A Scholes replacement?

[Dark Savante]

OK, so, we all know the Ginger Prince doesn't have much longer as a first team starter.

Maybe 2 seasons after this one, tops, and Scholesy won't be in the first choice xi, I'd think, but what I want to know is whether you think we should try and replace him like-for-like, or, move off in another direction.

When Keane left, we talked for ages about a replica replacement, which was just futile as players like that are forged once a lifetime. In the end, life went on and we got Carrick, who has slotted in well and contributed handily to 2 league titles and a CL. We only tend to talk about Keane in terms of leadership these days, of the player himself not much is spoken. Could something similar happen with Scholes?

World class retainers are so rare and obscure that after ours and Barca's you're going to be hard-pressed to find anyone else with one of the subsequent quality - proof that they aren't essential in the pursuit of titles, but do add a panache and order to teams that have one that those that don't rarely exhibit. When we're at the top of our game and Scholes is purring along, it's a joy to watch, much like it is with Xavi. It's a kind of football that can't be replicated, but it's also a stylistic choice.

when you take Scholes away, we're faster, more aggressive, more careless and perhaps even more daring. I'm not going to say one way is better than the other, because that's subjective - the aim is to win, and we do do that one way or another whichever way it is we're playing.

Would you like to see us maintain the 'tradition of Scholes' and play a very high percentage possession game in the future with someone else coming in to try and replicate Scholes' style, or would you like to see us try something different - as we did with Keane vis-a-vis Carrick?

[Bronaldo]

Unless we get a more Keane-esque replacement for Keane, we will need a less Scholes, Scholes replacement. Either that, or we play a three man midfield.

I think we should go for a pure Scholes replacement and move to a three man midfield, but other than Xavi, Cesc and maybe Iniesta, i don't see any options out there.

[SyedZada]

Interesting so do we go for a box to box mid (Gerrard type) or a retainer.
Hopefully Possebon will be given a chance as he has shown talent to be both.

[yikchi]

I don't think the club should even try to find a "like to like" to replace Scholes; you are just setting yourself up for failure if you try to do that (like we did trying to find that "Keane-replacement").

We should adjust our formation and tactics to suit the player we have instead of forcing players to becoming something they are not.

[littleman]

Thinking about Possebon's potential is delicious, but I don't know about how he'll develop.

Sounds ************, but I'll take a wait-and-see attitude to this. So long as our midfield is filled with quality and some sort of balance it'll be nice. We don't even know whether Carrick/Hargreaves/Fletcher will still be around in two years.

[Howard Zinn]

I think the signing and development of Anderson already indicates the way SAF is moving forward, and those two players certainly aren't tit-for-tat.

With the way Fletcher has developed and the incredible work-rate he still delivers, he slots somewhere into a three-man midfield. Carrick goes into sort of the middle-man role of the three, facilitating the play and providing defensive cover when necessary. Then there is Anderson, who admittedly still needs to polish his craft quite a bit, but has the makings of a world-class AM with the work-rate to still help out if Carrick or Fletcher bomb forward at any point.

I suppose you could make the case that Carrick is playing the "Scholes' role" if you're only considering Scholes as the retainer he's been the last couple of years, but Carrick will obviously never reach the levels of a top-notch Ginger because he'll never provide the necessary goal threat.

I quite like the makings of our midfield assuming that SAF plays those three in their proper roles.

I'll admit, though, that I absolutely love Modric and would have been ecstatic if we had signed him. What he's doing mucking about at Tottenham is beyond my imagination. He should be playing for the Milans and Barcas of the world, and not that death hole.

[benni...]

Wel first things first, if SAF is stuck on 4-4-2 then we may have a bigger problem trying to move on without Scholes. There are very few players available who are good enough to play for us, and play the DW 4-4-2 the way SAF plays it.

I would think one step would be to commit to a 3 man midfield.

Then there is the question of getting a direct replacement, or just another player with a different style. I do have a couple of players in my mind. Then there is Possebon.

If I had to choose. I'd still want us to play slower, high percentage passing style. Especially against the best teams. That goal Ronaldo scored against Roma in Rome? I think that was scored after around 20 passes.

That should be our first option, but we can definately inject pace into the side if we need to, with the players we have on the team, with a couple of subs.

[Vermont Red]

This question is very complicated. First of all, there is always a danger in trying to replace like with like. As discussed, there is no other Keane and there is no other Scholes. To try and approximate Scholes when he is no longer first choice could lead to the type of situation we had when we wre trying to find the new Keane.

That being said, I like the idea of having the team controlled in the center of midfield. Carrick, as much as I love him, either doesn't understand, doesn't care or isn't capable of controlling things from midfield. Without Scholes, we are forced to rely on Ferdinand/Vidic and the forwards to control pace. For me, this is less than optimal.

As DS is (over) fond of saying, different horses for different courses. There are matches in which a cool head in the center of the park who is not going to give the ball away cheaply and will control pace makes things much easier. I'd like for us to have someone in the middle who can do these things, even if its not a Scholes clone.

One final thing, somewhat off topic. DS mentioned that Keane is remembered more for leadership than as a player. I doubt some of the newer fans realize that Keane was a good technical player who always had excellent passing stats. To think of Keane as an enforcer is to miss more than half of his contributions.

[Invincible]

This whole Scholes replacement thing depends on many factors, namely, what kind of midfield do we want? Do we want 2 sitting midfielders whose main role is to keep the ball as much as possible, control the tempo and let the '4' in front of them create? Do we want a midfield 2 in a 4-4-2 taking turns going forward? Do we want a midfield 3 with one sitting and the other two actively involved further up field? As a personal opinion, I believe Possebon is the closest thing we have to Scholes. Unfortunately, he has been poor since that horror tackle. Hopefully it's only a temporary mental blip, and he gets back on track because before that tackle on him he's shown that Scholes esque desire to make himself available for passes as well as to keep possession rather than doing anything extravagant.

At this point, it's darn near impossible to figure out what we'll be playing when Scholes is gone. Fergie is working his 'mind games' on us fans with his tactics, team selections and transfers. While he seems to favor the 4-4-2 in the league, he's played the 4-2-3-1 as well as the 4-3-3 in other competitions. He's also just signed 2(if we end up getting Ljajic) talented young Serbs whose positions fall square in our already over crowded '3'. We also have a hugely bloated midfield(especially if Hargreaves manages to recover and be available for an extended period of time) with many different types of players. ???

At this stage I don't even think he has one set formation he wants to play. Seeing as he's going to retire in about 2 years, maybe he just wants as much options as possible to give him a better chance of winning as much as possible, and it's up to the next manager to decide how we're going to play on a regular basis. But enough about that, let's get back to the Scholes thing. Like I said, whether we go for a player of his ilk really depends on what we'll want from our midfield at the time. In my opinion, I think we should develop from within. When teams have grown accustomed to playing a certain style because of certain exceptional players within those teams, such teams struggle when those players leave but eventually they evolve to a new style with the players they have left. We're going to have to evolve a little bit when Scholes hangs up the boots. By that time, I think there's a good chance Ronaldo will be gone as well, so that will affect what we want from our midfield.

It's going to be interesting to see what we do with Carrick, Fletcher, Anderson, Possebon, Gibson and Hargreaves. My personal preference would be a midfield and attack of..

---------------Berbatov(or whoever)

---Anderson/etc------Rooney---------Ronaldo/Nani/Tosic/Park

-------------Carrick-----Fletcher


With Possebon and Gibson waiting in the wings to take over the midfield '2'. I would build the team around Rooney and Anderson.

[SirManchester]

At the end of a cycle, the norma is almost always to go in the opposite direction. Like with Keane, we will not try to replace Scholes like-for-like simply because there aren't many great retainers out there nor can something like that be taught immediately - and a retainer's game being finely tuned is crucial to a team that relies on him so we can't be bothered playing Possebom as our starter in a two man midfield when he hasn't refined his game yet.

We will most likely go back to adding a destroyer or continuing with what we're playing now, the 4-4-2 with Carrick, a deep lying playmaker and a box-to-box midfielder with an engine. Add to that wingers who also do a great deal of tracking back to compensate for the lack of a true destroyer.

It really depends on the new manager and the kind of style he will implement.

I personally prefer a team with a retainer because I prefer the more calculated, finely tuned, and intelligent attacking game - I also think it works better against the better part of the best teams in Europe.

[sdotsom]

I don't think we'll go like for like, or should tbh. As been noted 10 times already, there was only 1 Keano and 1 Scholesy. Players like Fletcher, Carrick, and Anderson are interesting but I can't tell what kind of formation best suits them from the future. If we're moving towards a team where the front 4, whether that's 2 forwards/2 wingers, or 3 attackers with a 9 in front of them, is allowed to run riot, then we need a very strong, possesion oriented central midfield that need to get the ball to them. Carrick has shown that he has the passing skills, and has even gone forward to assist in winners in the last 2 league games, but he still lacks the authority to control a midfield for me. He will always be the midfield "sidekick", so to speak. Someone with more authority will have to partner him.

And that's in a 4-4-2. Then there's 4-3-3, etc. It's a complicated dilemma. But I don't think we'll succeed in a like for like search./

[Vermont Red]

I prefer the more calculated, finely tuned, and intelligent attacking game.

As do I. In football, also.

[johno]

I think we'll eventually replace Scholes, but I don't think it can be done in 1 or 2 seasons. A player of that calibre affects the team so greatly and is so ingrained in the way things are done that you find even when he is no longer there, the players pine for him and do things in the same way they'd do them if he were there. It will take that long (1 or 2 full seasons, probably even more) just for us to get used to playing without Scholes and to become truly independent of his play.

That said, there simply isn't a viable option out there and it's quite possible that such a player may not be compatible with the United squad when he finally does come around (after playing without a retainer for awhile it is just as hard to get the most out of one as it is to get used to not having one). I think though that we may get more considered play from a wide player eventually. There are more and more teams playing unbalanced formations where one flank is run or patrolled by a player you'd usually associate with a more central role.

Personally I think we're closest to developing into a blitzkrieg attacking unit. As such, players like Nani, Anderson, Carrick and Fletcher who play with high energy and have high risk/high reward type play, will be our template in midfield. Whether that is in a midfield 3 or 2 is left to be seen, but I suspect the development of 2 players not mentioned, will have something to do with that.

If either Possebon or Gibson make their mark on our midfield whilst Scholes is still here, that may change what we do. If Gibson makes it, he's one with the tools, physique and potential to own a midfield, not on his own, but certainly with little aid on the physical side.

Possebon is an interesting character. He's got a fantastic football iq and a touch to match it. He's inventive, but also considered. He's no Scholes and I don't think he'll ever be, but his potential for becoming a regular goal scorer (we're talking 12+ a season in all comps if he becomes a regular) and contributing in ways we've not seen in midfield since the young Scholesy played, I could see a 3 man midfield becoming the rule rather than the exception. Possebon in a 3 man midfield would be freed of the responsibility of a 2 man midfield but his willingness to track back on occasion, his positional sense and distributive skills would mean that a more considered level of play (from CM at the least) would be possible.

The other names in CM to consider are Fletcher and Anderson. I think both of them a chameleonesque. Anderson will never be a retainer, but I feel like he could fit into just about any midfield trio or that he could complement the midfield playing from a wing. He'd be servicable in a 2 man midfield, but as far as I see, it would be far from ideal.

Fletcher has a more considered game than Ando or Gibson, but his workrate and sense of defensive responsibility make him an excellent foil for almost any CM. He's not terribly creative, but seeing as Carrick is CM1 from here on out, that isn't necessarily a bad thing so long as Rooney continues to improve his creativity and we still get a fair amount of it from the other attackers. Fletch seems like he'd be excellent in a 3 man midfield as well, doing the dirty work for Anderson (or Possebon) alongside or just in front of Carrick.


One thing I find that goes under-appreciated is the defensive prowess of Michael Carrick. His reading of the game is damn near flawless and as long as he has someone to do dirty work in front of him, he makes our backline almost inpenetrable.

[Simply Red]

I think that this situation is a little different from when Keane retired. Keane was our captain and when his legs could not carry him the way they used to, we accomodated the whole midfield around him. For the last season and a half of his time at United we played a waiting game in terms of finding a new midfield system. We had to, he was our leader and he still had legs to do 90 minutes if people (Fletcher) did most of the running for him.

I feel Scholes is in another situation. Scholes has never been a runner and I would only expect him becoming slower and slower over the next couple of years. He is getting more and more little injuries that keep him out for a little while. At a certain point I think Scholes will be a player that cannot do 90 minutes anymore, but still has a lot to offer of the bench. I think he will go into the Giggs role and come on when it is necessary to get some calm into our game.

I think this is an excellent situation. Until he retires we now have the option of playing around with the midfield and see how different options works in terms of our style, and if games are going crazy, we can bring Scholes on from the bench to help us back in shape. Last season as well we had a ton of games with Fletcher-Carrick, Hargo-Carrick, Hargo-Anderson, Carrick-Anderson, Fletcher Anderson, etc. I think we have already start looking at how the midfield will look in the future. Non of those guys are like Scholes.

When that is said, there is a couple of issues to be addressed in our midfield area. Non of the players we have are enforcers. Another thing that will be missing when Scholes retires is a midfielder that shows for the ball every time we start from the back. Anderson and Carrick does not move into space to collect the ball, they will stand and wait 9 out of 10 times which results in the defenders needing to hoof the ball up. It doesn´t matter when the oppo sits deep, but this hurts our game when the oppo is coming at us. Fletcher is the only one of them that collects the ball from the back and make the team tick. Non of these players are much of a goal-threat outside of Andersons potential on assists. And non of them have much leader-qualities, outside of Fletcher maybe.

I´m still waiting for Fletcher. By the time Scholes retires, Fletch has had the chance to truly show us if he is ready to take over. He has some leadership qualities, he is a big game player, he shows for the ball and makes the team tick, he scores the odd goal, he has a fantastic work-rate, and he can work together with almost anyone in midfield. I guess the missing bit is consistency and also raising his game a little more. With all the ego we have in our forwards, he might be the perfect guy to work in the shaddows and make everything tick. We might be fine with him together with Anderson or Carrick or both in a three man midfield. We have Scholes to guide them a long in the meantime.

If things doesn´t come together by the time Scholes retires, this will be a bigger issue of whether or not we need a new Scholes type of player. For now, I think we are doing the right thing. I don´t think SAF is obsessed by getting a new Scholes. He has never been stuck on getting like for like when it comes to midfielders.

[Amdrag]

I say we just clone Scholes.

[Dark Savante]

One thing. I don't think Scholes will allow himself to decline and become a squaddie.

He'll be here, decide he can't do it at the top anymore, then leave, imo.

He won't do a Giggs.

Scholesy is one for the abrupt out at the end of a season, I'd think.

[Simply Red]

One thing. I don't think Scholes will allow himself to decline and become a squaddie.

He'll be here, decide he can't do it at the top anymore, then leave, imo.

He won't do a Giggs.

Scholesy is one for the abrupt out at the end of a season, I'd think.

You might be right. But Scholes also love playing, and if SAF talked to him about being a second half player while we try to fix a midfield in the meantime, I think he could be convinced to stick around. Who knows, I can definently see what you are saying though, and I would think it would take some SAF-convincing to make him stick around. I still think 2-3 seasons more with Scholes would be possible anyways, and that should also be enough to judge whether the current guys will be able to run things or if we need to look elsewhere.

[Amdrag]

Scholes isn't a Keane or a Giggs. He loves the game, but doesn't seem to identify himself as a footballer. For him it is a job. One he loves of course, but one he doesn't need. At least what I always got from him.

[Numquam Moribimur]

Scholes isn't a Keane or a Giggs. He loves the game, but doesn't seem to identify himself as a footballer. For him it is a job. One he loves of course, but one he doesn't need. At least what I always got from him.

http://www.tshirtsunited.com/images/designs/paulscholesptg_design.jpg

[Amdrag]

I own three of those. :o