Alas poor Carrick...WTF has happened?

Jacob Steinberg has written a bit about him
England should have picked Carrick

In the world of the Hollywood passer, it is a crying shame that Michael Carrick has only ever been an extra for England. A player who has been a key figure in a Manchester United side who have won four Premier League titles and one Champions League since joining them in 2006 has never been deemed good enough to represent his country on a regular basis. How strange. After all, whenever England huff and puff to another sweaty tournament exit, the criticism always centres around their inability to keep the ball, which makes the constant exclusion of Carrick, a smooth-passing metronomic presence in midfield, even harder to understand.

So confident was Carrick that he would not be picked for Euro 2012, he informed the Football Association several months ago that he did not want to be on the bench for England, which meant that Roy Hodgson had to name Jordan Henderson on the standby list instead. Jordan Henderson. "I wouldn't dream of putting Michael Carrick on a standby list after he's made it clear in the past he doesn't want to be involved like that," Hodgson said. "I'd have to be convinced he was better than the four [central midfielders] I've selected, and that he'd be happy to come out of retirement." He shouldn't have needed much convincing. After his exploits for Chelsea from March onwards, there is no doubt that Frank Lampard deserves his place in the squad, and probably the starting lineup. However, the claims of Gareth Barry, Steven Gerrard and Scott Parker are less obvious.

In Hodgson's first game against Norway, the familiar failings were there. Gerrard galumphed about the place, overhitting passes, conceding possession and injuring a Norwegian with a robust challenge. Parker blocked shots and disrupted moves, but at international level he will not offer much else. Barry came on at half-time, stank the place out, and then departed with a groin injury that could rule him out of the tournament, so England ended the game with a central midfield of James Milner and Henderson. Overall a side as limited as Norway, who have not qualified for a tournament for 12 years, enjoyed 56% of the possession. And still there is no place for Carrick in Hodgson's beloved two banks of four, where perspiration has been valued more highly than inspiration.

Carrick's reputation took a huge dent when he was made to look second-rate by Xavi and Andrés Iniesta in the Champions League final in 2009. But then, who does shine against those two? Carrick took a while to recover from that ordeal, but while there have been doubts over his character, it surely says something for his mental strength that he excelled for United last season. Carrick is far from perfect. With his elegant, leggy stride, he should dominate games more, and he is prone to bouts of invisibleness. He ought to score more as well. But mostly he suffers because a lot of his good work goes unappreciated and is not as eye-catching as Gerrard's Roy Race schtick, which tends to be horribly out of place at international football.

Xabi Alonso, a similar player to Carrick, admires his positional awareness which allows him to always be in the right place at the right time. It means he doesn't have to get his shorts dirty. It doesn't mean he's lazy, or a wimp; quite the opposite, in fact. "Carrick is a player who makes those around him play, regardless of the fact that maybe he is not the player that shines the most individually," said Alonso before Spain's friendly against England last November.

"It is more important to find players who can build a team rather than simply finding two very good players and putting them in the team even if they don't play so well together."

Those comments echo the praise Paul Scholes, another footballer's footballer, has received from legendary foreign players down the years, and yet even he retired from England duty in 2004, tired at being shunted around in order to shoe-horn Gerrard and Lampard into the side.

No one is pretending that Carrick is in the same class as Xavi or Andrea Pirlo and it would be asinine to claim that his presence alone would instantly turn England into tiki-taka specialists. Far from it. Yet when they face France in the first game at the Euros, defeat is likely and complaints will be made about their technical deficiencies and inability to string more than three passes together. Carrick, more qualified than any other Englishman to provide those qualities, will be on the beach.

Still cant understand picking Parker over him.. scotty fecking parker.
 
There was a shambolic article in the Daily Mail yesterday from some bird with snaps of him on holiday in Barbados. She even had the cheek to mention Carrick and his family looked pink from the sun. Pathetic.
 
That's a very good article. Balanced but still strongly opinionated and gets the point across well.
 
I'm not Carricks biggest fan in the slightest and even I think he should be starting for England at the moment. On current form maybe apart from Lampard, he's the best English midfielder avalible.

With Wilshere out I don't know why Woy didn't take a gamble taking him and Cleverly and playing them together.
 
The same Cleverley who started 5 games this season? Not likely.

Carrick should clearly be starting but England managers are just fecking idiots who basically start the players the majority of the media back and want them to, hence the fact that Carroll is getting games.
 
The same Cleverley who started 5 games this season? Not likely.

Carrick should clearly be starting but England managers are just fecking idiots who basically start the players the majority of the media back and want them to, hence the fact that Carroll is getting games.

Everyone one knows this is an England side in transition with no chance of winning. Why not blood the players that are going to make up the England side of the future?
 
Because he played 5 fecking games this season and is completely unproven on International level. It's still the worlds 2nd biggest tournament, transition or not.
 
Everyone one knows this is an England side in transition with no chance of winning. Why not blood the players that are going to make up the England side of the future?

Couldn't agree more. This is a lost cause for us. We desperately need to look to the future and get rid of the players who have failed us in the past.

If we're going to have the likes of andy carroll and jordan henderson in the team, then why not take a punt on Cleverley. He is infinately more talented and probably only behind Wilshere in terms of potential.
 
Because he played 5 fecking games this season and is completely unproven on International level. It's still the worlds 2nd biggest tournament, transition or not.

So?

Every young player is unproven at international level at some point and playng friendlys doesn't do jack to give you experiance of what a tournement is like, the only way to get experiance is to play in the Euro's / WC.

Cleverly has proved at every level of international football so far that he's good enough. He's done well at every single club he's been on loan at through The Championship and Premiership. He's clearly good enough.

And yes it is the 2nd biggest (btw you forgot to put International Tournement as the CL is definately bigger) but England aren't going to win it anyway, so whats the harm in bloodying the Youngsters?

The way I see it. Play the old guard, get knocked out. Nothing gained.

Play the Youngsters, expecations lowered even more, they can play without pressure and gain the vital experaince they need.

There's no Long term benefit for not playing the youngsters and there's no benefit fullstop of playing the established guard as they don't have a hope in hell / are too old or past it / are simply not good enough.
 
How many senior appearances does the ox have in comparison to Clev?

Yeah but we have plenty of other wingers and versatility in the strikers that he can be purely impact. We don't really have space for someone who has barely played all season and has no form given he hasn't played in ages, in the middle. Carrick should be starting given his current level and form over th season, cleverley doesn't deserve to be in their ahead of anyone and as I said there's less room to take an unproven player in midfield.
 
So?

Every young player is unproven at international level at some point and playng friendlys doesn't do jack to give you experiance of what a tournement is like, the only way to get experiance is to play in the Euro's / WC.

Cleverly has proved at every level of international football so far that he's good enough. He's done well at every single club he's been on loan at through The Championship and Premiership. He's clearly good enough.

And yes it is the 2nd biggest (btw you forgot to put International Tournement as the CL is definately bigger) but England aren't going to win it anyway, so whats the harm in bloodying the Youngsters?

The way I see it. Play the old guard, get knocked out. Nothing gained.

Play the Youngsters, expecations lowered even more, they can play without pressure and gain the vital experaince they need.

There's no Long term benefit for not playing the youngsters and there's no benefit fullstop of playing the established guard as they don't have a hope in hell / are too old or past it / are simply not good enough.

This is England you're talking about, expectations won't lower, all they'll do is give out about the manager for not taking the competition seriously.
 
So?

Every young player is unproven at international level at some point and playng friendlys doesn't do jack to give you experiance of what a tournement is like, the only way to get experiance is to play in the Euro's / WC.

Cleverly has proved at every level of international football so far that he's good enough. He's done well at every single club he's been on loan at through The Championship and Premiership. He's clearly good enough.

And yes it is the 2nd biggest (btw you forgot to put International Tournement as the CL is definately bigger) but England aren't going to win it anyway, so whats the harm in bloodying the Youngsters?

The way I see it. Play the old guard, get knocked out. Nothing gained.

Play the Youngsters, expecations lowered even more, they can play without pressure and gain the vital experaince they need.

There's no Long term benefit for not playing the youngsters and there's no benefit fullstop of playing the established guard as they don't have a hope in hell / are too old or past it / are simply not good enough.

I agree with you. How many times do the old guard need to go out there and feck it all up before they are put out to pasture? Give the youngsters some experience, tell them to have fun, no expectations. Maybe then people will know they can't go out there and pounce about doing feck all and expect to continue getting picked on reputation. Honestly, the way I see it we have nothing to lose. The manager would need the same message, he isn't going to get lynched for a disastrous performance from the kids. I'd be happy with that. Better than going out there and making the same mistakes we've made for other recent competitions.
 
So?

Every young player is unproven at international level at some point and playng friendlys doesn't do jack to give you experiance of what a tournement is like, the only way to get experiance is to play in the Euro's / WC.

Cleverly has proved at every level of international football so far that he's good enough. He's done well at every single club he's been on loan at through The Championship and Premiership. He's clearly good enough.

And yes it is the 2nd biggest (btw you forgot to put International Tournement as the CL is definately bigger) but England aren't going to win it anyway, so whats the harm in bloodying the Youngsters?

The way I see it. Play the old guard, get knocked out. Nothing gained.

Play the Youngsters, expecations lowered even more, they can play without pressure and gain the vital experaince they need.

There's no Long term benefit for not playing the youngsters and there's no benefit fullstop of playing the established guard as they don't have a hope in hell / are too old or past it / are simply not good enough.

To be fair we took 17 year old Walcott to the 2006 world cup. Cleverley has much more experience and right to go to these Euro's than Walcott did to be at that World Cup.
 
To be fair we took 17 year old Walcott to the 2006 world cup. Cleverley has much more experience and right to go to these Euro's than Walcott did to be at that World Cup.

Agreed.

Also, it wasn't taking Walcott per se that was wrong. It was taking him and not being willing to use him. Complete waste of a place.

All that said, Cleverley has been out all season, it is quite hard to justify taking him, regardless of age.
 
To be fair we took 17 year old Walcott to the 2006 world cup. Cleverley has much more experience and right to go to these Euro's than Walcott did to be at that World Cup.

Yh but everyone knew that was a mistake. End of te day give youth a chance if they've done it over the season. Jones and welbeck have earned their way in through their performances over a season. Clev has played a handful of games this season. He doesn't deserve to go and unlike other players he's not proved anything in previous seasons to go due to his name. There are undoubtedly some older players who also don't deserve to be there that's true though.
 
Cleverley also has been playing a good 2 years of football in the Championship and the Premiership prior to this seasons "breakout". Thats why he was selected at almost every level of international football for us.

There really is no justification with not bleeding in more youngsters. I mean just look at who they called up to replace barry in midfield..phil jagielka. Im not saying jagielka doesn't deserve it, but is he really the kind of player that will change the future of the national team? As opposed to someone like Cleverley?
 
Cleverley also has been playing a good 2 years of football in the Championship and the Premiership prior to this seasons "breakout". Thats why he was selected at almost every level of international football for us.

There really is no justification with not bleeding in more youngsters. I mean just look at who they called up to replace barry in midfield..phil jagielka. Im not saying jagielka doesn't deserve it, but is he really the kind of player that will change the future of the national team? As opposed to someone like Cleverley?

Ok but again he's barely played, is he gonna be fit for an international tournament, at a level he'a hardly played at? Again it's not like he'a a proven star or even proven young star like wilshere, he's a relative no one who might come could at some point. Now Englands lack of defensive cover in the middle is a concern but don't see how clev will help there and doesn't make sense as a replacement.
 
Ok but again he's barely played, is he gonna be fit for an international tournament, at a level he'a hardly played at? Again it's not like he'a a proven star or even proven young star like wilshere, he's a relative no one who might come could at some point. Now Englands lack of defensive cover in the middle is a concern but don't see how clev will help there and doesn't make sense as a replacement.

Yes the one thing that is questionable is his match fitness. Is he still not fully recovered from injury? Is he capable of playing 90 minutes?

However, these are problems with very easy solutions. England plays a few friendlies before the tournament starts. We've already played Norway and they could have used that friendly to test out whether Cleverley could play effectively.

With players dropping out as a result of injury I don't see why we shouldn't go with youth. Its so vitally important to the future of the national team that these young players progress and get the experience of being at a major tournament. You've heard it a million times before, players like Ronaldo sat the bench for Brazil in the World Cup as teenagers and then went on to star for their countries for years to come. Of course I'm not saying Cleverley and co. would ever reach those levels, but it certainly helps them in the long term and it is vital for the future of the national team.
 
What is scary is that England basically are sending 3 central midfielders to the Euro 2012 - all of them are well past 30 and 2 of them are perfectly capable of getting a straight red with their tackles
 
Yes the one thing that is questionable is his match fitness. Is he still not fully recovered from injury? Is he capable of playing 90 minutes?

However, these are problems with very easy solutions. England plays a few friendlies before the tournament starts. We've already played Norway and they could have used that friendly to test out whether Cleverley could play effectively.

With players dropping out as a result of injury I don't see why we shouldn't go with youth. Its so vitally important to the future of the national team that these young players progress and get the experience of being at a major tournament. You've heard it a million times before, players like Ronaldo sat the bench for Brazil in the World Cup as teenagers and then went on to star for their countries for years to come. Of course I'm not saying Cleverley and co. would ever reach those levels, but it certainly helps them in the long term and it is vital for the future of the national team.

But if he can't play effectively then we've just wasted a spot in midfield in those friendlies, especially when due to his inexperience he wouldn't be getting in to midfield ahead of Gerrard or Lampard anyway. I don't particularly rate either in the middle due to this inability defensively but Cleverley is not an improvement on them in that regard.

As I said youth is fine but they should be proven/playing well. Ronaldo was an undoubted star in the making and that's why we've taken Ox who whilst he's no Ronaldo is an exciting young player. We don't have to overload on them. We've got Jones and Welbeck who are also young but crucially played well enough to get in. As did Walker which is why before his injury he was probably going to go.

Italy didn't exactly win a world cup using youth. If over the next season this batch of young players step up domestically then by all means given them time internationally. But just giving them games because they're young isn't the way forward imo. They should earn it or we'll just end up in the same situation we have in the past where we just use certain players and don't give them competition. It shouldn't be about age but who's playing the best right now and Cleverley given he's unproven at the top level, has been injured most the season and hasn't played for ages doesn't deserve to go this time.

Although having said that I wouldn't have had any objection if he was in for Downing, although I would still have preferred a defender.
 
If Lampard is ruled out today should Woy grow a pair of balls and make a call to Carrick or should he bring in the completely fecking useless Henderson? Leaving us with Henderson, Gerrard and the half injured Parker as our midfield options?

Thoughts?
 
If Lampard is ruled out today should Woy grow a pair of balls and make a call to Carrick or should he bring in the completely fecking useless Henderson? Leaving us with Henderson, Gerrard and the half injured Parker as our midfield options?

Thoughts?

It's not even about growing balls. He said that the only reason he didn't bring Carrick was because he didn't see him as better than his four primary CMs (Lampard, Gerrard, Barry and Parker). If any one of them is unavailable he has to invite Carrick, surely? fecking ridiculous state of affairs if he doesn't.
 
If Lampard is ruled out today should Woy grow a pair of balls and make a call to Carrick or should he bring in the completely fecking useless Henderson? Leaving us with Henderson, Gerrard and the half injured Parker as our midfield options?

Thoughts?

He won't make the call because Carrick will say no unless he is going to actually feature. Sadly, Roy will want to start Gerrard and Parker with Milner as backup so Henderson suits as he won't expect to play.
 
I got the quote slightly wrong.

"I wouldn't dream of putting Michael on a standby list after he has made it clear in the past he doesn't want to be involved like that," Hodgson said.

"I'd have to be convinced he was better than the four I've selected and that he'd be happy to come out of retirement."

Anyway, the least he should do is give Carrick a call.
 
It's not even about growing balls. He said that the only reason he didn't bring Carrick was because he didn't see him as better than his four primary CMs (Lampard, Gerrard, Barry and Parker). If any one of them is unavailable he has to invite Carrick, surely? fecking ridiculous state of affairs if he doesn't.

Nah but Carrick doesn't want to go to sit on the bench and Hogdson is clearly aiming for Parker Gerrard, however stupid that is.
 
I got the quote slightly wrong.



Anyway, the least he should do is give Carrick a call.

Agreed. However, when it all goes wrong for England at least the great(sic) British public/media cannot use Carrick as an excuse.
Its a travesty that Carrick is not the automatic first choice in midfield for England
 
If a player effectively rules himself out unless he is assured to start I can kind of see what has gone wrong with Carrick’s England career. It certainly seems more clear now then before we learnt of this.

It could be a case of a manager and the FA taking the hump over his stance
 
If a player effectively rules himself out unless he is assured to start I can kind of see what has gone wrong with Carrick’s England career. It certainly seems more clear now then before we learnt of this.

It could be a case of a manager and the FA taking the hump over his stance

Yeah there's an argument for that but tbh I'm more frustrated that after years of constantly failing due to a lack of players able to keep and use possession we still leave out the one quality player we have who can do that, not to mention are looking to play Gerrard in a deeper role despite nearly all his domestic managers and his england career so far suggesting he is a liability there and he should be played higher up the pitch with 2 others behind him.
 
If a player effectively rules himself out unless he is assured to start I can kind of see what has gone wrong with Carrick’s England career. It certainly seems more clear now then before we learnt of this.

It could be a case of a manager and the FA taking the hump over his stance

Agree completely.