Play brilliant = Lose. Play Shite = Win. Football, bloody hell!

The utter indignity of hanging on for dear life at the end there. At home. Against Spurs.

And Fergie "We can't play Saha yet until we're 100,000,000% sure he's fit" What a sorry excuse for a sportsman that gormless @#%&! is, total and utter liability.

Nice to see we've got someone now apart from Rooney and scholes who can @#%&! a ball in the top corner from 30 yards.

Also, I have to say that was Michael Carrick's worst performance in the shirt. Absolute shocker.

Carrick has been shit in the 1st few games

When you play a three-man central midfield you generally play with either an offensive triangle (one holding midfielder and two more attacking players) or a defensive triangle (two holding players at the base of the triangle and one attacker at the tip).

Nominally we played with a defensive triangle, with Carrick and Hargreaves sitting deeper and Scholes playing at the forward tip of the triangle. In this system it is the responsibility of the attacking midfielder to provide support to the striker in and around the box and to act as a positional reference between himself, the two midfielders at the base of the triangle and the centre forward.

Unfortunately, Scholes seems intent on carrying on where he left off last season, dropping deep to play the ball out from the back and spending most of his time behind the ball.

This has the effect of compressing the midfield, thus creating large gaps between the lines and sucking the forwards much deeper than they should be. As a result there is less depth in the field, so the passing triangles required for effective short build-up play are not there and we end up playing a large number of horizontal passes.

It also means that there are not enough bodies in the box once the play moves into the final third. Not enough bodies in the box means minimal threat from the cross, no threat from crosses means the play gets congested in the spine of the pitch, making short build-up play even more difficult (you need to stretch the play horizontally to penetrate vertically).

As an aside, personally I'm not sold on the necessity of playing with two controlling players against the majority of opposition. At the very least, one of them needs to be participating higher up the pitch. To be in a situation where you're effectively playing with three is just ridiculous.

This wasn't helped by playing with two wide (nominally at least) forwards who both like to cut inside, a right fullback who becomes a less potent attacking threat with each passing match and a centre forward who the rest of the players don't believe can contest the ball if it is actually crossed.

Another problem I thought we had, something that often happens when we play that kind of system, was that the forwards dropped back into the midfield too quickly. You either tell them to stay up and give the opposition something to think about, what Barca usually do; try to defend further up the pitch; or you drop them back one at a time (if you want an example of how to do that perfectly, watch a tape of Madrid's Quinta del Buitre).

As soon as we lost the ball both Giggs and Nani tucked back into wide midfield positions. Drives me nuts. Someone needs to £#%&!ing tell them that they're supposed to be playing as forwards, not midfielders. Happens nearly every time as well

Can't believe we won either by the way. Thought this was by far the match we least deserved the 3 points from. What a strange £#%&!ing game it is.

I agree with Serenity about the midfield three with two holding players not being necessary in a home game against Spurs. In fact, there are very few games in which it will be necessary. I'm sure we won't see it happen much more though as the only reason we've played like that is because of Rooney, Ronaldo and Saha's injuries. And even Anderson's to an extent.

Once we can provide support for Tevez, have Anderson competing for a first team place and have Neville back in the side, we'll go back to seeing beautiful attacking football and oppositions defending for their lives. You only had to look at the bench today to realise that Ferguson had little choice of which starting lineup and formation to go with.

Originally Posted by Serenity Now

When you play a three-man central midfield you generally play with either an offensive triangle (one holding midfielder and two more attacking players) or a defensive triangle (two holding players at the base of the triangle and one attacker at the tip).

Nominally we played with a defensive triangle, with Carrick and Hargreaves sitting deeper and Scholes playing at the forward tip of the triangle. In this system it is the responsibility of the attacking midfielder to provide support to the striker in and around the box and to act as a positional reference between himself, the two midfielders at the base of the triangle and the centre forward.

Unfortunately, Scholes seems intent on carrying on where he left off last season, dropping deep to play the ball out from the back and spending most of his time behind the ball.

This has the effect of compressing the midfield, thus creating large gaps between the lines and sucking the forwards much deeper than they should be. As a result there is less depth in the field, so the passing triangles required for effective short build-up play are not there and we end up playing a large number of horizontal passes.

It also means that there are not enough bodies in the box once the play moves into the final third. Not enough bodies in the box means minimal threat from the cross, no threat from crosses means the play gets congested in the spine of the pitch, making short build-up play even more difficult (you need to stretch the play horizontally to penetrate vertically).

As an aside, personally I'm not sold on the necessity of playing with two controlling players against the majority of opposition. At the very least, one of them needs to be participating higher up the pitch. To be in a situation where you're effectively playing with three is just ridiculous.

This wasn't helped by playing with two wide (nominally at least) forwards who both like to cut inside, a right fullback who becomes a less potent attacking threat with each passing match and a centre forward who the rest of the players don't believe can contest the ball if it is actually crossed.

Another problem I thought we had, something that often happens when we play that kind of system, was that the forwards dropped back into the midfield too quickly. You either tell them to stay up and give the opposition something to think about, what Barca usually do; try to defend further up the pitch; or you drop them back one at a time (if you want an example of how to do that perfectly, watch a tape of Madrid's Quinta del Buitre).

As soon as we lost the ball both Giggs and Nani tucked back into wide midfield positions. Drives me nuts. Someone needs to £#%&!ing tell them that they're supposed to be playing as forwards, not midfielders. Happens nearly every time as well

Thats a very good assessment, something i have tried to convey in my scholes + hargreaves + carrick thread but didnt get the points over as well as you have done there.

Carrick is the one suffering at the moment what with hargreaves beavering around and doing what he's good at, and scholes (i dont want to be the link man) occupying other areas, poor Carrick is left in no mans land. He must be getting pissed off because he played well last year and at the moment is almost being squeezed out.

Originally Posted by Lou_Macari_Chippy

Thats a very good assessment, something i have tried to convey in my scholes + hargreaves + carrick thread but didnt get the points over as well as you have done there.

Carrick is the one suffering at the moment what with hargreaves beavering around and doing what he's good at, and scholes (i dont want to be the link man) occupying other areas, poor Carrick is left in no mans land. He must be getting pissed off because he played well last year and at the moment is almost being squeezed out.

I don't quite understand why people are taking this viewpoint. Granted, there are only a handful of people on the forum who agree with Vio's 'drop Scholes' bullshit, but the argument seems to be that he's stifling Carrick and so he must make way for a Carrick and Hargreaves pairing.

Why?

If you want to play Hargreaves then fine. It then comes down to a decision between Scholes and Carrick. Now, Carrick may be the player who will play there for many years to come, but right now Scholes is still the better player out of the two of them. Simple logic says that if you want to play a two man midfield that includes Hargreaves, Carrick must be on the bench...for now.

That may seem harsh, but top football clubs have competition for places whereby even top players can sit on the bench. Henry was a sub for Barca tonight for example.

To clarify, I'm not necessarily saying Carrick should be dropped, but if people are determined to see a two man midfield that includes Hargreaves then, for me, Scholes plays over Carrick.

In reality, I think we'll see a lot of rotation and all three players will play in most games this season, just not necessarily at the same time.

Originally Posted by TreeFiddy

I don't quite understand why people are taking this viewpoint. Granted, there are only a handful of people on the forum who agree with Vio's 'drop Scholes' bullshit, but the argument seems to be that he's stifling Carrick and so he must make way for a Carrick and Hargreaves pairing.

Why?

If you want to play Hargreaves then fine. It then comes down to a decision between Scholes and Carrick. Now, Carrick may be the player who will play there for many years to come, but right now Scholes is still the better player out of the two of them. Simple logic says that if you want to play a two man midfield that includes Hargreaves, Carrick must be on the bench...for now.

That may seem harsh, but top football clubs have competition for places whereby even top players can sit on the bench. Henry was a sub for Barca tonight for example.

To clarify, I'm not necessarily saying Carrick should be dropped, but if people are determined to see a two man midfield that includes Hargreaves then, for me, Scholes plays over Carrick.

In reality, I think we'll see a lot of rotation and all three players will play in most games this season, just not necessarily at the same time.

For me it's not so much who plays just as long as we are playing with two center mids and not three. When you think about it we're in a great position for rotation;

Hargreaves is now our main holding mid and so whenever we face quality opponents he should be the automatic choice. Scholes is getting older and will need a rest from time to time. Carrick can play the holding role or can push up a bit and play a scholes type role. There's no reason why these three cant rotate on the two positions, and perhaps thats what will happen once we get everyone back.

My problem is that i dont think we should be playing with all three even without rooney, saha and ronaldo fit. IMO scholes should be playing as a striker alonside tevez or one of the three should be dropped and one of our other forwards should be playing there.

three men in the middle of the park should be reserved for top class opposition in cagey games not cannon fodder like reading and city.

Originally Posted by TreeFiddy

I agree with Serenity about the midfield three with two holding players not being necessary in a home game against Spurs. In fact, there are very few games in which it will be necessary. I'm sure we won't see it happen much more though as the only reason we've played like that is because of Rooney, Ronaldo and Saha's injuries. And even Anderson's to an extent.

Once we can provide support for Tevez, have Anderson competing for a first team place and have Neville back in the side, we'll go back to seeing beautiful attacking football and oppositions defending for their lives. You only had to look at the bench today to realise that Ferguson had little choice of which starting lineup and formation to go with.

how can you agree with him when you dont even understand what he has said or hinted very mildly.

the clue is here....

Unfortunately, Scholes seems intent on carrying on where he left off last season, dropping deep to play the ball out from the back and spending most of his time behind the ball.

the same scholes you think has been "brilliant"

you really dont understand football do you?

Originally Posted by TreeFiddy

I don't quite understand why people are taking this viewpoint. Granted, there are only a handful of people on the forum who agree with Vio's 'drop Scholes' bullshit, but the argument seems to be that he's stifling Carrick and so he must make way for a Carrick and Hargreaves pairing.

Why?

If .

ok ill break it down to you numptie...


scholes hasnt got the legs to play in a two man midfield as both cm need to be able to run, tackle etc.
scholes at his age and current ability should play in THREE man midfields with two midfielders deep lying and and doing all his running and dirty work..
scholes how ever is now taking up the role of carrick in the three man midfield..
as explained here by serenity

Unfortunately, Scholes seems intent on carrying on where he left off last season, dropping deep to play the ball out from the back and spending most of his time behind the ball.

this means carrick is left in no mans land and scholes at his age isnt very good at playing carricks role meaning that not only is scholes not playing to his best potential but in playing carricks position carrick is more or less wasted.

the only answer to this as scholes has been playing this way since last season as said above., is to drop him.
in dropping him we can afford another attacking player which do the team more good.


you will as usual dismiss this but its not only men that saying and the people disagreeing with it are just yelling "#@&%!", "@#%&!" as there have nothing that can counter it.

Essentially what we think scholes should do is basically play in the hole supporting the forward line. a couple of seasons ago fergie tried to play scholes there and it didnt really come off to well and it wasnt long before scholes was complaining about playing there, claiming that it was upsetting his game etc so now i think you'll find it really hard to get scholes further up the park to play a supporting role with the forwards.

Naturally he likes to roam around the center circle so he can see more of the ball. Because he's getting more of the ball it makes him look more involved, like he's playing well, when in fact, he is causing a pattern in our game that causes more midfield passes and fewer openings because there's no one to actually throw the ball up to to hold it up. Honestly at this point i'd rather see o'shea up there as a target man than nobody which is what we have now.

Fergie et al claim we are playing well and it's true that for the most part we are keeping possession well but that only makes us look like were playing well, just as scholes at the minute appears to be playing well. The truth is we are not playing as well as we seem to be because we are not creating the number of chances we should be. last year we would create half a dozen or more really good chances each game and then another half dozen half chances. So far this year we have created two or three good chances and two or three half chances. That equates to us actually being half as effective as we were last year, despite all the possession.

A lot of people are coming out with statements like 'buy another striker' but imo that wont help if we continue to play three center mids.

Right now we look like liverpool under Evans - tons of possession but very little penetration. Cant count on wonder goals like today in every game and if we continue with this 4-5-1 %@#$&!s its not going to be a very entertaining season.

whatever I said a long time back.

This 4-3-3 is all well and good in a away european game when the aim is to get a draw and when you have superb counter attacking players like rooney, ronaldo, tevez/saha.

when you are up on the perennial shite in premiership where 9 of the opposing team are inside 35 yeards of their goal then the 3 man midfield is as woeful as it gets.

scholes doesn't want to go upfront and support the striker, carricks game is sitting in centre circle and spraying balls, he can't do that now. Hargreaves wants to mop up loose balls in the centre.

effectively we have 3 midfielders sitting in centre far way of our front 3 who themselves don't want to get in penalty box.

end result, we are shit.

Originally Posted by Serenity Now

Another problem I thought we had, something that often happens when we play that kind of system, was that the forwards dropped back into the midfield too quickly.

It's death. Aside from errors of technique and concentration, forwards dropping too deep into their own half is just about the most damaging and negative thing players can do during the course of a match. Watching two evenly matched sides, it's one of the first things I look for: which side can remain patient as a group and stay in their individual roles. Forwards dropping deep because they feel starved of touches only means that instead of a midfielder getting touches 15 yards inside his own half, it's a forward. It's no more of a threat to the opposition. The player momentarily feels more useful, but he's doing no good, and is only encouraging the other side to step deeper into his half - which starts a chain reaction of events that leads to the other side establishing more and more players into the attacking half.

Of course, we are one of the few sides who can fall into this pattern and still be dangerous, due to our speed in the counter attack. This is where Saha would be really helpful.

Scholes is a different player today to the one he was a few years ago. He has effectively morphed from a second striker playing in midfield (or, err, after Seba arrived as a second striker), whose game was based around the timing of his runs into the box from deep positions, into a central midfield playmaker.

He always had great creative qualities, of course, but the emphasis of his game has shifted dramatically. As I see it, this is primarily a result of two thing: firstly of age related physical decline, and secondly of the shift in the structure of the midfield after Keane.

For me, Keane's immense physical and tactical ability masked a lot of Scholes' deficiencies. As Keane's powers waned, Fletcher was brought in as a willing runner in to cover up their problems as a pair. This was essentially nothing more than a stopgap measure, with Fergie unable to bring in a decent replacement with the overwhelming shadow of Keane still hanging over the club.

This tourniquet worked to an extent, but overall the results weren't particularly pretty. Eventually Keane went and so, coincidentally, did Scholes' vision.

After half a season of Giggs and O'shea, it was time for the ginger prince to return. This time with Carrick as his partner - that is, if Scholes was still capable of playing top flight football.

On the face of it, Scholes and Carrick were arguably not the ideal duo at all, I certainly didn't think they were, but for a number of reasons they were able to make it work very effectively.

I've made my views on the "whys" behind this quite clear before, so I won't go into all that again in detail. Basically, my opinion is that it was a result of their their footballing intelligence as a duo, and the positional play and discipline of the team as whole. In essence: a veritable triumph for Fergie and the coaching staff.

The elements in which the Scholes-Carrick axis is found lacking (in my opinion: principally a lack of speed, stamina and arguably tackling ability) were visible at times last season, but these times were few and far between. Generally it occurred against teams who were capable of moving the ball at pace, usually when they had an extra man in the middle, and often most noticeably in the second half as Scholes began to tire.

On the whole though, they performed very capably as a pair. With their individual weaknesses more than compensated for by their play as a unit.

Personally, I don't think think the Scholes of even three or four years ago would have been able to play nearly as effectively alongside Carrick. Unfortunately, it would seem that the natural corollary of this is that the new Scholes cannot perform like the old Scholes, which I can't help but feel is what he was being asked to do in the position he played yesterday.

However, unless Scholes has suffered a marked physical decline over the summer, I see no reason why he will not be able to perform a similar role to last season at a similar level. And to me, nothing in his performances so far has suggested any decline of note.

Whether this assessment is correct remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by Serenity Now

However, unless Scholes has suffered a marked physical decline over the summer, I see no reason why he will not be able to perform a similar role to last season at a similar level. And to me, nothing in his performances so far has suggested any decline of note.
Whether this assessment is correct remains to be seen.

The key to this question lies in the fact that we have 2 guys who are nearing their peak to do this. hargreaves and carrick.

if you want scholes to do what he did last season and still accomodate hargreaves and carrick then simply its not going to happen unless ronaldo and rooney have blinders.

Or else fergie has to eat humble pie reckoning he has made a mistake and drop carrick/scholes and go with a midfield of 2.

We have three of our (four) centre forwards, our first choice right back and one of the best young #10s in world football either injured or unfit. Oh and the small matter of the best attacking player in the league last season unavailable through suspension.

Our current centre forward has been with the club for the best part of three weeks and is clearly not match fit. One of our wingers is 20 years old and has virtually no experience in our team or our league, the other is 34 and didn't play as a winger last season.

Our attacking midfielder hasn't played as an attacking midfielder in years. He also hasn't played with our new midfielder (who hasn't played in our league before), who in turn hasn't played with our other midfielder either.

We have dominated possession in all of our matches this season, to a degree that is usually unheard of in top flight football - in the process limiting the opposition to close to zero real chances and creating a large, though not extravagant, number of our own. In my opinion, we have undoubtedly done more than enough in our matches thus far to have at least 7 or 8 points on the board.

Let's give it a bit of time, eh?

*EDIT* Oh and we're reigning CHAMPIONS.

Originally Posted by sharath

This 4-3-3 is all well and good in a away european game when the aim is to get a draw

Call me old fashioned, but playing for a draw is not football taught by Matt Busby

Originally Posted by Serenity Now

*EDIT* Oh and we're reigning CHAMPIONS.

it means nothing for me about last season. last season is last season. We enjoyed. it was great. its a new season and struggling and tactics and formations are partly to blame.

Originally Posted by edwin

Call me old fashioned, but playing for a draw is not football taught by Matt Busby

thats they way unfortunately. The first 4 games with 3 in midfield looks more and more like clean sheet is a necessity.

Originally Posted by Serenity Now

When you play a three-man central midfield you generally play with either an offensive triangle (one holding midfielder and two more attacking players) or a defensive triangle (two holding players at the base of the triangle and one attacker at the tip).

Nominally we played with a defensive triangle, with Carrick and Hargreaves sitting deeper and Scholes playing at the forward tip of the triangle. In this system it is the responsibility of the attacking midfielder to provide support to the striker in and around the box and to act as a positional reference between himself, the two midfielders at the base of the triangle and the centre forward.

Unfortunately, Scholes seems intent on carrying on where he left off last season, dropping deep to play the ball out from the back and spending most of his time behind the ball.

This has the effect of compressing the midfield, thus creating large gaps between the lines and sucking the forwards much deeper than they should be. As a result there is less depth in the field, so the passing triangles required for effective short build-up play are not there and we end up playing a large number of horizontal passes.

It also means that there are not enough bodies in the box once the play moves into the final third. Not enough bodies in the box means minimal threat from the cross, no threat from crosses means the play gets congested in the spine of the pitch, making short build-up play even more difficult (you need to stretch the play horizontally to penetrate vertically).

As an aside, personally I'm not sold on the necessity of playing with two controlling players against the majority of opposition. At the very least, one of them needs to be participating higher up the pitch. To be in a situation where you're effectively playing with three is just ridiculous.
This wasn't helped by playing with two wide (nominally at least) forwards who both like to cut inside, a right fullback who becomes a less potent attacking threat with each passing match and a centre forward who the rest of the players don't believe can contest the ball if it is actually crossed.

Another problem I thought we had, something that often happens when we play that kind of system, was that the forwards dropped back into the midfield too quickly. You either tell them to stay up and give the opposition something to think about, what Barca usually do; try to defend further up the pitch; or you drop them back one at a time (if you want an example of how to do that perfectly, watch a tape of Madrid's Quinta del Buitre).

As soon as we lost the ball both Giggs and Nani tucked back into wide midfield positions. Drives me nuts. Someone needs to £#%&!ing tell them that they're supposed to be playing as forwards, not midfielders. Happens nearly every time as well

I think we saw this once Eagles came on for Carrick. He made a difference, we had more natural width, Scholes pushed a little higher and had more influence and Giggs wasn't isolated on the flank.
It was a positive move - or as positive as can be with the options on the bench.

Hopefully we can build on this. Perhaps we needed a game like that. A ground out win with a little bit of luck.

Baby steps. It's a win and it'll boost the player's confidence.

Originally Posted by sharath

it means nothing for me about last season. last season is last season. We enjoyed. it was great.

The point is that we played superb football for the majority of last season and won the league. Once we get even a couple of our missing players back we should have a very similar squad available, only with some of the weaker players shipped out and a few high quality additions.

Like it or not, we have been very unlucky so far this season, not just in terms of how the matches have played out, but also in terms of having a number of key players unavailable or not fully fit at the same time.

its a new season and struggling and tactics and formations are partly to blame.

Where have I denied that? If you scroll up a bit I think you'll find a post *SHOCK HORROR* by me on this very subject.