Yann M’Vila

Cina said:
:confused: D'feck does that have to do with our midfield? Of course we can do that with a fit Nemanja Vidic and Rio Ferdinand in defense.

I already said I think we'll win the league (despite our midfield), I'd never make a bet like that.
Click to expand...

If we're going to be repeatedly overrun and dominated due to having such a defensively weak midfield as you claim we have, don't you think that this weakness would be reflected in our goals conceded tally in comparison with the might and power of the supposedly impregnable City midfield?
 
Threads Cina has turned into the same old tired midfield argument:

2 x Anderson threads.
Carrick thread.
Kagawa thread.
M'Vila Thread.
Lucas thread.
Cleverley thread.
Scholes thread.

Obsessed.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
If we're going to be repeatedly overrun and dominated due to having such a defensively weak midfield as you claim we have, don't you think that this weakness would be reflected in our goals conceded tally in comparison with the might and power of the supposedly impregnable City midfield?
Click to expand...

Did I say their midfield was impregnable? Definitely better defensively, but not 'impregnable'. We do however have a better defense when Vidic is in it, and generally it's defense that causes more goals to be conceded than midfield, isn't it?

Pexbo said:
Threads Cina has turned into the same old tired midfield argument:

2 x Anderson threads.
Carrick thread.
Kagawa thread.
M'Vila Thread.
Lucas thread.
Cleverley thread.
Scholes thread.

Obsessed.
Click to expand...

No I didn't, people were debating this on page 15 long before I got involved. Weren't you telling me to 'grow up' a few days ago, and yet you come into a thread and post that. Brilliant as always Pexbo.

Can you please find proof in every single one of those threads that it was I specifically who instantiated the conversations about our midfield, just so I know you've reason to back your claim up?

(I'll give you a clue, most of those threads are about actual midfielders)
 
Burrow said:
You do seem to be less then impressed with our midfield though, Cina.
Click to expand...

I am, I have been for a long time, so have many on here. We were proven right last Summer when we ended up having to bring a 38 year old back from retirement. I hope I'm wrong this year and all these 'ifs' about our midfield turn into reality, because if they don't, our chances in Europe are minimal again.
 
Cina said:
Did I say their midfield was impregnable? Definitely better defensively, but not 'impregnable'. We do however have a better defense when Vidic is in it, and generally it's defense that causes more goals to be conceded than midfield, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Well if that's the case then SAF is absolutely correct to focus our central midfield on attacking play rather than defence. What's your problem?
 
Scholes is still quality and in the right games is arguably our biggest weapon but the problem is that he's only suited to some games and he needs protection. Whoever partners him will have to pick up a lot of defensive burden. In bigger games if we;re forced to use Scholes it could easily hurt us. Most of us wouldn't have been too happy with ando and scholes a few years back, don't see whats changed since then. Against a weak team they could pull it off but against a stronger team, if Ando is our alternative to Carrick and he has to partner scholes, giggs, powell, kagawa, whoever, as clev even if he does stay fit won't always be around, then I'd be concerned.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Well if that's the case then SAF is absolutely correct to focus our central midfield on attacking play rather than defence. What's your problem?
Click to expand...

Yeah cider, because there's just no middle ground is there? feck it, let's just stop using midfielders entirely and play 6 forwards and wingers instead, seems to be SAFs plans based on his purchases anyway, doesn't it?
 
Cina said:
Yeah cider, because there's just no middle ground is there? feck it, let's just stop using midfielders entirely and play 6 forwards and wingers instead, seems to be SAFs plans based on his purchases anyway, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

It's you who is suggesting that our defensively weak midfield won't equate to more goals being conceded in the coming season. If that's the case — as you seem to believe it is, hence your turning down the offer of the bet, stating that goals conceded are down to the defenders rather than midfielders — then which of us is avoiding the middle ground?

I think that certainly a weak midfield which is repeatedly being overrun and dominated would concede more goals than a strong one. You do think our midfield is weak, don't you? I don't think it is, hence my offer of the bet.

Surely you don't think our defence is so much better than City's that the failings of our incredibly weak, submissive midfield would be countered, do you? If that's the case then our weak midfield won't be an issue at all, in which case, why are you so bothered about it as, with this incredible defence uneffected by the shit midfield in front of it, SAF should rightly be focusing the midfield on attacking?

You seem to be trying to have it both ways in order to avoid a simple bet between fans, but your illogical reasoning for turning down the bet is invalidating your initial argument.
 
What am I invalidating here? We've won shitloads in the last few years in spite of our midfield, because of our great defense, wingers and forwards. That's how I see it. I think the core issue with our midfield is that we don't have anyone else who can do what Carrick does, and if Carrick does get injured, we will definitely concede more goals, how could you not? But City have a weaker defense than us, so despite their midfield being stronger I think they may concede more.

But what you're suggesting is that it should be one or the other, as in, feck getting a Carrick backup/replacement, we don't need to strengthen that area of our team because we have a good defense, what's the logic in that exactly? Shouldn't we aim to be strong in BOTH aspects? Isn't that what a top club like us should do?

I mean, if you're suggesting we ignore the defensive aspect of our midfield, are you saying yourself that it's not good enough in that way, so we should look to improve in different ways to compensate?

For what it's worth, you brought up the comparison between the City midfield and ours, and theirs is stronger attacking wise than ours is too, because of Yaya. When they put De Jong or whomever behind him last season, we saw how lethal he was. We've nobody who can do what he does. Basically, it's overall a better midfield than ours, but somehow you've now seen fit to just focus on the defensive aspect of it instead, by going on about a bet (obviously to try lure me into this debate, well done)
 
Cina said:
But what you're suggesting is that it should be one or the other, as in, feck getting a Carrick backup/replacement, we don't need to strengthen that area of our team because we have a good defense, what's the logic in that exactly? Shouldn't we aim to be strong in BOTH aspects? Isn't that what a top club like us should do?

I mean, if you're suggesting we ignore the defensive aspect of our midfield, are you saying yourself that it's not good enough in that way, so we should look to improve in different ways to compensate?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you could have missed the point any more convincingly than that.

I'm suggesting that our midfield is strong enough defensively, that Anderson will be good backup for Carrick. I'm not entirely sure how you've managed to miss this, what with it being the focal point of my every post since late last night and all.
 
Fair enough, then we're back to what I said originally, I most definitely don't think Anderson is a good backup for Carrick, I don't even regard him as a backup for Carrick, and it doesn't help that he's injured more than fit either.

I guess we'll just have to differ on that.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
I'm not sure you could have missed the point any more convincingly than that.

I'm suggesting that our midfield is strong enough defensively, that Anderson will be good backup for Carrick. I'm not entirely sure how you've managed to miss this, what with it being the focal point of my every post since late last night and all.
Click to expand...

Not in Europe.
 
The first choice midfield off Carrick and clev/ando is fine imo, Carrick is proven quality and the other two can step up. You can't judge the quality on last season because most of them barely featured. My concern is if Carrick gets injured, beyond clev and ando which is still potentially a dodgy if excellent attackingly combo, I can't think of any combination of players that would give us a strong midfield. It doesn't have to be a flashy midfield or even a hugely dominant one, just secure and given the weaknesses that each of our midfielders has beyond Carrick then it's just a big risk.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
I'm not sure you could have missed the point any more convincingly than that.

I'm suggesting that our midfield is strong enough defensively, that Anderson will be good backup for Carrick. I'm not entirely sure how you've managed to miss this, what with it being the focal point of my every post since late last night and all.
Click to expand...

What happens when Ando gets injured/too fat?
 
More importantly what happens if Carrick gets injured. Would you honestly be comfortable relying on both clev and ando to stay fit when we need them, and if one of them isn't fit to potentially have them partnering scholes/giggs/powell.

Fletcher on the bench apparently today which is great news though, a Fletcher near his top if possible would be a massive boost to our options.
 
Ash_G said:
More importantly what happens if Carrick gets injured. Would you honestly be comfortable relying on both clev and ando to stay fit when we need them, and if one of them isn't fit to potentially have them partnering scholes/giggs/powell.

Fletcher on the bench apparently today which is great news though, a Fletcher near his top if possible would be a massive boost to our options.
Click to expand...

As I've said many times now, if SAF has cause to doubt Anderson's ongoing fitness then he'll replace him; until that happens I can only reasonably assume that the player's previous injury record has no bearing on his potential to become injured in future. Cleverley hasn't even got a record of injuries; he was crocked by a shocking Kevin Davis tackle which more or less put him out for a season but that's about it; it's odd that this equates to injury-prone on the caf.

As a midfield partnership, yes I think they could be outstanding together.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
As I've said many times now, if SAF has cause to doubt Anderson's ongoing fitness then he'll replace him; until that happens I can only reasonably assume that the player's previous injury record has no bearing on his potential to become injured in future. Cleverley hasn't even got a record of injuries; he was crocked by a shocking Kevin Davis tackle which more or less put him out for a season but that's about it; it's odd that this equates to injury-prone on the caf.

As a midfield partnership, yes I think they could be outstanding together.
Click to expand...

I agree they could be, I'm not overly bothered by them as a combo, as I said I think it would be open against good teams but if the defence and attack is on form then it should be ok, but apart from those two together how would you feel about ando and scholes or ando and giggs, powell etc? Last season we were fortunate that Carrick stayed fit as much as he did and even then there were games where he couldn't play and it cost us. Ando with Clev could be fine, but ando partnering one of those guys in a tough game, imo anyway would be pretty dodgy.
 
Ash_G said:
I agree they could be, I'm not overly bothered by them as a combo, as I said I think it would be open against good teams but if the defence and attack is on form then it should be ok, but apart from those two together how would you feel about ando and scholes or ando and giggs, powell etc? Last season we were fortunate that Carrick stayed fit as much as he did and even then there were games where he couldn't play and it cost us. Ando with Clev could be fine, but ando partnering one of those guys in a tough game, imo anyway would be pretty dodgy.
Click to expand...

In a tough game we should be playing 4-3-3. I have no clue why this was abandoned last season. Anderson/Cleverley/whoever will get enough room to work their thing in such a formation.
 
Ash_G said:
I agree they could be, I'm not overly bothered by them as a combo, as I said I think it would be open against good teams but if the defence and attack is on form then it should be ok, but apart from those two together how would you feel about ando and scholes or ando and giggs, powell etc? Last season we were fortunate that Carrick stayed fit as much as he did and even then there were games where he couldn't play and it cost us. Ando with Clev could be fine, but ando partnering one of those guys in a tough game, imo anyway would be pretty dodgy.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with that, once CM injuries pile up on top of one another the CM pairing becomes weaker. This is part of football though, something which all teams face during an injury crisis; in our case a simple switch to 4-5-1 could solve any issues brought about by simultaneous injuries to both Carrick and Cleverley.

I don't see much wrong with any of the following midfield triplets:

Jones Scholes
Anderson

Anderson Scholes
Giggs​

Perhaps Scholes is unfit also, in which case:

Anderson Jones
Giggs​

There are plenty of options. I've left Powell out because I've only seen him play once and he's an unknown quantity as yet. Kagawa would also be in the mix.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Yeah I agree with that, once CM injuries pile up on top of one another the CM pairing becomes weaker. This is part of football though, something which all teams face during an injury crisis; in our case a simple switch to 4-5-1 could solve any issues brought about by simultaneous injuries to both Carrick and Cleverley.

I don't see much wrong with any of the following midfield triplets:

Jones Scholes
Anderson

Anderson Scholes
Giggs​

Perhaps Scholes is unfit also, in which case:

Anderson Jones
Giggs​

There are plenty of options. I've left Powell out because I've only seen him play once and he's an unknown quantity as yet. Kagawa would also be in the mix.
Click to expand...

Ok, we may as well leave it there. I think both of those midfields would be massive issues except against particularly weak teams. Injuries is one thing but that's why you have cover. We've got plenty of cover for the attacking role. There is no cover for Carrick either in someone who is proven there or someone who's natural positon is there.
 
adexkola said:
In a tough game we should be playing 4-3-3. I have no clue why this was abandoned last season. Anderson/Cleverley/whoever will get enough room to work their thing in such a formation.
Click to expand...

Well that's why I think Kagawa can be very important. If we actually play him in am, then particularly in tougher games it'll really help us imo both attackingly and defensively.
 
Ash_G said:
Well that's why I think Kagawa can be very important. If we actually play him in am, then particularly in tougher games it'll really help us imo both attackingly and defensively.
Click to expand...

I've never seen him play for Dortmund. I had the impression he was an attacking sort of midfielder, so how will he help defensively?
 
adexkola said:
I've never seen him play for Dortmund. I had the impression he was an attacking sort of midfielder, so how will he help defensively?
Click to expand...

Ok, well take the city game at their ground lst year and swap Park for Kagawa. Now centrally, scholes and carrick have an option nearby that can give them a quality and reliable outball. This will help them get out of tough situations and considering Kagawa will be or should be much better on the ball than Park, it would give something for the opposition to think off. City were able to push up high against us because there was no real threat from Park, he wasn't going to get away from this with his pace/dribbling, nor had the range to find anyone dangerously, so like I said they could push up high and put more pressure on our midfielders.

That's one of the areas where I think we've struggled. People like to say how we suffer against teams that press due to our players lacking quality but one of the main reasons why I that is, is that there is no extra option for the midfielders nearby. Typically they're outnumbered in the middle with a big gap between the strikers and the midfield, as although Rooney has dropped deep at times he hasn't done it regularly enough imo, and before this season there was no alternative for him. If Kagawa plays am, I think we'll see a significant reduction in the amount we get exploited by high pressing teams.
 
Ash_G said:
Ok, well take the city game at their ground lst year and swap Park for Kagawa. Now centrally, scholes and carrick have an option nearby that can give them a quality and reliable outball. This will help them get out of tough situations and considering Kagawa will be or should be much better on the ball than Park, it would give something for the opposition to think off. City were able to push up high against us because there was no real threat from Park, he wasn't going to get away from this with his pace/dribbling, nor had the range to find anyone dangerously, so like I said they could push up high and put more pressure on our midfielders.

That's one of the areas where I think we've struggled. People like to say how we suffer against teams that press due to our players lacking quality but one of the main reasons why I that is, is that there is no extra option for the midfielders nearby. Typically they're outnumbered in the middle with a big gap between the strikers and the midfield, as although Rooney has dropped deep at times he hasn't done it regularly enough imo, and before this season there was no alternative for him. If Kagawa plays am, I think we'll see a significant reduction in the amount we get exploited by high pressing teams.
Click to expand...

A good point, well made. A presence in the middle that is constantly available, always looking to get on the ball. When Scholes is not on the field, we don't have that. It marks us out amongst the top sides, I think. The little I've seen of Kagawa suggests he will help in this regard.
 
Still ill said:
A good point, well made. A presence in the middle that is constantly available, always looking to get on the ball. When Scholes is not on the field, we don't have that. It marks us out amongst the top sides, I think. The little I've seen of Kagawa suggests he will help in this regard.
Click to expand...

Cheers, yeah scholes isn't necessarily who I was thinking off as I was more meaning someone who will drift in an around the midfielders, but as you said the main point is someone making themselves available and with the quality to do something.
 
He (AVB) also ruled out a move for Stade Rennes midfielder Yann M'Vila although Spurs had considered the France international.

"He's an interesting player but I don't think he'll join Tottenham," said the Portuguese.

"He's a defensive (midfield) player. For a possible solution for Luka we're looking for a more creative player. We had initial interest in the player but we have moved on from that."
Click to expand...

Guardian via Reuters
 
No he hasn't. It's really better that will start doing a simple search before just posting things whatever they see on twitter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.