Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread - Mod Note in OP, 25/08

Whatsisname

Pro. F

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Fergie said Scholes has one of the best minds for football around - understands the game brilliantly.

But you say he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Who to side with on this.... hmmmmmmm

I'm sure he understands the midfield job. I'm sure he understands how to read player movements on the pitch to build and finish attacks. And understood what Fergie wanted from him. However, he was only ever, at best, adequate at defending.

I was talking specifically about defending using a 3 CBs/2 WBs formation. Scholes made no mention of the obvious problems with how that formation has been set up at United. He made no mention of how that would leave any centre-backs exposed. So yes, he definitely does not know what he is talking about when it comes to that.

Pro. F

Irishcrx wrote: »

Not really , maybe he was pointing out if we had 3 better CB's that weren't 'weak' the formation would work just fine..I think Scholes has a better idea on tactical nous than we do..

There are no centre-backs in the history of football that would not be exposed if they had only two midfielders protecting the width of the pitch in front of the back line. We can sign any CBs you want, the problem won't go away until Van Gaal starts organising the team differently.

Peist2007

Pro. F wrote: »

I'm sure he understands the midfield job. I'm sure he understands how to read player movements on the pitch to build and finish attacks. And understood what Fergie wanted from him. However, he was only ever, at best, adequate at defending.

I was talking specifically about defending using a 3 CBs/2 WBs formation. Scholes made no mention of the obvious problems with how that formation has been set up at United. He made no mention of how that would leave any centre-backs exposed. So yes, he definitely does not know what he is talking about when it comes to that.

I'm sure Scholes understands football

viper006

Irishcrx wrote: »

Utd can attract Di Maria over PSG, it's just a case if we really want to go out and do it. Utd are still a huge club, we can afford the fee and wages. LVG is an attraction , and hopefully with the right mentality we will be back in Europe next season. Man Utd are a bigger club than PSG and the premiership is a better competition for him to play in week in week out.

Utd need to get the finger out and convince Di Maria of that , he is top top winger and weather or not we really 'need' him right now he will prvide a major injection of skill ,pace, guile and assists into our front line. I agree though , sign Khedira as well if he's available.

Balotelli to Liverpool will be brilliant , they sell Suarez and buy this lunatic - frying pan into the fire.

At least Suarez had world class ability as well, Balotelli is a bell end with the mentality and professionalism of a 5 year old child. Be a great 5 a side player down the local with all his tricks but will never EVER be a world class player at this rate I don't think he has any interest in doing so either, happy enough to earn a wage be a journeyman and grab the headlines in any way he can.

Thank you Liverpool for this gift to the Neutrals.

Getting rid of borini for 14m and balotelli in for 16m is a masterstroke i think.

Liverpool paying Balotelli 90k to play for them is better than paying nani 120k to play for another team.Happy out with Sturridge and Balotelli for the same price as Shaw.

bucketybuck

Tune in again tomorrow for the next edition of "Man who played with these guys for years doesn't know what he is talking about".

Pro. F

Peist2007 wrote: »

I'm sure Scholes understands football

I didn't say that he doesn't understand football. Football has a lot of different aspects to it. I'm sure he understand some of them very well, that doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about when it comes to every aspect of the game.

Being a great player does not automatically make somebody a great pundit. That should not be up for debate.

ericzeking

I'm with Pro F on this one, watching Scholes at the weekend on BT (they duped me into getting the package) I couldn't help but think that for such a talented and cultured player his punditry was pretty basic....the jist of what he thought United needed to do was get it to the midfielders and get it to the wide and forward players quickly. His analysis was far from technical, though it was only his first day on the job.

bangkok

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/article/165/9432745/transfer-window-tom-mcdermott-delivers-his-verdict-on-premier-league-players

Julez

Pro. F wrote: »

I didn't say that he doesn't understand football. Football has a lot of different aspects to it. I'm sure he understand some of them very well, that doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about when it comes to every aspect of the game.

Being a great player does not automatically make somebody a great pundit. That should not be up for debate.

Also, I'm sure, tactically, LVG would have a better understanding of how to set up a football team than Scholes. On the player front, Scholes and LVG might well feel exactly the same and the Board just aren't getting it done.

redbaron_99

Pro. F wrote: »

I didn't say that he doesn't understand football. Football has a lot of different aspects to it. I'm sure he understand some of them very well, that doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about when it comes to every aspect of the game.

Being a great player does not automatically make somebody a great pundit. That should not be up for debate.

Very true. Lost count the amount of time I've been left scratching my head listening to ex players assess certain aspects of the sport.

bangkok

ericzeking wrote: »

I'm with Pro F on this one, watching Scholes at the weekend on BT (they duped me into getting the package) I couldn't help but think that for such a talented and cultured player his punditry was pretty basic....the jist of what he thought United needed to do was get it to the midfielders and get it to the wide and forward players quickly. His analysis was far from technical, though it was only his first day on the job.

but its actually that simple, scholes in his prime got the ball, turned and pinged it wide to a giggs, beckham Ronaldo etc and they got it into the box quickly and at pace. nothing technical about that!!

ericzeking

bangkok wrote: »

but its actually that simple, scholes in his prime got the ball, turned and pinged it wide to a giggs, beckham Ronaldo etc and they got it into the box quickly and at pace. nothing technical about that!!

But if you don't have Giggs, Beckham and Ronaldo and your main play maker (Mata) is playing further forward than he used to then it's a bit different.

As I said it was his first day on the job, I'm sure as he gets more comfortable in the role he might become more expressive about what is in his head.

Pro. F

bucketybuck wrote: »

Tune in again tomorrow for the next edition of "Man who played with these guys for years doesn't know what he is talking about".

If Scholes started expounding on physiotherapy or goal keeping would you take that as gospel too? Or, if he showed major oversights when expressing his opinions, would you not conclude that he doesn't actually know much about those disciplines?

Peist2007

Pro. F wrote: »

I didn't say that he doesn't understand football. Football has a lot of different aspects to it. I'm sure he understand some of them very well, that doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about when it comes to every aspect of the game.

Being a great player does not automatically make somebody a great pundit. That should not be up for debate.

Never said it was up for debate. But i think that speculating about whether Scholes knows how a particular type of defence works is a bit silly when you have nothing to go on to form that opinion. You seem to have a reasonable grasp of it yet you think someone who played for United for 20 odd years possibly doesnt. Based on nothing at all from what i can see.

Peist2007

ericzeking wrote: »

I'm with Pro F on this one, watching Scholes at the weekend on BT (they duped me into getting the package) I couldn't help but think that for such a talented and cultured player his punditry was pretty basic....the jist of what he thought United needed to do was get it to the midfielders and get it to the wide and forward players quickly. His analysis was far from technical, though it was only his first day on the job.

Scholes was never the eloquent sort. His understanding of the game is a completely separate issue.

Winston Payne

"He was a great player, so obviously he's an expert!"


This is the most asinine thing I've seen in here in quite a while. It doesn't work that way. We see that literally dozens of times a year, regardless of channel, nationality, or position. Why would Scholes be different?

Peist2007 wrote: »

Never said it was up for debate. But i think that speculating about whether Scholes knows how a particular type of defence works is a bit silly when you have nothing to go on to form that opinion.

It's based on what Scholes bloody said. You think he didn't round out his assessment on purpose?

MagicIRL

Winston Payne wrote: »

Why would Scholes be different?

Because....


He scores goals, he scores goals,
He scores gooooals, he scores goals,
He scores goals, he scores goals,
Pauuuul Schooles, he scores goals.

Pro. F

Peist2007 wrote: »

Never said it was up for debate. But i think that speculating about whether Scholes knows how a particular type of defence works is a bit silly when you have nothing to go on to form that opinion. You seem to have a reasonable grasp of it yet you think someone who played for United for 20 odd years possibly doesnt. Based on nothing at all from what i can see.

If he has a reasonable grasp of how the 3CBs/2WBs defensive shape works, then how come he didn't make any reference to the lack of the basic elements of those workings at the weekend and instead just criticised the CBs? How does he criticise the CBs and not mention that the shape was set up in a way that was both extremely unusual and never likely to be effective?

UnitedIrishman

redbaron_99 wrote: »

Very true. Lost count the amount of time I've been left scratching my head listening to ex players assess certain aspects of the sport.

That's why it was interesting to see two very different views from Carragher and Neville about our formation on Monday. Both had some great points but argued over the wing back positions and the center midfield too.

LvG has said its going to take 3 months to get it into his squad about their roles and positioning and I'm not surprised. I remember reading about Cryuff and how he dictated space to people on a football field, it was nuts stuff but effective.

Think a lot is made about what Scholes says because he never used to say much. His pieces are much like what Carraghers were when he retired and yet there wasn't half the deal made.

ericzeking

Peist2007 wrote: »

Never said it was up for debate. But i think that speculating about whether Scholes knows how a particular type of defence works is a bit silly when you have nothing to go on to form that opinion. You seem to have a reasonable grasp of it yet you think someone who played for United for 20 odd years possibly doesnt. Based on nothing at all from what i can see.

Scholes played 99% of his career in a 4-4-2 playing the same way with traditional wingers...Fergie Tactics 101, week in, week out....that he may not be comfortable with or knowledgeable about the intricacies of the 352 we played on Saturday is hardly surprising. Neither is the fact he didn't express himself to the fullest.

KombuchaMshroom

bucketybuck wrote: »

Tune in again tomorrow for the next edition of "Man who played with these guys for years doesn't know what he is talking about".

Haven't seen what Scholes has said so not sure what the argument is fully about, but these points that just because he was a really good player and knows the club and players well means whatever he says is automatically right is a load of crap to be honest.

I'm not saying he is wrong here, again I haven't really paid much attention to what was even said, but arguments that "well X said it/believes it/did it, therefore it must be true" is a very lazy way of arguing. These people are just as capable of being wrong as the rest of us.



One thing I will add about the whole "class of 92" is that a lot of time they come out spewing this nonsense about the United philosophy and way of playing, and because they were brought up entirely on the 4-4-2 system at United that this is now the "United way" and we should never play anything different. The game evolves and so clubs need to evolve with it. I think they come across as extremely set in their ways and will never like certain types of players for United (I.e they don't seem to like Mata at the club, despite every other succesful team in the world having players who play his type of position) so for that I will never take what those lads say as the automatically right.

I of course would be very interested to hear their opinions most the time and see how they challenge or align with my own, but at the same time I'm not going to immediately conclude that I am wrong because I disagree with one of them.

Peist2007

Winston Payne wrote: »

"He was a great player, so obviously he's an expert!"


This is the most asinine thing I've seen in here in quite a while. It doesn't work that way. We see that literally dozens of times a year, regardless of channel, nationality, or position. Why would Scholes be different?


It's based on what Scholes bloody said. You think he didn't round out his assessment on purpose?

No, i think that Scholes is not eloquent and any time i have seen him interviewed he comes across as a man of few words. So to expect him to elucidate on the tactical ramifications of 3 centre halves to BT Sport viewers was unlikely to happen.

And i never said it worked that way. Of the various ex-player pundits around there are more that i do not think have a clue than those i do. But to have Scholes' views "disregarded" and then to give your own opinion as if it carries more weight is funny in my opinion. The very definition of internet football punditry.

So are we all in agreement that Pro F knows more about playing 3 at the back than Paul Scholes? :pac:

Irishcrx

Pro. F wrote: »

If Scholes started expounding on physiotherapy or goal keeping would you take that as gospel too? Or, if he showed major oversights when expressing his opinions, would you not conclude that he doesn't actually know much about those disciplines?

But he's not doing that is he? This is a man who spend his career as one of the best playmakers in football picking out weakness in the opposition defence and exploiting it with his passing...I think he does know a thing or two about defensive structure and frailties..

Robson99

Whatsisname wrote: »

Don't see the whole attraction around him tbh. Liability in my eyes, score a few goals but will go off sulking or get himself sent off at the wrong times.

Same as. The best bit will be who sulks the most when it comes to taking penalties, him or Gerrard.

Peist2007

Pro. F wrote: »

If he has a reasonable grasp of how the 3CBs/2WBs defensive shape works, then how come he didn't make any reference to the lack of the basic elements of those workings at the weekend and instead just criticised the CBs? How does he criticise the CBs and not mention that the shape was set up in a way that was both extremely unusual and never likely to be effective?

Sorry you're right, you know more about football than Paul Scholes. Better?

Alf Veedersane

Pro. F wrote: »

There are no centre-backs in the history of football that would not be exposed if they had only two midfielders protecting the width of the pitch in front of the back line. We can sign any CBs you want, the problem won't go away until Van Gaal starts organising the team differently.

Isn't he expecting the wing backs to be fit enough to come in and support the midfielders though so that it becomes a sort of 3-4-3 with 4 players covering the pitch in front of the 3 CBs?

I'm not saying it always works but it can. It depends on the players' ability too play the system properly though

Peist2007

ericzeking wrote: »

Scholes played 99% of his career in a 4-4-2 playing the same way with traditional wingers...Fergie Tactics 101, week in, week out....that he may not be comfortable with or knowledgeable about the intricacies of the 352 we played on Saturday is hardly surprising. Neither is the fact he didn't express himself to the fullest.

The formation he played with at United may indicate he didnt play in a team with 3 centre backs but i am sure he had to, you know, prepare tactically for facing teams with 3 centre backs, no? He would have got to see exactly how the 3 centre back system evolved in Europe after the Ajax win in 1995. No?

What formation did you play in for 99% of your professional career at the very top?

Bannerman7

I would like to think there will be a major signing but its not looking lightly now. Reading all the paper talk I cant see anywhere that the club have actually made a offer for any one of the major names been talked about.
Im starting to believe that the owners are making enough money on the "brand" and don't think the club needs success on the field at this moment.

bullvine

Peist2007 wrote: »

The formation he played with at United may indicate he didnt play in a team with 3 centre backs but i am sure he had to, you know, prepare tactically for facing teams with 3 centre backs, no? He would have got to see exactly how the 3 centre back system evolved in Europe after the Ajax win in 1995. No?

What formation did you play in for 99% of your professional career at the very top?

What does that mean exactly? You can ask Jose Mourinho, Rafa Benitez the same question!

Maximus Alexander

Peist2007 wrote: »

Sorry you're right, you know more about football than Paul Scholes. Better?

Peist2007 wrote: »

What formation did you play in for 99% of your professional career at the very top?

Here what's all this about? Are you trying to say that all former footballers make excellent pundits, provide flawless analysis of tactics, and are perfect judges of player ability?

Alf Veedersane

Peist2007 wrote: »

The formation he played with at United may indicate he didnt play in a team with 3 centre backs but i am sure he had to, you know, prepare tactically for facing teams with 3 centre backs, no? He would have got to see exactly how the 3 centre back system evolved in Europe after the Ajax win in 1995. No?

It doesn't necessarily work like that. Players differ.

Solskjaer was brilliant at watching the opposition and analysing how to best exploit their weaknesses.

Most players aren't capacble of that though. They're told what to do and of course players like Scholes will bring their instinct and ability to bear on that.

But that doesn't mean he'd be any the wiser of how a 5-3-2 works after playing against a team that plays with it.

Zico

Scholes failing to compliment the emperor's new clothes has ruffled a few feathers it seems.

Winston Payne

Peist2007 wrote: »

No, i think that Scholes is not eloquent and any time i have seen him interviewed he comes across as a man of few words.

I didn't mention his eloquence, or lack of, anywhere. I don't expect him to be eloquent. You don't have to be florid to express your point in clear English. Didi Hamann isn't eloquent, but he seems to manage just fine.

Peist2007 wrote: »

So to expect him to elucidate on the tactical ramifications of 3 centre halves to BT Sport viewers was unlikely to happen.

So he doesn't fully inform the viewer then. This is a failing. He had enough time to point out what was happening between the defence and midfield, he was given at least a minute to speak. There's no real excuses here for him.

Peist2007 wrote: »

And i never said it worked that way. Of the various ex-player pundits around there are more that i do not think have a clue than those i do. But to have Scholes' views "disregarded" and then to give your own opinion as if it carries more weight is funny in my opinion.

What carries weight is logic and sound argument. The pundit will not always have these qualities on show, and sometimes posters here will.

Scholes' views are not being disregarded here They are being assessed and challenged.

Peist2007 wrote: »

The very definition of internet football punditry.

Well...I mean, yes? That's the point of the thread, to discuss things.

Lord TSC

Peist2007 wrote: »

What formation did you play in for 99% of your professional career at the very top?

I can't sing, but I can tell you if you're in tune or not.

If we're cutting down on people who haven't played professionally from having opinions, we can shut this entire forum down....

MisterAnarchy

Khedira is exactly what Utd need ,a quality box to box midfielder .
He'd be a bargain at anything less than 25m euro .

With only a year left on his contract though I suspect he will run it down and leave on a free transfer next June with a massive signing on fee for himself.

Di Maria is not really needed and certainly not at that hugely inflated price.
A little less than a year ago Real were trying to offload him in a swap deal for Bale ,I think they had him valued at 30m euro ,now they are looking for 2.5 times that.
He is a very hot and cold player ,he had a good season last year but no way is he worth anything over 35m euro.

I cant believe Ashley Young is earning £118k a week ,he isnt even worth 118 pounds a week.

KombuchaMshroom

Peist2007 wrote: »

So are we all in agreement that Pro F knows more about playing 3 at the back than Paul Scholes? :pac:

Peist2007 wrote: »

Sorry you're right, you know more about football than Paul Scholes. Better?

Peist2007 wrote: »

What formation did you play in for 99% of your professional career at the very top?

Made this point only 10 posts up but it was a bit long so I'll shorten and simplify it as much as possible.

People are allowed disagree with what a professional footballer said!!

I'm not saying you are wrong to agree with whatever Scholes said, but by supporting your argument by simply saying "Scholes said it and he knows more than you so he has to be right" is just laziness and a little childish.

Scholes has a great footballing brain and understanding of the game as a player, but that doesn't mean he is some sort of flawless being who's every thought and opinion is fact. If it was Fergie would have retired 10 years ago and put him in charge instead. He is as capable of being wrong as the rest of us.

MagicIRL

homerjay2005

Zico wrote: »

Scholes failing to compliment the emperor's new clothes has ruffled a few feathers it seems.

if it ruffles Woodward into action, then its a win win. i cant imagine Woodward to be in a good place today.

markcahill1985

We should go all out and offer 80m EUR for Khedeira and Di Maria IMO, thats if Vidal is def not on the table, signing those two would make us title contenders I feel, perhaps Blind also and we would be set. Khedeira is a top player.

Vic Vinegar

Evans, Rafael and Valencia back in training and should be ready for the weekend, injury crisis easing somewhat.

Lord TSC

Reading on Reddit that Woodward's office number leaked today online, and that he's had to disconnect it now, since they were getting loads of calls telling (his secretary) to sign DiMaria....

Hank Scorpio

Scholes doesn't think the current CB's are up to it, obviously they were really exposed last Saturday and I get the point being made about the formation/setup not offering them enough protection. He cited Jones doesn't sense danger like a top CB should and none of them being good leaders on the pitch. The guy knows more about those players than anyone so to condemn them like that is pretty damning. We all know they're not Rio Vidic level but for him to say go out and buy Varane and Hummels to replace them is slightly worrying in inself

MagicIRL

Lord TSC wrote: »

Reading on Reddit that Woodward's office number leaked today online, and that he's had to disconnect it now, since they were getting loads of calls telling (his secretary) to sign DiMaria....

D'ya reckon he got the message?

twam2008

I think one of the main points Scholes was making was that we lack a leader in defence, I don't think he would have said it about any of the past central defenders he worked with, it is a worry, and has been brought up on here a good few times already.

RobbingBandit

Anyone stop to think Scholes might be miffed he didn't get a place along side Giggs in the new regime.

homerjay2005

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Anyone stop to think Scholes might be miffed he didn't get a place along side Giggs in the new regime.

no, he is just saying what most people see - its not rocket science by any means, the problems are that obvious to almost everybody.

KombuchaMshroom

In less argumentative news, Mata just did that Ice bucket challenge thing and nominated Rojo as one of his picks. He has quickly established himself as part of the bromance (or broorgy by now there is so many of them) that is the Spanish speaking amigos.

Robson99

Peist2007 wrote: »

The formation he played with at United may indicate he didnt play in a team with 3 centre backs but i am sure he had to, you know, prepare tactically for facing teams with 3 centre backs, no? He would have got to see exactly how the 3 centre back system evolved in Europe after the Ajax win in 1995. No?

What formation did you play in for 99% of your professional career at the very top?

You bet me to it Peist. From Scholes not knowing what hes talking about to not having heard of a 352 system before because we played 442. What total tarmac talk.
I think its fairly safe to assume Scholes could educate everyone here as to tactics formations etc.
Also it shouldn't take centre half long to understand the basics of defending no matter what formation the are set up in. They are pros gettin paid week in week out.
Judging him on 5 min air space after the game and not going into a detailed explanation is also muck. I'm pretty sure he could have spent an hour on the subject if time allowed

MisterAnarchy

markcahill1985 wrote: »

We should go all out and offer 80m EUR for Khedeira and Di Maria IMO, thats if Vidal is def not on the table, signing those two would make us title contenders I feel, perhaps Blind also and we would be set. Khedeira is a top player.

Some places are reporting Khedira could be available for 15m euro ,its a no brainer at that price ,the club must try to sign him.
Herrera ,Khedira and Vidal has a nice ring to it .