As I said, he finished very well and was consistent for half a season, considering his season started around December. And even then he had some lapses.
Alas poor Carrick...WTF has happened?
- Thread starter Carl
- Start date
As I said, he finished very well and was consistent for half a season, considering his season started around December. And even then he had some lapses.
What exactly are you assuming here? (in bold) I don't care if we have Iniesta, if we play in a system that hinders them from expressing their abilities, that top class midfielder isn't going to look so great for us. We talk about getting a top class midfielder when I've seen little evidence of actually playing a midfield which gets the best out of everyone. So how this going to magically change when we bring in top quality? Fergie still defaults to our 4-4-2 setup and we have both RVP and Kagawa. We would probably do the same if we had Hazard too.
And no we're not overly reliant on Scholes. We've been fine the past few weeks when we haven't used him. Problem is, when he's on the field, everyone goes into "Paul Scholes the demigod of football" mode and everything just stops. Carrick is the worst at this and we become so lethargic and predictable.
I think you're putting the chicken before the egg.
The point is that if Fergie had better midfield players at his disposal then he would have more options. You build your system around the players you have, not the other way around. Save that you may bring players in to fit a particular mould or idea you have.
You seem to think that changing the system will neccessarily make good players into brilliant players. In my view brilliant players can stamp their authority on a game and adapt to various systems. You put Xavi and Iniesta in United's midfield they'd still be class acts.
As regards your second point I completely disagree. If you think conceding this many goals is "fine", then fair play, but frankly the brilliance of the attack and a few slices of good luck have gotton us out of jail. There are injuires at the back which doesn't help, but the midfield seems unable to protect the back four. Its been on the cards since last year when the likes of Norwich were having 20-odd shots on goal.
I stand by my opinion that without Scholes we have nobody to dictate the tempo of play in the middle. He's a class act and its usually evident from his performances. Fergie needs to find someone with those qualities, even if filling Scholes boots is probably an impossible task. To me Dembele from Spurs is the type of player we needed, and he went for a decent price. He's been superb in the games I've watched this year.
That's the thing.
Again and again people claim that Carrick/Scholes are more balanced or provide defensive cover and positional sense that Anderson and Cleverley lack.
Except they don't. They stand behind the play when we have the ball, and they stand behind the play when the other team have the ball. Our entire team ends up stretched across the pitch so the opposition can just play through us into the acres of space either side of our midfield.
By contrast, Anderson on Wednesday bailed us out numerous times by getting back on the cover (even if he played more accurate passes to Braga players than anyone on Braga's team). Cleverley is rarely caught behind the play since he's involved in most of it. Both of them also push up into space which allows us to be much more compact and stop teams playing their way out at will.
When Carrick is doing his job he's fine. Since he protects the back four by closing the space behind him...I thought he was in our top 3 players last season after a shakey start. The problem is he hasn't been doing that this season. Watch him and Scholes on the first goal yesterday. It's fecking infuriating. Rooney managed to see the problem developing and get back, yet those two, who should be getting back to cover midfield runners regardless, were jogging aimlessly in no mans land, being completely fecking pointless.
I was thinking about the game, and remembered that cracking pass he played to Wayne Rooney in the 2nd half...
Thankfully, someone made a gif of it
What a fecking pass that is.
Thankfully, someone made a gif of it
What a fecking pass that is.
I was thinking about the game, and remembered that cracking pass he played to Wayne Rooney in the 2nd half...
Thankfully, someone made a gif of it
What a fecking pass that is.
Incredible pass!
Notice how he jogs back into defense after the pass where half our team is in attack. No doubt that he has clear and strict orders to stay back.
I think his lack of pace is exaggerated. Sure he takes a while to get going, but he is deceptively fast when running at full speed. Also, he is nowhere near as immobile as noodle will have it; he has had a very decent start this season, and if we go by previous years, November/December is when he kicks into gear.
Again mate, you're just making assumptions. I never said anything about turning into brilliant players. For the past who knows how many years, we've played with wingers and we've kept to this ideal for the longest I can remember. The fact that Fergie is looking for a "new Keano" tells me he has no plans of really making any radical changes with our formation/tactics. The most radical we've done is go to a diamond with no wingers which protects our backline much better than in a 4-4-2. My point is that we talk about buying a top class center mid as if that one player will fix everything when we've got multiple issues in the squad and we dont consistently field a balanced midfield. WHo is this top class center mid you speak of?
Again Red rover, your love of scholes is blinding you. The only way we can use him is in a midfield 3, but one needs to ask the question why Sir Alex isn't doing this. Are you seriously pinning down conceding goals purely down to midfield? It's a team issue at this point and it's compounded by the fact that in some games this season, we've simply got the balance wrong in midfield imo. However, it's not the only reason. And guess what? Scholes wouldn't have made it any better. Our best games this season have come this season when Scholes hasn't been in the team. Get over it. We don't need to rely on him. It wasn't too long ago we were discussing the Carrick-Cleverley partnership which is showing more promise at the moment.
So you've highlighted one of Scholes' great qualities. Dictating play. Your last paragraph implies our reliance on Scholes when he's not there. I have said it before, whenever we play Scholes against energetic teams, his impact is mostly nullified and we're heavily exposed defensively. Please notice we leave the biggest gaps when him and Carrick are on the pitch together. It just doesn't work in games where the opposition can break at us with pace. It works when Scholes has time and space.
Secondly, we don't need Scholesy dictating play to play exciting football. You're simply talking about one style of play which in a sense would require someone like Scholes. As I stated earlier, our lack of balance basically nullifies this. However, based on the players we have at our disposal, we can play a different style. The attacking players we have at the moment mostly thrive off of 1-2 touch play with the capability to interchange positions and attack the opposition from different angles. As of yet, we've only done this in 2 or 3 games and they only are illustrated in certain spurts of the match. We are taking this team in a new direction and Paul Scholes is not a part of that new direction. Nonetheless, while he's available, we might as well use him when necessary and offer our other midfielders some rest in the process. This is why I think finding a like-for-like replacement for Scholes is unlikely. The current set of midfielders aren't bad and there's a lot of potential there but the fact we haven't consistently got the balance right in midfield exaggerates the problem. In my eyes, we just need one more midfielder to give us the right kind of balance and I dont think he needs to be top class.
Let me be clear, I love Scholes and what he brings to our team. But letting sentimental attachment get in the way of observing the obvious is quite disconcerting especially when this issue has been prevalent for so long. It's a shame we aren't using him better and I think he is best utilized when he came on against Southampton and just took over. He was fresh. The opposition had backed off and he had time and space to pull his magic. He excels when the team is in the ascendancy and it shows every single time. But when we start with him a midfield partner who is simply way off the pace with little defensive cover, what else should you really expect? Scholes' defensive limitations are a major factor as well which is why I said he'd be best utilized in a midfield 3. Can't remember the last time we did that with Scholes in the team. Based on that, when we play ENERGETIC teams or teams who can break at us with pace, we're better off not starting Scholes.
News to me. Where can I find out more about this fact?
I think you're living in Sky Captain world with general Parker and Leutenant Barry.
Sky Captain world
Great post Plato.
http://www.manutd.com/en/news-and-f...ir-alex-ferguson-hits-back-over-midfield.aspx
Look here adebesi. Albeit he says "young" Keano but same difference.
Look here adebesi. Albeit he says "young" Keano but same difference.
Cina, it baffles me why it's so hard for some to accept. I noticed what you said in another thread and I agree. Having Giggs and Scholes around is phenomenal but I do feel they're holding us back.
We don't have better talent in midfield than Scholes and Giggs unfortunately. Carrick doesn't take chances for a through ball, Cleverly is too raw, Anderson is too inconsistent, Fletcher is out injured, Jones is injured and all over the place when in midfield, Powell too young etc.
I can't see past Scholes when it comes to creativity in the middle of the park. However he's too immobile, but that's understandable given his age, he needs another 2 alongside him in midfield to get him the ball and to cover for him defensively.
The problem I have with Carrick is that he doesn't seem to take the responsibility anymore, looks devoid of creativity, unable to track back, when we're playing against a team that presses us in midfield he's a complete liability, slow on the turn, etc..
In the Spring we did well and was consistent throughout, but there were sings for this turnaround. I don't believe that he turned shit overnight in the course of 3-4 months. He really improved but having in mind his performances the year prior he didn't really set the bar high. I don't see our system changed or Carrick being asked to play in some unnatural position, he has been with United over 6 years now, and has played in midfield 2, 3 or whatever.
It's a shame that Fergie still hasn't addressed the issue we have in midfield for several seasons now..
Yep, very much so. They bring the worst out of Fergie, his tendency to cling to past systems and old players whenever he possibly can.
I still don't get this. Everything everyone ever complains about is his deficiency of reading the game. He is awful at reading the game. He makes up for it by staying off everyone in the hope they are going to make an obvious direct pass and he's in the way. It's the entire opposite of 'great at reading play'.
Blocking passing channels is effectively reading the game. He doesn't make so many interceptions by accident.
Carrick has his faults but reading the game isn't one of them.
Don't be an arsehole, if there's one thing that Carrick has done well since he was at WHam it's reading the play.
It's a similar problem to when G Nev was still playing. Do we squeeze so much out of them until they're effectively useless or do we let them leave on a high and focus on moving the team in a new direction? Obviously they still have something to offer but it's affecting our fans as well. Cleverley is too raw? Ando too inconsistent? Play the feckers. They need to learn and holding them back in games where they should be playing is simply disappointing. Whenever I watch those 2, I see the future of United and it almost always offers excitement. Fergie has been pretty good so far this season but it's on these occasions where you simply scratch your head. I wonder if Fergie just makes a gamble hoping it will work. The more he tries gambling with Scholes and Carrick in midfield, the more it won't pay off.
It used to be a great partnership. Now, it's reduced effectiveness is best to use in certain matches so it really shouldn't be our first option.
The example of rafael is in front of all of us. Injuries allowed him to cement the right back spot and now he is one of the finest RB in the premier league. If we still had o'shea/brown am sure most of us would still be debating whether he is ready for a run or not. We have a group of very talented young midfielders and at the end of the day we should trust them. Otherwise they will move to a club who will.
The problem when Carrick plays with Scholes is that they both take up the deep role, which makes the gap between midfield and attack huge. We look something like this with both Carrick and Scholes:
--------Back four--------
---Carrick------Scholes---
Winger--------------Winger
-----Attacker--Attacker---
It creates this huge gap in the middle where none of our players spend any the time. THis leaves Rooney and RVP completely isolated unless they drop into that hole to get the ball. Rooney normally ends up doing this, but when this happens we could just as well play a midfield 3, because then at least the player connecting midfield and attack would be someone who could do attacking runs from midfield instead of a striker coming deep with his back towards the opposition defense.
When we play Carrick (or Scholes for that matter) with anyone else it looks more like this
--------Back four--------
---------Carrick---------
Winger---Someone---Winger
--Attacker----Attacker----
A lot more fluid connection between midfield and attack, and it is very apparent in our play that this suits our front men more than the 4-4-2 with Carrick Scholes.
The latter formation also makes it easier for the deep midfielder to actually shield properly, because he has shielding as a clear role instead of having to share it with the other midfielder (who in the case of Scholes never does any shielding anyway, just sits ahead of the defense).
Its a valid criticism of Carrick that he cant do a good job in an advanced midfield role, but hes easily our best defensive midfielder and shield for the back four. When we play Scholes Carrick we neither have a good shield for the defense nor attacking fibres in the middle of the pitch. With Carrick and Cleverley/Anderson Carrick can go about with his readin the game, making interceptions and keeping things ticking while the other goes on runs and does attacking duties well knowing that his midfield partner will close whatever gaps the opposition might try to exploit. Scholes cant do this job and doesnt work in a midfield two any more.
TLDR version. Scholes - Carrick doesnt work. Midfield two only works if Carrick is one of the two. Scholes should only play in a midfield 3.
--------Back four--------
---Carrick------Scholes---
Winger--------------Winger
-----Attacker--Attacker---
It creates this huge gap in the middle where none of our players spend any the time. THis leaves Rooney and RVP completely isolated unless they drop into that hole to get the ball. Rooney normally ends up doing this, but when this happens we could just as well play a midfield 3, because then at least the player connecting midfield and attack would be someone who could do attacking runs from midfield instead of a striker coming deep with his back towards the opposition defense.
When we play Carrick (or Scholes for that matter) with anyone else it looks more like this
--------Back four--------
---------Carrick---------
Winger---Someone---Winger
--Attacker----Attacker----
A lot more fluid connection between midfield and attack, and it is very apparent in our play that this suits our front men more than the 4-4-2 with Carrick Scholes.
The latter formation also makes it easier for the deep midfielder to actually shield properly, because he has shielding as a clear role instead of having to share it with the other midfielder (who in the case of Scholes never does any shielding anyway, just sits ahead of the defense).
Its a valid criticism of Carrick that he cant do a good job in an advanced midfield role, but hes easily our best defensive midfielder and shield for the back four. When we play Scholes Carrick we neither have a good shield for the defense nor attacking fibres in the middle of the pitch. With Carrick and Cleverley/Anderson Carrick can go about with his readin the game, making interceptions and keeping things ticking while the other goes on runs and does attacking duties well knowing that his midfield partner will close whatever gaps the opposition might try to exploit. Scholes cant do this job and doesnt work in a midfield two any more.
TLDR version. Scholes - Carrick doesnt work. Midfield two only works if Carrick is one of the two. Scholes should only play in a midfield 3.
story time.
Its completely true though. If you think Carrick is bad at reading the game then you dont have a clue.
Good post man, well explained.
Right on. We moved O'shea and Brown at the right time and I hope for the sake of this current crop, we give them more chances.
Lovely analysis. Shame it will be ignored and we'll be talking about the same thing in the future.
Well I won't ignore it.
I came in here and see so much sense...
Well said Plato and Brosstan... /tip hat.
It's what most of us has said for ages. Perhaps we're just incapable of not looking at it simplified, but for me it's excactly like Brosstan described. The end result being offensively we're only looking for Scholes to play his diagonals to the wingers and them to do something. It's all very predictable.
Defensively we've been shambolic in the midfield area(chasm) this season.
Defensively we've been shambolic in the midfield area(chasm) this season.
Indeed it is predictable, but when we have scored 6 goals more than Chelsea this season and nine more than City, why bother change it? Everyone knows that Messi is just going to walk past you with the ball - he still does it game in and game out. Everyone knows Valencia is going to kick it and run, still does it and crosses into the box. Some things are predictable but very hard to do anything about. If I go in the ring with Klitschko, then the outcome is pretty predictable - not much he can do about it though.
Because our central midfield clearly isn't working properly, and we'll get punished for it every single time our brilliant forwards doesn't dig us out of the hole, which is going to happen sooner or later.
I think the other issue is it seems more of a tactical reason, it seems clear that carrick and scholes have both been told to sit deep and just ping the ball out wide to valencia whenever possible, and let him try to create from there.
Whenever we regain posession he is our first target.
Carrick is capable of joining the box and playmaking from there, but perhaps our defensive instability has caused fergie to ask them to sit back and shield.
Bullshit. He's excellent at reading play. You dont get those many interceptions and standing tackles to retrieve the ball by "hoping" you get lucky.
Good post. Agree with all of it. The gap between our strikers and CM is by biggest beef with the system. Slows us down, isolates the striker and makes us much more predictable.
Clearly is too strong a word. We've dominated possession in almost all matches. We outplayed Arsenal's midfield and we had 70% possession against Villa; that is not done on the wings. Our midfield is better than you credit them.
I think this is a valid point. I mean its not as though Ferguson has gone clueless after all these years or can't write down on a piece of paper the same thing. There has to be a reason why he plays Carrick and Scholes together sometimes, its not as though they wouldn't be huge discussions about it in his office right?
it is pretty clear that Carrick is asked to sit back - you could almost say he is more a part of the defence than the midfield as his average position is usually further back than the fullbacks nowadays
The Arsenal-match and the Newcastle-match are the only matches in the league this season where we've both controlled the match, looked solid defensively and created openings.
Mate you're skewing history and this nonsense needs to stop. I can guarantee you if we played Scholes and Carrick in midfield in the majority of our PL games, we wouldn't be top. There's a reason we had to make subs on Saturday. It wasn't working mate. It wasn't going to work and we're making ourselves live dangerously by doing so.
Also, this post doesn't account for the fact our attack has pulled us out of the mire in most of these games. Us doing "well" has nothing to do with predictability. It doesn't make sense to use the logic of goals scored as a reason to back up being predictable, when we've been anything but predictable. It's just that when we play Carrick and Scholes, we are really really predictable. The times we've tried it, it's almost cost us so please. Stop.
But he's not even doing that consistently well enough! Look at how Villa scored their second goal. Played right between Carrick and Scholes. There was no shielding whatsoever.