Alas poor Carrick...WTF has happened?

I don't think anyone is suggesting our attackers were potent. On another day one of Scholes' 4-5 passes could have let to a couple of great chances. The fact remains however that the pair of them were inept defensively. If they did their jobs Villa wouldn't have been leading 2-0 and would not have done more with their terrible possession than we did with our far superior possession.

I'd much prefer to make changes at 0-0 and work from there, rather than our attackers having to salvage the game as has happened against several teams this season.

They were open but any combination that includes Scholes will be susceptible to a counter, I can't think of anyone why could stop that, like I said when Keanes legs went we brought in Fletcher who had an engine as good as anyone to help out and Scholes played as well. Now Scholes is even older than Keane was and we're only playing Carrick with him and using a very wide formation. There isn't a top team out there who sets up in a similar fashion to us. It's unrealisitic that Carrick can cover the whole midfield in a counter. And that will be the case regardless of whether its Scholes or not because we don't have another proper central midfielder bar Fletcher.

Clev and Ando's legs make them better trackers no doubt and they're stronger defending a counter cause of this but when we're organized they're quite prone to getting attracted to the ball and lose their tactical position, something Scholes doesn't to the same extent. When we're more organized, as a combo they're quite good as in terms of tactical positioning Scholes has a better understanding than Clev/Andol, which is reasonable given his experience.

But either way in a wide system there will be space to exploit as most other teams attack centrally and we're typically only playing with 1 midfielder who has a proper understanding of a deeper role. Also I'm not sure what either of them could have realistically done for the second goal but I can't remember it fully.

But going back to the attack, their sloppyness/lack or urgency in the first half allowed Villa in to the game and gave them confidence. Us having to go a goal down is nothing new atm, regardless of if Scholes/Giggs etc are playing, and that will always cause problems, because most the times other teams are stopped by their fear that if they attack you, they'll get opened up on the counter, but if they see that our attack is simply not doing it, it gives them confidence to have a go and it causes problems. If the attackers had started the way they finished we would have probably killed the game after half an hour.
 
Let's look at some stats then: points gained in the first 19 and the last 19 games of each season for the last 12 seasons.

2011/12
1st Half: 45
2nd Half: 44

2010/11
1st Half: 41
2nd Half: 39

2009/10
1st Half: 40
2nd Half: 45

2008/09
1st Half: 41
2nd Half: 49

2007/08
1st Half: 45
2nd Half: 42

2006/07
1st Half: 47
2nd Half: 42

2005/06
1st Half: 41
2nd Half: 42

2004/05
1st Half: 37
2nd Half: 40

2003/04
1st Half: 46
2nd Half: 29

2002/03
1st Half: 35
2nd Half: 48

2001/02
1st Half: 33
2nd Half: 44

2000/01
1st Half: 43
2nd Half: 37

6 times we got more points in the first half of the season, 6 times we got more points in the second. This "always stronger after Christmas" is just a total myth brought about by what happened in 2001/02 and 2002/03.

Statistics can be misleading, can't they?

The seasons where we scored more in the first half of the season, it is usually be a couple points. The exceptions:

00/01: We ran away with the league and relaxed near the end of the season. Young players given games. We won the league by 10 points still - there was nobody pushing us across the line.
03/04: Chelsea ran away with the league and we completely folded. We weren't in the title race at all.
06/07 and 07/08: Again we were comfortable in the league. I seem to remember us resting players at Stamford Bridge amongst other games.

The two most recent seasons buck the trend. Last season a change of approach was noted early in the season. in 10/11 we again ran clear in the league.
 
And your point is...?

Arsenal ran away with the league in 2003/04 - but we did not collapse because they ran away with it, they ran away with it because we collapsed! After Christmas, no less. It happens sometimes!

07/08: we headed into the last game of the season level on points with Chelsea... it wasn't comfortable by any means.

2010/11: again, by no means were we clear in the league. The final 9 point advantage is a bit misleading, considering that Chelsea would have closed the gap to zero had they won at Old Trafford. We certainly didn't drop points because we were comfortably ahead and rested players or something.

Last season we pissed off an 8-point advantage as the whole "always better after Christmas" thing fell flat on its face. Sometimes we're better in the second half of the season, sometimes worse. Just like you'd expect. The two extreme cases are 2001/02 and 2002/03 when we fecked the first half of the season up in quite majestic fashion.
 
His point is that you have to put it in context of the way the season pans out and the competition. Also I'd compare the first third of the season v the second two thirds since my impression is that Man Utd have always organised their conditioning to start relatively slowly and peak late on. Last season your early peak led me to ask if you'd still have that kick late on.
 
His point is that you have to put it in context of the way the season pans out and the competition. Also I'd compare the first third of the season v the second two thirds since my impression is that Man Utd have always organised their conditioning to start relatively slowly and peak late on. Last season your early peak led me to ask if you'd still have that kick late on.

Yes but that kind of context has to applied to everything.

For example, in 2008/09 we weren't better in the second half of the season because we always are but because Ronaldo was in crap form in the first period, partly because of an injury and partly because Fergie kept trying to shoehorn him and Berbatov into a 4-4-2. Little to do with conditioning.

If we're going by gut feelings, I'd say we usually have peaks around December and in March-April. But on the whole the points don't quite reflect any drastic differences, historically, between the first 19 games and the second 19 games of the season. If we get 45-47 points until Boxing Day, we shouldn't expect to end up with 100+ just because "United are always better after Christmas".

Comparing thirds of the season is nice and all but that wasn't the myth I challenged, it was specifically the "always better after Christmas". The big surge doesn't always happen, not even in performance levels: like in 10/11 we kept collecting points in an efficient way without ever tearing the league apart. Basically, what we see now might be as good as we get. We might improve in terms of performances but it's by no means inevitable.
 
His point is that you have to put it in context of the way the season pans out and the competition. Also I'd compare the first third of the season v the second two thirds since my impression is that Man Utd have always organised their conditioning to start relatively slowly and peak late on. Last season your early peak led me to ask if you'd still have that kick late on.
Agreed.

The whole 'come good after Christmas' thing has to be relative to other teams, too. To try & attach some numbers to it in what's probably an incredibly dumb way, according to those figures we've achieved over 40 points in the second half of the season 9 times out of the last 12 seasons. A quick look over that period suggests our title rivals have managed 40+ points for the second half of the season 14 times, collectively.
2011/12 (points / season split)
city 45 / 44

09/10
chelsea 42 / 44

08/09
liverpool 42 / 44
arsenal 32 / 40
chelsea 41 / 42

07/08
liverpool 36 / 40
chelsea 38 / 47

05/06
liverpool 41 / 41

04/05
arsenal 41 / 42
chelsea 46 / 49

03/04
arsenal 45 / 45

01/02
liverpool 37 / 43
arsenal 36 / 51

00/01
leeds 25 / 43
As Rowem shows, context is needed but I think it's fair to say United are a great second half of the season (or however it gets phrased, team). We must have had the deepest CL runs over that period. It's no surprise that Chelsea look similar post-Abramovich, as while there are probably a ton of factors, squad depth has to be the most significant. Or, erm, to get back on topic, maybe it's all down to Michael Carrick.
 
Well, yeah. He has no competition. Guaranteed a place in the team despite being mediocre most of the time. He has no business having such a solid hold on a place in the midfield when it has been terrible all season.
 
He doesn't have the balls to roll the dice. There were three times tonight when he ignored goods runs, one by Van Persie was totally on. He just likes to play safe and keep things ticking over.
 
One of the main reasons our midfield just doesnt work. He's bringing absolutely nothing going forward. That's not good enough for a top team like United (not in a 4-4-2). Can't think of any other top team in Europe that plays with a player like him in a 4-4-2. It doesnt work.
 
He just needs someone next to him who is going to go forward a lot more often and who will offer a lot more in an attacking sense. Players like Giggs and Scholes just aren't going to be able to do that when they're playing. He shouldn't have to be relied upon as the more attacking of our midfielders in my opinion. If it becomes the case then it's a problem that needs to be addressed.
 
Definitely wasn't the worst of our players today, but I do have a couple of gripes with his performance's so far this season.

When it's his role in the team to dictate the tempo of our play and display incisive passing, but fails to do this, then he deserves all the criticism he gets. Far too sluggish today.

Hes a very good player but for the standards we require and the responsibility he shoulders, you cant help but think we need a little but more from him.
 
Definitely wasn't the worst of our players today, but I do have a couple of gripes with his performance's so far this season.

When it's his role in the team to dictate the tempo of our play and display incisive passing, but fails to do this, then he deserves all the criticism he gets. Far too sluggish today.

Hes a very good player but for the standards we require and the responsibility he shoulders, you cant help but think we need a little but more from him.

There was one moment in the first half where he picked up the ball and carried it forward about 30 yards at pace beating a Norwich tackle in the process and I thought to myself 'ah today's gonna be one of those days for Michael'...

...sadly I was wrong.

I miss the Michael Carrick who showed up in the Roma game in 2006/07 and then scored against Sheffield United not long after that. The Michael Carrick who stomped on the Newcastle midfield the season after the Michael Carrick who...

...Ah forget it. He ain't coming back.
 
He was fine today. Did his job. Given Giggs clearly wasn't going to be defending, the fact we only really gave up 1 or 2 chances on the break are almost entirely down to Carrick.
 
Made the most tackles of our team today. When he's playing next to Giggs, defense is the more important part of his game. Its on Giggs to be creative and influence the attacking play, else why is he playing? He's not going to do much defensively.
 
He can pass the ball fine, but I'm not sure he's got any balls at all.
 
One of the main reasons our midfield just doesnt work. He's bringing absolutely nothing going forward. That's not good enough for a top team like United (not in a 4-4-2). Can't think of any other top team in Europe that plays with a player like him in a 4-4-2. It doesnt work.

Exactly.

He would be exceptional in the Busquets role at Barca. He had a pass completion rate of 88% tonight and has similar for the season in the EPL. It isn't really good enough for such a conservative passer.
 
He cant do the job for two men. He needs Cleverley or Ando next to him

He's had Cleverley next to him a number of times this season and has been equally shit.

He can start by doing his own job, or any kind of useful job at all...then we can debate whether he can do the job of two men.

Although saying that, in an ironic way, he did have the same amount of effect on the game today as both Anderson and Cleverley.
 
He's been playing like this in the first half of the season for a few years now, then he magically turns up post December with masterful displays and Fergie does the "we know Michael's a slow starter" stuff.

It's just that everyone around him has turned to shit as well, so we're scrutinizing him more closely.
 
How much do Garcia, Barry, mikel, Arteta bring going forward? Yeah they all have slightly different roles but they're all there to bring stability not to be majorly involved in the attack. Again Carrick got it to our wide players in good areas and tried to give it to areas where RVP could use it well, problem is that the wingers were woeful and RVP couldn't really link up well with Hernandez cause his technique just isn't as good.

Carrick could have done more, thought there were times where he could have carried the ball more, and sometimes his runs forwards seem to really baffle me as he doesn't seem to be on the same wavelength as anyone else with them, but the real problem is with the front 4. I've said it before but at Chelsea you look at Hazard, Mata and Oscar to create, at City it's Nasri, Silva, Teves, and with us its the wingers and RVP/Rooney, the deeper players need to make sure they get them the ball, which they did, they can't help if they're use of it is abysmal.
 
How much do Garcia, Barry, mikel, Arteta bring going forward? Yeah they all have slightly different roles but they're all there to bring stability not to be majorly involved in the attack. Again Carrick got it to our wide players in good areas and tried to give it to areas where RVP could use it well, problem is that the wingers were woeful and RVP couldn't really link up well with Hernandez cause his technique just isn't as good.

Arteta this season, has scored more, created more, made more tackles, made more interceptions, made more passes and with a comfortably higher pass completion rate.

Carrick had his best season for us last year but he is now back to being a sub par midfielder for a world class team.
 
Arteta this season, has scored more, created more, made more tackles, made more interceptions, made more passes and with a comfortably higher pass completion rate.

Carrick had his best season for us last year but he is now back to being a sub par midfielder for a world class team.

But is he one of the chief players in Arsenals creativity or does me make sure that the likes of podolski, carzola, walcott etc get the ball?

Carrick is doing fine, not playing particularly well but he's doing fine imo having to be the only midfield alrounder in a formation that puts almost maximum strain on our midfield. He did better today in his role than any of our "world class" attack did in theirs.
 
There was one moment in the first half where he picked up the ball and carried it forward about 30 yards at pace beating a Norwich tackle in the process and I thought to myself 'ah today's gonna be one of those days for Michael'...

...sadly I was wrong.

I miss the Michael Carrick who showed up in the Roma game in 2006/07 and then scored against Sheffield United not long after that. The Michael Carrick who stomped on the Newcastle midfield the season after the Michael Carrick who...

...Ah forget it. He ain't coming back.

Even though I think he actually picked the wrong option at the end of that bit of play, I would like to see him carry the ball forward like that more often. It commits players and pulls them out of position, he doesn't do this enough.

Give him time and space and he will pass the ball safely all day long, but close him down and ask him to take the initiative and create for the team and he will struggle to be effective. He'd rather let Scholes do this role, but then he becomes a passenger himself.

If I was fergie I wouldn't sell Carrick, hes a very useful player whos a good experienced pro and a benefit for the squad, however I would break the bank for someone who could perform his role with more creativity, personality and dynamism. 'Who is this player?' is the elusive question and they definitely wouldn't come cheap, thats for sure. Its the most important role in the team for me.
 
How much do Garcia, Barry, mikel, Arteta bring going forward? Yeah they all have slightly different roles but they're all there to bring stability not to be majorly involved in the attack. Again Carrick got it to our wide players in good areas and tried to give it to areas where RVP could use it well, problem is that the wingers were woeful and RVP couldn't really link up well with Hernandez cause his technique just isn't as good.

Carrick could have done more, thought there were times where he could have carried the ball more, and sometimes his runs forwards seem to really baffle me as he doesn't seem to be on the same wavelength as anyone else with them, but the real problem is with the front 4. I've said it before but at Chelsea you look at Hazard, Mata and Oscar to create, at City it's Nasri, Silva, Teves, and with us its the wingers and RVP/Rooney, the deeper players need to make sure they get them the ball, which they did, they can't help if they're use of it is abysmal.

All of those players barring Barry have been doing Michael Carrick's job a lot better than Michael Carrick this season...and I wouldn't want Gareth Barry in our midfield. Or Mikel for that matter.

This isn't about what Michael Carrick's job is...we all know his main job is to be the more defensive midfielder. The problem is that he is not doing this job, or any other job. He's going through game after game doing the absolute basic things and offering sum total of feck all else. I'm sick of watching us carry him this season.

Why are Manchester United carrying the same player through game after game when other very talented players can't get a look in?
 
I think before addressing the midfield he needs to address how 1 dimensional our attack is. It's no coincidence that when we go to a more narrow formation you get more interplay, players are actually close to each other, and Carrick can work with that as he showed against Newcastle. Playing this way, leaves the midfields choices limited to playing out wide, there's only RVP to play a quick give and go with and when they do, do that, because Valencia and Young hold their width the pass on is out wide. If Nani/Kagawa get back in to the team it will help address it, but right now I think Fergie made a mistake in trying to use it when both wingers are hugely out of form. That's where the creative issues are.
 
He needs a break. There is no way we can keep running him into the ground like this. His closing down and defensive work is getting poorer and poorer. You'd have to think this has something to do with his legs having to go through 90 minutes every week. I really don't agree with Carrick being undroppable. Surely Cleverley, Fletcher or Anderson could do no worse!?
 
Played every game in the premier league for a year. We did the same to Evra.
 
All of those players barring Barry have been doing Michael Carrick's job a lot better than Michael Carrick this season...and I wouldn't want Gareth Barry in our midfield. Or Mikel for that matter.

This isn't about what Michael Carrick's job is...we all know his main job is to be the more defensive midfielder. The problem is that he is not doing this job, or any other job. He's going through game after game doing the absolute basic things and offering sum total of feck all else. I'm sick of watching us carry him this season.

Why are Manchester United carrying the same player through game after game when other very talented players can't get a look in?

Well I said they're performing similar roles, not the same. Like I've said before playing in a 442, that's as wide as it could be doesn't lend itself to having a proper holding player, it's too wide to protect. The rest of those players, play in narrow systems which let them have a more defensive impact, it's no coincience that whenever we have played the diamond, Fletcher/Carrick have been much more obvious in their defensive work.

He's not being carried, he could do more sure, but having no equally defensively good player alongside him makes it tough but more than that the lack of attacking quality from the front 4 over whole games is what is causing us problems at the moment.
 
It's all well and good saying those other players don't do much going forward, just like Carrick. Unlike Carrick, those players are still doing their job defensively. Last week, Stephen Ireland looked world class for 60 minutes. This week, Wes Hoolahan. The back four are not being protected, and it needs protecting.
 
It's almost like some here don't want to hurt his feelings by saying he was shite. :lol:
His bite has gone missing.
 
He was shite but it was down to the formation. Who in the world would play well with useless Ryan fecking Giggs next to them in a two man midfield? Tell me. Who in the world would pull that off? No one , thats who. Giggs is a fecking liability and he should hang up his boots and take on a coaching role. This is no longer knee-jerk. He gives the ball away needlessly half the time he has it and has the work ethics of a 14 year old spoilt girl. He is a legend but he should realise this before he tarnishes his reputiation completely.
 
Well I said they're performing similar roles, not the same. Like I've said before playing in a 442, that's as wide as it could be doesn't lend itself to having a proper holding player, it's too wide to protect. The rest of those players, play in narrow systems which let them have a more defensive impact, it's no coincience that whenever we have played the diamond, Fletcher/Carrick have been much more obvious in their defensive work.

He's not being carried, he could do more sure, but having no equally defensively good player alongside him makes it tough but more than that the lack of attacking quality from the front 4 over whole games is what is causing us problems at the moment.

But our system hasn't changed from the one's he played in without these problems in previous seasons, including as recently as last season.

Never mind what other players aren't doing. He isn't doing HIS job. Players run off HIM. He doesn't make himself available for passes where in the past he always would. These things are no one's fault but his own.

He's being carried for me at the moment. He goes through entire games offering nothing that any make shift or sub standard player couldn't offer just the same.
 
It's all well and good saying those other players don't do much going forward, just like Carrick. Unlike Carrick, those players are still doing their job defensively. Last week, Stephen Ireland looked world class for 60 minutes. This week, Wes Hoolahan. The back four are not being protected, and it needs protecting.

Carrick is the only one asked to defend a wide open midfield pretty much on his own. The difference with those teams is they play narrow, consequently players are close too each other which means there's less space for the other team centrally to move in to, massively reducing the amount of space the more defensive midfielder has to cover. We play 4 in the middle and have it not only as wide as it could be but also have massive gaps in terms of length between the wingers and centre mids. All the space is centrally, no one can cover all that. So once teams break Carrick has to do all he can to contain, it's too open to realistically close the man down and if he over commits the guy can just pass the ball and take Carrick out of the game. Like I said it's no coincidence that in the games we've played a 433/diamond that the defensive work of Fletcher/Carrick has been more obvious, because it's actually doable.

Offensively Carrick does alright, he could do more no doubt, there's limited options available to all the midfielders though. The pass is either out wide or it's too RVP/Rooney/Kagawa who will then pass it out wide. The only way that can change is by getting the wingers to mix it up and come inside now and again. If they do that then the midfielders can get involved more, but that's a tactical switch that has to come from Fergie, additionally some of our wingers simply aren't good at attacking in that way.
 
But our system hasn't changed from the one's he played in without these problems in previous seasons, including as recently as last season.

Never mind what other players aren't doing. He isn't doing HIS job. Players run off HIM. He doesn't make himself available for passes where in the past he always would. These things are no one's fault but his own.

He's being carried for me at the moment. He goes through entire games offering nothing that any make shift or sub standard player couldn't offer just the same.

We still had problems last season, we're always going to get exposed at times playing this way, now though we're seeing a greater affect as we have a lot of creative players either off form or injured, we're getting goals but we're not playing/creating particularly well.

I'm not saying he's perfect, he could certainly show more defensively, but I would definitely not say he's a main factor in our problems which for me are part to do with our style and choice of midfield partner and more importantly, how poor the wingers are looking and how rigid the attack currently is in terms of positions.
 
Carrick is dogshit in this 4-4-2 formation. We should play 4-1-whatever with Carrick as the 1. THen he can focus on defending the midifeld and keeping it simple at the back, which he is fecking excellent at. With this 4-4-2 he has to cover for Giggs/Scholes who offer NOTHING defensively while at the same time being slated for not offering enough in an attacking sense. Bring back the diamond / 4-3-3. It was obvious to everyfeckingone that 4-4-2 didnt work last round against Villa yet Fergie sticks with it. Its baffling. We have no one better than Carrick at shielding the defense, as long as we play a formation with clear cut roles. This 4-4-2 doesnt give the players clear roles and fecks up everything, especially nowadays when Valencia is on Bebe's level.
 
Maybe he just doesn't have it anymore. He'd hardly be the first player to start declining in his 30s. This just makes SAF's reluctance to pick up anyone that could challenge/replace him all the more baffling.
 
He was shite but it was down to the formation. Who in the world would play well with useless Ryan fecking Giggs next to them in a two man midfield? Tell me. Who in the world would pull that off? No one , thats who.

The experience that Giggs and Scholes bring is an entirely different topic but I agree, their place in the squad really should be taken up by another player on the fringe of making a difference. They should be called upon rather than Giggs/Scholes imo. They shouldn't be making a start or coming off the bench unless we are down to our last players on the teamsheet being unavailable. They should be the very last and absolute last resort names on the team sheet but here, SAF seems to be using them as important players.

The one thing I don't understand with Carrick is why he doesn't at least try and put himself about. The way I look at him playing is 'can't do it so I won't try' or something in that vein. Extremely frustrating. Someone seriously needs to put a rocket up him in the dressing room. Even a limited ball winner would put himself about and make a bigger impact than him at the moment and that is sad.
 
I have been saying, Its Carrick we need to replace if we want a better midfield.

Not find him partners.

I don't think he needs replacing but at the same time him being the "main man" in midfield is a bit alarming because he's nowhere near good enough to be the key man in midfield for a club of this stature. He's a neat passer and has good positional sense but he doesn't have much authority or physical presence or mobility. Also, he is quite inconsistent. In his time here he's gone through fairly long spells of being extremely ordinary so I'm not sure he's extremely consistent either.

In the end, I think we need a second midfielder who can defend. And ideally it should be someone who can get about the pitch a bit, because often I feel Anderson and Cleverley need someone like that next to them to really shine because they like to play off others who are dynamic, especially given we like to play a more defense minded player next to them.