So, we're a club in crisis yet

Originally Posted by Carrick

Shit forumista.

Thanks

were important because saha got injured. bleat all you like, but rooney doesn't look as good up front on his own. he's still good if he gets a chance, mind.

Originally Posted by jem

were important because saha got injured. bleat all you like, but rooney doesn't look as good up front on his own. he's still good if he gets a chance, mind.

Interesting spin. Well done.

saha was very good first half of last season and we didn't look so good without him. larsson was a joke.

Originally Posted by jem

it's not spin - saha was very good first half of last season and we didn't look so good without him. larsson was a joke.

er, yes it is spin. we didn't look so good in some of the games without him as we did in some of the games when he was playing, perhaps.

But Ronaldo and Rooney in the main were at their best, and certainly their most productive, during the games that Saha wasn't in the team. Whether or not this was simply coincidence, or indeed just necessity, is an interesting spin on the facts.

But it doesn't alter those facts: We are capable of being a brilliant team with or without Saha. We were last season, and we sure as hell should be the longer this season goes on as well

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

er, yes it is spin. we didn't look so good in some of the games without him as we did in some of the games when he was playing, perhaps.

But Ronaldo and Rooney in the main were at their best, and certainly their most productive, during the games that Saha wasn't in the team. Whether or not this was simply coincidence, or indeed just necessity, is an interesting spin on the facts.

But it doesn't alter those facts: We are capable of being a brilliant team with or without Saha. We were last season, and we sure as hell should be the longer this season goes on as well

Agree.

we have an interesting Central Midfield chemistry problem to sort out...obviously Hargreaves should be the anchor man, but who to play with him? It means a total change of role for Carrick or Scholes and whilst it's hard to imagine dropping the G.P. it could just be that time. Hargreaves could do the work whilst giving the ball for Carrick to find Ronaldo/Nani, Wayne/Louis/Carlos - but then you've also got to find room for Anderson etc.

One of the features of our success last season was the consistency of Carrick+Scholes in the Premiership and also superb seasons from Neville and Giggs that we'll find it hard to replicate -


It's fair to say that Scholesy is going to go backwards from here, that's undeniable and finding the right mix in the centre is going to be one of the toughest tests for Ferie this year.

In the longer term we need to replace G.Nev.

We've got Giggs' replacement in Nani, with Ji-Sung as cover a la Blomqvist (Eagles = Keith Gillespie), the other 3 in defence are sound, long term we need a convincing 4th striker - but with Foster hopefully the successor to VDS we're in pretty good shape.

I've a feeling getting this chemistry and balance together could take a little longer. I'm really hoping that we haven't done a Veron type thing and are going to end up trying to accomodate Anderson or one of the others and shake up a consistent system.

We've always been a better team when there's been some consistency. The strikers might have rotated in 99 but the rest of the side pretty much picked itself and the great Sparky/Eric/Keane/Scholes/Kancheskis/Giggs etc. sides of the 90's were pretty much the same week in week out...

Originally Posted by jem

saha was very good first half of last season and we didn't look so good without him. larsson was a joke.

I too believe he got too many starts (Liverpool away, Arsenal away hell maybe even Spurs away immediatley spring to mind)

But to say he was a joke is a bit wide of the mark. He looked the biz in more than half of his games id say.

My only gripe was yes we leaned further towards looking like the team RVN left with him in it than Saha.

I reckon once Carrick (and Anderson) are being picked ahead of Scholes (and Giggs) that Hargreaves won't be deferring to either of them in the way Carrick did to Scholes for much of last season. Hargreaves and Carrick could make for a superb partnership once they've sussed out when to stay and when to go to a level where the rest of the team know where they are both at.


[SIZE="1"]Clear as mud, but I typed it so I had to post it!