As I said in the match thread, it feels like we are a two-headed beast with two sets of rules and scruples, the way we've gone about the tasks at hand this season. In the big games we seem to regain all our senses and play the right way, and against the teams we are 'supposed' to beat we just let the kids run wild and it's wierd. Our game yesterday was the most cohesive we have been all season, imo, and to think that's come about in the biggest game to date is an eye-opener. I don't think the team works well when we give it to Rooney and Ronaldo, but we don't seem to mind that outside the big games.
or complacent, a word that's been thrown around numerous times in threads of these types of matches. Also, it's what I usually associate with younger and more spoiled players. Notice how rarely our more experienced players get complacent during these matches.
Look at the complacency at the start of the second half yesterday. Its the single most infuriating thing about this team this season.
I love Paul. He's the only player I can relate to at this club. Long Live the Ginger kid with asthma and bless his freckles!
fantastic article DS. well done, it always disapoints me when people don't recognise how good Scholes is - reassuring to know there are others who recognise. coming from a Forest fan as well. to think that Peter Reid tried to sign him for Sunderland in a desperate effort to avoid relegation in 1997, ha ha
Has ds done any similar articles about other players... because that was simply brilliant.... ive always backed scholes as one of our best players and have pointed out on many an occassion how his passing ability is immense, he always judges the best option, if that changes he quickly picks out a new option... Also notice how accurate his long balls are, they rarely are the wrong choice... ive seen andersson try them at a much lower success rate.... More generally i have to ask if DS considers signing hargreeves a mistake or if he sees a suitable role for him, finally does DS see anyone who would make an ideal replacement for scholsey or would we play without a retainer?
Stalker. Next thing you know he'll be asking DS his real name and age. Come to think of it, this Michael57812905 guy could be Stud in disguise.
lol, i just thought the article was amazing... i had similar ideas and his just developed them and given me a great understanding of a player ive always considered under rated.
It'd be great, Michael14378914, if you did put some of your ideas down in a post. It's always nice to get someone's perspective.
lol, i did a random comment thread recently of my general united thoughts Id talk about such things a lot in person, unfortunatly im not too great at expressing myself
You may want to check out the History sub-forum for stuff by both DS and TomClare. Great stuff there.
I was reading another thread when I came across that aforementioned quote by that Hamilton chap and I have to say the parallels with Scholes were too obvious for me to ignore. - Zidane is physically limited in the sense, he lacks the pace, acceleration and engine of a Keane or a Di Stefano to truly take control of a game. This is usually associated with retainers. - Zidane routinely gets criticised for a lack of a goals/assists, because for someone of his percieved position, it's not good enough. - It's become a cliche that Zidane controls the pace of the game. Another attribute allayed with retainers. - This is where he differs to Scholes and the main reason why his status is so vaunted. Zidane has the marquee moments to back up his play. Without his 2 goals in the WC final, his Euro 2000 tournament and his goal in the CL final, people would struggle to remember games that have been 'his', just like people currently struggle to remember Scholes' games. - People have misinterpreted his role. Just like people still expect Scholes to score goals, people expect to Zidane to do left footed volleys in every single match, when it's not in both of their make ups. - Zidane is denigrated for depending on his team and that he needs the team to play well, so that he can play well. You reffered to the same thing in the weaknesses side of your Paul Scholes write up. There's more of your post that I wanted to quote, but I didn't want to go into overdrive. There's more similarities in your opener, but I feel I've picked the ones that sufficiently get my point across. I remember you mentioned Xavi and Fabregas earlier in the thread as a comparison, so I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether if Zidane falls into the retainer category as well or if I've got the wrong end of the stick. If you think this is too off-topic, feel free to move it to another thread.
I don't know, did Zidane really lack either pace or acceleration? His burst of speed and ability to turn on a dime was insane.
The first problem there is with Zidane and the status he is afforded for the most basic of jobs when people are elevating him to the levels of those who are the best to have ever played the game. A 'mere' retainer is never going to break top 5, not even top 10 as it is littered with players who impact the game on a far more visual and obvious level. As I said about Scholesy, him needing a team to be 'right' for him to perform removes his chances of being seen as a true great of his era and it's why he isn't often listed in our club's all-time xi's where the likes of Charlton, Edwards, Keane and Robson are always jostling for position. There is no such thing as an optimum team for the greatest players in terms of the basic parameters of their actual positions on the pitch i.e a sweeper is obviously always a sweeper so setting up as something else would be plain retarded and reduce his worth and effectiveness dramatically. The problem Zidane has in such company is that he isn't doing anything they couldn't do but they are doing a lot that he cannot. i.e Platini, Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona could all easily retain the ball and link and orchastrate their teams, they didn't need to twirl and twist to do so, which is what is lost on a lot of people in the 'Zidane equation' his artistry produced less effective plays than any of the aformentioned and that's even if you take them out of their own sphere and consider them all as just basic retainers - their influence over the teams they played for is at another level to Zidane, which is another reason they afforded the status they have even before we consider goals (to further highlight this point, consider Beckenbauer's nominal position and how he is revered for his game from it.) It's not that Zidane's role is mis-understood, imo. It is that even as a retainer he didn't have the consistency and presence of the aformentioned and was well known for disappearing from games or not being particular effective in them (even as a retainer) this is where the base 'Zidane beef' orignates from where it is argued that the goals he has scored in finals [alone] have elevated him to a status the rest of his performances in said tournaments simply do not match. Contrast this to any one of the aformentioned where even outside of their goals they were a permanent and insistent thorn in the oppo's side and you have the basic level of the tiresome, ever-lasting connundrum. I don't consider Zidane a retainer, btw, the above simply highlights the argument from said perspective. He was far too strong and authorative a physical presence to have to rely purely on the guile and nimble plays of those who had no choice but to play that way. Zidane's strength whilst shielding the ball afforded him any game he wanted to have really, his overall physical presence also suggests he could [and did] over-power, out-jump or otherwise delimit the opponent. Someone like Platini, who often played as deep as Zidane kills most arguments of this type dead, tbh. Platini's vision was above Zidane's as was his actual passing and retention skills, but then goals are added and sheer presence whilst on the pitch and it makes it very hard to argue such a case when basically Platini, although not an entertainer, was simply more dangerous and effective on the field no matter what particular sphere of the game he was dabbling in at any given time. Zidane has him at heading, but after that...
Personally I'd take Scholes over any other United midfielder. Don't care how less crazy or more hair he has then them. As to Zidane I can agree that his '98 and '02 World Cup (Though he was basically 30% in 02) were nothing to write home about, but do you really think he didn't just completely boss the 2000 and 2004 Euro championships, as well as this past World Cup? I never understood the argument that because he played with Veira and Makelele that it was why he was so "good". Platini was a master, but I do not think his retention skills are anywhere near Zidane's. One think I have always brought away from watching Zidane play was that he was deceptively strong and his presences on the field underrated. Unlike Platini he could use his size and strength to hold on to the ball and to frustrate his opponents. He has played in many great sides and he knew his place. He never attempted to impose himself on a situation when he wasn't suppose too. He could ghost like Scholes, while still having a great effect on the match. I also believe you are underrating Zidane's vision. In fact I have never even heard that argument before. Also why are we comparing goal scoring between the two? Platini spent much of his career playing up or near the front.