Ageing squad

[RFUS]

I compared 11 games with Neville at DM to the 11 previous games where he was at right back. My stats are accurate. You're comparing games featuring a different player in a different period of time, so your stats have no bearing on my argument.

You're saying that our form improved because we switched to 4-2-3-1. For that to be the case, Neville would need a partner in DM. If Heitinga only played half of the games then Rodwell must have played the remainder, as we have no one else who can do the job. How confident are you that that's what actually happened?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'd have Fellaini in my team without a doubt. I'm not comparing Fellaini to Neville. I'm saying that we were tighter defensively when Nev played in midfield and that there's a good case for keeping him there at the expense of Heitinga or Rodwell. I'm just asking that you be open to that. I've shown to you that we concede a lot less goals and pick up a lot more points with him in midfield. So, why are you so closed off to it?

You're basically saying we're a better team with Neville at CM/DM. That to me means you want him to replace Fellaini there, or it means you want him to partner Fellaini there.

I have given you reasons as to why both options are poor ones. If he replaces Fellaini you're swapping out a far superior player; it's nonsensical. If he partners Fellaini you've got one negative CM pairing. Plus, playing Felliaini higher up the pitch -- or at least higher than Neville, as you suggested -- would not make the most of Fellaini's key skills.

Your stats may support your argument but over such a short period of time and with plenty of other things to consider, I don't think they're conclusive, as you seem to. I would hope most people here wouldn't want Neville at CM if we've got a fully fit team. Whether we're playing 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1, having two defensive players at CM is negative and when we lack real width we need some creativity in the center as well. Osman partnering Fellaini would be my preference, but if we signed Barton I'd have him there instead.

This is why I do not want Neville there. We picked up great results using the 4-2-3-1 with Bily and Magaye in the midfield 3 along with Ossie. That doesn't mean we should pick Bily and Magaye over Arteta, Coleman, Barkley etc. That just means they were a part of a good team. If we're short on numbers then I have no problem with Neville playing DM/CM, but with a full strength team he should only be able to stake a claim to RB.

 

[zimblue]

I quite like nev in midfield, but for me only if Coleman plays full back. If you have Hibbo at right back, neville in midfield, and coleman right wing, then its a no.

With Coleman at right back, then neville can cover for him when he goes forward.... actually he's probably the only player disciplined enough to do this in our current squad.

But Moyes seems to prefer Seamus in midfield so it's probably irrelevant anyway.

 

[kenada_blue]

You're basically saying we're a better team with Neville at CM/DM. That to me means you want him to replace Fellaini there, or it means you want him to partner Fellaini there.

I have given you reasons as to why both options are poor ones. If he replaces Fellaini you're swapping out a far superior player; it's nonsensical. If he partners Fellaini you've got one negative CM pairing. Plus, playing Felliaini higher up the pitch -- or at least higher than Neville, as you suggested -- would not make the most of Fellaini's key skills.

Your stats may support your argument but over such a short period of time and with plenty of other things to consider, I don't think they're conclusive, as you seem to. I would hope most people here wouldn't want Neville at CM if we've got a fully fit team. Whether we're playing 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1, having two defensive players at CM is negative and when we lack real width we need some creativity in the center as well. Osman partnering Fellaini would be my preference, but if we signed Barton I'd have him there instead.

This is why I do not want Neville there. We picked up great results using the 4-2-3-1 with Bily and Magaye in the midfield 3 along with Ossie. That doesn't mean we should pick Bily and Magaye over Arteta, Coleman, Barkley etc. That just means they were a part of a good team. If we're short on numbers then I have no problem with Neville playing DM/CM, but with a full strength team he should only be able to stake a claim to RB.

Neville is the more disciplined defensive midfielder than Heitinga or Fellaini to be fair. He just sits in front of the back 4 like Carsely did...in fact we hardly conceded when them two were sitting in the middle.

Heits and Felli wonder too much.

 

[Cookachoo]

We are basically in the same situation as Chelsea without the money to replace them. We are going rely heavily on the young players coming through being great.

Correct, but thats the worry. Its not possible to replace these players with lads from our academy and maintain the same level we have.

 

[RFUS]

Neville is the more disciplined defensive midfielder than Heitinga or Fellaini to be fair. He just sits in front of the back 4 like Carsely did...in fact we hardly conceded when them two were sitting in the middle.

Heits and Felli wonder too much.

To say Fellaini "wanders" is misleading. If he goes forward Moyes no doubt approves of him doing so. And I've not seen him go missing or leave us open too much.

If you're talking about disciplined players then I don't think there's anyone in the team as disciplined as Neville. I can't argue that point, but I can say that he's limited. And he is. Fellaini is not. He gets better with every game and still hasn't strung together more than 20 or so games at CM/DM. Just think what he could do if he got into his stride and had a full season. As it stands half the games he plays seem to be when he's recovering his fitness.

As for how we hardly conceded back then, you're quite right. We used to win games 1-0, as well. So much so we finished 4th with a negative goal difference!! But nowadays we struggle to score. I don't think making our midfield more negative and filling it with defenders is really going to help that scoring problem. And if you don't score, the opposition usually do, as we found out a few times last season.

Basically I want Felli to be our main DM. If he can avoid injury then he can have a fantastic season, and learn even more. If Neville was picked over him I'd fume. And if he was picked alongside him I'd fume too. So on that basis, with a fully fit team, I can't entertain having Neville in midfield. I don't know how anyone can. RB is another story, as defensively speaking he's our best RB. I'd rather have Coleman there for width on the overlap, but who knows, maybe we'll sign a right winger to solve that problem? Okay... maybe not.

 

[billycopper]

You're basically saying we're a better team with Neville at CM/DM. That to me means you want him to replace Fellaini there, or it means you want him to partner Fellaini there.

I have given you reasons as to why both options are poor ones. If he replaces Fellaini you're swapping out a far superior player; it's nonsensical. If he partners Fellaini you've got one negative CM pairing. Plus, playing Felliaini higher up the pitch -- or at least higher than Neville, as you suggested -- would not make the most of Fellaini's key skills.

Your stats may support your argument but over such a short period of time and with plenty of other things to consider, I don't think they're conclusive, as you seem to. I would hope most people here wouldn't want Neville at CM if we've got a fully fit team. Whether we're playing 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1, having two defensive players at CM is negative and when we lack real width we need some creativity in the center as well. Osman partnering Fellaini would be my preference, but if we signed Barton I'd have him there instead.

This is why I do not want Neville there. We picked up great results using the 4-2-3-1 with Bily and Magaye in the midfield 3 along with Ossie. That doesn't mean we should pick Bily and Magaye over Arteta, Coleman, Barkley etc. That just means they were a part of a good team. If we're short on numbers then I have no problem with Neville playing DM/CM, but with a full strength team he should only be able to stake a claim to RB.

I wouldn't want Neville instead of Fellaini. Fella is an excellent footballer and should definitely be in the team, but he's not as effective at shielding the defence. It was SEVENTY SEVEN per cent fewer goals that we conceded with Nev as DM. That's massive.

If Barca have Busquets and Keita, United have Jones and Carrick, Germany have Khedira and Schweinsteiger, Holland have De Jong and Van Bommell and Chelsea have Essien and Mikel does that make them negative sides? No! It's a question of balance. Fella could go forward because Pip was covering. We'd also have Baines, Coleman, Arteta, Barkley and Cahill getting forward to support Saha. It only becomes negative if we don't commit men forward.

Asking Fellaini to only play the Lee Carsley role, winning tackles and laying the ball short doesn't make the most of his key strengths. Any player (apart from Heitinga) can do that. Stepping into the middle of the park and influencing play, like Essien or Schweinsteigger takes real quality.

 

[RFUS]

I wouldn't want Neville instead of Fellaini. Fella is an excellent footballer and should definitely be in the team, but he's not as effective at shielding the defence. It was SEVENTY SEVEN per cent fewer goals that we conceded with Nev as DM. That's massive.

If Barca have Busquets and Keita, United have Jones and Carrick, Germany have Khedira and Schweinsteiger, Holland have De Jong and Van Bommell and Chelsea have Essien and Mikel does that make them negative sides? No! It's a question of balance. Fella could go forward because Pip was covering. We'd also have Baines, Coleman, Arteta, Barkley and Cahill getting forward to support Saha. It only becomes negative if we don't commit men forward.

Asking Fellaini to only play the Lee Carsley role, winning tackles and laying the ball short doesn't make the most of his key strengths. Any player (apart from Heitinga) can do that. Stepping into the middle of the park and influencing play, like Essien or Schweinsteigger takes real quality.

I'm not saying having two defensive players in the center makes you a negative team. But because we lack real width and guile in other places, I feel we have to make up for it in the center.

In terms of your examples, Barca don't play Busquets and Keita together. They, unless I'm mistaken, usually have Xavi with Busquets. United often play with two defensive players in the center, but they have real pace and guile on the flanks and have 2 attacking fullbacks. Schweinsteiger is not a purely defensive player, he's a creative type -- a box to box midfielder, you might say -- so I don't understand that example. The dutch used De Jong and Van Bommel, true, but again they have attacking assets in plenty of other places. If we had Arjen Robben on our right flank I'd be less bothered about a negative CM duo. Chelsea again don't always play with Essien and Mikel. More often Ramires and Essien of late. They play a 4-3-3 however and again, have plenty of power on the flanks. And Ramires, Mikel and Essien are all players who will get forward and do something at the other end of the pitch. So yeah, I think all of your examples are pretty poor, mate.

As it stands, if we had Fellaini and Neville in the center, we'd probably have Coleman at RM, Hibbert at RB. That is bloody woeful in my opinion. If Coleman was the one at RB and we had a decent right winger, then I wouldn't mind Felli and Nev in the center, as we could sacrifice a bit of attacking flair in the center for it on the flanks.

 

[billycopper]

I'm not saying having two defensive players in the center makes you a negative team. But because we lack real width and guile in other places, I feel we have to make up for it in the center.

In terms of your examples, Barca don't play Busquets and Keita together. They, unless I'm mistaken, usually have Xavi with Busquets. United often play with two defensive players in the center, but they have real pace and guile on the flanks and have 2 attacking fullbacks. Schweinsteiger is not a purely defensive player, he's a creative type -- a box to box midfielder, you might say -- so I don't understand that example. The dutch used De Jong and Van Bommel, true, but again they have attacking assets in plenty of other places. If we had Arjen Robben on our right flank I'd be less bothered about a negative CM duo. Chelsea again don't always play with Essien and Mikel. More often Ramires and Essien of late. They play a 4-3-3 however and again, have plenty of power on the flanks. And Ramires, Mikel and Essien are all players who will get forward and do something at the other end of the pitch. So yeah, I think all of your examples are pretty poor, mate.

As it stands, if we had Fellaini and Neville in the center, we'd probably have Coleman at RM, Hibbert at RB. That is bloody woeful in my opinion. If Coleman was the one at RB and we had a decent right winger, then I wouldn't mind Felli and Nev in the center, as we could sacrifice a bit of attacking flair in the center for it on the flanks.

If we played Neville with Felli in the middle we could then afford Coleman and Baines to bomb on from fullback. We could have Arteta on the left of midfield and Barkley on the right with Cahill or, if you insist, Osman behind Saha. Our problem last season tended to be that we conceded a sloppy early goal and then we didn't have many ideas how to get it back. If we can tighten up, we can hopefully edge a few more wins instead of trying to get ourselves back in games for a draw.

By the way, just to piss on your Cahill stats, Saha didn't break his drought until a couple of games before Tim left for Qatar and went on to score about 8 league goals. That will count for a massive chunk of your numbers. Saha's record alongside Cahill in previous seasons has been impeccable, so you can't argue that they can't play together. That's just for saying my examples are poor. Are you sure I'm not being naive, ridiculous or nonsensical? ha

 

[Hibbert&Ernie]

It would be great to have a 'golden generation' come through together as teenagers, but it is a rare thing. So time together as full pro's is the nature of things. Sometimes for a side to click it takes a few years. Be thankful of stability allowing such a possibility.

 

[Roztitute]

It would be great to have a 'golden generation' come through together as teenagers, but it is a rare thing. So time together as full pro's is the nature of things. Sometimes for a side to click it takes a few years. Be thankful of stability allowing such a possibility.

We'll be the next Man U lid?

 

[RFUS]

If we played Neville with Felli in the middle we could then afford Coleman and Baines to bomb on from fullback. We could have Arteta on the left of midfield and Barkley on the right with Cahill or, if you insist, Osman behind Saha. Our problem last season tended to be that we conceded a sloppy early goal and then we didn't have many ideas how to get it back. If we can tighten up, we can hopefully edge a few more wins instead of trying to get ourselves back in games for a draw.

By the way, just to piss on your Cahill stats, Saha didn't break his drought until a couple of games before Tim left for Qatar and went on to score about 8 league goals. That will count for a massive chunk of your numbers. Saha's record alongside Cahill in previous seasons has been impeccable, so you can't argue that they can't play together. That's just for saying my examples are poor. Are you sure I'm not being naive, ridiculous or nonsensical? ha

I wouldn't mind that formation, to be honest. Just so long as we've got width on both flanks, if we're going to sacrifice guile in the middle. I like Artetafan's 4-4-2 the best though, from another thread. Although that uses Joey Barton... I doubt we'll actually sign him.

As for your second paragraph I think I'm missing your point. Why does Saha's poor form piss on my Cahill stats? Saha was poor because our formation and tactics were dire. In previous seasons it worked but in previous seasons people were not as privy to our tactics. In addition we had an in-form Pienaar, an in-form Arteta and for 12 weeks we also had Donovan. Nowadays people know how to defend against our 4-4-1-1 with Cahill and if he's playing, Saha, and they did so last season. It's no coincidence that Saha broke his goal duck the very first game without Cahill and in a 4-4-2.


P.S. Your examples from before were poor, naive, ridiculous and nonsensical. xx

 

[billycopper]

I wouldn't mind that formation, to be honest. Just so long as we've got width on both flanks, if we're going to sacrifice guile in the middle. I like Artetafan's 4-4-2 the best though, from another thread. Although that uses Joey Barton... I doubt we'll actually sign him.

As for your second paragraph I think I'm missing your point. Why does Saha's poor form piss on my Cahill stats? Saha was poor because our formation and tactics were dire. In previous seasons it worked but in previous seasons people were not as privy to our tactics. In addition we had an in-form Pienaar, an in-form Arteta and for 12 weeks we also had Donovan. Nowadays people know how to defend against our 4-4-1-1 with Cahill and if he's playing, Saha, and they did so last season. It's no coincidence that Saha broke his goal duck the very first game without Cahill and in a 4-4-2.


P.S. Your examples from before were poor, naive, ridiculous and nonsensical. xx

Saha has played as the lone striker infront of Cahill for beards and managed 1 in 2 for us. He stopped scoring as soon as he signed his contract, not because we were doing anything differently. He did start scoring as soon as Cahill left, but maybe because he thought he had to step up and take responsibility. He scored 7 goals in the next 5 league games but, the Spurs game aside, Beckford played with him for 4 minutes against Chelsea, no time versus Arsenal and 20 minutes against Blackpool. Saha replaced Becks at half-time against West Ham. In the game where Louis got most of his goals, Cahill came on as a joint substitute with Beckford. I'm sorry, but your argument is poor, naive and nonsensical.

 

[RFUS]

Saha has played as the lone striker infront of Cahill for beards and managed 1 in 2 for us. He stopped scoring as soon as he signed his contract, not because we were doing anything differently. He did start scoring as soon as Cahill left, but maybe because he thought he had to step up and take responsibility. He scored 7 goals in the next 5 league games but, the Spurs game aside, Beckford played with him for 4 minutes against Chelsea, no time versus Arsenal and 20 minutes against Blackpool. Saha replaced Becks at half-time against West Ham. In the game where Louis got most of his goals, Cahill came on as a joint substitute with Beckford. I'm sorry, but your argument is poor, naive and nonsensical.

I'm sorry, you think the reason Saha started scoring against wasn't because of a new role/formation, but "because maybe he thought he had to step up and take responsibility". That's piss poor, mate.

And you forget, once a form striker like Saha does open his account he can go on a run. The initial factor that triggered that spell though was a different role alongside Beckford. He essentially played in the Cahill role and utilised the space Becks made for him with his running.

As for you saying the 4-4-1-1 with Cahill and Saha had always worked and we weren't doing anything differently, I agree. I never said anything had changed on our end. But the opposition got a lot wiser to our tactics. From the very first game of the season we were punished for sticking to this formation and having no penetration. Blackburn nicked a goal and sat back for the rest of the game and managed to win.

If you think Saha's form was because of a new contract or his change of form was because he decided to step up, then I can't debate that, because you're talking purely about his mental state. I can't prove or disprove it, but frankly I think it's absolute bollocks.

As for the Blackpool game we were losing 2-3 and then Becks was brought on in the 70th minute. We then scored in the 76th minute, the 80th minute and the 84th minute, with Saha getting 2 of those 3. So whilst Cahill played a part in that game, the main cataylst for our late 2-3 to 5-3 reverse was Becks for me. We had 2 strikers on the pitch so stretched their defense, and in the space of 16 minutes our front 2 scored 3 times between them. I don't know what other evidence you need to prove how much better Saha plays with another out and out striker beside him.

 

[billycopper]

I'm sorry, you think the reason Saha started scoring against wasn't because of a new role/formation, but "because maybe he thought he had to step up and take responsibility". That's piss poor, mate.

And you forget, once a form striker like Saha does open his account he can go on a run. The initial factor that triggered that spell though was a different role alongside Beckford. He essentially played in the Cahill role and utilised the space Becks made for him with his running.

As for you saying the 4-4-1-1 with Cahill and Saha had always worked and we weren't doing anything differently, I agree. I never said anything had changed on our end. But the opposition got a lot wiser to our tactics. From the very first game of the season we were punished for sticking to this formation and having no penetration. Blackburn nicked a goal and sat back for the rest of the game and managed to win.

If you think Saha's form was because of a new contract or his change of form was because he decided to step up, then I can't debate that, because you're talking purely about his mental state. I can't prove or disprove it, but frankly I think it's absolute bollocks.

As for the Blackpool game we were losing 2-3 and then Becks was brought on in the 70th minute. We then scored in the 76th minute, the 80th minute and the 84th minute, with Saha getting 2 of those 3. So whilst Cahill played a part in that game, the main cataylst for our late 2-3 to 5-3 reverse was Becks for me. We had 2 strikers on the pitch so stretched their defense, and in the space of 16 minutes our front 2 scored 3 times between them. I don't know what other evidence you need to prove how much better Saha plays with another out and out striker beside him.

Pienaar stepped up when Arteta was out. Osman stepped up when Arteta was out. Saha knew that the goals had to come from somewhere and that he had to give that extra 10% to make up for the loss of Cahill, rather than standing with his hands on his hips.

You're saying that a tactical change brought out the best in Saha, but that it was so subtle that no one knows what it was. We're talking about Moyes here, he doesn't do subtlety. And that Louis benefitted from the space that Beckford made for him, when they only played together for 24 minutes in a 4 games spell?! That's piss poor mate.

Louis was in the form of his life, playing for a new deal. He signs said deal and suddenly the goals dry up. It couldn't possibly be anything to do with his motivation. It must be that the opposition have, from one game to the next, got wise to us. The same must be true with Arteta and his form before and after his contract extension.

I like to see Saha and Beckford together, but your 'evidence' is bollocks. They played 40 mins together against West Brom at home. They played another 45 together against Reading in the cup. And 78 mins together in the 1-1 draw with Brum. There's no hard proof that we're any more prolific with them in tandem.

 

[RFUS]

Pienaar stepped up when Arteta was out. Osman stepped up when Arteta was out. Saha knew that the goals had to come from somewhere and that he had to give that extra 10% to make up for the loss of Cahill, rather than standing with his hands on his hips.

You're saying that a tactical change brought out the best in Saha, but that it was so subtle that no one knows what it was. We're talking about Moyes here, he doesn't do subtlety. And that Louis benefitted from the space that Beckford made for him, when they only played together for 24 minutes in a 4 games spell?! That's piss poor mate.

Louis was in the form of his life, playing for a new deal. He signs said deal and suddenly the goals dry up. It couldn't possibly be anything to do with his motivation. It must be that the opposition have, from one game to the next, got wise to us. The same must be true with Arteta and his form before and after his contract extension.

I like to see Saha and Beckford together, but your 'evidence' is bollocks. They played 40 mins together against West Brom at home. They played another 45 together against Reading in the cup. And 78 mins together in the 1-1 draw with Brum. There's no hard proof that we're any more prolific with them in tandem.

I hate this opinion that Saha just wasn't arsed after his contract. You could see him trying his best and he, like all goalscorers, got so frustrated with his drought. I think you've made a case to say he did step up, because he did start the first game without Cahill by slotting into Cahill's role. Instead of fighting for long balls and shielding Tim, he was receiving the ball in midfield and being able to use more craft. So yeah, in a way he did step up, but only because Tim's absence and his new role allowed him to.

We didn't play 4-4-2 very often, that is true, but I saw with my own eyes how effective it was. Becks and Saha are a great team because Becks does the legwork and stretches the defence, allowing Saha to profit with his guile. In the 4-4-1-1 he was left isolated, like all our lone forwards, and he just kept getting crowded out. As EB said I think, 4-5-1/4-4-1-1s work by being able to quickly change into a 4-3-3 with pace on the flanks. We don't have that and we're incredibly slow to support our frontmen. So this is why I think Saha struggled.

In the past it worked better, but it didn't work from day 1 this season. That isn't some spontaneous game-to-game change, it was from the offset of a new season. I have no doubt the then Allardyce-led Blackburn analysed us from last season and realised how slow we were. They nicked a lucky goal and then decided to defend. They were well drilled and compact and that limited us to sideways passes and hopeful crosses. It's not rocket science here, it should be obvious how poor this formation is against defensive set ups. And as such, it should be obvious how tough a task it is for the lone frontman.