They were rubbish because he did so much to nullify them. It's like excusing our CL final losses to Barcelona by saying we were much worse than normal. Well of course we were, that's what happens when you get outplayed.
Alas poor Carrick...WTF has happened?
- Thread starter Carl
- Start date
They were rubbish because he did so much to nullify them. It's like excusing our CL final losses to Barcelona by saying we were much worse than normal. Well of course we were, that's what happens when you get outplayed.
Agree with you redmeister he is not a Keane or a Scholes and I think this frustrates many but he is better than the days of kleberson miller rio oshea and Giggs in the midfield! Plus he's better than obi mikel, arteta or Barry who all play in the same position for our rivals
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Arsenal were rubbish in attack because they were scared to actually attack us for a lot of the game, largely due to when we destroyed them here last season. Carrick wasn't poor, but if you'd taken him out of that team and replaced him with most of our midfielders then Arsenal wouldn't have been anymore threatening. He didn't do overly much too nullify them to be honest.
Not how I saw it. Again and again Cazorla received the ball, went to turn with it, and found Carrick perfectly positioned to force him to lay it back to whoever gave it to him. We've seen this season what he can do if he does get that yard or so of space to turn into. It was particularly noticeable how often it happened because Carrick does that weird 'spread my arms to make myself look big' thing when he's blocking (he's a spanish footballer, Michael, not a grizzly bear!)
6 interceptions says otherwise. I noticed it yesterday watching the game, the amount of times he stole in when they tried to play in Cazorla was quite apparent even for a casual viewer.
Again, I'm not saying Carrick was poor, it's just that he was nothing out of the ordinary. He did well to stop Cazorla, but I think that Cazorla was largely stifled by Wenger and his overly defensive tactics. Take Carrick out of the team and replace him and Arsenal wouldn't have been much better than they were yesterday. Wenger's tactics until later in the game were a lot more stifling than Michael Carrick.
I didn't think it was Wengers tactics. I just thought Arsenal looked flat, sluggish and slow on the ball and lacked belief. They came to OT to get beat I thought.
Their midfielders took ages on the ball, Arteta being the main culprit, and not only did it reduce Cazorla to a passenger, it also made them lose the ball in dangerous positions.
Their midfielders took ages on the ball, Arteta being the main culprit, and not only did it reduce Cazorla to a passenger, it also made them lose the ball in dangerous positions.
They lacked belief because I don't think Wenger gave them any before the match. He would've probably taken a draw before the match by the looks of how they played, which is unusual for him. That was never going to help the team. They looked slow and sluggish because of those stifling tactics.
It was noticeable that later on in the game, when they were chasing and had to go for it, they began to gain the upper hand in the midfield battle and were actually creating some chances. Had they been like that for more of the game, then I don't think our midfield would have had such an easy time at dealing with them.
Their midfielders can take a lot of time on the ball though, but that doesn't actually improve Carrick at all, does it? It makes him look worse, if anything, because it means that his interceptions were easier to make as he had more times to read the passes.
Interesting actually. Taking too long on the ball can actually sometimes be a problem of Carrick's, as is shown when our midfield struggles to cope with high pressure teams.
I thought the goal from RVP knocked the stuffing out of them, but even on that occasion they were terribly open which led to Rafael's crossing opportunity.
It's simple really, I thought Carrick, Cleverley and Rooney worked their bollocks off and pressed all over the pitch, which made us win the midfield battle. We had the intensity their midfield lacked.
Carrick was the best player on the pitch in the first half.
I thought him and Cleverley were our best players actually, yeah.
What did you make of your performance? It seemed completely lacking in conviction to my eyes. Like you just didn't think you could get anything.
Again, I partly agree with you, but what I'm saying is Arsenal didn't do themselves any favours. Our midfield won the battle obviously, but half of it was won by them and the other half was lost by Arsenal.
We weren't great all round but I thought it was more to do with some appalling performances. Podolski contributed nothing all game (should have been hooked at HT) and Vermaelen was horrible.
Podolski was shockingly bad, he looked like his mind was elsewhere.
I thought playing Ramsey as a makeshift-winger was a strange move. It didn't work against QPR and won't work against United.
How was Carrick responsible for Arsenal's poor passing? As good as Carrick and Tom were in midfield, a lot of Arsenal's poor play was self-inflicted.
Carrick read the game and intercepted their passes. Also, along with Cleverley and Rooney he pressed with real intensity. Poor passing tend to happen when put under pressure.
That's only part of it marjen. Plus I edited my post.
I genuinely didn't realize he was playing until he was subbed off.
Plato is right. Despite the interceptions Carrick made, Arsenal were as responsible for them as he was with their passing being generally quite poor. Arsenal on a better day would have passed much better and Carrick wouldn't have made as many interceptions.
Still, he made those interceptions, and a lot of them were really good. As I said I was really impressed during the first half with his defensive work.
You can't say that since Arsenal were poor Carrick had a poor game. I thought he was easily one of our best performers.
That's the thing though, I'm not saying Carrick had a poor game and I haven't said that at all. I simply think that his game was fairly standard and that he did benefit from Arsenal's poor passing.
Carrick made a combined 9 tackles and interceptions - the same amount as Rooney!
I thought he had a great game defensively, best I've seen from him in a while.
A bit sub par passing wise, but I thought the speed of his play was fine, as opposed to what noodles for instance claims.
And I'm delighted a midfield pairing of Carrick-Cleverley seems to work quite nicely. Even if Arsenal were a bit disappointing, it's still Arsenal, and it's still one of the best midfields they're gonna face. Which makes me happy that we can play them and dominate the game even with both of RVP and Rooney playing.
Ramsey was playing as a extra midfielder rather than a winger, I thought he was one of our better players along with Sagna, Per and Mannone and shouldn't have come off unless he got a knock.
I dont think anyone is saying this though. The problem is recognizing how one aspect relates to another. It really shouldn't be hard to recognize Carrick's defensive work was not the sole reason for Arsenal's poor passing. I agree, his interceptions were good but if you want to look at his performance from a more holistic perspective, it was decent at best where his defensive work overshadowed his subpar attacking contribution.
I think the problem with having a stream that cuts in and out is that stops you from appreciating the more subtle aspects of the game, areas in which Carrick excels. So I didn't really notice him one way or the other (unlike Evra, who I thought was back to his rampaging best.)
Incredibly simple minded way to look at it, and typical of someone who underestimates Carrick. His game is based a lot on clever positioning, which leads to many interceptions that look like the opposition is passing badly. He had Cazorla in his pocket.
Some of Arsenal's bad play was self-inflicted, such as Vermaelen having a mare and Podolski looking shell-shocked. But a lot of it was down to Carrick nullifying Cazorla and Rooney closing down Arteta. They simply werent allowed to play their game because our players made it difficult for them.
Its not entirely coincidental that a team like Braga plays right through us all game with Fletcher at DM while Arsenal look like a league 2 side when Carrick is playing.
And part of it was also down to Wenger's tactics. At times, we've looked poor in midfield and as a team defensively with Carrick playing. And you want to criticise his post for being simple-minded?
That's almost half as many times as he played a hospital ball to one of his team mates or passed the ball sideways across the pitch to no one.
Van Persie's the one who makes himself available for the ball and then does something classy and effective with it. Carrick's the one who at the moment, only picks it up if he's in about 20 square metres of space, and then plays a pass into where there isn't any space...and then lets the other team run past him when the pass results in us losing the ball.
Michael Carrick is capable of playing much better than this though. He did for most of last season. He has every season since he's been here.
We have Cleverley and Anderson playing well, Fletcher getting back to fitness and looking promising, and Scholes and Giggs both still with a lot to offer. If Carrick wants to sit in his little comfort zone, fine, Fergie will eventually move his comfort zone to the bench for him. Too many other players are offering too much more.
I don't buy this stuff about him doing such a great job defensively...we've been crap at defending from midfield this season. In fact, crap is putting it extremely kindly. The only competent midfield performances from a defensive point of view have been when Fletcher's been in the team, and even then, sometimes it's still been crap. Pretty much everything good we've done has been going the other way, which Carrick has had little or no influence in.
Yesterday Arsenal were just incredibly poor, I'm afraid. When they did get their act together for a couple of spells in the secnd half, they got in behind Carrick fairly freely.
This is just plain bollocks. In the long argument above, some are saying Carrick had a good game, some are saying he did well but only in an easy game. Either are reasonable arguments. But your criticisms don't seem to have any relation to the actual game. He made one very bad mispass which led to a good Arsenal attack, and that was pretty much it as far as errors go. Otherwise he was, at the very least, very solid (and personally I think he was very good.)Even Pete thinks he had a great game, for crying out loud!
Again, people seem to be ignoring what I'm saying. I didn't say that Carrick had a poor game. Nor did I say that he positioned himself poorly. All I'm saying is that Arsenal's play was very poor throughout the game and that people are massively overrating Carrick's contribution to our win. Arsenal looked like a League 2 side because Wenger set them out to defend against us and not attack as if they were one because of last seasons result here.
I'm not underestimating Carrick. If anything, some of you lot are overrating him because you've simply looked at some interceptions and a poor performance from Cazorla and assumed he was brilliant. He wasn't. Decent performance, but in the 2nd half he wasn't as good because Arsenal actually went for it once we had the 2nd goal and didn't sit back so much. He didn't look as comfortable then. He positioned himself well and had a decent game, but Arsenal played right into his hands as well. With Fletcher in the team yesterday there wouldn't have been much of a difference.
Arsenal were shit because they were shit. Carrick had little to nothing to do with that, it's the exact reason why some people think he does nothing exactly because he gets praised to high heaven when he actually HASN'T done much.
Carrick is favoured by Ferguson for his positional discipline in games against slick passing sides. The thing is he requires a highly mobile partner to close down the runners he cannot pick up, which he had yesterday. He was adroit in his positioning and found the defensive aspects of his game fairly comfortable.
Arsenal were poor and part of this was down to Wenger's tactical setup. He played an unsuprising 4-5-1 with possession of the ball being the key defensive ploy, attempting to drag Carrick and Cleverley out of position in turn liberating Cazorla. The problem is you have to pass the ball well to achieve results, and they didn't. All pretty predictable and presumptious from Wenger. He won't compromise on Plan A which goes part way to explaining 7 years without a trophy.
The thing that disappointed me about Carrick was his distribution yesterday. Its normally so decisive and metronomic. Yesterday it was uninspiring and tepid. I think he often needs a player such as Rooney to show for the ball in space...this was lacking at times yesterday. I think there is a correlation between a forward line that still hasn't completely clicked, and Carricks average form this season. This side is still striving for some sort of balance through linking central midfield and the attacking positions. Its not fundamentally easy for central midfielders to effortlessly switch between a number of varying formations on a regular basis.
Arsenal were poor and part of this was down to Wenger's tactical setup. He played an unsuprising 4-5-1 with possession of the ball being the key defensive ploy, attempting to drag Carrick and Cleverley out of position in turn liberating Cazorla. The problem is you have to pass the ball well to achieve results, and they didn't. All pretty predictable and presumptious from Wenger. He won't compromise on Plan A which goes part way to explaining 7 years without a trophy.
The thing that disappointed me about Carrick was his distribution yesterday. Its normally so decisive and metronomic. Yesterday it was uninspiring and tepid. I think he often needs a player such as Rooney to show for the ball in space...this was lacking at times yesterday. I think there is a correlation between a forward line that still hasn't completely clicked, and Carricks average form this season. This side is still striving for some sort of balance through linking central midfield and the attacking positions. Its not fundamentally easy for central midfielders to effortlessly switch between a number of varying formations on a regular basis.
How has our forward line not clicked, though? I thought they clicked very well yesterday. The problem was just the finishing. If Van Persie had put a bit more power on the one which Mannone saved, Rooney had scored the penalty, and Valencia had put away the tap-in he mis-kicked, we'd have won 5-1. And there were other chances that could have been put away too.
Tbf, our goal from the corner came from that Mannone save against RVP.
So in essence, we would have been clinical. Again, I see an offense clicking together when the team as an attacking unit is in sync and work with each other to maximise the potential on display. Basically, a general semblance of fluidity which we have yet to show. Based on our performances this season, I don't think we've necessarily clicked yet. We've been quite clinical and have only shown glimpses of what our attacking potential could be. It's slowly coming together but don't think we're there just yet.
I thought Carrick was great defensively, he played one really sloppy passes and then a few other passes went astray but at least those were him trying to do something a bit more creative on the ball, I don't mind him trying that and not like anyone was really having a great game.
As others have pointed out he got a good number of interceptions/tackles but it wasn't just that, he closed off the space well and made it tough for Arsenal to penetrate. That's tough to quantify but Arsenal had so little penetration, that wasn't all the being shite, a lot of him was good tactical positioning and pressing in such a way that you slow the move but don't give away cheap fouls.
I can understand the criticism that he could be more aggressive on the ball, there are times where he could carry it but personally I think some of it is tactical, he's probably told that he should be behind clev and rooney. The other thing is that I reckon he's concerned about how well Clev will cover him. But still he could look to carry the ball more. One thing I would say is that I think at times he could do more to show for the ball when the defence have it, but again part of me thinks it's tactical as we probably want our defenders to use their passing ability to spread it wide.
In general I think he's had a good season, not reached his best yet but I can't think of many average/poor performances. It's not easy playing with a number of different partners and in all honesty he still is yet to have a partner who is an all rounder between physical ability and tactical understanding of playing in a deeper role, he and clev are getting a better understanding, and clev's getting a better idea of playing deeper but it's still gonna take time.
As others have pointed out he got a good number of interceptions/tackles but it wasn't just that, he closed off the space well and made it tough for Arsenal to penetrate. That's tough to quantify but Arsenal had so little penetration, that wasn't all the being shite, a lot of him was good tactical positioning and pressing in such a way that you slow the move but don't give away cheap fouls.
I can understand the criticism that he could be more aggressive on the ball, there are times where he could carry it but personally I think some of it is tactical, he's probably told that he should be behind clev and rooney. The other thing is that I reckon he's concerned about how well Clev will cover him. But still he could look to carry the ball more. One thing I would say is that I think at times he could do more to show for the ball when the defence have it, but again part of me thinks it's tactical as we probably want our defenders to use their passing ability to spread it wide.
In general I think he's had a good season, not reached his best yet but I can't think of many average/poor performances. It's not easy playing with a number of different partners and in all honesty he still is yet to have a partner who is an all rounder between physical ability and tactical understanding of playing in a deeper role, he and clev are getting a better understanding, and clev's getting a better idea of playing deeper but it's still gonna take time.
Rio commented on our shape yesterday, we did look a lot more solid through the middle than we have all season really. Carrick was at the heart of that. Positionally excellent, as others have said. Closed off space, made his interceptions, used the ball intelligently. Best he's been all season. And in fairness, poor as they were yesterday, in Wilshire, Cazorla, Ramsey Arsenal had wit and deftness in there. Their lack of influence had plenty to do with Carrick. Thought Cleverley was more disciplined too. Encouraging.
Even the biggest of Carrick bashers can agree that we'd be fecked if he got injured.
But I guess that would just spark the investing in midfield debate.
So let's just call Carrick what he is - very good player who is integral to the side. Is he Xavi, Iniesta or Scholes - NO. Never has been, never will be.
I just appreciate the player who is solid time and time again and Fergie trusts.
But I guess that would just spark the investing in midfield debate.
So let's just call Carrick what he is - very good player who is integral to the side. Is he Xavi, Iniesta or Scholes - NO. Never has been, never will be.
I just appreciate the player who is solid time and time again and Fergie trusts.