stay

Is there a choice where you can keep them but lock Scholes and Giggs away underground and never play them?

did you not see scholes play last night?

Bit of a no-brainer question isn't it?

Unless you have a problem with squad size being too big there is only one answer.

Yes, he played half a match. He is one of the biggest reasons we were 2-0 down in the first place. Don't let the second half blinker what in reality is staring you in the face.

Keep, as SAF would still be manager but G'n'S wouldn't necessarily play much

Out of those 3, Giggs is the only one who I feel is of no use to us anymore (at least not on the pitch). So stay.

When Spurs allowed us to have the ball and dropped back, that's when he excelled, 1st half was very poor.

Give Scholes and Carrick time on the ball, it's fine, make then rush and well, they struggle, as does the rest of the team.

What about scholes' performance when he came on against southampton? is that not worth remembering? a player who can come on and do that is surely worth keeping

did you not see scholes play last night?

--------------------------------------------

Did you not see him in the first half?

He along with Carrick contributed greatly to us being 2-0 down.

I'm astounded that some people are completely dismissing the first half of last night's game and focusing only on the 2nd yes which yes was very good.

I agree there. Scholes is a brilliant option from the bench. This should always be his role. I'll alter my statement in that case, can we keep Giggs locked underground? I only want them to be hid away because only then will Sir Alex play the correct personnel. As much as I love them, Giggs and Scholes retiring would allow the team to prosper more so than people initially imagine.

I can turn that around and say that you are dismissing the second half and focusing on the first half. Lets not judge paul scholes' contribution to our team on one half of football where almost everyone on the team was poor, as i mentioned his other games, when he came on against southampton and turned it around from losing to a win, oh yes and the liverpool game the other week when he came on in the second half and we went on to win the game.

"He along with Carrick contributed greatly to us being 2-0 down."

-----

And yet I don't hear people saying Carrick should retire.

The same Liverpool game where an average team with 10 men comprehensively outplayed us even with Scholes on the field? They did this not due to talent, but due to legs and energy. It's a simple concept. It's actually so simple that a Conference team could play against our midfield and cause it problems just by running around a little.

I can turn that around and say that you are dismissing the second half and focusing on the first half.

---------------------------------------------------------

No you can't because I've already stated today that we were very good in the 2nd half.

If Scholes and Giggs had not started last night and instead Rooney and Anderson had, I think it's highly unlikely that we would've been 2-0 down at half-time.

And notice how you say "came on" in your comment.

As Kagawa_26 explains, Scholes is far better used as an impact substitute because from the bench he still has a lot to offer.

comment by Scholes' tackling coach (U9713)

posted 29 seconds ago

I can turn that around and say that you are dismissing the second half and focusing on the first half.

*************************************

If the first half results were ignored, we would have won the match!!!! I wonder how they can ignore it








Because we did not win the match. We lost BECAUSE of the 1st half in which you have conveniently forgotten that scholes was part of. Midfielding has as much to do with defending as with attacking. for my money in a 2 man midfield, they should be able to track back and defend better than their attacking skill.

You cannot say Scholes should retire based on games like yesterday. The mistake yesterday was on Fergie's part. Most United fans looked at that line up and predicted Scholes would struggle against Spurs' dynamic midfield - God knows why Fergie didnt (what he was thinking with Giggs too i'll never know). But Scholes still has his uses.

And yet I don't hear people saying Carrick should retire.

---------------------------------------------------

Carrick is 31, not 37 and having to play with an ageing midfield, so he is required to work that extra bit harder when playing with Scholes and Giggs.

Carrick needs an able partner, who's energetic, strong, can tackle and who can last the full 90 minutes of a game.

Strangely enough, this exact same hypothetical situation has been playing over in my head the last couple of weeks. My ideal scenario of the 2 would be for all 3 to stay on but for Sir Alex to not be so reliant upon the pair of them, particularly Giggs.

@ red side, I read through your comment again and realised I made a mistake and I apologize for that.
And in regards to your comment about him coming on, yes so be it, I was arguing the case that he should not be buried underground and never play again, I never said he should start every game, but when he can come on and influence games so strongly he is surely considered an asset to keep.
Also in regards to your comment in that the game wouldn't have been 2-0 at half time, we can speculate all we want about what the scores would have been with certain personnel, it could have been 3-0 with anderson on, we don't know and I think it's unfair to base your argument on speculation.

Giggs should retire, he is so useless and is too careless in possession. I remember when we played Barca in the final last year and he kept pushing forward and constantly left our central midfield exposed. He also puts his team mates in danger with those flicks and cuts so close to our box. There's no doubting his a legend but he needs to retire.

Scholes on the other hand is probably the best central midfielder of our generation and his ability and reading of the game at his age is quite exceptional.

I think we all look at the games and hope we play some of our younger players so they can progress and improve in future games but in a results business where the next game is the most important thing, it only makes sense to play your strongest team, we all know how aggravating it feels to not play our strongest, so in games we need to win why would Ferguson not play what he believes to be his strongest XI

I've never been one to sit there and not get behind one of our players, [apart from Djemba Djemba], but Ryan Giggs will always be a liability. I'm just confused to what he actually brings to us on the pitch now? He's not a midfielder that can retain the ball, he really never has been. He's not a central midfielder, and he's not able to play on the left-wing anymore due to the lack of pace. He's tried dribbling past a few people, and only made 1 in 10 runs he'll get past 2-3 players. So what does he actually bring?!

As for Scholes, I may get a bashing for it but seriously he needs to be involved in all the big games. It's just scary how different we look without him. He dictates a game so well and controls the tempo. Just because for the first 45 minutes he wasn't able to do, [Nobody on our team wanted to even play football] doesn't mean he's still not the best around. How many times in the second half did someone try marking him and failed badly?

Big shouts are out for Anderson and Cleverley, but I've never seen anywhere near enough to suggest that they are a better than Michael Carrick or Paul Scholes in a 2-man midfield. They work better in a 3, and we can't always play 4-5-1.

You cannot say Scholes should retire based on games like yesterday.

************************************

How about last week sunday? Same exact thing. Should have been the same exact result.

I truly understand the loyalty involved in this defence of scholes and giggs, but we have grown used to others compensating for their flaws and acting like what they do is just so irreplaceable. Scholes yesterday was passing it around for fun. hollywod pass after hollywood pass. Yet what we needed was someone who would actually penetrate, draw attention with or without the ball.

If I wanted a player to just attack not defend, i'll prefer it to be cleverley or ando. I remember how people were lambasting their pairing because we did not defend well. Heck, how is that any different from what we are seeing now? They were marvelous in full flight and believe it or not more attacking than yesterdays 2nd half performance! The difference here is we cannot even pretend to look busy with this pair, they are not going to improve any time soon either.

It will shock people just how a) overrated these scholes passes are and b) How underrated having energy in midfield can make all the skill in the world look ridiculous. But this will only happen when he leaves.

I say scholes and giggs should have been gone 3 yrs ago and still stand by it. These flaws did not start now. We did not start losing this midfield battle yesterday but we have been able to paper over the crack mostly thanks to our system and our name. Well fergie decided to change our system this yr, so all we have is our name. That above all is who I point to as the reason for the 2nd half because if it was any other team, spurs would just have kept going and put up a cricket score. Imagine if they kept countering with rio now playing a high line? No seriously think of it.

But our younger players are our stronger team. We don't want them to play to 'develop' them. We want them to play because they are simply the best options. The manager isn't playing his strongest team and it's costing us.