Carrick seems to go through lazy spells. There isno doubt that he is class though. I just watched his contribution on the first goal and he basically sends 3 wigan players the wrong way, turn passes into the space for Nani to unleash. when he is on it, he is devastating.
Alas poor Carrick...WTF has happened?
- Thread starter Carl
- Start date
I didn't think he was poor in the first half, we looked off in general and you could see the balance of the team was off in the first half probably due to the number of changes and the lack of real structure to the team. Once we livened up in the second half and there was both more organization and movement in the team he and Scholes became more influential as they had something to work with. He's not at his best yet but he's getting there.
Carrick is just a slow starter, he always has these average spells at the beginning of the season, no worries.
He was absolutely diabolical in the first half. At one point he lost the ball. Ran 25 yards toward the opposition half chasing it down then just stood there when it was passed through him and wandered back toward the general play with Scholes having to close down 15 yards and eventually foul player. I genuinely think he's gassed or lost some engine or something. He never gets up to full speed. Smarter not harder and all that, I guess.
I have never rated his strength and tackling but we're going to get murdered by technical fast good ball playing sides this year if he continues to be a fanny and not get stuck in. It's infuriating at times watching him run up to a player and shimmy about near them in an attempt to mark them and then watch as the ball is passed harmlessly past him and as players run past him without so much as a care in the world..
Watching from the stands, he looked the worst player on either side in the first half. Nani wasn't great either as Randall said, but he was at least putting himself in the game.
Us and Wigan were both trying to play out from the defence the whole time, but Carrick wasn't showing for the ball, or moving off the ball. He seemed to just be sitting there almost hoping no one passed to him. A bit of half hearted pressing was about as good as it got. There wasn't a single occasion when Carrick picked the ball up from the defenders or goalkeeper, or from Scholes. Not once, in the entire fecking half. Our defenders were constantly dwelling on the ball waiting for him to offer himself as an option...and instead, every single time, Scholes had to make two runs in order to lose his marker and then come back and pick the ball up.
Within a minute of the start of the second half Carrick made a 30 yard sprint to receive the ball from our defence. As if he'd been told in no uncertain terms at half time to either put himself in the game or be removed from it.
He was so much better in the second half it didn't make sense, and it's annoying as it shouldn't have needed a half time bollocking to drag an experienced Manchester United player out of their shell. He should have been playing like that from the off. Especially after having had a bit of a shocker in his last game.
I didn't think the admittedly decent second half excused the first basically. Scholes was the one deserving of the praise again...and Giggs although he wasn't that influential on the ball, at least used his guile to make sure Buttner had acres of room to exploit all the time.
Well I guess you feel pretty strongly about his performance. I didn't see it that way personally, wasn't good in the first half but wasn't bad. I thought Hernandez was much poorer and less involved and I thought giggs bar a few momemnts offered little to the team in the first half. The lack of real threat in attack in my opinion meant both midfielders had to push up high to get involved which left us open to te counter as scholes obv got done for pace. Carrick definitely could have done more but I think the majority of the team were of the pace in that first half. Def think its harsh to say he was the worst player on the pitch.
Would expect that a lot of players got a bollocking at half time, carrick included but as much as you think carrick changed I thought the atack changed. Players started moving more, giggs pushed wider etc and we looked enter for it and the midfielders had something to work with.
Either way however poor he may have been in the first half he was one of the best in the second half.
Would expect that a lot of players got a bollocking at half time, carrick included but as much as you think carrick changed I thought the atack changed. Players started moving more, giggs pushed wider etc and we looked enter for it and the midfielders had something to work with.
Either way however poor he may have been in the first half he was one of the best in the second half.
I agree with what Noodle said entirely.
Nani although he didn't really do much in the first half, you could tell he was really up for the game. He suffered from poor service and lack of options when he received the ball and ended up trying to do it all himself (and failing).
You are right about Hernandez Ash, he was anonymous most the game I though (not just the 1st half). Although you're wrong about Giggs. People seem to have a real agenda against him these days on the forums.
Nani although he didn't really do much in the first half, you could tell he was really up for the game. He suffered from poor service and lack of options when he received the ball and ended up trying to do it all himself (and failing).
You are right about Hernandez Ash, he was anonymous most the game I though (not just the 1st half). Although you're wrong about Giggs. People seem to have a real agenda against him these days on the forums.
Carrick was doing his usual slow start to the season routine.
Spot on
I dunno I thought giggs was much better in the second half where he looked to play a bit wider. First half he played a couple of great passes but because he drifted in so much there was ony buttner providing anything from wide an I really don't think giggs supported him enough. Like I said second half he played wider and it helped our shape. In fairness to giggs he really shouldn't be expecte to ply left wing anymore. I don't have any issues with him bein in the squad I just think we should use him better. With the changes we'd already made I thought he was one too many and thought we could save him for the cl game.
In the first half I though nani did alright he at least looked to make good runs. Hernandez and welbeck didn't click and as I said giggs was too central which imo inhibited the attack and made the midfielders have to push up to high where we were left exposed to the counter.
Like I said regardless of who was at fault in the first half the majority of players picked up second half where carrick was one of the best. Given he had to play some games in preseason in defence and a few in the legume I think it's fair enough that he'a still getting his sharpness in the middle.
No I thought he was by quite a way our worst player in the first half. I've not been impressed with him at all this season, and I don't understand why he seems to turn up for each season a month or so after everyone else.
The play in the first half was too slow in general, but Carrick just wasn't doing his job. You could have swapped him for Gibson or Jordan fecking Henderson and it'd have made no difference. In fact it might have been a slight improvement.
Looked to me like he'd had a bad game last time out so thought he'd try to hide in his shell for this one...as soon as he started getting himself in the game he looked about 20 times better.
Giggs I thought was good in both halves. In the first he was the one actually moving players and playing people in or creating the space. If anything I didn't think we were getting him on the ball enough. Using him as a decoy to suck players out of other areas more often instead, but then being too slow to take advantage.
Hernandez was quite poor, but I didn't think his movement changed drastically from one half to the other. Same with Welbeck who was constantly running for the entire game. The problem all too often in the first half was our defenders woud pick it up, and then had to either wait an age for Scholes to shake his marker, or look for a ball direct in to the forwards themselves, which it also looked like they'd been told to try and avoid doing. Carrick was never, ever an option for them until the second half.
Well as I said you obv feel quite strongly about Carrick in that game. I don't think he was as bad in that first half and definitely feel the number of changes made plus the lack of balance/structure inhibited the team in that first half but as seen in the second half a goal soon changed that. Felt we looked a lot more lively in the second half.
Anyway if Carrick can pick up where he left of in that second half then that will be great for us.
Just watched the game again on TV...
Those suggesting Carrick never 'showed' for ball in first half should do the same.
Those suggesting Carrick never 'showed' for ball in first half should do the same.
Giggs created three excellent opportunities out of nothing. One was a little sort of reverse dink to Buttner when everyone expected him to cut inside, one was the through-ball for Nani's one-on-one, and the other was a lovely first-time flick to put, I think, Nani in on the right with a shooting or at least very dangerous crossing position.
I thought Giggs was defying logic out there
Carrick in slow start shocker
If Carrick is shit again I'd be much happier. I never was comfortable last season having to defend him. Easier to join the rabble!!
Thought I'd rewatch the game as I seemed to have some quite contrasting opinions on Carrick's performance and having seen it again without the frustration etc felt during the live match, imo the first half was better than I thought. We definitely weren't as poor as I thought.
On Carrick in particular I think it's just completely wrong to seay he had a poor half and certainly wasn't near the worst player on the pitch. This idea that he didn't show for the ball is baffling, he was generally always available for a pass and there was a clear tactic for him to push up when he could. This idea that Scholes and Giggs had to cover for him is odd. Scholes was playing as the deeper player and Giggs just drifted inside.
Carrick played some really nice passes and some dangerous balls in. He made a couple of mistakes where he didn't think quick enough but in general he was at the very least decent.
Giggs was more effective than I thought as was Nani although with Giggs I would say that we still were a bit unbalanced by him not sticking to the left wing. As I said before in fairness to him he shouldn't really be having to play left wing.
But either way we weren't that bad in the first half and Carrick was not poor by any means. If you watch that first half again, where you can be much more objective as you won't be getting frustrated then I think you'd be hard pressed to really slate Carrick.
On Carrick in particular I think it's just completely wrong to seay he had a poor half and certainly wasn't near the worst player on the pitch. This idea that he didn't show for the ball is baffling, he was generally always available for a pass and there was a clear tactic for him to push up when he could. This idea that Scholes and Giggs had to cover for him is odd. Scholes was playing as the deeper player and Giggs just drifted inside.
Carrick played some really nice passes and some dangerous balls in. He made a couple of mistakes where he didn't think quick enough but in general he was at the very least decent.
Giggs was more effective than I thought as was Nani although with Giggs I would say that we still were a bit unbalanced by him not sticking to the left wing. As I said before in fairness to him he shouldn't really be having to play left wing.
But either way we weren't that bad in the first half and Carrick was not poor by any means. If you watch that first half again, where you can be much more objective as you won't be getting frustrated then I think you'd be hard pressed to really slate Carrick.
I thought he played well, one or two sloppy moments, bar that he went about his job just fine. Then again ive been defending him for a while as I think hes a really good player, whereas anyone I know would have sent him to the glue factory already.
Especially a mate of mine whos a spuds fan, no matter how well he could play week in week out this lad still believes pretty much every spurs player is better than him.
Yeah mate you keep telling yourself that. All your players are World Class.
Twat
Especially a mate of mine whos a spuds fan, no matter how well he could play week in week out this lad still believes pretty much every spurs player is better than him.
Yeah mate you keep telling yourself that. All your players are World Class.
Twat
I was high up in the Quadrants with a beautiful overview of the game....trust me, Carrick had a cracking all round game (mainly breaking up their attacks before they happened)...which is why I voted him as my Man of the Match.
Our best player tonight I felt.
Yh agreed, hope he can keep it up. Really think if he had a partner who was also near their peak he could contribute even more.
Would agree with that. Bar one or two meh moments he was solid throughout.
Good on the ball, not so good off it
Good to hear him stepping up.
Answer me this because I'm stumped. I thought Carrick was good. I though Scholes was brilliant. So why didn't we control the game?
Man of the match.
Seconded, he was superb.
He had couple of loose passes but they still ended up at their target. 94% pass completion tonight; most amount of touches and passes of anyone on the pitch; joint highest tackler for Utd and he bagged a goal.
Ooof fecking hell that dummy to beat the keeper was UGGGLY.
He really has such horrible feet
edit: Not to take anything away from him!
He really has such horrible feet
edit: Not to take anything away from him!
Yep, he was very good I thought.
Cause scholes wasn't great and we were giving the ball away on other areas a lot. Scholes was really good when we were on top of the ball and had pushed them back but when we needed to work the ball out he was making some sloppy passes and getting caught for pace. But tbh we weren't as bad as being made out in the middle.
I am not big fan of Michael Carrick because he can be very static and careless, but tonight he was very mobile and pretty much great, if only he could keep up this tempo throughout the season.
Because having your 2 central midfielders standing next to each other 10 yards into their own half for virtually the entire match generally isn't ideal for retaining, or winning back possession against tenacious, or relatively good teams.
Great first 20 minutes, pretty silent 70. Still a good performance.
For some time he was running around them like Xavi and played with a lot of grit. Wish he'd show that every game. Maybe the goal will give him that extra confidence
Scholes was particularly off-colour tonight. Carrick was great, however.
Ray Wilkins agrees with some of us on here, that Carrick excels when Scholes isnt on the pitch because he seems to defer to Scholes whenever they play together.
I for one am really excited about our midfield tonight. Giggs in theory should work very well in tandem with Kagawa, with Carrick controlling from deep.
I for one am really excited about our midfield tonight. Giggs in theory should work very well in tandem with Kagawa, with Carrick controlling from deep.
I definitely would agree that Carrick was guilty of that in the past first with scholes and then with Fletcher but I think over the last 18 months or so since Scholes was less involved/retired and Fletcher had his illness Carrick has stepped up to the mantle as the main man in the middle and although with Scholes coming back he has reliquished some of it which you accept will happen as Scholes is as good a midfield orchestrator as there is, I don't think he defers in the same way and looks to take charge when he can.
Almost all Carricks best work last season done before Scholes came back. Definitely took a back seat thereafter. Expect to see more personality from him today than we've seen thusfar this year. Not that he's been poor, just enjoyed seeing him dictating last season. No question Scholes, naturally, takes this mantel when he's on.
There's always going to be some shift when you bring in someone like Scholes but that doesn't have to be bad and natually Carrick has to be more reserved to cover for Scholes. There's no point having Scholes otherwise. I don't think though that Carrick stood back and let scholes completely dominate in the way he did in the past and certainly showed more willingness to contribute, even this season against Gala for example he pushed on when he could.