Man Utd's "crap" midfield

Adit wrote:of course possession=midfield creativity and distribution

They were clue less in midfield in many games.

So, Man Utd midfield is crap because Carrick, Fletcher, Anderson and co. dont create in the final 1/3?

Do you even watch Man Utd play?

Thats obviously not their role.

The Franchise wrote:

Mr Nick09 wrote:Among all those teams, only the number against Arsenal is interesting, and even there it was close.

THe midfield of Chelsea, Stoke, Liverpool, Bolton etc is shat as well.

Utd is a big side at the end of the day, so to me, they get on top of their opponents with will alone. English teams arent bred to dominate possession, so the number isnt surprising. if i recall, Chelsea activated a super counter tactic when they played Utd, as AVB was starting to change up and play defensive to win points. City is the ultimate big team with low mentality in big games, and they naturally shrink.

Utd have quality, specially when someone like Scholes is playing he makes a world of a difference. Even Cleverley, not because he is great, but because he fits the style of a tempo setter in the mid and make things easy for them.

I dont exactly disagree, but they are playing in the PL..so is there midfield no good enough for that league? It seems like it is to me.

Benfica this year in one of the games and Valencia last year showed it may have limitiations, but that same midfield got the CL final so I dont think its quite that bad.

I think on paper its the weakest areas they have, but when they play, it isnt often nearly as bad as it seems.

It comes down to what we think a good midfield is, nowadays, if you are not barca, you have a poor midfield.

They have a good midfield, but they were lacking the kind of player that could control game from deep, or a defensive midfielder that could protect the back four. at times, if Scholes were playing, they were lacking protection. Sometimes scholes was looking like he was done, so the whole product looked horrible.

i think we like seeing midfielders that can hold on to possession and dominate the play, but most of the EPL teams are not natural at doing it, not the way Valencia or Espanyol for example would try to get on top of you. However, he better team will end up with most of the possession because they are pushing.

When they end up against teams like Valencia or benfica who make it their bread and butter to dominate possession, they will struggle and revert to counter. But then again, reaching the CL finals is also an expression of how efficient you were, so even with a "poor" midfield, you could do it.

only yesterday i was seeing ajax vs madrid 0-3 match replay

at the end of the match ajax had 55 percent of possession.. buth that doesnt mean they had a better midfield than the madrid midfield of sahin and alonso righT?


possession doesnt automatically mean better midfield.

Well Nick, I dont think there is a midfield out there that gets called as crap as Man Utds.

Nobody says, Chelsea, Spurs and others have a crap midfield anywhere like as often, and yet, Man Utd more than held their own in that area.

You said, they lack either someone to protect the back 4 or dicate from deep..but do Madrid have either of those things? If yes, then I assume that player is Alonso, but what is it he does that lets say Carrick cannot and does not?

And Man Utd by the possession stats, dominated that area against Benfica. I felt they didnt do a good job defensively in midfield, but they had the ball a significant amount.

Be consistent?

Also they lack someone to partner Carrick.......Fletcher was great for a while but dunno what happened to him.....now they're playing 2 deep lying technical guys....(one of whom is very inconsistent) and therefore don't offer great back four protection.

Alonso all has better interception skills than Carrick.

Lord Hades wrote:only yesterday i was seeing ajax vs madrid 0-3 match replay

at the end of the match ajax had 55 percent of possession.. buth that doesnt mean they had a better midfield than the madrid midfield of sahin and alonso righT?


possession doesnt automatically mean better midfield.

Well actually, Ajax did very well in midfield. Just because the names arent as glam as Sahin and Alonso doesnt mean they were not as good.

They played very well in the midfield area, the problem was when they lost possession (wherever on the pitch) Madrid counter attacked very quickly. It was 55-45, Ajax were better in midfield, but 45 is still enough for Madrid if the opponant were available for the counter attack.

Le Samourai wrote:Be consistent?

You have not seen the stats I put up no?

The entire CL stage they were consistent in that area.


And are you saying, Carrick is just as talented as Alonso, the only thing Alonso has over him is consistency?

[/quote][quote="Lord Hades"]only yesterday i was seeing ajax vs madrid 0-3 match replay

at the end of the match ajax had 55 percent of possession.. buth that doesnt mean they had a better midfield than the madrid midfield of sahin and alonso righT?


possession doesnt automatically mean better midfield. [/quote]Just because you lost doesn't mean the midfield was crap. Ajax were the better team in that game and it was Madrid scoring on counters. What that should tell you is that Ajax didn't lose the game in midfield and would probably be the last positions they'd change if they played again

I saw the stats but posession just dosen't impress me.

Actually doing what you're supposed to do ie

>Link attack and defence
>Create chances
>protect the back 4

does impress me.

United's midfield doing 1 outof the 4 on a consistent basis dosen't impress me in the slightest.

The Franchise wrote:

Lord Hades wrote:only yesterday i was seeing ajax vs madrid 0-3 match replay

at the end of the match ajax had 55 percent of possession.. buth that doesnt mean they had a better midfield than the madrid midfield of sahin and alonso righT?


possession doesnt automatically mean better midfield.

Well actually, Ajax did very well in midfield. Just because the names arent as glam as Sahin and Alonso doesnt mean they were not as good.

They played very well in the midfield area, the problem was when they lost possession (wherever on the pitch) Madrid counter attacked very quickly. It was 55-45, Ajax were better in midfield, but 45 is still enough for Madrid if the opponant were available for the counter attack.

yeah but ultimately madrid midfield were better individually
and there are two things
one is if you try to play possession and fail for eg any team vs barca, no matter if they have a great midfield , they will end up being the worse for possession

another strategy is to let your opponents have the ball in non threatening areas and play the counter.. chelsea or arsenal could be following the latter

Why is everyone acting like time of possession equals a creative midfield?

I mean in the Man United Vs City game you know the 6-1 one they had 50-50 possession and City had 22 shots to United's 11.

Especially in the EPL where no one cares about possession creativity is where United lacks some for a huge team.

I mean I would say Spurs, City, Arsenal (when healthy) and Chelsea (again when healthy) have better midfields in a creative sense but not by much and it doesn't really mean anything as United create there chances from there wingers more so then directly up the middle. When comparing wingers United is #1 by a country mile.

Now with Scholes back in the side they look 100% different but there is a reason everyone had Sneijder going there in the off season and transfer window because with a player like that they could compete for a CL where as right now if they meet Barca in a CL final they have a 0% chance of controlling the midfield and if thats the case against Barca then you might as well not even take the pitch.

Also, people also forget that Scholes just had a 6 month break which is perfect for an old player so he will start to wear down as the season goes on, I mean right now he should be at his best so it's no surprise he looks great right now as the guy keeps himself in shape which most English players don't do when they get older and ITalians have been saying that forever.

To keep it short.

It is what midfielders do with the ball rather than how long they are on the ball.

Le Samourai wrote:I saw the stats but posession just dosen't impress me.

Actually doing what you're supposed to do ie

>Link attack and defence
>Create chances
>protect the back 4

does impress me.

United's midfield doing 1 outof the 4 on a consistent basis dosen't impress me in the slightest.

Nope, that rubbish. Look at their formation, they have 2 midfields with Rooney in front. The back two midfielders (Carrick and Scholes) are not supposed to be creating chances in the final third. What makes you think every team has the same objectives from their midfield?

Lord Hades wrote:

The Franchise wrote:

Lord Hades wrote:only yesterday i was seeing ajax vs madrid 0-3 match replay

at the end of the match ajax had 55 percent of possession.. buth that doesnt mean they had a better midfield than the madrid midfield of sahin and alonso righT?


possession doesnt automatically mean better midfield.

Well actually, Ajax did very well in midfield. Just because the names arent as glam as Sahin and Alonso doesnt mean they were not as good.

They played very well in the midfield area, the problem was when they lost possession (wherever on the pitch) Madrid counter attacked very quickly. It was 55-45, Ajax were better in midfield, but 45 is still enough for Madrid if the opponant were available for the counter attack.

yeah but ultimately madrid midfield were better individually
and there are two things
one is if you try to play possession and fail for eg any team vs barca, no matter if they have a great midfield , they will end up being the worse for possession

another strategy is to let your opponents have the ball in non threatening areas and play the counter.. chelsea or arsenal could be following the latter

No, the Madrid midfield was not better.

And the second thing is irrelavant, which games are we talking about?

I like Carrick, He doesn't get the credit he deserves...he has been their best midfield this season

EarlyPrototype wrote:To keep it short.

It is what midfielders do with the ball rather than how long they are on the ball.

But not all midfielders are created equal and they all dont have the same role.

Scholes and Carrick dont create in the final third, they make passes, spread the ball wide and start things from deep. Thats their role.

Why would they make things happen in the final third if

A. Rooney is in front of them
B. Man Utd like to attack from wide areas

Nobody says Madrid has a crap midfield, but Alonso and Lass/Sami dont create in the final third either.

What to they do on the ball Man Utd's cant?

Someone is always either breaking up play or protecting the back 4.

Neither Scholes nor Carrick does that.

Perhaps an in form fletcher can give them some relief in that area.

fact is are midfield has been a different animal with Cleverley in there, he gives us more then just rooneys creativity up the middle....be interesting to see when he's fit him playing along side scholes....no Vidic is are biggest weakness....he is irreplaceable.

The Franchise wrote:

EarlyPrototype wrote:To keep it short.

It is what midfielders do with the ball rather than how long they are on the ball.

But not all midfielders are created equal and they all dont have the same role.

Scholes and Carrick dont create in the final third, they make passes, spread the ball wide and start things from deep. Thats their role.

Why would they make things happen in the final third if

A. Rooney is in front of them
B. Man Utd like to attack from wide areas

Nobody says Madrid has a crap midfield, but Alonso and Lass/Sami dont create in the final third either.

What to they do on the ball Man Utd's cant?

That is my point. My claim was in favor of Untied's midfield tbh.

People shouldn't base it on possession only. As you pointed out Carrick and Scholes rarely ever enter the final 3rd to create and again as you said they play the ball out wide to the wingers.

Fully agree with the post Dani, we get a lotta stick for the worlds top class worst midfield yet we seem to do pretty well for ourself. Truth be told, its more overall team chemistry that makes up for that lack of "midfield"

the moto at united is to never stop pressuring and we seem to do that better than any team in the world...bar barca

Apart from Scholes, isn't this the same midfield that got thrown out of the CL in the group stage? It has been some time since then, but I think that's still highly relevant.

Their midfield is not 'crap', but I believe it to be significantly worse than previous seasons. What I admire about SAF is that he manages to get the best out of his players in the league, season after season. And when it gets to the business end, Man U are always there or thereabouts.

Forza Rossoneri wrote:Apart from Scholes, isn't this the same midfield that got thrown out of the CL in the group stage? It has been some time since then, but I think that's still highly relevant.

Indeed, but its the same defence and attack too.

I think Man Utd went out of the CL because they let in too many set peice goals and some of the individual defending was terrible. None of this helped by Sir Alex changing the line up so much.

I dont think the midfield are really to blame, rather they are just the easiest targets because they have the least well know players.

The Franchise wrote:

EarlyPrototype wrote:To keep it short.

It is what midfielders do with the ball rather than how long they are on the ball.

But not all midfielders are created equal and they all dont have the same role.

Scholes and Carrick dont create in the final third, they make passes, spread the ball wide and start things from deep. Thats their role.

Why would they make things happen in the final third if

A. Rooney is in front of them
B. Man Utd like to attack from wide areas

Nobody says Madrid has a crap midfield, but Alonso and Lass/Sami dont create in the final third either.

What to they do on the ball Man Utd's cant?

The Franchise wrote:

Forza Rossoneri wrote:Apart from Scholes, isn't this the same midfield that got thrown out of the CL in the group stage? It has been some time since then, but I think that's still highly relevant.

Indeed, but its the same defence and attack too.

I think Man Utd went out of the CL because they let in too many set peice goals and some of the individual defending was terrible. None of this helped by Sir Alex changing the line up so much.

I dont think the midfield are really to blame, rather they are just the easiest targets because they have the least well know players.

All true.

The Franchise wrote:Well Nick, I dont think there is a midfield out there that gets called as crap as Man Utds.

Nobody says, Chelsea, Spurs and others have a crap midfield anywhere like as often, and yet, Man Utd more than held their own in that area.

You said, they lack either someone to protect the back 4 or dicate from deep..but do Madrid have either of those things? If yes, then I assume that player is Alonso, but what is it he does that lets say Carrick cannot and does not?

And Man Utd by the possession stats, dominated that area against Benfica. I felt they didnt do a good job defensively in midfield, but they had the ball a significant amount.

We are essentially picking on them, that's what we do, it's fun and everyone takes a shot a them. Many times at reason, but exaggerated nonetheless.

What's the "midfield"? it's essentially the two man combo in the middle of the park. And Utd always seem to be picking the "wrong" combination when they play. And although they win more often than not, their midfield is always a mess trying to protect the back four and sometimes allowing the other team to have their way with them.

I think Chelsea's midfield is labelled as crap already. Spurs however has a quality midfield i think, or at least, Arry makes a good job picking the right combination most of the time. Between Modric, Sandro, Parker and co, little can go wrong.

It's a matter of balancing that combo, like i said, and even i may not like the players we play in our own midfield, it works out. I would look at who Carrick is paired up with, rather than Carrick on his own. He himself, like Alonso, is not a defensive master, and while they will do a good job using the spatial awareness and experience to do their job correctly, it will come moments during which you would wonder what they are doing there.

Well if one says the midfield doesnt protect the back 4, then thats fair in some cases I guess. I agree with that.

But people dont say that, and they also dont label Chelea's midfield crap to that extent either. People blame Torres and Luiz regardless of what happened in the game, but the midfield tends to get off with a free (by comparions) pass.

Overall, I think you have a realistic view of the midfield, I dont really disagree much at all. But the general feeling isnt quite the same sensible point of view.