Very few of us know what’s going on off the pitch, and given the nature of the story and the reliability of British sources in covering such things, we can’t make too many assumptions about rumors that Brazilian midfielder Anderson is not long for Manchester United. The least reliable sources are saying Anderson is gone. The more reliable ones are reporting mere acrimony. We should wait and see how this plays out.
On the pitch, Anderson’s relationship with Manchester United is a problem. Ferguson has not a consistent place in the formation to deploy him. When he came over from Porto, he was a young ball-winner that projected into a Paul Scholes role, if everything went right. Ferguson has had success deploying Anderson on the wings, though that’s a position that does not serve Anderson’s long term development.
With the fading of Scholes, the “emergence” of Darren Fletcher, and the injury to Owen Hargreaves, Anderson has often been used in a more advanced position – the level behind the forward(s) (depending on the formation). This has been less successful, as Anderson’s attacking instincts are raw and he still has not shown the ability to participate in developing attack in a way that makes him a threat coming into the box. Through 42 league games with United, he has still yet to score a goal.
Manchester United is not the only team that has trouble figuring out where to deploy Anderson. Dunga and Brazil have not been much better. At times they seem to want him to be able to play Kaka’s role. At other times they want him to be one of their two deep-sitting midfielders, and at others they seems to enjoy his versatility.
That seems to be the problem with Anderson. He can do a little of everything, everywhere. There is the tendency to not only admire that but utilize it.
The natural parallel here is Michael Essien. Essien’s intelligence, versatility and athleticism famously had him playing right back for Chelsea two years ago. For Ghana, he has often been deployed as a center half. Over the last year, Chelsea has finally decided to keep him in the middle of the pitch, but he still alternate between a holding role and a more central midfielder.* Part of that is the emergence of John Obi Mikel, but part of it is managers being greedy – tinkering with Essien the same way that people tinker with their Football Manager formations.
(Short Posnanski here: Essien is often cited as the best defensive midfielder in the world, but does he play that position enough to qualify? When Obi Mikel is in the lineup, he is the man in front of the back. Essien moves up in the formation. When Obi Mikel is out, Essien plays that role. Somebody like Javier Mascherano plays that position every time he’s on the pitch. Is Essien so much better than Mascherano that we shouldn’t be giving the Argentine the benefit of the doubt for playing the position more often?)
There are times when using Essien at right back make sense. One game to win it all and he’s your best option? Do it. During the season, when you should be building your squad to be at its best come those critical league and cup matches at season’s end? It does the club no good to use your best players as patches. You should be developing other options.
What’s strange about Anderson is that he is both the patch and the option that should be developed. He has Essien’s versatility (if not his efficacy). But Anderson is not in the prime of his career like Essien is. Anderson is still developing. At least, he could develop if he was given a more narrowly defined role. Deploying him as utility man (to use a term from another sport) will only develop a utility man.
Anderson could be one of the best ball winners in the game. Whereas he has yet to develop an instinct from jumping into attacks, he has the instincts and the willingness to disrupt them. He has the same speed and physicality as Javier Mascherano, and given time to acclimate to the position, he would improve his already decent distribution while learning how (and when) to contribute in attack.
Anderson does occasionally play this role for United, but his time in front of the back is dwindling as Ferguson falls in love with Fletcher and refuses to call an end to Paul Scholes (and, to a lesser extent, Ryan Giggs). Right now, it is not clear that Anderson is a better option than either, but he is the only one that can both improve and eventually be world class at this position. Ferguson’s loyalty to Scholes is understandable and admirable, and we all want to see players like Scholes maintain roles with their clubs for as long as they can contribute. Fletcher should have been sold after his strong season last year, and sacrificing Anderson’s development for Fletcher’s playing time begs questions.
Off-the-pitch dust-up aside, it’s not clear that Anderson should not leave Old Trafford based on his career’s best interests. He would be a great fit at both Internazionale and Fiorentina, whether it be a long term move or a one year loan that would also serve as a cooling off period.
If Anderson is complaining about his role on the team, it’s probably a good thing. Manchester United should be listening, because if they simply view this as a sign of an indignant ego, they will sell short on a great prospect.
