Smith or Fletcher to partner Scholes at CM?

Discussion in 'Manchester United' started by Dark Savante, Dec 19, 2005.

  1. Dark Savante

    Dark Savante Member

    Apr 24, 2002
    Become the Tea Pot!!
    I wrote out a nice little piece to accompany this,but my comp decided to crash..

    vote and discuss who you'd wantto permantly partner Scholes at CM.
     
  2. Triphat

    Triphat New Member

    Dec 12, 2005
    Red and Blue Land
    They are both crap in CM. Fletcher is better playing wide right. I say they should buy a good CM during the transfer window. Someone like Ballack.
     
  3. Invincible

    Invincible Member+

    Mar 28, 2004
    Sanctuary
    Fletcher for sure, the Smith experiment must end.
     
  4. Dark Savante

    Dark Savante Member

    Apr 24, 2002
    Become the Tea Pot!!
    Thank you for your magnificent contribution to this thread. I'm sure you've endeared yourself to every United fan on this forum and will be repped accordingly.. of course, getting the CL playing Ballack in January a month or two before his glamour ties with AC Milan should be no problem at all.
     
  5. yikchi

    yikchi Member

    Aug 11, 2004
    Garden State
    I voted for Fletch.
    We all love Smith's effort and his aggressiveness but he is not a CM. He just always seems out of position, and in all the games he played I don't remember him playing or attempting a incisive, penetrating, pass like Fletch vs. Villa on Saturday.
    Fletcher is a CM, Smith is not. Case close.
     
  6. Vermont Red

    Vermont Red Member

    Jun 10, 2003
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This would have been an easy decision for me (Fletcher) even before watching the game against Villa. Sure Fletcher's running style makes him look like a spaz, but he knows how to play the position and I was more comfortable with him there than with Smith. I can't remember any slide tackles by Fletch in the defensive end, and that's a good thing. Plus, Fletch, as he's shown over the past couple of seasons, is willing to fit into whatever role is required. Finally, he gives United a more well-rounded CM than with Smith, hopefully eliminating this obsession with having a DM instead of two all-around CMs.
     
  7. FCDallas96

    FCDallas96 Member

    Aug 12, 2004
    Dallas
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I voted for Fletch who is a way better CM player than he is a winger. The Fletch winger experiment must end as well! Fletch knows how to play the position and is a better passer out of the midfield than Smith. I always loved Smith as a striker for us and I hope he gets the chance to play there for us again.
     
  8. johno

    johno Member+

    Jul 15, 2003
    in the wind
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    Meh...

    neither, they should rotate until one proves himself worthy of the position (not simply better than the other).

    I'd like Fletcher to get a shot at learning that position but I don't think he's got the mentality to bruise heads like Smith will in big physical matches when perhaps we might be out matched.

    In games we control Fletcher's going to be a much better player but hopefully Smith can develop Fletcher's calmness and poise and Fletcher can develop Smith's urgency and intense play and also hopefully his physical nature.

    These guys will, along with Dave Jones be part of our midfield in the future. Maybe not both of them at the same time but its certainly in our best interest to develop them both.
     
  9. StrikerCW

    StrikerCW Member

    Jul 10, 2001
    Perth, WA
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    England tried that two, two-way CM thing too. I am no big England fan but I recall some talk of Gerrard and Lampard not workingwell together because of one of them going forward and no communication etc.

    Do you think that would happen here with two two-ways?

    sorry to jack the thread.
     
  10. Vermont Red

    Vermont Red Member

    Jun 10, 2003
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    With all due respect to Lampard and Gerrard (and Sven), I think there's a better chance of Fletcher/Scholes or Fletcher/Jones working out. I'm not talking about talent-wise, but role-wise. The biggest problem with the pairing with England is that neither wants to limit his role going forward. Fletcher has shown that he is more than willing to assume whateve role it takes to support the team. To bring up a point made by someone else about another team, Fletcher is a water-carrier, while Gerrard and Lampard are not. Every team needs some water-carriers.
     
  11. billyireland

    billyireland Member+

    May 4, 2003
    Sydney, Australia
    LMFAO!

    You... you didn't watch much football back in early 2004, did you?
     
  12. Mac_Howard

    Mac_Howard New Member

    Mar 5, 2002
    Mandurah, Perth, WA
    I choose Smith, not so much because he's the better player - I don't think there's much to choose between them - but because of the impact on Scholes.

    You may have noticed in the Villa game that Scholes reverted a little to his role of five or six matches ago rather than that of the last two matches. That's because Fletcher requires him to play a more defensive role than Smith - as Smith did when he was first used as CM. I prefer that Scholes plays an attacking game but that is frustrated when he has major defensive duties.

    Like others, though, I don't think either is good enough and can't wait for Utd to bring in a quality C/DM so Smith and Fletcher can do a little bench warming.
     
  13. StrikerCW

    StrikerCW Member

    Jul 10, 2001
    Perth, WA
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Still going with Smith, I think he has the skills its just a matter or experience that Fletcher has over him.
     
  14. Vermont Red

    Vermont Red Member

    Jun 10, 2003
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Still the same (Fletch) and if Fletcher grows a moustache then it's a no-brainer.
     
  15. Teso Dos Bichos

    Teso Dos Bichos Red Card

    Sep 2, 2004
    Purged by RvN
    It is easily Fletcher. His offensive game might be stifled by Scholes, but he knows how to do his defensive job a lot better than Smith. He is a calming influence on the team and far more consistant.
     
  16. ASUCruz

    ASUCruz New Member

    Mar 17, 2005
    Los Angeles/Tempe
    For me its Fletcher. His positioning is a lot better than Smith's of course Smith being a converted striker this is no surprise. Also to me Fletcher's passing is a lot better. Smith can make the safe 5 yard pass like anybody but being a cmid you have to be able to distribute and spray the ball around to more attacking players. When Smith plays with Scholes, the burden is to much on Scholes shoulders.

    Fletcher isn't uber talented or anything but he's willing and able to do all the donkey work. Not that Smith won't but because his positioning is subpar he has to resort to desperatley closing down on players and flying in with hard challenges. Not a bad thing but not ideal either.

    Also there's always a danger with Smith as far as giving up dangerous free kicks and penalties just because of his style. An added benefit of Fletcher playing in the middle is he won't be playing wing :)
     
  17. musicl

    musicl New Member

    Jan 9, 2004
    Smith is a centre forward.
    Fletcher is average.
    Scholes is past it.
    We need to buy centre midfielders!!!!!!!
     
  18. GrodZilla

    GrodZilla Member

    Oct 5, 2005
    Stockholm
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Scholes has moved down on the pitch.. he was out of form for the beginning of the season but he is still class... he still has a few years in him..
     
  19. Sofabloke

    Sofabloke Member+

    Dec 24, 2003
    Mu
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    To partner Paul Scholes (he scores goals) why no mention of our other stand-in midfield player John O'Shea (he gives the ball away) Oh yeah, that'll be why :)

    Voted for Smiffie. Neither is the finished article, but I see more potential in this position for him than Fletcher.

    Plus (as Arsenal are currently finding out to their cost - no Vierra, no Ashley Cole etc.) every side in the Prem needs a balance of flair and grit. We are a bit lacking in grit;

    Players avec grit; Rooney, Gaz, Smudger, Ruud, Gabby, Bardsley (yeah, I reckon!), Vidic (allegedly)

    Players sans grit; Giggs, Ronaldo, O'Shea (he gives the ball away), Fletcher, Saha, Silvestre, Park, Rio

    Je ne sais pas; Paul Scholes (he scores goals), Wes, Richardson
     
  20. curtwpg

    curtwpg Member

    May 19, 2004
    Winnipeg, MB, Canada
    Anyone who voted for Smith has not watched United play this year. Simply put, Smith is a disaster in the defensive/holding mid position.

    An excellent point earlier that Smith is always sliding around. Clear evidence of being out of position and a clear lack of understanding of defensive principles.

    Moreover, Smith does not appear to have the engine to go box to box.

    To make matters worse, Smith's distribution is poor.

    Lastly, Fletcher has played tremendously in the middle. This is where he belongs. Any criticism of United's performance cannot be laid at his feet. With that being said, I am all for the purchase of Gravesen. Depth and competition for spots is essential at United. I fully expect Fletcher to compete well for the spot and, perhaps, beat out Gravesen for the starting position.
     
  21. StrikerCW

    StrikerCW Member

    Jul 10, 2001
    Perth, WA
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That is a ridiculous post. You obviously didn't see Smith play versus the Mafia. He has had at least 2 matches this year, that where better (or just about) than any Fletcher has had this year. I am not saying Smith has what it takes here (though I wish he did I like the guy) but to say he has been a disaster is just ludicrous.

    He does not have the experience that Fletcher has playing a defensive midfielder role first of all (50+ less games than he at the position) and is trying to adapt. It takes time, I know this is United we are speaking of, but still its not instantanious.

    He also at least is not afraid to get stuck in. And is much more willing to make a tackle that is on than Fletcher.

    Additionally, he does get forward just as much as Fletcher does, and has decent distribution (not MUQ, but definatelly not poor).

    I'm sorry, say hes not for us all you want, he has not been a disaster thats all.
     
  22. musicl

    musicl New Member

    Jan 9, 2004
    Would be great if we got him. But still need another CM as well.
     
  23. Sofabloke

    Sofabloke Member+

    Dec 24, 2003
    Mu
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    I think that you and SAF must share the same optician ;)
     
  24. gazza

    gazza Member

    Dec 15, 2004
    I voted for Fletch,but I like Smith more still as a player. I think if he had time to develop in the role he might flourish. For now though the experiment might need to end or at least be altered. I think Smith could be much better going forward than staying back in the "DM" role. If he could work on his distributing he could be a replacement for Scholes. He has show a couple flashes joing the attack and I there isn't a player with more fire than him on the pitch ( well other than Rooney:eek: ).
     
  25. DutchFootballRulez

    Jul 15, 2003
    Baltimore, MD
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Neither and Both, Scholes won't be around forever. Smith should go back to playing a more attacking role
     

Share This Page