Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Mr Alan

Boggles wrote: »

Since his eye problems he has won 2 leagues and a champions league.

You constantly use this logic.

Its so flawed & incredibly ridiculous.

jesus_thats_gre

Boggles wrote: »

Since his eye problems he has won 2 leagues and a champions league.

What is it with United fans and thinking that the above response proves anything?

It's completely retarded.




Regarding the game last night, that attempt for Valencia where they hit the cross bar would have been an amazing goal - the build up the shot was absolute top class.

Headshot

Boggles wrote: »

Since his eye problems he has won 2 leagues and a champions league.


Go watch the Chelsea and Everton matches.

boggles that's 2 matches

I really hate being harsh but he is dead weight in the CM,he's a great squad player but ando should be at least ahead of him

MagicMarker

I agree about Scholes, he doesn't really add anything when he's on the field imo.

Giggs on the other hand, still has a lot to offer imo.

Mitch Connor

i think Scholes is still a decent option, depending on the opposition. In games where we will really have to battle in midfield maybe not - but in the games where we are likely to control possesion he is still the best passer of the ball at the club.

PHB

Scholes woulda been destroyed in the CL final. Anderson was played, while not fully fit, because he can do a bit of tackling and ball winning, which nobody else was available for. Judging a player on one game is just stupid.

As for whether Anderson is better than Carrick, I think Carrick is a fantastic option for passing and destroyed the 16 teams in the premiership we'd expect to beat, but in tighter games, I'd prefer Hargreaves and Anderson. Much more dynamism physicality and energy, good tackling and passing from both players, and a good drive forward aswell. When they played together in the past, they were the best central midfield partnership I've seen play for United since Keane and Scholes. Not saying they are on that level, but its the best we've had in a while.

bennyx_o

Just after watching the highlights. First bit of United I´ve seen since the CL Final and tbh, they played a lot better than I expected. Valencia seemed to have a good game, as did Owen even though he didn´t put away the chances he had. Looking forward to Sunday even more now, hopefully I can find a pub over here that´ll show it.

Mikeyt086

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

What is it with United fans and thinking that the above response proves anything?

ANNOYING generalisation.

jesus_thats_gre

Mikeyt086 wrote: »

ANNOYING generalisation.

Fair point. In my defense, I have only experienced it with United fans.

Either way, I have come across 5 years old with more capable logic skills.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

You constantly use this logic.

Its so flawed & incredibly ridiculous.

Right I firmly believe in my opinion, Scholes since his eye injury has been a big and important part of Uniteds success, and I still would have him in the pecking order ahead of Anderson.

Happy?

Now lets relive this moment of beauty.

Boggles

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Fair point. In my defense, I have only experienced it with United fans.

Either way, I have come across 5 years old with more capable logic skills.

WTF are you talking about?

Scholes was excellent in both league and champions league the year united won it.

Obviously he is not 24 any more, but since returning from his eye injury he has been an important part of United success.

How is that "retarded"?

PHB

Boggles, there's nobody who's arguing that Scholes played a big role two seasons ago, nobody.

What people are arguing is that the fact that he won a league medal last year in no way reflects his performance levels last year, because as we all know, thats a stupid childish argument.

Scholes was poor last season, most if not all would acknowledge that. The season before, he played a major role in United's success, personified by that belter against Barca.

It seems however, that Scholes time is starting to end at United, as evidenced by last seasons performance

caffrey

I agree with boggles, I also feel he orchastrated the goal in CL final vs chelsea. I am also of the opinion that he wouldn't have just let iniesta STROLL past him like carrick AND anderson did in the final. Granted he would have gotten a yellow for it but it would have prevented a goal.

caffrey

PHB wrote: »

Boggles, there's nobody who's arguing that Scholes played a big role two seasons ago, nobody.

What people are arguing is that the fact that he won a league medal last year in no way reflects his performance levels last year, because as we all know, thats a stupid childish argument.

Scholes was poor last season, most if not all would acknowledge that. The season before, he played a major role in United's success, personified by that belter against Barca.

It seems however, that Scholes time is starting to end at United, as evidenced by last seasons performance

This was brought up about whether he had gone down the tubes since eye injury, not specifically last year, which in fairness was not his best

Headshot

caffrey wrote: »

I agree with boggles, I also feel he orchastrated the goal in CL final vs chelsea. I am also of the opinion that he wouldn't have just let iniesta STROLL past him like carrick AND anderson did in the final. Granted he would have gotten a yellow for it but it would have prevented a goal.

this is scholes we're talking about not hargo

Kirby

Is he the same player he was? No, probably not. But thats not really the point that some of you are getting bogged down in.

The point is who should play, what can they offer, etc. Utd are light in the middle, and Scholes is a good option when the carrick / fletcher patnership is unavailable. I'm not convinced about Anderson yet and anybody who thinks Ryan giggs can play in the middle needs their heads checked.

Needs must and all that.

ShooterSF

Just my €0.02 but the way I would see our midfield is all fit the starting two are Hargo and Carrick. Fletcher is first option for cover but shouldn't start alongside Hargo unless we're playing a 4-3-3 and even then I'm not sure.. The next tier is Ando, Giggs and Scholes. If one has to start I would start Anderson. If one of that 3 were needed to come on and change a game I'd prefer Scholes or Giggs. Anderson would only come on to close up a game.

caffrey

Headshot wrote: »

this is scholes we're talking about not hargo

I am aware we are talking about scholes, I am saying scholes would have unleashed one of his trademark tackles if he was on pitch against barca in the final when iniesta strolled past both carrick and anderson to give the ball resulting in a goal by etoo (neither made any sort of challenge).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRDIwcwhXm4&feature=fvw

Killme00

Whats the latest with Hargreaves?

caffrey

He has died from tendonitis? no the latest is he wont be back till christmas but I wouldnt hold your breath. I would love him in the team though I think he will need a long time before he will be at match fitness if indeed he ever gets back to his best. Love him to prove me wrong though

Headshot

Killme00 wrote: »

Whats the latest with Hargreaves?

christmas i heard

amazing we havent replaced him

ShooterSF

Headshot wrote: »

christmas i heard

amazing we havent replaced him

Fletcher can do a job 'til then if it's true. We just need him for the last hurdles of the CL.

Headshot

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fletcher can do a job 'til then if it's true. We just need him for the last hurdles of the CL.

love fletch

but i'd have hargo in my team all day long

just brings a good bit more to the table

ironictoaster

Boggles wrote: »

I still would have him in the pecking order ahead of Anderson.

Happy?

Amen brother, if you pull can goals like this, you need to have him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQXrMbArqSs

Boggles

Headshot wrote: »

love fletch

but i'd have hargo in my team all day long

just brings a good bit more to the table

He does, as long as it's a wheel chair accessable table. :pac:

SlickRic

i know it's only pre-season, but i have to say valencia looks like he has everything to be a top, top player.

i'd go as far to say that, with the new 442 formation, he is going to be one of THE key factors if utd are going to challenge.

he scared the be-jaysus out of that valencia team.

jesus_thats_gre

Boggles wrote: »

WTF are you talking about?

Scholes was excellent in both league and champions league the year united won it.

Obviously he is not 24 any more, but since returning from his eye injury he has been an important part of United success.

How is that "retarded"?

You obviously don't get it Boggles.

Did I mention anything about Scholes?

No, I said that the logic you are using is extremely flawed.

ccosgrave

Does anyone know what the story is with wages for players who are injured for long periods of time? For example, is Hargreaves still being paid the £100,000 a week or whatever despite the fact that he hasn't kicked a ball in almost a year? I'm sure being injured and trying to rehabilitate is just as much work - if not more - than players who are fit and available, so I can see why he wouldn't have his wage packet cut while injured, but I can't see how a player could warrant such wages when he's of little use to the team.

ShooterSF

ccosgrave wrote: »

Does anyone know what the story is with wages for players who are injured for long periods of time? For example, is Hargreaves still being paid the £100,000 a week or whatever despite the fact that he hasn't kicked a ball in almost a year? I'm sure being injured and trying to rehabilitate is just as much work - if not more - than players who are fit and available, so I can see why he wouldn't have his wage packet cut while injured, but I can't see how a player could warrant such wages when he's of little use to the team.

I guess unless it's stated ahead of time in a contract they still have to pay him.I'd imagine the club could terminate the contract as he is not fit to play but that they value him high enough to pay him through his rehab rather than sign a replacement. After all a year at even £100,000 p/w is only £5.2m and would leave you needing to buy a replacement which would cost a hell of a lot more.

Boggles

Insurance? Yes/No?

Headshot

Boggles wrote: »

Insurance? Yes/No?

That's why AIG is our sponsor

Tyranax

Headshot wrote: »

That's the kind of stuff that meant AIG had to bailed out.

FYP.

ccosgrave

ShooterSF wrote: »

I guess unless it's stated ahead of time in a contract they still have to pay him.I'd imagine the club could terminate the contract as he is not fit to play but that they value him high enough to pay him through his rehab rather than sign a replacement. After all a year at even £100,000 p/w is only £5.2m and would leave you needing to buy a replacement which would cost a hell of a lot more.

True, but it's still £5.2million that's going, effectively, on nothing. I don't know, it just seems like a bit of a waste to me. Not that Hargreaves is a waste, far from it, but it seems absurd to pay so much for any player who is no use to the team, regardless of his quality.

Would insurance really cover £5.2m in wages?

whatawaster

ccosgrave wrote: »

Does anyone know what the story is with wages for players who are injured for long periods of time? For example, is Hargreaves still being paid the £100,000 a week or whatever despite the fact that he hasn't kicked a ball in almost a year? I'm sure being injured and trying to rehabilitate is just as much work - if not more - than players who are fit and available, so I can see why he wouldn't have his wage packet cut while injured, but I can't see how a player could warrant such wages when he's of little use to the team.

He’s under contract with them. They have to pay him. It’s not really his fault he’s injured. It tends to happen “in the line of duty” so to speak.

herbieflowers

I'd love to see Scholes have a really great season. A lot depends on whterh he can stay fit, and I still beleive he could be a crucial cog in the first-team this season. With Ronaldo gone perhaps the centre of midfield will become more conventional - one holding, one allowed to go forward, as opposed to two (relatively) deep-lying midfielders. Whether Scholes has the legs to fill that role...hopefully we won't see him slowly become a peripheral player.

ccosgrave

whatawaster wrote: »

He’s under contract with them. They have to pay him. It’s not really his fault he’s injured. It tends to happen “in the line of duty” so to speak.

Ah, I see.

It seems a bit strange that a wage cut for long-term injuries wouldn't be worked into the contract somehow though, particularly for players that are injury-prone or with a long-term medical issue such as Hargreaves.

caffrey

ccosgrave wrote: »

Ah, I see.

It seems a bit strange that a wage cut for long-term injuries wouldn't be worked into the contract somehow though, particularly for players that are injury-prone or with a long-term medical issue such as Hargreaves.

Well apparently it is coming in nowadays, at the time of the signing of michael owen there was a lot of talk saying that he would be earning a small salary which would be boosted hugely by appearances and goals, assumingly to prevent Man U spending loads on his wages if he gets injured(which he tends to do)

Headshot

wonder will fergie regret his transfer policy this summer

ShooterSF

I guess it depends on the player's bargaining power and the club's aversion to risk. With Michael Owen, United were in a position of strenght as his alternative was to play relegation battle football for possibly the rest of his career or have a chance to win a big trophy.
If a player though is in high demand and a club are willing to take a risk others may have to match that risk or miss out on the player by trying to impose pay as you play bonuses.

ShooterSF

Headshot wrote: »

wonder will fergie regret his transfer policy this summer

I doubt it. I'd say he sees this as a season to develop a new team and is giving the current fringe players their chance to grab their position before he splashes out on the positions that people didn't step up in. He could have gone out and invested this summer with the hope of doing better this season but at the risk of this "generations" team's long term chances.

Headshot

what I still find strange to this day is fergie knew Ronaldo was going so why not get players on pre contracts or somthing

ShooterSF

It may not be that easy. What if the deal fell through say due to injury or something and United had pre-deals with clubs what happens then? If they fall through could it wreck the player's moral at his current club and ruin their season?

SlickRic

Headshot wrote: »

wonder will fergie regret his transfer policy this summer

fair play headshot...i'm delighted this has been asked, as opposed to simply saying 'we've always been sorted so we'll be fine again, because Fergie's a genius'.

it'll be very interesting to see how it turns out. he's stuck to his principles on not spending way over the odds, which is admirable, but with it comes a risk.

if i'm honest, i suspect he'll come up smelling of roses. he usually does :mad:

but for me, there's a bit of a question mark. i'm shocked he hasn't addressed the centre of the field, especially now that hargreaves is probably ruled out until december. absolutely shocked.

JPA

Headshot wrote: »

what I still find strange to this day is fergie knew Ronaldo was going so why not get players on pre contracts or somthing

Not a criticism of you but does this ever happen? There may be loose verbal agreements but in fairness I read this from every teams fans!

Boggles

Headshot wrote: »

wonder will fergie regret his transfer policy this summer

Headshot wrote: »

what I still find strange to this day is fergie knew Ronaldo was going so why not get players on pre contracts or somthing

SlickRic wrote: »

fair play headshot...i'm delighted this has been asked, as opposed to simply saying 'we've always been sorted so we'll be fine again, because Fergie's a genius'.

it'll be very interesting to see how it turns out. he's stuck to his principles on not spending way over the odds, which is admirable, but with it comes a risk.

if i'm honest, i suspect he'll come up smelling of roses. he usually does :mad:

but for me, there's a bit of a question mark. i'm shocked he hasn't addressed the centre of the field, especially now that hargreaves is probably ruled out until december. absolutely shocked.

JPA wrote: »

Not a criticism of you but does this ever happen? There may be loose verbal agreements but in fairness I read this from every teams fans!

From the horses mouth, he wanted Benzema, Ribery, Valencia & Tevez.

He got Valencia (from what I have seen will be a quality signing)

Benzema he didn't want to pay the money and rightly so IMO

Ribery he was told under no circumstances was he for sale.

Tevez wanted us to buy him a gold house and to pick the team.

That Left Villa and Silva who have said on more than 2 million occasions they are not leaving Spain.

The one that got away was Diego but he was courted since Christmas by Juve.

What the fook is there to regret, he tried to sign the best out there, it wasn't possible.

Would people be happier if he písséd away the money on tosh?

Is there some signing I am forgetting out there that would impact or team more than lets say Nani? Realisitically no.

Fair Fooks to Alex for not panicking is what I say.

Edit: There is 26 days left of the transfer deadline, we signed Berbs with how long left,? 1 hour 15 minutes I think it was.

Tyranax

Boggles wrote: »

From the horses mouth, he wanted Benzema, Ribery, Valencia & Tevez.

He got Valencia (from what I have seen will be a quality signing)

Benzema he didn't want to pay the money and rightly so IMO

Ribery he was told under no circumstances was he for sale.

Tevez wanted us to buy him a gold house and to pick the team.

That Left Villa and Silva who have said on more than 2 million occasions they are not leaving Spain.

The one that got away was Diego but he was courted since Christmas by Juve.

What the fook is there to regret, he tried to sign the best out there, it wasn't possible.

Would people be happier if he písséd away the money on tosh?

Is there some signing I am forgetting out there that would impact or team more than lets say Nani? Realisitically no.

Fair Fooks to Alex for not panicking is what I say.

Edit: There is 26 days left of the transfer deadline, we signed Berbs with how long left,? 1 hour 15 minutes I think it was.

This, this, and a million times this. Where's the rush? There's still plenty of time in the window. If we can't get the proper player, and at the proper price, then where's the harm in keeping our powder dry? It'd be worse to blow the Ronaldo money on a player, or players who are either substandard or overpriced.

grames_bond

Boggles wrote: »

There is 26 days left of the transfer deadline, we signed Berbs with how long left,? 1 hour 15 minutes I think it was.

and arsenal got arshavin the day AFTER the deadline, so its all good! :pac:

herbieflowers

I'm happy enough with the squad. Quality at the right price isn't out there at the moment, Fergie said as much when he said he wouldn't be making any more signings.

And it's pretty self-evident, but you've gotta trust Fergie's judgement.

A7X

I really like the team at the moment. It looks well balanced and I can't wait for the season to start and see how we do.

Pro. F

Both of these quotes were on separate pages and were unrelated but don't worry I'm not stalking you ShooterSF . Just two things you said that got me to typing-

ShooterSF wrote: »

Just my €0.02 but the way I would see our midfield is all fit the starting two are Hargo and Carrick. Fletcher is first option for cover but shouldn't start alongside Hargo unless we're playing a 4-3-3 and even then I'm not sure.. The next tier is Ando, Giggs and Scholes. If one has to start I would start Anderson. If one of that 3 were needed to come on and change a game I'd prefer Scholes or Giggs. Anderson would only come on to close up a game.

Hargreaves and Carrick would be a rubbish CM pair imo. They both have weak first touches. As a pair they would be incapable of holding onto possession if under any sort of pressure. They'd probably be all right against the lower PL teams but against good quality teams they would suffer imo. Fletcher is another player with a weak first touch. So, imo we should only be playing one of those three at most unless the opposition are muck.

ShooterSF wrote: »

I doubt it. I'd say he sees this as a season to develop a new team and is giving the current fringe players their chance to grab their position before he splashes out on the positions that people didn't step up in. He could have gone out and invested this summer with the hope of doing better this season but at the risk of this "generations" team's long term chances.

This is what i've been thinking recently. I'm beginning to suspect that this is how his long term plans actually usually work - that is, when a big player leaves Fergie just keeps the squad ticking over for the next season and then adds to it if needed after that, therefore keeping the team generally settled and giving everybody the best chance to prove themselves.

I can't actually remember any time when a big player has left and Fergie doing anything other than the minimal to keep the squad complete - although I haven't gone and checked all the big transfers over the years.