-
 - Joined on 6 Jul 2011
- Posts 5,402
-
|
Re: Luka Modric is perfect for United...
 Captain Marvel No.7: Brittain 10: Captain Marvel No.7: Brittain 10: Captain Marvel No.7: Brittain 10: Trouble is OP your midfield lacks steel, the main problem with our midfield that we currently have. Many of these silly goals being conceded came as a result of having no one in midfield specialised at breaking up play. Yann M'Vila is the ideal candidate, if it's true Arsenal have withdrawn interest then he's there for us to pounce. £17 million would probably do it, and if our interest in Eriksen is genuine we could get him too, for £20 million, the two combined is less than Modric ffs. In fact we could get M'Vila and the lb of our choice for less than Modric, which solves 2 problems instead of just being an indulgence like Modric. Carrick, Cleverley and Scholes are all capable of playing a Modric esque role too.
Many of the silly goals we conceded was a) because we had a goalkeeper who couldnt speak a word of English and new to the PL b)our best centre half was missing for most of the season and c) our left back was all over the show defensively for large parts of the season. Nothing to do with lacking steel in midfield mate, not in my opinion anyway. M'Villa has played in Ligue 1, what makes you think he would be a success here? Fergie has never played with a DM and he wont ever do as long as he is the boss.
I like Eriksen, top player and i wouldnt be disappointed if he joined but for me it would sort of defeat the whole object of the Kagawa signing. Just remember Scholes cant play forever and Cleverley is miles off being able to play a Modric esque role despite his potential.
Well firstly M'Vila is a cm, but is renowned for his defensive abilities, and seems to have the ability to cut it here. Secondly and most importantly having no steel in the midfield was a MASSIVE factor in silly goals. Why do you think City tore us apart in our own back yard? Why do you think Fellaini toyed with us? Simple, none of our midfielders attempted to tackle him, and we can't rely solely on our defence to win the ball back. If the other teams midfield and attack take on our defence that's 6 against 4 = trouble. As well as playing fluid football we need a tank, Bilbao ffs danced around us as no midfielders could tackle. We can only show our attacking prowess with the ball after all.
As for Cleverley he may not play the Modric role as well, hence why I said "esque", but he can still do a good job in midfield. Eriksen we don't especially need but he'd be an alternative to Clev when Scholes retires next year. I think the big factor is a case of what you could get for your money. Modric's ridiculous fee means a number of excellent players could be bought for that much, and for that reason it makes more sense.
City tore us apart in our own back yard because of our mentality and the fact we were down to 10 men for long periods, nothing to do with not having any steel in midfield. We were 1-0 down and actually the better team until Evans was sent off and then the 2nd half we just kept attacking when we were a man down. Instead of taking a 3-1 defeat we just kept pushing forward and leaving ourselves wide open for the counter attack.
When did Fellaini toy with us? When he played up front? Was that the game Rafael was to blame for 2 goals and we still had Vidic missing? Again nothing to do with a lack of steel in midfield. Have a look back at the Bilbao performance, the two biggest factors that stood out in that game was shocking defending and an inability to keep the football. Midfield wasnt great i admit but a DM isnt the answer imo.
We actually dont need a number of excellent players, the squad is pretty good overall but we do need a top class CM who can make a difference. Modric's ridiculous fee is no more ridiculous than that United asked for Ronaldo.
City tore us apart by emphatically winning the midfield battle. They had the likes of Silva for creativity, and Toure to *** out attacks whereas we had noone especially great at both. Even when Evans was on the pitch they were better, which, although it pains me to say, was the case.
As for Fellaini he made a mockery of us by winning EVERY aerial challenge. Rafael wasn't the only one to blame, our entire defence was for not bothering to close down Fellaini. You could argue that the defenders shouldn't push up too much just to tackle Fellaini, but that'd be only another reason for a dm. Fellaini had the game he had because of all the free time on the ball, a dm would significantly reduce this problem.
Finally you can't even compare Ronaldo and Modric. Ronaldo was at the peak of his powers, a player with a complete attacking arsenal. Not a rather basic player like Modric who gets next to no goals and assists, but just sprays the odd pass and adds a bit of composure to a midfield. Useful but does not justify a £40 million price tag, which would probably be rejected seeing as Levy did the same last year. In each of our calamitous games this season I swear the opposition had a dm capable of winning them the ball back, a task you don't want to leave to just the defenders.
Ask yourself why City won the midfield battle? A man down actually makes a difference, given the quality they had in Silva and our suicidal game plan of attacking every time we got the ball. They are gonna find spaces and they did just that, they carved us open time and again after Evans was sent off but up until that point they were no better than us, not by a long shot.
Again you mention Fellaini but if Vidic had played in that game that guy wouldnt have won a header, he wouldnt have done nearly as much damage as he did because Vidic would have battered him. Seriously, people really underestimate just how much we missed Vida last season, he is a colossal player for United.
Just for the record i'm not comparing Ronaldo to Modric mate but i am comparing the repesctive transfer fees. Ronaldo's was extremely over inflated even though he is one of the best players in the world. Modric' fee is also over inflated but its the real world that we are in despite what United tell you. Are you seriously saying if Spurs can see Sunderland get £20m for Jordan Henderson then getting £30m-£40m for Modric isnt deemed unreasonable?
Fact is Madrid WANTED Ronaldo at all costs and paid what the selling club wanted. We dictated the terms to them as the selling club so why shouldnt Spurs do the same with us? If you think Modric is basic then god knows what you think of some of our current midfielders. Again his strengths arent scoring goals and assisting, his strengths are his passing, his vision and his ability to control a game of football...something United need in a player to replace Paul Scholes.
Fellaini would've given Vidic a headache, and tbh it'd be nice to have more than one person capable of challenging him for a header.
How was Ronaldo's value inflated? He's breaking numerous records for Real, and has somehow made £80 million look like good value. I mean he's scored more goals than he has played games and although Messi out scored him this season, I actually think Ronaldo was better this season, not that that matters much. The main point is £80 million for Ronaldo at 24 will surely be better than £40 million for a nearly 27 year old Modric, who's nowhere near CR7. And yes I do think Modric's role is pretty basic, he just hovers around the midfield, and certainly goes elsewhere in big games. We need someone who'll perform every week. As for Henderson only Liverpool, who've earned a reputation for overspending on players, were gullible enough to spend that much, £16 million actually, and his price was inflated due to his nationality.
Comparing Modric to our midfield, well he doesn't come close to Scholes, who I regard as the best midfielder to ever play in the premier league, going in the basis he is complete. He can do anything, and is the player Modric couldn't even dream of being. Next to Cleverley, yes Modric is far more experienced and better at what he dies, but Clev is quite a but younger, and will have a great season so long as he avoids injury.
As for your first question they won the midfield battle because their midfield was better. They had an attacking mid so their play was more fluid and a defensive mid that got them the ball in the first place. We had neither because we were using the dated 4-4-2.
It's so simple to be wise; think of something stupid to say and don't say it
|
|