the tempo and possession of the side. this allows other in the team to take more risks.
Giggs for example...often gets slated for giving the ball away but ive said it before and ill say it again...he's our most penetrative passers..he doesnt go for percentage passes like carrick or scholes (who do so for the majority). giggs is always looking to make something happen with a forward pass or through ball so of course he's going to give the ball away more.
In conclusion there is jack shit wrong with scholesy. Where the team functioning as it should this mild dip in form would no even be noticed. When scholesy is playing well he wont be carving teams open or bursting into the box to get onto the end of things. he's playing deeper to dictate play.
lol...i laugh because im in agreement...yet cant help but remember the summer. spent it trying to convince all the numpties that selling saha was a bad idea. All i was met with was..." duh....sell saha keep rossi....even keep smith...but sell saha..duh...anyone but rossi he's the future....duh....smith ...duh..."
Sell saha indeed. sell him i say.
I have noticed he has been pretty poor, funnily enough so has Giggs and both players were instrumental in the championship last season, with their great form. He seems to be trying to play the quarter back role, playing long, diagonal, high passes which take a lot of controlling upon receipt, particularly if under pressure from a defender. As somebody mentioned before maybe its the lack of runs through the middle from Tevez & Rooney. Personally on current form I would play Tevez in the middle and play Saha up front but obviously with Carrick and Hargeaves out that isn't really an option!
On this forum and another one I use, people keep on saying how deep Scholes is playing as a reason he wasn't playing well. He was playing just as deep last year, he was just in much better form.
I also think Scholes could play in every game until the end of the season and not come up against a better partnership than De Rossi and Aquailani. They were excellent and alot quicker than both Scholes and Carrick.
I think he'll eventually find his form again, however we must get used to him losing out on occassions to younger, fitter midfielders who can play as well (De Rossi, Aquailani, Fabregas etc). He's 33 now after all, the fact he can still compete with most midfielders is testemant to his amazing football brain.
I also think Scholes could play in every game until the end of the season and not come up against a better partnership than De Rossi and Aquailani. They were excellent and alot quicker than both Scholes and Carrick.
I think he'll eventually find his form again, however we must get used to him losing out on occassions to younger, fitter midfielders who can play as well (De Rossi, Aquailani, Fabregas etc). He's 33 now after all, the fact he can still compete with most midfielders is testemant to his amazing football brain.
I do rate Scholes. He is one of the best midfielders around. Stating that he does have limits, one of them is that he cant tackle and therefore he isnt cut to play against teams like Roma who just love to bulk the central midfield with defensive and hardworking midfielders. Not, unless we end up playing with a 3 men midfield.
Utter garbage. And Scholes can tackle, he's just a bit iffy with his timing when he doesn't stay on his feet
Scholes is only in poor form for his high standards, still invaluable to the team. It's an amazing run of wins we're on giving the threads on here seem to indicate we've been carrying half the bloody team
Saha was played a large portion of that Roma game and was anonymous. Yet you want to convince us Saha's absence has been the reason we are off our stride ATM and Scholes that their is nothing wrong with how Scholes is playing ATM. ..Scholes is playing alright, nothing special but I expect his form will improve.
We can play without Saha, of course. But we are generally better with him in the team because of his excellent hold up play. I'm sure Fergie knows the value of this aspect of the game, I mean he had Mark Hughes for years, and he signed Alan Smith.
We can play without Saha, of course. But we are generally better with him in the team because of his excellent hold up play. I'm sure Fergie knows the value of this aspect of the game, I mean he had Mark Hughes for years, and he signed Alan Smith.
I disagree. I don't ever remember seeing Scholes playing deeper than Carrick. Which is what he did vs Roma. Which was strange.
That I agree with.
I wonder. We will come up against any much quicker midfields. But if our form is right it never matters.
Well said.
Alot of the games at home he did, especially in the second half of the season. Scholes would stay deep setting the tempo and spraying the ball wide and Carrick would break forward if we were dominating possession. It was only in games we were really struggling in would Carrick just sit deep virtually all game.
The thing bothering me the most with Scholes is that he's the one dictating our game, and still he's just lowering the tempo. Against poor sides too... He should care more about our play than his passing percentage. Try some long balls if no one is showing up. Better than wasting half the game on the midway touch line.
I disagree chief there were plenty of occassions in the first half where Carrick and Scholes were looking to play it forward but the forward line was so static they had to pass between them or go back to a defender.
I disagree with your first statement too, there can't be any fast flowing passing if there's no movement in the first place. Nobody was looking to get in behind the defence, Nani always comes too deep when he should be looking to get in behind and Ronaldo was doubled up on.
I do agree though that our tempo is painfully slow at times and Scholes needs to push on a bit more.
agree generally, scholes was too deep because of Rooney/Tevez.
If thats not Paul Scholes, who is then?
Scholes needs to find his creativity touch again from last season, even more so now that Carrick is out.
Utter garbage. And Scholes can tackle, he's just a bit iffy with his timing when he doesn't stay on his feet
Scholes is only in poor form for his high standards, still invaluable to the team. It's an amazing run of wins we're on giving the threads on here seem to indicate we've been carrying half the bloody team
He's not just a bit iffy with his timing, he simply cant tackle. Accept that. You just cant bear Scholes tackling. Its either mistimed or above the knee which nearly always result into a yellow card type of foul. Now put that into context + the fact that the Italians love to play with 3 hardworking midfielders AND they know how to make the best out of a foul and you will notice that no defensive midfielder (apart good old Keano) would be able to compensate against such opposition.
Mind as stated Scholes is still our best central midfielder and all but he has to be utilised wisely. If you want to play him against lets say Milan then you use him in a 3 men midfield and put Carrick and Hargreaves at his arse. There is no point in playing him deep expecially when he is an attacking midfielder whose tackle are worse then those of a 12 yr old trainee.
You cant play your game if, exactly when you win the ball, you end up having 3 midfielders tackling you. Games are usually won and lost in CM. We were lucky to have wingers capable of compensating to that and a referee who havent noticed Carrick's foul on Mancini
Before Scholes, the creativity came from a forward, a Frenchman named Eric.
As Scholes is winding down now, the creativity will come from another forward, up to three in fact; Ronaldo, Rooney and/or Tevez.
The creativity doesn't need to come from midfield. As Totti has shown.
As Scholes is winding down now, the creativity will come from another forward, up to three in fact; Ronaldo, Rooney and/or Tevez.
The creativity doesn't need to come from midfield. As Totti has shown.
You are not quite getting it. Last season the hallmark of our game was the tempo at which Scholes and Carrick were passing the ball. Last season because people perceived our CM to be week, the kept attacking time. But the tempo at which they passed the ball amongst each other and to the wide players, which gave our forwards a constant supply of ball quickly. So all the concentrate on was making
runs, knowing the ball would always get to them on time. But this season there is no tempo in that passing. Rooney and Saha were well marked because the ball was never getting to them quick enough. Carrick and Scholes took simply too long to supply Ronaldo and Nani with balls. Yet those two made runs all night. Good telling runs. The CM would either be too slow to make a forward pass, or send a long ball late that Nani (especially) would chase and manage to retrive into the box, yet by then Saha and Rooney were well marked and were not expecting a ball from wide at all.
it's well and good to blame the forwards for our lack of goals. But when most of them were out the problem was still there. So it has to lie eslewhere...not with our strikers...
Ronaldo and Nani made enough telling runs at an behind he Fullbacks of Roma. They never got the ball quick enough ever. And when the finally got the ball it was a useless long ball that they had to chase and cut back, while it was almost going out, to two well marked a strikers. This was the repetitive pattern through out the 90 minutes. It's a fallacy to claim that strikers create space for themselves. It's the midfielders that creates the space. If their passing is too slow and laboured, the strikers will never have a hope in hell of doing anything. Whether they make runs or not.
It wasn't at times. It was through out! WE rarely passed with a tempo. The few times we did, was when we came close to scoring & eventually when we scored. Which we very few moments indeed. Also I agree about Scholes. He is not as effective playing deeper than Carrick. He should quit doing it.