Jonathan Wilson: Man United outclasses an aging Chelsea

[Jonathan Wilson]

All that talk of this Manchester United team being the poorest champion of the Premier League era feels a little silly now. Almost surreptitiously United has become a very good side indeed. Talk of Chelsea being resurgent also seems a little misplaced: against United, particularly early on, it looked again aging and slow, stumbling around hopelessly like a grandfather trying to keep up with a hyperactive toddler. The difference in class was vast, and at halftime the fact that the two sides began the day only three points apart seemed incomprehensible.

More...

 

[Nixon]

Ageing (don't know why Wilson uses 'aging', he's English) Chelsea? Their average age for their starting 11 fielded against Man Utd was 28. Man Utd's average age for the starting 11 was 29. So if any team is ageing, then it has to be Man Utd.

 

[sunilvk7]

I think Wilson was talking about squad not just first 11.

 

[Raikan007]

does all the text come in bold when replying on this thread? .....

---------- Post added at 10:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 AM ----------

hmm, no it does not strange! we were class yesterday! deserved the 3 points!

 

[GodCubed]

It seems Wilson is a little confused today. Not surprised. A midfield two of Giggs and Carrick just shouldn't work.

does all the text come in bold when replying on this thread? .....

Oh, you've got that fault? I don't. It happens on threads occasionally.

 

[Raikan007]

now it has turned to bold when I replied it had not changed... 1st time for me!

 

[sunilvk7]

It seems Wilson is a little confused today. Not surprised. A midfield two of Giggs and Carrick just shouldn't work.

I haven't read the article as I can't open it from work.. But why is that Giggs and Carrick midfield shouldn't work? Lost me there.. :S

 

[Kris]

Ageing (don't know why Wilson uses 'aging', he's English) Chelsea? Their average age for their starting 11 fielded against Man Utd was 28. Man Utd's average age for the starting 11 was 29. So if any team is ageing, then it has to be Man Utd.

Sports Illustrated is American, perhaps it was edited to suit them.

 

[Nixon]

Sports Illustrated is American, perhaps it was edited to suit them.

Ah. Forgot to look at where the article came from. That makes sense!

 

[CJACKO11]

tut tut Wilson, i normally like Wilson but he has fallen into the trap of many other pundicts and jounelists. This is the same aging Chelsea squad that won the double less than a year ago and just went on a 12 league games unbeaten run and had a sensational start to the season. If anything the loss of Lampard (32) and illness to Drogba (33) this season has cost us dearly. The reason Utd won is because they were better on the day and over the corse of the season simple as that, nothing to do with age at all.

 

[fuelledbypassion]

You really can't use age as an excuse when you consider United's best performers this season. Scholes started this season in the form of his life, and passed the baton onto Giggs who has been sensational over the last few months. Van Der Sar has been phenominal, and Ferdinand has looked very assured whenever he has been fit.

The only difference is (as CJACKO says), Chelsea really depend on Drogba and Lampard, and don't have sufficient cover when they are injured. Also, Strikers peak and decline much earlier, and I think Anelka and Drogba will now inevitably start to have problems with fitness and form. United have far greater depth, and it showed in the end.

 

[CJACKO11]

You really can't use age as an excuse when you consider United's best performers this season. Scholes started this season in the form of his life, and passed the baton onto Giggs who has been sensational over the last few months. Van Der Sar has been phenominal, and Ferdinand has looked very assured whenever he has been fit.

The only difference is (as CJACKO says), Chelsea really depend on Drogba and Lampard, and don't have sufficient cover when they are injured. Also, Strikers peak and decline much earlier, and I think Anelka and Drogba will now inevitably start to have problems with fitness and form. United have far greater depth, and it showed in the end.

I agree totally, but one thing i would argue about is i dont think Drogba will decline as he is one of a kind. He dosent use his pace or movement he uses his strengh and its harder to lose that i think. Lampard will be less effective as the seasons go on but he still has 13 goals this season and missed 4 months. Sturridge comming back could be a huge blessing next season, Studge to replace Nico.

 

[fuelledbypassion]

I agree totally, but one thing i would argue about is i dont think Drogba will decline as he is one of a kind. He dosent use his pace or movement he uses his strengh and its harder to lose that i think. Lampard will be less effective as the seasons go on but he still has 13 goals this season and missed 4 months. Sturridge comming back could be a huge blessing next season, Studge to replace Nico.

Yeah I can see Sturidge being a key player next season, and with Torres in the squad now, you won't need to depend on Drogba as much. I still think you need a few more bodies - maybe a playmaking CM and definitely a quality RW

 

[Lee]

tut tut Wilson, i normally like Wilson but he has fallen into the trap of many other pundicts and jounelists. This is the same aging Chelsea squad that won the double less than a year ago and just went on a 12 league games unbeaten run and had a sensational start to the season. If anything the loss of Lampard (32) and illness to Drogba (33) this season has cost us dearly. The reason Utd won is because they were better on the day and over the corse of the season simple as that, nothing to do with age at all.

Oh behave. He uses the word aging once throughout the entire article, and that's in the opening paragraph.

Talk of Chelsea being resurgent also seems a little misplaced: against United, particularly early on, it looked again aging and slow, stumbling around hopelessly like a grandfather trying to keep up with a hyperactive toddler.

It seems like a perfectly appropriate description to me.

 

[Kris]

tut tut Wilson, i normally like Wilson but he has fallen into the trap of many other pundicts and jounelists. This is the same aging Chelsea squad that won the double less than a year ago and just went on a 12 league games unbeaten run and had a sensational start to the season. If anything the loss of Lampard (32) and illness to Drogba (33) this season has cost us dearly. The reason Utd won is because they were better on the day and over the corse of the season simple as that, nothing to do with age at all.

I think you misunderstand his meaning behind aging. He wasn’t implying that the squad is old, but that they played like...

a grandfather trying to keep up with a hyperactive toddler

Which is an excellent analogy in my eyes, especially in the first half.

 

[GodCubed]

I haven't read the article as I can't open it from work.. But why is that Giggs and Carrick midfield shouldn't work? Lost me there.. :S

Tactically. Giggs and Carrick are both creative, fluid midfielders. Modern football dictates you need at least one ball-winner in midfield, and they don't have one. But for some reason, somehow, they cope and do incredibly well.

 

[Nixon]

Oh behave. He uses the word aging once throughout the entire article, and that's in the opening paragraph.

Talk of Chelsea being resurgent also seems a little misplaced: against United, particularly early on, it looked again aging and slow, stumbling around hopelessly like a grandfather trying to keep up with a hyperactive toddler.

It seems like a perfectly appropriate description to me.

He also uses ageing in the title, and despite this, he makes no reference as to how Chelsea are 'ageing', apart from the observation that during one half of a game that they appeared to be slow. If one half determines how each team is described, then almost all teams can be described as ageing at some point. I don't understand how they can go from being resurgent in the previous games, and after one poor performance they are apparently ageing again.

I don't think Chelsea's performance looked like they were ageing. They were just overwhelmed by a better side who were on top form (and who were older than Chelsea).

 

[Joel`]

Tactically. Giggs and Carrick are both creative, fluid midfielders. Modern football dictates you need at least one ball-winner in midfield, and they don't have one. But for some reason, somehow, they cope and do incredibly well.

Because Giggs > Conventional tactical theory.

 

[CJACKO11]

Yeah I can see Sturidge being a key player next season, and with Torres in the squad now, you won't need to depend on Drogba as much. I still think you need a few more bodies - maybe a playmaking CM and definitely a quality RW

Agree that we need a playmaker and a RW. We either need to sign a playmaker or fast track McEachran into the side. On the RW situation we havent had a proper right winger since Wright-Phillips and a decent one since Jesper Gronkjaers first game.

 

[sunilvk7]

Tactically. Giggs and Carrick are both creative, fluid midfielders. Modern football dictates you need at least one ball-winner in midfield, and they don't have one. But for some reason, somehow, they cope and do incredibly well.

This is where Carrick is very underrated. He covers lot of ground and is tactically very disciplined. His anticipation and intercepting passes are very good. We are ignoring one very key player. PARK. He drifts inside and does lot of defensive work too..

And we have seen Carrick plays well with creative CM, like he did with Scholes, Anderson and Giggs..