What I'm wondering is, if there is to be concern about Carrick in a midfield 2, what is the alternative? What will work better in theory out of what we have than Carrick and Cleverley? Unless Rooney was to turn into a cracking midfielder I don't see what other option we have. Anderson/Cleverley is a defensive disaster waiting to happen and Jones in midfield should be avoided unless it is deemed absolutely necessary. As for Fellaini, he was either a bit better defensively at Everton or I overrated him in that respect. I know he was never a player with the positioning of a Carrick or Busquets but I'm sure he looked better defensively for Everton when he was deeper.
Alas poor Carrick...WTF has happened?
- Thread starter Carl
- Start date
Cool, sorry Noodle. It still doesn't take away from his ridiculous post.
Edit - Noodle, have you seen this?
I think his first line was slightly sarcastic mate!
He was far too slow on the ball in the first half against Sunderland...he was turning what should have been a routine win against feeble opponents into a huge struggle. He did the same for the entire 90 minutes against Stoke. To think he played well against Southampton, a game in which our midfield was embarassingly dominated by an average performance from a midtable opponent, at Old Trafford, requires a degree of blind denial...unless you just want to blame the entire thing on Fellaini because it's easier that way.
He's been in very poor form of late. My "agenda" involves rating him as our best player and best midfielder in the league last season, so you'll have to explain to me what my agenda is exactly?? Other than it just being something you've made up through some weird need to be a confrontational arse.
I like Michael Carrick, but I can't help wondering lately if the player we should be looking for in the next window should be a replacement for, rather than partner for him. After all, he's not getting any younger, and he hasn't been great this year.
The idea he can't play with Cleverley is stupid though. They've played well together countless times. What they've had trouble with is sustaining it through 90 minutes, but that's partly due to Cleverley exhausting himself and partly because the entire fecing team can't seem to sustain a performance through 90 minutes.
I wouldn't say the type of midfielder he plays with doesn't impact his game either. Him and Fletcher were a poor partnership for me, because both of them tried to play behind the ball the whole time and it just made it easy for teams to push us back...more or less every single game with those two resulted in us being stuck on the edge of our own area for large periods. Him and Scholes when paired last season always left us ridiculously stretched and open too, and predictable in possession.
I think he plays best with someone next to him who's more willing to run forwards and move opposition players around. Cleverley might be limited ability wise but he does that part really well and I actually think him and Carrick, apart from being about as scary as a heart shaped balloon, are quite suited. The problem of late for me has been Carrick looking lethargic in possession and allowing teams far too much time to set defensively and press the ball. It took him until about this time last year though to start playing well, and the year before he didn't really kick on until December.
Or it could just be a revising of an opinion? Not sure why the 'agenda' word gets tossed around so much around here. I mean honestly, unless you're an agent for, sibling of or lover of someone vying for a player's position, how is it even possible to have an agenda with regard to a football player?
It's just another cheap way to belittle someone's opinion without bothering to have one of your own. There's plenty of experts of the art on here.
It's nice to see I've gone full circle to having an agenda against Carrick though. Originally I (allegedly) had one for him due to my insistence that Hargeaves wasn't very good.
Arguably, his best game this season was against Sunderland. His distribution was on point. I find it funny that he's getting blamed for not ensuring the "routine win". You're not going to get that against opponents that press you vigorously. Against Southampton, it was a good performance - he did his usual thing, but he was more or less commanding the midfield on his own. If that's a poor performance, then I give up. And against Stoke he was excellent defensively, though that wasn't hard as Stoke don't have enough pace when attacking anyway. Passing wise, it was a better passing performance, too, than the Sunderland and Stoke performances. His passing range was wasn't that bad and if anyone is to be blamed for our performance against Stoke, then it's our attackers.
Agenda was a bit harsh (though I already apologised at the top), but you can keep your simple insults to yourself. Debate properly. Your post did, however, have ridiculous elements within it. Carrick hasn't been in very poor form at all - if he was, then our midfield would look dysfunctional with him in it. Basically, your post contains a few fabrications, including him being very poor. I'm sure a lot of players would love to be in this perceived poor form that Carrick's in at the moment.
I'm not even going to...
Yep, I'll just say Carrick's poor without really elaborating. Excellent, as per. And at the top, you'll see that I apologised, so keep your insults to yourself.
I agree, they can and have played very well together, that's why I always think its funny when the few times Carrick hasn't played and Clev has done well some people immediately use it as a way to say it's an issue on Carrick's side, as I said Carrick has played and done well with many different partners, and as you've said they've played well together anyway.
Personally I think his partnership with Fletcher is underrated but I can see where you're coming from, however I think that also came at a slight lull in Carrick's game. The Carrick of recent times with that Fletcher would be a good combo imo.
I think when certain key parts of the team are doing well then Clev can fit in very nicely as play of Carrick and them well, when they're not I just do't feel that Clev brings enough to the table himself, that's my main criticism of him. I agree that Carrick hasn't been at his best but not to the extent you do but also I think its an issue with the team as a whole which is being more and more exploited which is a lack of central penetration from the players ahead of them. The main thing is still the wide pass and we rarely see someone coming relatively short to the midfielders who are then able to turn and run at goal. Rooney can do it at times but it's not one of his main weapons and I just think with the high pressure we're facing we could use someone who can do that.
Often it feels to me that the only realistic pass on to our midfielders is backwards and you yourself have commented on how sometimes our defenders can take an age to decide which invites more pressure. Carrick being the person who see's the ball more than anyone is going to be the one who may bare the brunt of the teams lack of movement, because it looks like he's playing too safe but for me whilst he can take some blame a lot of it is a lack of options, particularly ones who will then turn the opposition.
Fulham in that first half stood of us and also played quite high, personally I think Carrick would have thrived in that first half too.
No please do, I'm genuinely interested to know what exactly you mean when you say poster x has an agenda regarding a certain player.
Mobility gets thrown around a lot these days. I hope people know that being a fast runner doesn't necessarily make you a 'mobile' midfielder. Carrick would look much more 'mobile' if he had more options in the middle.
You all definitely need him back for Sunday.
I expect front 6 to look like this vs Arsenal (Carrick, Nani, Fellaini, Januzaj, RVP, Rooney)
I expect front 6 to look like this vs Arsenal (Carrick, Nani, Fellaini, Januzaj, RVP, Rooney)
You clearly didn't read the entire post there did you. One retard point for you sir!
I know it's straight from the 'who cares about stats' thread but we conceded the least goals for two seasons while Fletch and Carrick were the two main midfielders (and Hargreaves). It was mainly due to Fletchers ability to close space and smart defensive play in midfield with Carrick hanging off for the intercept regularly.
They were both, however, bailed out by the instant 'look up.. Where is Ronaldo? There! /bang' get out of jail free card.
Fletcher and Carrick was often a dull partnership; we played some poor football at times with those two in the centre, which makes sense given that neither of them are technically outstanding (not enough creativity or guile). Fletcher was great at his best, but the main reason our defensive record was so good was obviously Nemanja Vidic.
Both preferably, which calls into question what the hell we were doing with Fellaini.
Both preferably, which calls into question what the hell we were doing with Fellaini.
Fletcher and Carrick was often a dull partnership; we played some poor football at times with those two in the centre, which makes sense given that neither of them are technically outstanding (not enough creativity or guile). Fletcher was great at his best, but the main reason our defensive record was so good was obviously Nemanja Vidic.
Both preferably, which calls into question what the hell we were doing with Fellaini.
Nemanja as well, in fact that back line had great balance. Rio, Neville before the really bad injury at Bolton (I believe it was?), O'Shea giving his peak ability in probably his best years.
But I think a lot of it had to do with the stability that Fletcher and Carrick gave the defense. I am not going to lie and say it wasn't dull
. Ronaldo bailed us out a lot but we were very tight. The juggling act the year before was even more of a phenomenon but I think that was where Carrick was a lot more mobile than he is now. With Scholes/Anderson a bit of Hargreaves and the odd O'shea/Giggs appearance in midfield.re: Fellaini - I am unsure as well. I think the midfield engine/dominator is going the way of the compact fast ground mover and not 'tall timber'.
Nemanja as well, in fact that back line had great balance. Rio, Neville before the really bad injury at Bolton (I believe it was?), O'Shea giving his peak ability in probably his best years.
But I think a lot of it had to do with the stability that Fletcher and Carrick gave the defense. I am not going to lie and say it wasn't dull
The problem with Fletcher and Carrick is that, whilst they are theoretically one of the most ideal partnerships imaginable in terms of defensive work off the ball (literally, an almost perfect combination), they invited unnecessary pressure by not controlling the game enough at times. It's the same sort of situation with Roy Hodgson not having come to terms with the fact that playing a load of defensive players and playing negatively isn't going to necessarily make you defensively stronger - it just allows the opposition to pin the team back for great periods and go at the defense more often.
This is why I ask up there what the alternative at the moment is to Carick/Cleverley for 2 in the centre if people aren't happy with that. There really isn't one on the surface of things. What other combination ticks as many boxes as they do, and has as much chance of working in some sort of system? It's the only partnership that even partially resembles a top midfield in terms of an all round contribution. I want Fellaini to work and would love Jones to randomly become some sort of quality midfielder, but until the entire team starts performing cohesively then their weaknesses as midfielders are going to continue to be exposed massively. We're not as adept at working around the sort of imbalance combinations like that provide as we used to be when we were playing seemingly absurd pairings like Giggs/O'Shea, Rafael/Fabio, Carrick/Giggs, etc...
That first half against Fulham was better though, to be fair. There was a better contribution from more of the team.
Both preferably, which calls into question what the hell we were doing with Fellaini.
The problem I see here is more with his confusion and lack of confidence on the role he is supposed to be playing. In matches with us, he comes across as a lightweight, with players able to get around him with ease. He should not be playing alongside Carrick but slightly ahead of him linking to Rooney. The interaction betwen them 2 is currently absent.
It's basic. What do you think having an agenda against a player means? It has a negative meaning in this case. I've apologised to noodle, which he missed and decided to throw out his standard insult, so this doesn't matter anyway anymore.
As much as I don't see Cleverley as the future of our midfield I would rather see him in there with Carrick than Felliani.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs...r-team-without-michael-carrick-130655534.html
Good read!
Good read!
Are Manchester United a better team without Michael Carrick?
When it was announced earlier this week that David Moyes would be without the talents of an injuredMichael Carrick this weekend and possibly longer, the immediate reaction for Red Devils fans will undoubtedly have been one of dismay.
For the last year or more, the England international has been one of the club’s most consistent performers, attempting almost twice as many passes as any other United player in the 2012/13 campaign.
In hindsight, however, the void vacated by Carrick will be seen as more of an opportunity than a hindrance. This is after the reigning Premier League champions bulldozed their way to a 3-1 win against Fulham, the first time since the season opener at Swansea that they’ve managed to score three goals away from home this term.
Having not missed a minute of his club’s league campaign until this weekend’s trip to West London, one way to look at Manchester United’s midfield anchor is that he is a consistent presence and something they need. The other is to suggest that his area of the pitch may have stagnated of late.
With Marouane Fellaini also unavailable with injury, it was a central duo of Tom Cleverley and Phil Jones that took to the Fulham stage, the outcome being a promising one for those intrigued by the younger talent coming through at Old Trafford.
Not since last season’s 1-0 loss against Chelsea has this particular pair linked up for a Premier League outing in midfield, and it was an opportunity that Cleverley in particular thrived upon, completing 34 of his 35 attempted passes.
Before we get ahead of ourselves, it’s important that we establish the gulf in engine room talent between the two involved sides. After all, while the likes of Steve Sidwell and Scott Parker have had their moments this season, by no means are the English pair the most difficult anchor pair that United will face this season.
A growing notion these days is that players, and central midfielders in particular, are required to be versatile creatures, the term ‘defensive midfielder’ slowly becoming irrelevant.
While by no means exclusively a defensively-minded middleman, a lack of such options at United has seen Carrick take on an anchoring role at the club in 2013, emphasised by his 81% tackle success rate so far this term
Meanwhile, Jones proved that there is still room for the specialists with his performance at Craven Cottage. If audiences thought Cleverley was allowed to express himself creatively when deployed alongside Carrick, Saturday’s outing will have been a further breath of fresh air.Phil Jones tackles v Fulham
Jones’s attributes as a natural centre-back continued to benefit the 21-year-old when played further forward, the youngster winning three of his five attempted tackles, just under a third of the amount Carrick has attempted in nine matches.
It’s all well and good positioning a player in a certain area of the pitch with a certain list of priorities, but when there’s a younger, more suitable asset in United’s midst, it’s possible Jones may fit the bill.
As Juan Mata, Shinji Kagawa and Jack Wilshere are now finding out, football isn’t always about fielding the best 11 players in one’s squad at the same time, but moulding a team that will benefit one another.
As a result of Jones’s activity across the halfway line, the likes of Adnan Januzaj, Antonio Valencia and Wayne Rooney were all relieved of some tracking duties, able to rely on a staunch figure in the middle of the park.
That’s not to say one performance from the former Blackburn man will see Carrick’s time in the team ended, but it wouldn’t be absurd to suggest that Carrick could drop to the bench in what could be a profitable shake up for the team.
From Squawka.com - team and player football stats
No.
Now there's a Carrick fan. Howdy askabob!
Its fulham ffs, and we always beat them regardless of who's in the middle. Carrick is not a hindrance, he's not the quickest, but he never was anyway and that never hindered us at all. How can he be our most important player to a hindrance in two games? Someone explain this to me? We play so much better, when he is on song.
It's amazing how when you think that it's impossible that anyone could come in and question Carrick after the season he just had, the criticism appears anyway. It's been like that for 2 or 3 seasons running and it just won't go away, even though he's got plenty of recognition for his role last season there'll always be people doubting his worth to the team. It's frankly baffling how a top class midfielder can have so many doubters.
I can't even imagine the state we would've been last year without Carrick. An injury to him early in the season and we could've been fighting it out for 4th.
The story may well change this year depending on whether other plays step up or if we actually develop some sort of actual system, but it's so absurd to suggest we're better without Carrick at the moment based on a single game of football. The best game of football we've played in about a year and a half was when we faced Fulham in the FA Cup last season, actually...with Carrick.
The story may well change this year depending on whether other plays step up or if we actually develop some sort of actual system, but it's so absurd to suggest we're better without Carrick at the moment based on a single game of football. The best game of football we've played in about a year and a half was when we faced Fulham in the FA Cup last season, actually...with Carrick.
In the way that it's thrown about in these parts, I think it means not liking a player, but that's a very liberal interpretation of agenda. But anyway, you guys should make peace, as you've both got pretty good insights that you share.
Hi Doc! Long time no talk. How've ya been?
Also- I like to think that I am the biggest Carrick fan out there... though some of you would give me a run for my money
Over the years, I have always felt that Carrick was certainly not a good enough player to be the leading and best midfielder at a club of our size. I always thought there was something missing for that. However, he is undeniably our best and most important now, although I still think that is due to a combination of Carrick stepping up his game hugely and a unanimous lowering of the bar in midfield due to several rubbish options over the years.
I have also thought that Carrick was a 3-man-midfield sort of player, ideally. I think the quest to find the 'perfect partner for Carrick' is very difficult given his attributes, although he would be great with a physical presence beside him and a more creative player. To be honest, I've said before that in general, the responsibilities of a modern day midfield at the top level is too much to be shared between two people, generally speaking. It requires 3 players to achieve defensive stability, controlled possession and creativity in the centre I believe. With two players, you generally lose one of those, although against many teams, you can afford to. However, as the stakes heighten, all three are certainly needed.
I have also thought that Carrick was a 3-man-midfield sort of player, ideally. I think the quest to find the 'perfect partner for Carrick' is very difficult given his attributes, although he would be great with a physical presence beside him and a more creative player. To be honest, I've said before that in general, the responsibilities of a modern day midfield at the top level is too much to be shared between two people, generally speaking. It requires 3 players to achieve defensive stability, controlled possession and creativity in the centre I believe. With two players, you generally lose one of those, although against many teams, you can afford to. However, as the stakes heighten, all three are certainly needed.
We badly miss him. He's so crucial to our build up play...
We scored 7 goals without him in the team.
We scored 7 goals without him in the team.
That's not indicative of build-up play at all. Again, midfielders are too high up the pitch, so Vidic and Ferdinand either look for a long ball option, or they pass it De Gea. It's really annoying to watch.
Carrick would've dropped deeper and received the ball from our defenders, something which Rooney and Kagawa did more than Fellaini or Giggs did tonight.
We were away from home in the Champions League with Fellaini and Giggs in midfield. I think any one of the other players would have been better.
Don't think we missed him at all today tbh. Rooney's inability to stop a ball and Chicharito and RvP missing sitter from 4 yards out...he couldnt have helped there. We had good control of the ball but lacked creativity in the final third. Like we do when he plays.
Thoughts on his performance today?
Didn't have a very good game today but he didn't look fit to me
I thought he hid a little. He should have taken more control of the game, in my opinion. With that said, he can be excused for obvious reasons.