Ageing squad

[billycopper]

I really do not want Barkley to make RM his own. He's clearly going to be a quality central player. However, if we don't sign a wide right player, that kind of Barkley/Coleman combo does seem to be the only way we can get width on the right flank.

I'm going to stop here though because this is turning into another one of your "more attack-minded fullbacks = more holes in defence" arguments. Which is nonsense, because as I've said a million times before, in our current system the RB gets forward too. They just don't do anything because 'they' are Hibbert or Neville -- terrible going forward.

Fellaini can sit if he needs to sit. Just because he's better going forward than Neville doesn't mean he's going to bomb up field every time we get the ball. Neville is limited as a player and especially as a midfielder, and if we didn't have better players for that position I'd accept him playing there. But we do. We have one of the finest defensive midfielders I've ever seen -- our most expensive ever signing -- and I want us to play him there. Moyes will, too -- he only played Neville/Heitinga there when Felli was injured. And rightly so.

You want Fellaini, Osman and Barkley in the middle then? No place for Cahill?

How many times against Villereal did we lose the ball in midfield and end up being caught 2v2? Somehow we manage to push forward without getting any more men in the opposition penalty area. I have concerns about our vulnerability on the break. I think that Nev could plug some of those holes more effectively than Felli. Maraoune is more effective at breaking things up and springing an attack when we've already got our defensive shape set.

 

[RFUS]

You want Fellaini, Osman and Barkley in the middle then? No place for Cahill?

How many times against Villereal did we lose the ball in midfield and end up being caught 2v2? Somehow we manage to push forward without getting any more men in the opposition penalty area. I have concerns about our vulnerability on the break. I think that Nev could plug some of those holes more effectively than Felli. Maraoune is more effective at breaking things up and springing an attack when we've already got our defensive shape set.

Wait, what? I didn't say that.

I'm happy with us playing Barkley wherever for now, I was just saying I don't want him to "make RM his own" because I don't see him as a RM in the long term. He'd be wasted there.

That said I don't want to pick a single preferred formation because you shouldn't have one. We need a different formation to play United than we do to play Wigan. In theory, anyway, but Moyes usually goes with the same.

As for Neville, I'll just put this in the big bag of "things me and Billycopper don't agree on". And my oh my, it is indeed a big bag.

 

[billycopper]

Hibbo came into the side and Nev switched to midfield on 5th March. Our record since then was W6 D3 L2 F16 A9. We played Newcastle, Birmingham, Fulham, Villa, Wolves, Blackburn, United, Wigan, City, West Brom and Chelsea.

In the previous 11 games our record was W4 D4 L3 F17 A16. Our goal's for column includes the 5 against Blackpool. We played Wigan, City, West Ham, Stoke, Spurs, Liverpool, West Ham, Arsenal, Blackpool, Bolton, Sunderland.

We played 3 of the Champions League sides with him in midfield and only 2 of them in the spell with him at right back. Yet we conceded 77% fewer goals with him as the anchor. We scored roughly the same amount of goals whichever position he played. We collected 21 points with him in front of the defence compared to 16 points with him at full back- a 31% improvement.

 

[RFUS]

Hibbo came into the side and Nev switched to midfield on 5th March. Our record since then was W6 D3 L2 F16 A9. We played Newcastle, Birmingham, Fulham, Villa, Wolves, Blackburn, United, Wigan, City, West Brom and Chelsea.

In the previous 11 games our record was W4 D4 L3 F17 A16. Our goal's for column includes the 5 against Blackpool. We played Wigan, City, West Ham, Stoke, Spurs, Liverpool, West Ham, Arsenal, Blackpool, Bolton, Sunderland.

We played 3 of the Champions League sides with him in midfield and only 2 of them in the spell with him at right back. Yet we conceded 77% fewer goals with him as the anchor. We scored roughly the same amount of goals whichever position he played. We collected 21 points with him in front of the defence compared to 16 points with him at full back- a 31% improvement.

Did I not spend ages showing detailed stats as to how much better we were without Cahill in the team, just the other day?

And yet, I think I'm correct in saying, you're of the opinion Cahill should still be a starter?

Stats are subjective, really. I think Nev came into midfield around the time we started using 4-2-3-1. I think our change in form was to do with Osman at that point, and the free role he had. You're definitely putting too much weight into Neville's part in it all, anyway. He did a good job, I'm not denying, but Fellaini was injured. If he was playing there instead of Neville we might have done as well, or even better.

The point I'm making is you're not just comparing different players, but different formations and lineups. That adds in a ****-ton of variables and in my opinion, makes your point a bit contrived. You could argue I did the same for my Cahill stats, but they were to support the new formations rather than some kind of Cahill vs Osman debate.

 

[billycopper]

Did I not spend ages showing detailed stats as to how much better we were without Cahill in the team, just the other day?

And yet, I think I'm correct in saying, you're of the opinion Cahill should still be a starter?

Stats are subjective, really. I think Nev came into midfield around the time we started using 4-2-3-1. I think our change in form was to do with Osman at that point, and the free role he had. You're definitely putting too much weight into Neville's part in it all, anyway. He did a good job, I'm not denying, but Fellaini was injured. If he was playing there instead of Neville we might have done as well, or even better.

The point I'm making is you're not just comparing different players, but different formations and lineups. That adds in a ****-ton of variables and in my opinion, makes your point a bit contrived. You could argue I did the same for my Cahill stats, but they were to support the new formations rather than some kind of Cahill vs Osman debate.

So Ossie having a free role meant that we conceded three quarters less goals? The stats give real food for thought. You can't just dismiss Neville's contribution because it doesn't fit in with the pretty football that you crave.

Funnily enough, the 11 games before Neville switched to midfield all featured Fellaini in the anchor role, so we have our direct comparison. They didn't begin until 11th December, so that's sufficient time to discount our slow start as a factor.

You're always going to look for external reasons why the statistics lie, and there's nothing that I can do to conclusively prove my theory. I did see your Cahill stats and they made interesting reading. Whereas I take notice of such evidence, I feel that you often dismiss anything out of hand that doesn't fit with your views.

 

[RFUS]

So Ossie having a free role meant that we conceded three quarters less goals? The stats give real food for thought. You can't just dismiss Neville's contribution because it doesn't fit in with the pretty football that you crave.

Funnily enough, the 11 games before Neville switched to midfield all featured Fellaini in the anchor role, so we have our direct comparison. They didn't begin until 11th December, so that's sufficient time to discount our slow start as a factor.

You're always going to look for external reasons why the statistics lie, and there's nothing that I can do to conclusively prove my theory. I did see your Cahill stats and they made interesting reading. Whereas I take notice of such evidence, I feel that you often dismiss anything out of hand that doesn't fit with your views.

I think that's unfair. It wouldn't be if I said "No, Neville's crap". I did not though. I think he did well there, as he will do in any defensive role. But I think the main catalyst for those performances was Ossie. It's silly to think that Ossie's impact going forward didn't affect our goals conceded. Attack is the best form of defense and all that!! Earlier on we couldn't score for toffee, so to speak, and then it bit us on the arse. But if you can score first it eases the pressure.

As for Fellaini, I don't see your point there. The games before Neville went there were not in the 4-2-3-1, were they? They were a mix of 4-5-1 and 4-4-2, I'm fairly sure. So yet again, you're comparing two player's performances in the same role, but in different formations. And so it's not me looking for external reasons for why statistics lie, it's me rightly pointing out the myriad of other variables that come into play.

 

[billycopper]

v Sunderland

_________Howard
_Neville Jagielka Distin Baines
Coleman Fellaini Osman Arteta
_______Beckford Saha

Fellaini got injured. Here's the team for the following league game.

_________Howard
Hibbert Jagielka Distin Baines
Rodwell Neville Osman Arteta
______Beckford Saha

Where are the changes in formation and personnel? Bily and Gueye got a run of games shortly after that because Saha was injured, but that shouldn't have any bearing on our defensive solidity.

 

[billycopper]

I think that's unfair. It wouldn't be if I said "No, Neville's crap". I did not though. I think he did well there, as he will do in any defensive role. But I think the main catalyst for those performances was Ossie. It's silly to think that Ossie's impact going forward didn't affect our goals conceded. Attack is the best form of defense and all that!! Earlier on we couldn't score for toffee, so to speak, and then it bit us on the arse. But if you can score first it eases the pressure.

As for Fellaini, I don't see your point there. The games before Neville went there were not in the 4-2-3-1, were they? They were a mix of 4-5-1 and 4-4-2, I'm fairly sure. So yet again, you're comparing two player's performances in the same role, but in different formations. And so it's not me looking for external reasons for why statistics lie, it's me rightly pointing out the myriad of other variables that come into play.

Ok, if Ossie had such a positive impact going forward, why didn't we score any more goals? We were playing weaker opposition. If it wasn't for the 5 against Blackpool, our goal tally would have been much inferior after the switch.

If you look at my team sheet we weren't playing 4-2-3-1. I presume you mean that Heitinga played with Neville as 'double anchors'. From 5th March, Johnny featured in 9 out of those 11 games. He only played the full game 6 times though. If his presence was such a factor, I'd expect it to show up more in the stats. One thing I did notice was that he was yellow carded 5 times in those 9 games.

Basically, I've given you some information that appears to indicate that we're much better defensively with Neville in midfield. Rather than accepting that it might, atleast in part be true, you'd rather try and find ways to discredit it. Can you accept that maybe we might achieve better results with Nev shielding the defence?

 

[Jamo Martinez]

Ok, if Ossie had such a positive impact going forward, why didn't we score any more goals? We were playing weaker opposition. If it wasn't for the 5 against Blackpool, our goal tally would have been much inferior after the switch.

If you look at my team sheet we weren't playing 4-2-3-1. I presume you mean that Heitinga played with Neville as 'double anchors'. From 5th March, Johnny featured in 9 out of those 11 games. He only played the full game 6 times though. If his presence was such a factor, I'd expect it to show up more in the stats. One thing I did notice was that he was yellow carded 5 times in those 9 games.

Basically, I've given you some information that appears to indicate that we're much better defensively with Neville in midfield. Rather than accepting that it might, atleast in part be true, you'd rather try and find ways to discredit it. Can you accept that maybe we might achieve better results with Nev shielding the defence?

I can.

 

[Tubey]

Five years.

 

[DualityNSNO]

No you're an ageing squad. POW!

Oh, burn!!!

 

[chriswho]

I think any team that needs a player on the pitch to point and shout at that them is inherently flawed anyway.

We should be able to play just fine without Neville. It's the manager's job to ensure everyone knows what they're doing.

And captaincy/leadership qualities aside, he's a very limited footballer. He's okay at RB and is a solid defender, but he lacks pace and is poor in CM simply because he's useless on the ball. We should be looking to blood Coleman in at RB because he offers something going the other way, and as we have no width or pace in midfield, we need it from our overlapping fullbacks.

I agree with everything you said here. Everything. But that being said, look at how poor we were the couple games last season when nev was injured and passed the armband to arteta. We were terrible. Not sure if it was a complete lack of leadership/confidence by arteta or a sign of just how valuable nev's intangibles are - but I was eager to welcome nev and his leadership back.

 

[Zatara]

You're entitled to your opinion but a centre midfield duo of Fellaini and Neville, in my own opinion, is horrendous.

I'd want Fellaini to always be partnered with someone who will get further than him; someone with a creative touch. Osman or Arteta, Barton if he signed.

Anyone who doesn't want a centre mid of Fellaini/Rodwell is insane.

 

[Cookachoo]

The only real major concerns are Neville and Distin, the rest are just 30 or nearly 30, 30 isnt old for a footballer these days, with the diets they take and training, as long as somebody is healthy, fairly injury free and dont rely on pace, they can play forever.

Paolo Maldini, Paul Scholes and Ryan Giggs say hi.

Every player relies on pace one way or another, even if they don't need it in an attacking sense, you always need a turn of pace when your marking, because more often than not your man will be pacey. Its no good having a team full of experienced slow players who are quality on the ball, they'd be getting turned at every opportunity.

Those 3 players you mentioned are the exceptions, not the rule. An overwhelming majority of players lose so much entering their 30s, pace, reliability and in some cases hunger all become factors. Far too many of our first team are the wrong side of 30, but this is where you need money to reinvest in good young players to ensure the quality level remains of a high enough standard to compete. Unfortunately we don't have the investing potential so will either have to promote through the ranks, which does inevitably take time and the quality of the team overall will be reduced.

Its not even like you can gamble on good young players in the Championship anymore because they are costing £10m nowadays.

 

[Ste Stocks]

Ive only read the first page of this thread but ill carry on with the...did you not see the age of our midfield against valencia...

coleman, rodwell, felli, barkley....

then howard, yeah OK hes old, but keepers play longer.

pip is out in two years, as is distin,

jags and baines will be in their prime...

then we have becks, who should also be in his prime, plus *fingers crossed* moutinho buys his contract out and demands to sign for us...

we've also then got vellios and marvin on the bench, not to mention that silva kid and baxter
arteta and cahill will be used from the bench...