Ageing squad

[Zatara]

Full name Mikel Arteta Amatriain
Date of birth 26 March 1982 (1982-03-26) (age 29)

He will be 30 for only the last 6 weeks of the Season.

Full name Philip Nikodem Jagielka[1]
Date of birth 17 August 1982 (1982-08-17) (age 28)

He wont even be 30 for the start of NEXT Season.

'Thanks vor confirming that I was correct with their ages. What a strange post.

 

[Zatara]

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.

The problem here with the central 'defensive' midfielders you highlighted is that their skill sets are different to Neville and Fellaini.

For me the correct pairing if we were going to play with 2 'defensive' midfielders would be Rodwell / Fellaini.

This would require 2 'áttacking' full backs in Baines / Coleman. However if we played this type of game Neville would not get into the side. Which is unlikely and again goes back to my saliant point about Moyes not changing players and of course not changing formation (unless he has to due to it being forced on him).


EDIT -- This would work best with a player in front with a good amount of drive -- possibly Barkley or maybe Arteta if he was told to link midfield + attack and run with the ball. Again, this would remove Cahill which goes back again to my points.....

 

[Tom Mc EFC]

Just play Hibbert upfront FFS.

 

[billycopper]

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.

How could he have slotted into Cahill's role when for one thing Osman was supposedly there and for another there was no one ahead of him to take over the lone striker role? Do you mean that he was just dropping deeper to pick up the ball? For the umpteenth time, Beckford only played 24 minutes with Saha (beside the Spurs game) in the goalscoring run that Louis had. For Louis to play behind the striker, we need to have a striker. It wasn't Beckford, so who was it?

I do sometimes feel that I need to speak slowly and spell things out, because you don't listen. We have rarely used Saha and Beckford together. They have had some time at the end of games but it's been too short to judge and we would have been chasing the game, so we would have been more offensive anyway. They played together for most of the match against West Brom, Sunderland, Reading and Birmingham. Becks played well against the Mackems in a match that was noted for Arteta being revitalised down the left. Apart from that, we've done no better (and arguably worse) than when Cahill has played behind Saha.

 

[RFUS]

How could he have slotted into Cahill's role when for one thing Osman was supposedly there and for another there was no one ahead of him to take over the lone striker role? Do you mean that he was just dropping deeper to pick up the ball? For the umpteenth time, Beckford only played 24 minutes with Saha (beside the Spurs game) in the goalscoring run that Louis had. For Louis to play behind the striker, we need to have a striker. It wasn't Beckford, so who was it?

I do sometimes feel that I need to speak slowly and spell things out, because you don't listen. We have rarely used Saha and Beckford together. They have had some time at the end of games but it's been too short to judge and we would have been chasing the game, so we would have been more offensive anyway. They played together for most of the match against West Brom, Sunderland, Reading and Birmingham. Becks played well against the Mackems in a match that was noted for Arteta being revitalised down the left. Apart from that, we've done no better (and arguably worse) than when Cahill has played behind Saha.

I acknowledged that Saha and Beckford didn't play together often. Ossie played behind the striker when we played 4-2-3-1, which was obviously a different period to when Becks and Saha partnered each other because of the 1 at the end of that formation. I don't know why you're mixing the two up.

To say we didn't do better with those 2 up top is debatable. My point isn't that one formation is perpetually superior to the other, it's that there's a time and a place for each. I personally think Saha and Becks both work better with another out and out striker beside them, but sometimes playing 2 up top isn't ideal if the opposition are going to overrun you in midfield.

As for your condescending line about speaking slowly, I don't really appreciate that. I do listen, and I listen even more to you than other people because I have to re-read your posts to make sure I'm not misunderstanding them. Because to be polite, some of the things you say raise a few eyebrows.

It's also interesting that you mention Arteta's rejuvenation in the Sunderland win. Did you not accuse me of always looking for other reasons as to why the stats say what they do? Could you not accept that maybe Saha and Beckford were quite good together in that Sunderland game? I'm not undermining Arteta's impact but it was a good win with 2 up top, as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, I'm literally done now. This is moving past a debate and warping into an argument, which is not what I'm about. I don't appreciate your talking slow comment, but I'm not going to be dragged into a pissing contest. Evidently you're sure of your opinions and you've got Damon syndrome in that you don't take on board anything that clashes with your view. I'm not sure if that's commendable or arrogant. Probably both. But anyway, I'm done with this futile conversation, because I'm sure the one thing we can both agree on is that Moyes is going to stick to what he's always done anyway.

Peace. x

 

[chicoazul]

Crikey, thems some paragraph battles them.

 

[billycopper]

I acknowledged that Saha and Beckford didn't play together often. Ossie played behind the striker when we played 4-2-3-1, which was obviously a different period to when Becks and Saha partnered each other because of the 1 at the end of that formation. I don't know why you're mixing the two up.

To say we didn't do better with those 2 up top is debatable. My point isn't that one formation is perpetually superior to the other, it's that there's a time and a place for each. I personally think Saha and Becks both work better with another out and out striker beside them, but sometimes playing 2 up top isn't ideal if the opposition are going to overrun you in midfield.

As for your condescending line about speaking slowly, I don't really appreciate that. I do listen, and I listen even more to you than other people because I have to re-read your posts to make sure I'm not misunderstanding them. Because to be polite, some of the things you say raise a few eyebrows.

It's also interesting that you mention Arteta's rejuvenation in the Sunderland win. Did you not accuse me of always looking for other reasons as to why the stats say what they do? Could you not accept that maybe Saha and Beckford were quite good together in that Sunderland game? I'm not undermining Arteta's impact but it was a good win with 2 up top, as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, I'm literally done now. This is moving past a debate and warping into an argument, which is not what I'm about. I don't appreciate your talking slow comment, but I'm not going to be dragged into a pissing contest. Evidently you're sure of your opinions and you've got Damon syndrome in that you don't take on board anything that clashes with your view. I'm not sure if that's commendable or arrogant. Probably both. But anyway, I'm done with this futile conversation, because I'm sure the one thing we can both agree on is that Moyes is going to stick to what he's always done anyway.

Peace. x

Mate, you started it with nonsensical, naive etc. I've given thorough and considered reasons for all my points so, for you to dismiss them without a valid and well-supported counter argument of your own is insulting to me.

You've been saying that Saha is more effective without Cahill and that he was able to find more freedom by dropping into the hole in Tim's absence. I've given you reasons why that wasn't the case and why Beckford and Saha in tandem were no more potent than Cahill and Saha. I would like to see two strikers too but, if I didn't, you haven't put forward anything that would change my mind. You're just giving me your opinion.

I'm happy to debate things. The difficulty that I find with you is that you don't want either Neville or Cahill in the midfield fullstop and no amount of facts and statistics are going to sway you on their efficiency and effectiveness. I've been impressed by Ossie recently but because of the measurable impact of Neville on our goals against column from midfield and the importance of Cahill's goals, I'd find it difficult to give him a place in central midfield. I'm open to having my mind changed though. That's all I'm asking from you.

 

[RFUS]

Mate, you started it with nonsensical, naive etc. I've given thorough and considered reasons for all my points so, for you to dismiss them without a valid and well-supported counter argument of your own is insulting to me.

You've been saying that Saha is more effective without Cahill and that he was able to find more freedom by dropping into the hole in Tim's absence. I've given you reasons why that wasn't the case and why Beckford and Saha in tandem were no more potent than Cahill and Saha. I would like to see two strikers too but, if I didn't, you haven't put forward anything that would change my mind. You're just giving me your opinion.

I'm happy to debate things. The difficulty that I find with you is that you don't want either Neville or Cahill in the midfield fullstop and no amount of facts and statistics are going to sway you on their efficiency and effectiveness. I've been impressed by Ossie recently but because of the measurable impact of Neville on our goals against column from midfield and the importance of Cahill's goals, I'd find it difficult to give him a place in central midfield. I'm open to having my mind changed though. That's all I'm asking from you.

I wish I hadn't said I'm done because I knew as soon as I typed it I'd not have the willpower to keep quiet.

Anyway, first of all if you interpret me saying something doesn't make sense or is naive as a personal insult that's your doing. I'd argue there's a difference between saying "you're stupid" and "that's stupid". One is about the person, the other is about their specific opinion. Some of your opinions I think are naive, or even outright stupid, but I don't think you are. Evidently you are not. But saying you need to speak slowly so I understand you is nothing but an insult to me. I think it's a bit desperate and a bit petulant.

Anyway, I'd say you seem to ignore most of my points and often twist my words into new, contrived opinions. But I'll be very clear and hopefully conclusive here.

First of all I am saying Saha is, with our current crop of players, more effective without Cahill. You're saying I've not put anything forward to change your mind on that note, and that's a lie. He went for 11 months without scoring, and we were playing 4-4-1-1 with Cahill behind him during that time. Last season, the very first game he played without Cahill and the very first game we started with a 4-4-2 was the game he broke his 11 month goal duck. If that doesn't go some way to changing your mind then you're obviously making a concerted effort to be stubborn.

As for your second paragraph, you're saying I don't want Cahill in midfield full stop. This is you again warping my words because I have repeatedly said there is a time and place for all formations. I said earlier against Chelsea a 4-4-1-1 with Cahill is a sensible choice, but my problem is that we play like that against teams like Wolves too.

Neville-wise I have acknowledged your points and have admitted he's very good at carrying out a defensive role. He did well there. However he is a limited footballer and having 2 defensive players in the center of midfield is too negative when we don't have any threat on the right hand side. Do you disagree with this? Can you disagree with this?

Finally, I'd like to highlight your absolutely perfect use of stats. By that I mean you use them to support your argument, and when they're not favourable to your point you completely ignore them. Case in point:

I've been impressed by Ossie recently but because of the measurable impact of Neville on our goals against column from midfield and the importance of Cahill's goals, I'd find it difficult to give him a place in central midfield.

Yes those stats were favourable to Neville. I don't see you mentioning the ones EB put up the other day that say with Ossie we have our highest win with percentage and lowest win without percentage, but with Cahill we have our lowest win with percentage and highest win without percentage. This just confirms what I already know, and I think deep down you already know too; stats can be cherry-picked and have retroactive meaning applied to make them support anything.

Your last line is a nice touch though, I'll give you that. I don't think you are open to having your mind changed in the slightest, because I've never seen you once accept you might be anything other than 100% right. So either every single person who's ever debated with you on here is completely wrong, or you are actually just someone who thinks they're always right.

 

[Zatara]

Fantastic to get red notifications with threats from people hiding behind computer screens -- even hiding their names.

Do people really waste their lives like this....well, obviously.

 

[chicoazul]

Fantastic to get red notifications with threats from people hiding behind computer screens -- even hiding their names.

Do people really waste their lives like this....well, obviously.

I take it you mean reputation mate? What did it say?

Don't get so wound up by it, it's only little red dots mate.

 

[RFUS]

I take it you mean reputation mate? What did it say?

Don't get so wound up by it, it's only little red dots mate.

*neg reps chico

 

[Zatara]

I take it you mean reputation mate? What did it say?

Don't get so wound up by it, it's only little red dots mate.

Its just nonsense.....weird that people have time to actually go through all that ?

Weird that its anonymous though -- children may be internet bullied....If I was a 13 year old girl i'm pretty sure i'd have a case for grooming....

 

[RFUS]

Its just nonsense.....weird that people have time to actually go through all that ?

Weird that its anonymous though -- children may be internet bullied....If I was a 13 year old girl i'm pretty sure i'd have a case for grooming....

Wait you're not a 13 year old girl?

FFS.

 

[chicoazul]

Its just nonsense.....weird that people have time to actually go through all that ?

Weird that its anonymous though -- children may be internet bullied....If I was a 13 year old girl i'm pretty sure i'd have a case for grooming....

The reputation thing is usually a reflection on your posting quality mate in fairness.

Copy and paste the comments so we can see what's made you so upset.

 

[somuchfun]

Wait you're not a 13 year old girl?

FFS.

THIS FFS. WHAT HAVE I BEEN WANKING TO?