Alas poor Carrick...WTF has happened?

Brightonian said:
I agree completely. Harsh to blame Carrick or Cleverley for what was clearly a deliberate tactical decision by SAF.
Click to expand...

I'm glad it's not just me!

We were so in control in the first half, that it was just unfathomable that we could've slipped so much in the second - it was clearly tactical, and it was quite disappointing. I thought we gave way too much respect to an average side, especially since we were at home.

They took an extra player out of the middle of the park, but it was a clever change from Rodgers because it meant dropping Suarez into deeper areas, and I think Carrick and Cleverley had more to worry about in behind them as a result.

For me, the change needed to be Kagawa (who was tiring) being replaced by Anderson, which would've given us a forward thrust. Bringing Jones in was terribly regressive and we just dropped deeper. It was all a bit underwhelming. Sitting deep and soaking up pressure is an such a high risk strategy.
 
The thing with Jones that surprised me was that it was carrick who seemed the one to be pressing high and jones was really deep, I thought that was odd and think we would have had more control if it was carrick sitting with jones or clev and one of the latter pushing up to press.
 
Ash_G said:
The thing with Jones that surprised me was that it was carrick who seemed the one to be pressing high and jones was really deep, I thought that was odd and think we would have had more control if it was carrick sitting with jones or clev and one of the latter pushing up to press.
Click to expand...

Jones doesn't seem to know what he's doing in central midfield. He is what he is - a defender filling in. It was a pressure inducing substitution and I couldn't see the sense in it myself.

On a side note, Jones showed some moments of absolute class at centre back against West Ham in the week - we see him play there all too infrequently.
 
I think we have to consider though that, in games against good sides/rivals (Liverpool being the later of course) you're unlikely to dominate a game for the full 90. As soon as we gave the stupid goal away (which came when we were still on-top) it was bound to give Liverpool confidence and they were going to press us. It's all well and good saying "we shouldn't let them back into the game" but sometimes it's not exactly like you have a choice in the matter... and sometimes its better to just quell their threat and go defensive, which is what Fergie did, and we won the game, so it was a good decision in the end.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Gerrad was excellent for the last half an hour (game raising twat - usually puts everything in when they play us) and as he's still a good player, he lifted their team.
 
Feed Me said:
For me, the change needed to be Kagawa (who was tiring) being replaced by Anderson, which would've given us a forward thrust. Bringing Jones in was terribly regressive and we just dropped deeper. It was all a bit underwhelming. Sitting deep and soaking up pressure is an such a high risk strategy.
Click to expand...

Yup. I was watching the match with my brother and we were both shouting out for a double substitution: Kagawa for Anderson, to do a similar job but with more vigour and drive (and fresher legs), and Hernandez for Welbeck, who was flagging because of the brilliant closing down he'd done constantly over the first 50 minutes. With those subs, I reckon we'd have gone on to win 3-0. That said, Fergie brought home the win, and that's what matters.
 
Ash_G said:
The thing with Jones that surprised me was that it was carrick who seemed the one to be pressing high and jones was really deep, I thought that was odd and think we would have had more control if it was carrick sitting with jones or clev and one of the latter pushing up to press.
Click to expand...
Jones seemed to be shadowing Suarez so I think that was more of an instruction when he came on.
 
Feed Me said:
Listening to this week's Rant Cast, they discussed Carrick and said that he was outstanding against Liverpool for about 60 minutes and then overrun for the final half an hour. What do you lot make of that?

I don't necessarily disagree with the observation, but I thought it was tactical as opposed to Carrick going into hiding. Ferguson's substitutions were geared towards holding out for the 2-1 win, and we ceded control of the game having been dominant. I don't think Carrick or Cleverley can be accused of allowing the game to get away from them. Personally felt that we failed to react to Rodgers' switch.
Click to expand...

Disagree, it was nothing to do with tactics in my opinion. The two of them just stopped looking forward, became too safe and decided passing to chest height would be a good idea.
 
Feed Me said:
Jones doesn't seem to know what he's doing in central midfield. He is what he is - a defender filling in. It was a pressure inducing substitution and I couldn't see the sense in it myself.

On a side note, Jones showed some moments of absolute class at centre back against West Ham in the week - we see him play there all too infrequently.
Click to expand...

Yeah but virtually every time we've played jones in midfield, particularly in a 3 he's typically ended up as the most advanced, whether that's tactical or not, take the reading game where he was clearly higher up then carrick and ando. So I would have thought that given we just needed someone to get up and pressurize them that would have been ideal for Jones to do, or at the very least clev, not carrick though, the one guy who will actually get in to the best defensive positions in midfield.

Byt yeah Jones was very good against West Ham.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
I think we have to consider though that, in games against good sides/rivals (Liverpool being the later of course) you're unlikely to dominate a game for the full 90. As soon as we gave the stupid goal away (which came when we were still on-top) it was bound to give Liverpool confidence and they were going to press us. It's all well and good saying "we shouldn't let them back into the game" but sometimes it's not exactly like you have a choice in the matter... and sometimes its better to just quell their threat and go defensive, which is what Fergie did, and we won the game, so it was a good decision in the end.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of that in theory, but not applied to this game. I thought it was quite clear that we allowed them back into the game with the switch in tactics after the first hour, and with the negative substitutions. We were showing signs that we could have dominated the full 90, and I think we did have a choice in the matter. Very subjective, of course, but that was my interpretation.

I agree with the last line though. For the most part I can see the thinking behind what we did. Mainly I just don't think it's fair to blame Carrick and Cleverley for giving up control of the game when Fergie seemed to intend them to do so.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
I think we have to consider though that, in games against good sides/rivals (Liverpool being the later of course) you're unlikely to dominate a game for the full 90. As soon as we gave the stupid goal away (which came when we were still on-top) it was bound to give Liverpool confidence and they were going to press us. It's all well and good saying "we shouldn't let them back into the game" but sometimes it's not exactly like you have a choice in the matter... and sometimes its better to just quell their threat and go defensive, which is what Fergie did, and we won the game, so it was a good decision in the end.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Gerrad was excellent for the last half an hour (game raising twat - usually puts everything in when they play us) and as he's still a good player, he lifted their team.
Click to expand...

I totally get that games will have momentum swings from one side to the other. But, given our obvious superiority for the first sixty minutes, it was disappointing to see our approach in the final half hour. Yes, Gerrard had a good end to the game, but that's not enough to explain why the game swung so much in their favour.

If we forget the name, and just look at the team we were facing, there was no need to be so conservative in my opinion. It felt like the type of result that was achieved (in the end) in spite of the second half tactics, not because of them.

With Carrick and Cleverley being pushed deeper, the natural substitution to ensure we still had an outlet through midfield would have been Anderson. Jones did nothing in midfield that makes me change my view.

United are a good team in the making, but there are two areas of concern for me - 1) Despite scoring a shed load, we're not deadly in front of goal - Liverpool should have been buried in the first half. 2) The big games this season have exposed an inability for us to soak pressure up without conceding. It's one thing saying the other side are getting on top, so we need to defend, but in those circumstances, we need to prevent them from scoring.

Against Chelsea, truth be told, we let the lead slip and would've lost were it not for red cards. City was much the same story, though the team deserves credit for going for the winner when others would've settled for a point.
 
Feed Me said:
Against Chelsea, truth be told, we let the lead slip and would've lost were it not for red cards. City was much the same story, though the team deserves credit for going for the winner when others would've settled for a point.
Click to expand...

These are two excellent example though. It's unrealistic I think to go to the Etihad, and go to Stamford Bridge, and dominate the game for 90 minutes. It's very very unlikely to happen. What we have to do is play well when we have the opportunity to do so - create and take chances, and then defend well when the other team get on top. We did the first in both games, and unfortunately failed at the later... fortunately, in both, we managed to create another chance and take it.

It's our defence that worries me this season, not our ability to create/take chances... because, for the most part, we've done the business at that end when it's been required.
 
Brightonian said:
I agree with a lot of that in theory, but not applied to this game. I thought it was quite clear that we allowed them back into the game with the switch in tactics after the first hour, and with the negative substitutions. We were showing signs that we could have dominated the full 90, and I think we did have a choice in the matter. Very subjective, of course, but that was my interpretation.

I agree with the last line though. For the most part I can see the thinking behind what we did. Mainly I just don't think it's fair to blame Carrick and Cleverley for giving up control of the game when Fergie seemed to intend them to do so.
Click to expand...

Fair enough! I just think that goal we give away was a big momentum shifter. If we hadn't conceded that, we'd have continued to dominate the game.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
These are two excellent example though. It's unrealistic I think to go to the Etihad, and go to Stamford Bridge, and dominate the game for 90 minutes. It's very very unlikely to happen. What we have to do is play well when we have the opportunity to do so - create and take chances, and then defend well when the other team get on top. We did the first in both games, and unfortunately failed at the later... fortunately, in both, we managed to create another chance and take it.

It's our defence that worries me this season, not our ability to create/take chances... because, for the most part, we've done the business at that end when it's been required.
Click to expand...

I agree, it'd definitely unrealistic to expect us to go away to such teams and dominate the whole game. There are always going to be spells when we're under pressure. But we need to keep clean sheets, put simply. We're at a point where we expect to concede when we're under pressure. When we've been at our very best defensively, we look like we can absorb pressure all day long. Really, in light of our porous defence, it's quite miraculous that we've gathered as many wins as we have.
 
Brightonian said:
I agree with a lot of that in theory, but not applied to this game. I thought it was quite clear that we allowed them back into the game with the switch in tactics after the first hour, and with the negative substitutions. We were showing signs that we could have dominated the full 90, and I think we did have a choice in the matter. Very subjective, of course, but that was my interpretation.

I agree with the last line though. For the most part I can see the thinking behind what we did. Mainly I just don't think it's fair to blame Carrick and Cleverley for giving up control of the game when Fergie seemed to intend them to do so.
Click to expand...

The negative substitutions were reactions to us already losing control; we had difficulty maintaining possession for any reasonable amount of time. God only knows why Fergie felt that could be remedied by bringing on Phil Jones...

AN makes fair points about how hard it is to dominate for 90 minutes against quality teams - not sure if Liverpool can be called that though - but we have a very unfortunate tendency of either dominating or being dominated. At home, against a team like Liverpool, we should have shut them out far more comfortably. Like we did against Arsenal at OT and they are a better side then Liverpool. We weren't brilliant in that game by any means but when we were not on top and creating chances we could still squeeze the life out of them in the middle of the park and defend well at the back.
 
Forevergiggs said:
Michael Carrick is having his best season since joining Manchester United, according to Sir Alex Ferguson.

The 31-year-old midfielder has been in majestic form and showed his value to the team in a cameo performance against his former club West Ham in midweek.

With the next fixture against another of his old sides, the 2006 signing from Tottenham will aim to continue to impress and keep the Reds flying high at the top of the Barclays Premier League table.

"I think he's been magnificent," enthused Sir Alex. "It's his best-ever season at the club and he's commanding that position. He's doing absolutely brilliantly.

"Even when he came on against West Ham, he helped ease us through the last 20 minutes. Good players do that. He came on and settled us down."

Incredibly, in all Carrick's time at the club, only one team has gained more points from a season than United - Chelsea, in 2010, when they pipped the Reds to the title by a point. Current champions Manchester City were, of course, only crowned on goal difference.

http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-F...l-carrick-is-having-his-best-ever-season.aspx
Click to expand...

That is because Carrick was signed at 2006 when our club was already starting a new era of dominance. That is just using convenient facts for over-exaggeration.
 
Siorac said:
The negative substitutions were reactions to us already losing control; we had difficulty maintaining possession for any reasonable amount of time. God only knows why Fergie felt that could be remedied by bringing on Phil Jones...

AN makes fair points about how hard it is to dominate for 90 minutes against quality teams - not sure if Liverpool can be called that though - but we have a very unfortunate tendency of either dominating or being dominated. At home, against a team like Liverpool, we should have shut them out far more comfortably. Like we did against Arsenal at OT and they are a better side then Liverpool. We weren't brilliant in that game by any means but when we were not on top and creating chances we could still squeeze the life out of them in the middle of the park and defend well at the back.
Click to expand...

Do you mean defensive substitutions (not being pedantic just clarifying)? Plus think Fergie brought on Jones to give us more control by numbers in the middle of the park by cutting out the areas they were controlling at that time. For me Jones gets far too much of a hard time on here.
 
thepolice123 said:
That is because Carrick was signed at 2006 when our club was already starting a new era of dominance. That is just using convenient facts for over-exaggeration.
Click to expand...

And carrick has played a big part of that even if over his time here he hasn't hit the heights of this season and last as often as he could/should have. He's been the main midfield over these last 6 years, there's been lots of players in the middle but its usually been carrick and x. And to have the success we've had the midfield has to be doing something right even if we think it could do more.
 
thepolice123 said:
That is because Carrick was signed at 2006 when our club was already starting a new era of dominance. That is just using convenient facts for over-exaggeration.
Click to expand...

I hope you haven't forgotten how shite we were at times the couple of seasons before we signed Carrick. Even after we signed Carrick in 06 we did not on paper look like a team that could win the title that season. Saying Carrick was solely responsible for the turnaround would be exaggeration but denying the fact that he played a important role in our resurgence is plain stupid.
 
Lawman said:
Do you mean defensive substitutions (not being pedantic just clarifying)? Plus think Fergie brought on Jones to give us more control by numbers in the middle of the park by cutting out the areas they were controlling at that time. For me Jones gets far too much of a hard time on here.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's quite justified. His positioning is very suspect in midfield. Majority of fans gave him due praise for his West Ham performance. Jones is simply an option in midfield and by no means is he the best one.

I see the logic in bringing on Jones but it was definitely a risky decision.
 
Just reading the comments on a Guardian article on Carrick (and Fletcher) and it's making me want to shoot myself. Apparently Carrick never shows up in Europe, despite him being an absolutely crucial part of almost certainly the most consistent side in the history of European Cup football.
 
thepolice123 said:
That is because Carrick was signed at 2006 when our club was already starting a new era of dominance. That is just using convenient facts for over-exaggeration.
Click to expand...

The only other decent central midfielder we had at that point was Paul Scholes. Fletcher was still very much a squady coming through.

If we hadn't signed him, we would've had a horrible midfield...a huge factor as to why we were so far behind Chelsea for two straight seasons.

Credit where it's due, he's proved he was the final piece of the jigsaw for domestic dominance. Introduced a much better passing game alongside Scholes. It got even better the following season where we added the depth of Anderson and Hargreaves.
 
I played with Michael Carrick for two weeks at West Ham, long enough for me to realise he is outstanding. People who read the game like him and make it look easy are invaluable.

He’ll be at United for the next five years and it’s not too late for England to use him properly. I watched him against Spain and every time he looked to pass it, all the other players were running away from him. I felt so sorry for him because he had nothing on.

--Teddy Sheringham
Click to expand...

Teddy knows
 
Yeah, he, Raf and RvP have all been stellar this season.

Carrick is a delight to watch, the maturity he has on the ball is great to see and he's such an elegant player with the ball at his feet. But that quote by Sheringham is telling, at Utd he's in the right environment: a lot of players asking for it short, providing an outlet, a lot of movement. That's in stark contrast with the England NT, where most players seem impossible to play a passing game (not a surprise Scholes was so badly used over the years as well). Though a midfield trio of Carrick, Cleverley and Wilshere could do the trick I feel.
 
He is our most important player.RVP and Rafa have been good but we can still replace them but if Carrick gets injured now I fear for us
 
Andrew~ said:
I'll go out on a limb and say he's probably our best player after Van Persie.
Click to expand...

I'll go even further out on a limb and suggest boring, passive Carrick is actually a better midfielder than eye-catching midfield general Paul Ince.
 
I still think we're lacking a midfielder who when we're up against it can take charge and get us playing again.

It's Carrick's only weakness to me, he can slow a game down when needed, but I don't think like yesterday he can speed it up when required. You need some arrogance to do that and he's just a nice guy.

I think we'll pay for it against Madrid unless he can really step up and be the man in that game.
 
I think Ando is that type of player, and that's why I like the Ando-Carrick partnership in CM. I think Carrick is perfect for controling tempo, slowing things down and keeping things clocking as you say, whereas Anderson has that kind of gung-ho attitude (which isn't only positive for a CM actually) that means that he can drive forward from the middle, get things going and just altogether shake it up. I think they're a nice combination, complement each other well. I don't think Cleverley has that attribute Ando has though admittedly, he's more consistent at the moment with his performances and tactically he's very important in how we set up. Just different options for different games, which is probably a good thing.
 
Carrick is playing with some swagger and arrogance. It has taken a while, but I guess when you play next to Scholes, it's tough to come out of your shell.

I think Carrick has been great since coming here, but he was guilty of being a little too conservative.

Now he's like "feck it, I'm the best midfielder on this team and one of the best playing in England".
 
Player of the season for me so far. Sure, Van Persie has reaped most of the plaudits, and rightly so, but Carrick has been outstanding, even though Fergie has mixed and matched the other midfielders around him.
 
Brwned said:
I'll go even further out on a limb and suggest boring, passive Carrick is actually a better midfielder than eye-catching midfield general Paul Ince.
Click to expand...

Big shout, Brwned.

I agree that Carrick has been an excellent player for us, it's just a shame that the fanbase has only started to notice his importance in the last season or two.

On the topic of Ince, growing up following United in the 90s, he was one of my favourite United midfielders. Yes, he was a cocky feck, but he could back it up. loved the United side of '94 (my favourite of all the United sides I've had the pleasure of watching) - Schmeichel, Pallister, Bruce, Keane, Ince, Cantona and Hughes; what a spine for a football team.
 
Another super display from a player who has never received the praise he deserves, especially from his own fans. It's time they woke up and recognised that in the midst of a transition at Manchester United, Carrick has been as important as anyone in keeping the club at the very top. Yet another outstanding contribution by the 'silent force'.

Garth Crooks.

I fecking hate Garth Crooks and his whole 'look how clever I am, noticing things aren't I a great pundit' routine, United fans are the ONLY ones who gave him the praise he deserved at any point since he joined it was shit house useless pundits like him that didn't.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Another super display from a player who has never received the praise he deserves, especially from his own fans. It's time they woke up and recognised that in the midst of a transition at Manchester United, Carrick has been as important as anyone in keeping the club at the very top. Yet another outstanding contribution by the 'silent force'.

Garth Crooks.

I fecking hate Garth Crooks and his whole 'look how clever I am, noticing things aren't I a great pundit' routine, United fans are the ONLY ones who gave him the praise he deserved at any point since he joined it was shit house useless pundits like him that didn't.
Click to expand...

what a huge bellend. Time we woke up? It's only after Gary Neville pointed it out other pundits started jumping on the bandwagon. Most were happy to peddle the 'average midfielder' line for years.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/bbc-pundit-garth-crooks-urges-1367721

Clueless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.