It's difficult to say. That rarely happens between the giants of the game nowadays because teams are so well prepared and go out of their way to know each other in and out before matches. Also, what a lot of teams do nowadays is close themselves down and oftentimes play an even, balanced match, carefully waiting for breaks. We're guilty of doing that against Chelsea when they were under Mourinho and even Milan and Barcelona did that when they met in 06 in the Champions League semifinals. It's rare that we can play such an open game against another giant because if it's not done carefully, we tend to open ourselves up so much that we will probably pay for it. Methinks moreso now than before, big clubs tend to play these closed matches against one another because the risk of opening up is so big and although their defenses aren't liabilities, the quality of attack is so good and the possibilities of getting thrashed is something no manager or club want to afford. Imagine us thrashing Milan 5-0 in a Champions League semi final. If teams are willing to open up and play their natural games, we might see results like this and it did happen a few times over the years, (our result at Arsenal 2-4, Chelsea's 4-2 second leg win against Barcelona in 2005) and I definitely think we could thrash sides like this, but again, only if said teams are willing to play more open games.
Agreed. I think that Scholes' greatest value to our team is when our other attacking players aren't clicking. In a game like that against Arsenal or Roma, when it seems like we can't make a mistake, Scholes and his limited mobility won't be as necessary. His passing won't be a negative, but he won't add as much as Carrick or Anderson, due to their greater forward imputus. However, when we aren't clicking and the ambitious passes of Anderson or Carrick aren't connecting with the forwards or we are getting pressed heavily in the midfield and losing possession, then Scholes becomes vital - he calms us, allows us to find our rythym, and get back in sync with each other. Additionally, he is great at relieving pressure in the midfield, either by holding onto the ball with a few twists and turns or by making himself an easy passing target for other players in the midfield.
As I said in the opener: when under tactical instruction, Scholes will alter his game as recquired. We were clearly attacking Arsenal's weaknesses per tactical instruction all through the game on Saturday. Scholes, as he has shown when asked (see Chelsea FA CUp final) will hit Carrick-esque balls time and again when asked to do so. Do you think Scholes couldn't have done the job Carrick did on Sat, for example? I am not dismissing your points, which it seems you think I am. I'm just pointing out that the games that leave an impression on me, long-term, are not against a terrible, half-arsed Arsenal and a Roma side who capitulated. When or if we ever give a performance of such devestation against better sides with more experience and pride then serious considerations and implications can be considered, but, for me, the Arsenal game is already forgotten and is less impressive by the day - not because we weren't good (we were) but because they were so below par and chaotic, as Sir Manc said, that assessments in the absolute sense are impossible - if we did them like that in the league game coming up then I'd be jumping from the rooftops, for example. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. In the 'big man games' against top, top notch oppo, scholes is the first name on the teamsheet for the midfield because he is of that level and if the others could hold their nerve and show for the ball in those games as well, we'd be on another level to the one we are when faced with a recongised giant. I appeared 'irked' ? I don't think I wrote back in with any sense of indignation. I think you've misread the tone of my post, or I should apologise if it comes across in that way to you. There is something to point out though. The games we need Scholes for are not matches against a half-arsed Arsenal (or Arsenal in general*) or a chaotic Roma. The games you need a Scholes in your team for are against a pragmatic and very high calibre Chelsea side, a vastly experienced and competent Milan side and so on and so forth. * Arsenal attack us constantly, which opens up the field and means they can be catered for in a number of ways - you can match them legs for legs, you can press them fast and hard, you can run the ball way back up the pitch and make them chase etc, etc you cannot play like that against the sides I've mentioned because they have no intention of opening up for you, nor are they so easily caught in a counter-attacking web. It's at those times that a Carrick or Anderson will look wasteful unless their distanced balls are absolutely immaculate and appropriately utilised (you cannot constantly loft balls at sides like those, unlike we did against Arsenal on the weekend) this is again where Scholes comes into his own and exposes (inadvertantly) members of his own side because they become fearful of playing with and off Scholes when closed down by a number of quality players, they suddenly won't make the short passes or provide the triangular movement you see at the highest levels and the whole thing 'suddenly' becomes stuttery and ever-so slightly unsure - these are the games I take extra notes of, not games where the oppo play right into our hands and allow us to roast them. ^ to that end, we don't need Scholes against Lyon tomorrow. If they are as attacking against us as they usually are, they will open up the field for all kinds of ways to hurt them that don't have to involve incredibly high retention of the ball - they are not a keep-ball side, so it doesn't hurt us to lose it (the ball) more often. That's a key difference between a Barca or RM and an Arsenal. Arsenal are actually too progressive. Their passes always have a foward slant to them, they always pass with a purpose of attacking almost instantly. Teams like RM and Barca will pass the ball 'aimlessly' for minutes at a time around the midfield etc, if needs be until it's time hit the right balls, which is why they do not play into our hands - you lose the ball to such teams, you may not see it again for a good few minutes.. Arsenal, are a conclusive side, you'll see the ball again much sooner because they've tried to do something decisive far, far sooner. As far as it goes, I would wager Scholes would play a blinder against a side in dissaray, even moreso than Carrick as he is a better reader of the whole picture and he interprets his spatials instaneously where Carrick does not i.e he'll set people up for runs etc much quicker in both delivery of the pass and 'correctness' of pass (the most incisive).
Also, one thing to add to the above great post: The reason you'll see Scholes play like Carrick occasionally, but never see Carrick play like Scholes is that Carrick lacks the incredibley quick feet that enable a great short passing game and the ability to make quick plays into disappearing spaces. Carrick makes up for this somewhat by being very two-footed (in contrast, Anderson is very one-footed but also has the quick feet of Scholes). It's the reason why Carrick always looks his best next to Scholes, who allows him and provides him with more space and time than any other midfield partner by being available for an easy pass, and also giving Carrick a pass that allows him the time to wind up and deliver a pinpoint long ball.
See, this is an illusion. It appears this way because it will be blatantly obvious to anyone watching that the only meaningful possession United have in that situation involves Scholesy at the heart of it. The difference between Scholes' performance when we're under serious pressure and when we're applying pressure? Not a great deal in terms of effort or effectiveness. Scholes when a side is under our foot will get the ball into the areas that hurt them most and benefit us most with more efficiency than any other player in our team. After Paul, Giggs is the next most "dangerous" player in that regard. Of course, with his nonchallant manner and his simple passing, Scholes will fly under the radar when we're playing a blinder but he's just as influential as the other players. The difference between a Carrick and a Scholes is that one needs the other and the other doesn't. It's only this season I've truly understood what DS was saying about Paul holding Michael's hand in midfield. He means he's always 5 yards away for a simple pass when Carrick is under pressure and even more, ALWAYS looking to play the ball to his partner when he's under little or no pressure and facing forward, thus enabling Carrick to hit even more of his famed hollywood balls but more importantly, giving him time to opperate on the ball, something he needs dearly. Carrick looked terrific against Arsenal and Roma for very good reasons. He had ages on the ball. Arsenal just didn't tackle for starters and against Roma, Carrick was the deepest of our 5 midfielders with a malestrom of movement ahead of him to not only create opportunities for passes, but occupy players who would under different circumstances - be hastling Carrick who is NOT comfortable playing at a very high pace.
There is a difference between him being effective and him being most effective. This distinction must be made due, not to the difference in Scholes's contribution or play, but that difference in that of the other midfielders You allude to this in your last two paragraphs on Carrick. On an absolute scale, Scholes's performances for us won't vary greatly. However, when our side is clicking, Scholes isn't NECESSARY. He will do a fantastic job as a passer in the midfield, but both Carrick and Anderson are capable of doing a comprable job when the opposition is under great pressure and we have more time on the ball. However, when we are under great pressure, Scholes is vital - he is the only midfielder that we can rely on to change the pace of the game, relieve the pressure on us and turn a game around. Unlike the attacking scenario, neither Carrick, Anderson, Fletcher or Hargreaves can play this role with any degree of effectiveness. Anderson is closest, but he has a lot of learning to do. That is what I meant when I said his greatest value to us is when we are under duress.
This last paragraph of yours is a total crock but don't worry, it's not your fault as you've been led to believe this by some of the posts and threads in this forum. What are you basing this on? Did you watch the game against the Spurs where the ball was constantly rammed down the back of Man Utd's throats? All while Scholes was trying to play his game and orchestrate the team in that deep position. I have yet to see Scholes "relieve the pressure on us and turn a game around" against a team that's placed Manchester United under great pressure this season. What i've noticed about Scholes is that over the past year he has been trying to alter his game to suit what appears to be his new position. He is no longer the quick thinking attacking midfielder everyone knew and loved. Instead he is playing as a DLP and doing an average job, but nothing to write home about yet. I don't think he will ever have the defensive qualities to play the position so unless he starts to play further forward again, I think the managers should reduce his role in the team.
You kind of knew that people would turn on Scholes once Anderson started playing well. Where were all these complaints last season when we won the league, finished semifnalist in the CL, and where Scholes was the heartbeat of the team? I never once heard the term deepl lying playmakers used to describe Scholes all of last season. Someone correct me if Im wrong, but wasnt Scholes listed as the top midfielder in the EPL last season? If it wasnt listed as a stat, the many pundits and analyst rated him highest. So once again, the question is where was your complaint last season because there isnt much difference in his play since then. If anything he gets forward a little more now.
I think that any side when clicking is less likely to "need" a certain player. You could argue that when clicking we don't "need" Ronaldo. I believe the key is that often in games that could go either way, or against teams that are up for it at all, Scholes is vital into turning a possibly competitive midfield affair into a cakewalk for United. It often looks like all our midfielders are performing and we are "clicking." When in essence, Scholes who is always the first player closed down, tires out 2 CMs who have chased shaddows for the first 15 or 20 minutes of the game as he drops his shoulder and feints one way, while turning the next and slotting a pass just out of their reach (causing them to chase again). When under pressure you'll find that Carrick will often hit a first time ball up the field, whether United have numbers forward or not and the attack will fizzle. Anderson has more guts to stand and face challenges, but once he rides a couple tackles, the ball is dispatched down the field. If a side is truly up for it, with that kind of play we'll see an open 2 sided game. If Scholes is around, he may hit NONE of the fantastic throughballs that create chances. All he'll do is make sure that Carrick and Anderson or whomever always have an option to pass to, see the ball regularly and that United keeps more possession than the other side. So instead of both sets of players doing a lot of running, our opponent does much of the work, is winded before half time and all of a sudden, the through balls start taking more effect. Its a very very common theme.
There's evidence of what happens to our back line without Scholes out there in the games we're playing of late. Rio is hoofing up the pitch because he doesn't trust Carrick or partner to use the ball well. Vidic has no one closing the space between him and themselves to make the easy pass viable. Carrick, for all his skills, has absolutely no awareness of basic retainer rules such as above and he never positions himself in easy to find positions on the pitch, which makes passing our of the back to him a risk or very dangerous given he hasn't made the space for himself that Scholes would. Me personally, I'm not comfortable with that. Scholes just makes it all so easy for the whole team and by default has us retaining possession by a vast amount more than anyone else we have in midfield. But, again, if the helter skelter approach is going to further us in the short-term, we'll have to accept a fall guy
That's a good spot DS. I noticed that today - Rio was just hoofing it up time and time again, rather than allowing the midfield to try and make some composed play. Rio's efforts were quite unsuccessful, at least from what I remember. He was regularly trying to avoid the midfield and just get it up to the forwards.
If you watch it again, take a look at Carrick for the majority of the game. He never comes short to recieve, so Rio and co won't pass to him. Simple as that. Wes isn't safe to play out of the back or carry the ball on a dribble so he's ignored and Evra is usually 480384 miles away on a run so he's not an option either. For the CB's all that's then left is the hoof to no-man's land or the real dumb, eye of the needle attempt through a packed central midfield. Can't blame them for blasting it when Scholes isn't playing. I would do the same.
It seemed like Fletch was behind Carrick for most of the match, but Fletch still has an attacking sense and so no one was really around in the center circle.
I'm not so sure about the first part - Carrick was often just in front of the CB's today, waiting to receive the ball. I thought he did a decent job of retaining. There were a number of times when he would get the ball, be pressured by the opposing mid's and do a few twists and turns to shrug them off before releasing a pass.
nu uh. not actively. I watched him intently for that. He rarely moves towards a man to offer the shorter distance.
Scholes has been very good as a retainer but he does need to be more adventurous sometimes. I m 100% sure if Scholes was in Carrick's position today (for our second goal) he would have played that pass to Evra. I m even beginning to doubt his ability to play passes upfield through the middle. His ground passes dont have(diddin have?) any zip to them. Also I have noticed that Rio is hoofing the ball when Carrick's playing even when Carrick is in a position to receive the pass. May be Rio doesnt trust Carrick? neways that is Rio's problem. And this trust will surely develop when we start playing w/o Scholes. IMHO Carrick is the most important CM we have at this time.
Carrick is definitely the #1 CM right now, as stated in the we have no identity in Europe thread. He's the one midfielder who can be used in any set up and numerous formations. I rarely see Carrick in positions where I believe he is good for the short ball out of the back from Rio or Vidic, so I don't think it's an issue of trust, just Carrick not being in acceptable positions.
Well, I will have to watch the game again. He may not have done a great job of making himself avaiable when our defenders were under pressure, but as the poster above noted, there were times when our defenders were under no pressure whatsoever and Carrick was a short distance away, completely open, but Rio or Vidic opted for the long speculative ball to Rooney. This is don't understand, as Carrick is far better at starting off the attack, via either a long ball or a short pass out to the wings. Perhaps they just don't trust him yet - he hasn't played as much this term as last.
Excellent point DS. Which emphasises our need of a #9 to hold and feed back those longer balls as an alternative supplier to midfield. I was watching Saha specifically in the Newcastle game. He really is a quality player - strong, intelligent, fast, puts himself about, reasonable finishing, good distribution, good in the air - and I can see him feeding balls back to Ronaldo, Tevez, Rooney, Nani, Giggs, Park, Anderson etc in a 3-1 up front formation. Then sort out the best two between the back four and the support three. If only we could keep the @#*%#@ fit! PS good to see Rooney's delight in Saha's goal.
errm i wouldnt take the newcastle game as a template for carricks game DS.....he played more aggressively then and with more attacking intent than usual which is more so because the toons were pretty bad team...but if you take the FA cup game against arsenal and a lot of other games as DM is where you will see carrick playing the fifth defender...also a gud deal of the time, vidic and rio just cant help themselves and go for a long ball a lot of times....
Took me a while getting thru this massive piece. Admittedly my appreciation of Paul Schoals has increased abnormally now - a very educating work. I wonder what Paul Schoals himself would have to say after reading this superb analysis of his equally superb football ways.
I've watched Carrick's game intently for a few years now. But what comes to the fore when he plays for us in our set-up without Scholes doing the drop back to collect we have no one who will do it. It's not a case of just the Newcastle game, it's most of the games he plays in. It's the nature of his position, he's not playing the same role as Scholes, lest we forget. What was your consideration of him prior, or your evaluation of his game out of curiosity. Scholes would probably say: "........" or "I'm not reading owt. Probably shite any road."
DS, what do you make of Paul Scholes' resurgence in recent games. It's like he's 'suddenly' gone from DLP to the old 'ghosting' Paul Scholes. Like a light switch has been flicked on. It's pretty shocking actually.