To be completely fair Arsenal and Tottenham had Coquelin and Livermore in their midfields, and didn't have any of their most important midfielders, and Chelsea outplayed our midfield at OT and were very unlucky to go home with a 3-1 defeat. Anderson in particular had a terrible game.
Alas poor Carrick...WTF has happened?
- Thread starter Carl
- Start date
To be completely fair Arsenal and Tottenham had Coquelin and Livermore in their midfields, and didn't have any of their most important midfielders, and Chelsea outplayed our midfield at OT and were very unlucky to go home with a 3-1 defeat. Anderson in particular had a terrible game.
Chelsea did not outplay our midfield. We were fortunate that we got away with two offside goals and they fluffed their chances but equally most of their chances came from stupid errors from some of our players. In general though we were on top. But I do agree that the arsenal and spurs games though aren't really a true reflection of our real strength, given their respective situations at the time.
Come on. We started Cleverly in what was only his first few games for the club, hardly an experianced upgrade on either of their youngsters. Against Spurs and Arsenal Anderson was outstanding, so if you're going to be completely fair, you should probably point that out.
You can say Arsenal lacked their most important midfielders, but they played three in the middle against our two, and Ramsey, Rosicky and Coquelin can hardly be described as outmatched by Anderson and Cleverly.
As for Chelsea, we played Fletcher who was/is suffering from ulcerative colitis, against three in the middle. What's more considering we went 3-0 up, it isnt surprising that they pushed on and we let them back into the game.
At least two of their good goal scoring opportunities came after Anderson's blunders which is obviously connected to midfield issues. It was a close game but I thought in midfield they did get the best out of it.
Ita not really a midfield issue just an individual error. When Evans gave the ball away yest trying to pass to nani that wasn't a defensive issue just him making a silly mistake. Well I suppose it was tight. From what I remember we were the better team and won the midfield battle though.
And you laughed at me?
Silva is incomparable with the sort of player we're debating - it's extremely doubtful whether he should be considered a central midfield player.
Sneijder is one of the all-time overrated players. He's had a very nondescript 18 months now; the sort of form that Carrick was hammered for.
Even someone like Yaya functions well because of the system he is in, as opposed to being brilliant of his own accord. Don't get me wrong, he's a force of nature, but he is able to bomb forward because City's system gives him insurance. He's not a midfield dictator though.
On form, Carrick is a smashing midfielder, easily one of the best in the Premier League, and therefore amongst the clutch of best in the world. I'm comfortable with that view.
He's over his malaise, get over it.
Surely you saw Toure at Barcelona, Feed Me? Given he's played in practically every midfield role it seems terribly unfair to say he only excels because of the system.
I like toure but I think he definately gets overhyped. His style is very eye catching but I don't think he's on another level to the likes of carrick.
That is so unfair Brwned. He was great at Charlton, won YPOTY, and earned his move to Chelsea. but Ranieri signed him and was then sacked and Mourinho wanted Essien. It is not really fair to say he couldn't cut it, he was never given a chance really.
He has done whatever job has been asked of him throughout his career, and he has done it well. At West Ham they needed an all round inspirational midfielder and he provided that. Now at Spurs they need someone to give the talented offensive players a platform to play he has provided that too.
He may not be the best in the world, and of course there are much better than him about. But the bottom line is he is a dependable, disciplined, versatile and consistent player and he does not get the credit he deserves on here for some reason.
I just don't get it myself. Carrick is more talented, but for at least half his time at OT he has failed to show it. When he is on, great. But the problem is he has been off easily as often, if not more so. Having more talent is all well and good but you have to show it when your team needs it most for it to be important.
Who has been more consistent in midfield than Parker for the past 2 seasons? No-one is the answer, it is why he won FOTY last year and why his continued good form has helped Spurs kick on again this year.
It's not always about having talent, it is about being consistently effective, and Parker is certainly that. It isn't just about what you can produce on your best day or when you are in the mood, its about what you can be depended on to regularly provide for your team. That is why he and Barry are in the England team and Carrick is not.
The difference with Parker and carrick though is that nobody expects Parker to do more than just break up moves but with carrick he is expected to do that but also create. When carrick was off his game, defensively he was still an excellent shield but it was what he was doing or rather not doing attackingly that people were getting annoyed about. Also I would never take notice of who's in the england squad or not because so much of it is a popularity contest it's just stupid.
It's the mentality of rating players like Parker above those like Carrick that has seen British football flounder. We need to get away from the obsession with physicality.
I wouldn't completely agree with that. Parker is actually underrated as far as his technique is concerned, in my opinion.
I think the way people dismiss those two games form our point of view is a tad unfair. We were without several key players at that time as well. It's not our fault we have much much better strength in depth. Arsenals average age was higher that day also.
Yeah, its that sort of stupidity which saw Scholes shifted to left midfield.
Yh but we had much more of our first team then they did. Also we may have scored 8 and could have scored more but they also missed a fair few chances. It was a freak result in the same was the ity 6-1 was a freak. The spurs game they were clearly missing key payers and even having said that we only really impressed once we scored, the first half was pretty open. Then throw in west brom where we were pretty average and kicky to win in the end. We played some great tuff in that time no doubt but we weren't as amazing as MIT say in m opinion.
Yeah, of course, and my view of him is pretty much unchanged. He has exceptional physical gifts. I don't think his on the ball abilities are anything exceptional tbh. As an anchoring midfielder, you'd restrict his power house bursts and I think he'd be half the player. His best position is undoubtedly as an advanced player with licence to break - something he can do with no worry at City because of his insurance.
He's a good player. I can honestly say I wouldn't swap Carrick for him - this is not to denigrate his ability.
I thought he looked better at Barcelona as the deepest midfielder, and he's a very good ball player in my view.
No he is not nor ever has been. Carrick is not a commanding midfielder, nor is someone who can boss the midfield or take the game on his own. He benefited from Scholes being right next to him when he was at his peak ability(Carrick). We had an excellent side with Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez, the back five and Scholes as a director.
Yes Carrick used to be very good, top midfielder top 10 in England, but no way he was the best in our side let alone(one of the best) in the world. Carrick is good when he has time on the ball. When he's pressured and pressed he doesn't have the natural ability like Scholes, Xavi, Sneijder, Modric, Yaya etc have...
Carrick has been short of some qualities to be one of the worlds best - the natural ability on the ball and to escape in tight situations, and his weaker mentality.
On form he's one of the finest passers of the ball.
I think this season has got rid of the myth that Carrick falls to pieces against teams that put any kind of pressure on the ball. At least it should have.
Obviously, he's no Scholes or Xavi (who is?) but he's plenty capable of performing under pressure. How else could he have had such a succesful career in a high tempo league?
Obviously, he's no Scholes or Xavi (who is?) but he's plenty capable of performing under pressure. How else could he have had such a succesful career in a high tempo league?
His good performances this season does not change my opinion that he releases the ball very quickly once he's pressed, and it's usually not a forward pass. He was never comfortable in possession the way Scholes, Anderson and even Fletcher is, and he's not going to pick up this skill in his 30s.
He has that problem when he's not in form which happened quite a fair bit the 2 years or so before this season. When he's in form he's decisive and releases the ball quickly. He's not great in tight spaces but as a deep lying midfielder doesn't really have to be as long as he picks the right pass early. When he's off color he tends to panic on the ball. So it's not really a myth. If a player tends to do something fairly often for a decent duration, people will tend to believe that to be a part of his game and it's up to the player to disprove that by playing to his regular standards.
There is nothing wrong with releasing the ball quickly once pressed as long as you pick the right pass or don't always pass it backwards or sideways (which he doesn't do). Every central midfielder doesn't have to be blessed with the ability to operate well in tight spaces and maneuver the ball through trouble when necessary.
Your first sentence is a bit of a mystery. Release the ball early is exactly how you beat pressure. This does not equal being uncomfortable on the ball, it does not.
I think what fatboy meant was that when he is rushed while on the ball, he releases it quickly, as if in a panic, and usually his option of pass is either backward or not accurate enough.
Scholes - generally knows what's happening around him, does not usually get involved in a panic pass.
Anderson - usually is stronger than most other players and has the ability to hold the ball up in midfield until he gets a pass off or gets fouled.
Cleverley - seems to have a bit of scholes in him, not much for holding the ball up but usually knows where he wants to pass the ball before it comes to him.
Carrick has he's own strenghts of course, and the others mentioned above have their own weaknesses.
Scholes - generally knows what's happening around him, does not usually get involved in a panic pass.
Anderson - usually is stronger than most other players and has the ability to hold the ball up in midfield until he gets a pass off or gets fouled.
Cleverley - seems to have a bit of scholes in him, not much for holding the ball up but usually knows where he wants to pass the ball before it comes to him.
Carrick has he's own strenghts of course, and the others mentioned above have their own weaknesses.
Carrick is very much a confidence player, when he is on top form his awareness is better and he does not panic as much. When he is not at his best his play and touch is much more uncertain and he can be prone to panic.
I don't know whether you can call it a myth Pogue, because it has happened on many an occasion. I don't think it is as bad as some would have us believe, but it has happened enough.
'Falls to pieces' is also a bit ott, but he does not seem to relish being hassled physically. I have been critical of him in the past for not rising to that type of physical challenge, where at times i felt he has shied away rather than imposing himself on his opponent.
Saying that i do agree that this season he has looked back to his very best, despite the midfield and defence being for the most part unsettled. I felt he has stepped up to the plate when we needed him to and has easily been one of our best and most consistent players so far.
Get over what? I've been one of his biggest defenders, but you're completely overpraising him to a nonsensical level. As Brwned said, your basis on Yaya as a midfielder is bollocks really, watch him back at his Barca days to see that. He can play almost any role. Also the Silva 'is not a central midfielder' thing is so stale by now, he plays in the center of the pitch and he's not a striker or a defender, erm, what is he then? You're also saying Sneijder is inconsistent etc yet Carrick has arguably been as inconsistent as him, if not more so in recent years, given what Sneijder has accomplished for club and country in the last 2 years, I'd say he edges it. He's also far better when on form.
You're an overly optimistic chap at times FM but this is a bit much, even for you.
How has British football floundered? In the last 10 years or so we have had the likes of Lampard, Gerrard, Carrick, Barry, Scholes, Beckham, Joe Cole etc.
How many of those are physical players rather than technical players?
We failed miserably at the WC last year not due to any lack of technical ability, moreso a lack of leadership, someone to impose themselves on the game and offer a platform for the others to play from.
Consistency of performance has been our achilles heel in recent times, we play well one game and then struggle the next. Players who can be relied upon to produce a certain level of performance game after game is what we have lacked imo. It doesn't have to be outstanding, just effective.
I don't agree with that at all Ash. Parker last year for West Ham was expected to produce an all round performance and leadership in almost every game. Many of us have not asked for anything other than consistency from Carrick for a good few years now.
Carrick this season is what we have been asking for. For no other reason than he is fully capable of providing more than he had been giving, as he has proved this season.
No-one expects him to be Xavi, but he is a deep lying playmaker, more than a regular DM. So it is not unreasonable to expect him to playmake occasionally and support the attack more than he had been doing. Carrick has been getting plaudits this year for being more involved and taking more responsibility. Yet Parker, who has regularly been doing exactly that for the past few seasons, despite having less ability to do so, gets no credit at all on here for the efforts he has put in.
Carrick's biggest problem in my view is fear of failure, so he often plays it safe. He needs to grow a pair, you don't have to succeed all the time in what you attempt, many people will simply appreciate that he is giving his all and trying to make the difference. That is what inspires and lifts both teammates and fans, the desire to want to make a difference. That is what you and others love about Fletcher, yet the same manner of desire and determination from Parker brings sneers of derision at his limitations rather than any appreciation of his efforts.
I don't remember Parker being that creative last season but I don't know for sure so I won't use that as my example. however this season where I think he's been brought in to do a similar job to last season I have seen him do very little on the ball. He's there almost entirely to break up moves. Now I have no problem with this and I think his attitude and style bring a lot to the table. He's the player arsenal should have gone for and he'd be great to have in the squad. But still all I see him doing is breaking up attacks and playing it simple. Again nothing wrong with that but he's getting rave reviews for it. Carrick on the other hand is expected to do more then that. Both play in similar systems. It's not like Parker is doing all of modrics work for him. Modric pulls his weight in the middle. Carrick though is asked to be the main defensive shield out there but also he's asked to offer something going forward, which is right. So he should. On top of that if you consider that scholes has been carricks main partner in his time here and carrick has definitely been asked to cover for scholes a lot he has had even more pressure on him.
I agree completely with carrick having not been mentally strong enough in the past. However as I said he was always a good shield but he was get tick stick for me because he wasn't putting in scholes like passes on a regular basis. No one asks that of Parker that's all I'm saying. I like Parker and I don't want to out him down. I think though he is getting a lot of praise though because of his character. I don't think he's been better in these last two seasons then fletched was in his two best seasons at all but Parker got all the praise and I think it's artificially put his stock up. He's still a great player though and as I said he's someone you'd always take in your squad.
Sneijder had the year of his life and a lot of averageness either side of that. For the cash being talked about, and for what he'd actually bring to the table, we have to say he's a bit of a waste of time luxury.
Yaya is not a better screening player than Carrick - his passing isn't as good, his defensive play isn't as good, and his stamina is questionable. I wouldn't mind having him in our midfield as a compliment to Carrick, but not instead of him.
Silva isn't an allround midfield player, he's more specialist than that. He's more comparable to our wingers/in the hole players than our central midfield players.
In terms of central midfield players, something I define as a dictator, a defender & attacker, I don't see many in the PL currently better than Carrick.
I don't think there's a better true central midfield player in the PL at the moment. I'd be happy for someone to dispute the point.
Vastly underrated, Parker can do the lot he's bloody brilliant.
Sneijder has never been any less consistent than Carrick, he's been plagued by injuries in the last year, but he's far more talented than Carrick ever was, that's clear too see. Not sure what his fee etc has to do with it, we're talking about how good they are.
Toure is none of those things you mentioned. You make him sound like a big lump for feck sake, I think you seriously need to watch him in the Barca days especially, he's a magnificent player.
Silva bla bla "not a midfielder cause he doesn't play deep and goes further up". He is a midfielder, end of.
Your last point, Modric is better as a "true central midfielder", hands frickin' down. Carrick ain't world class, he's good, I'm glad we have him, but one of the best midfielders in the world? Bawlecks.
Do they really play Silva in midfield? For me he's perfect on either wing of a 433, I thought that's where he played the few times I watched.
If there's one thing Parker isn't it's underrated.
Sneijder doesn't play anywhere near the same role. If you believe we'd be a better side with him and without Carrick, you need your head testing. Sneijder really isn't the sort of player we need in our side. He's too much of a passenger, too reliant on having water carrying players to function. Sneijder may be more talented than Carrick, whatever that means, but doesn't mean it's always been applied as well.
Why does everyone keep saying to watch Yaya in his Barca days? 1) He doesn't play there anymore, 2) He was deemed surplus to requirements because they had a more polished player to replace him.
Silva is a midfielder in the loosest sense of the word, but he doesn't perform the same function as a central midfielder. We'd get overrun in our side if he was played as one of our true central midfielders - not a sleight against him, just the way it is with this sort of player. He's a playmaker - they're not the same of central midfielders.
Modric, I'd give you. Though I think the difference between an in form Modric and an in form Carrick is very small. I'd take Modric in a heart beat, always said this. He's the sort we need, not a Silva or Sneijder.
Still though, you've managed to name one 'better' CM than Carrick at the moment, and even that's debatable. Seems my claims aren't so outlandish.
He was a shadow of the player he is capable of being for a year and a half, but he's slowly been building his form and confidence since about March 2011 and he's currently doing as well as he ever has. He's just signed a new deal, he's a fantastic age and he looks to be revelling in the extra responsibility. There aren't realistic targets that I'd swap him for.
Of course they fecking don't.
They play Gareth Barry there. They play Nigel De Jong there. They've bought Pizarro to play there.
Silva is a more advanced playmaker.
Silva is not a central midfielder. His role is far more similar to Rooney's than it is Carrick. He would not be able to play the same way or to the same effect if he played in a two. In the same way iniesta or whoever couldn't. Nothing to do with their ability but the demands of the role. In terms of central midfield then in the league I think only Modric is currently better than Carrick. Toure is on the same level for me just a different type of player. Had Essien not had the injuries he has had he'd have the edge but unfortunately he's not able to play at the same level as he use to. I don't rate Lampard highly in a two and certainly don't think he'd be better than Carrick there. Gerrard is similar, world class in attacking midfield but not in central midfield. I can't claim a big knowledge of football world wide but to my mind I can only think of Xavi, Fabregas, Alonso, Schweinsteiger who I would class as better central midfielders. Having said that though I think there has been a decrease in the amount of top central midfielders in recent years, probably down to the specialisation that you now can there, and that the majority of teams play a central 3 as opposed to the two man midfield.
Beautiful synopsis of the debate.
Silva is more comparable to Rooney - it's just that the former arrives in the hole, whereas the latter drops into it.
There aren't many in the world who would do better than what an in-form Carrick does for us. Shield, recycle, knit together. Rinse, repeat.