Daniele De Rossi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Varun_Utd said:
Who's better than Carrick and available?
Click to expand...

This logic is hard to understand. When we've played the likes of Park and Rafael, and are relying on a debilitated Fletcher to come back, why is it necessary that anyone we bring in must be better than Carrick? feck, we could bring in one or two of Swansea's midfielders and there would be an improvement.

And for the record De Rossi is better than Carrick.
 
adexkola said:
This logic is hard to understand. When we've played the likes of Park and Rafael, and are relying on a debilitated Fletcher to come back, why is it necessary that anyone we bring in must be better than Carrick? feck, we could bring in one or two of Swansea's midfielders and there would be an improvement.

And for the record De Rossi is better than Carrick.
Click to expand...

that's freaking ridiculous.
 
adexkola said:
I'm sure you can ignore the exaggeration and focus on the main point I made.
Click to expand...

No I don't agree with the main point, I don't want us to buy players just to have bodies in midfield.
 
adexkola said:
This logic is hard to understand. When we've played the likes of Park and Rafael, and are relying on a debilitated Fletcher to come back, why is it necessary that anyone we bring in must be better than Carrick? feck, we could bring in one or two of Swansea's midfielders and there would be an improvement.

And for the record De Rossi is better than Carrick.
Click to expand...

Read the conversation again. This was the bit i was responding to :

On a serious note, to say that we could have bought no one as good as Michael Carrick stretches credibility. Good player, and worth his place in the side, but hardly a worldbeater.
Click to expand...

This bit is wrong because no one better than Carrick is available in the market. Ofcourse we can others for our CM and they'd improve us but hardly any "worldbeaters" are lying around waiting to be picked by clubs.

Am all in favor of buying a CM, we need one but am realistic enough to recognize that we're unlikely to land someone better than Carrick.
 
Varun_Utd said:
Am all in favor of buying a CM, we need one but am realistic enough to recognize that we're unlikely to land someone better than Carrick.
Click to expand...

You're the second poster to do this - 'as good as' does not equal 'better than'.

The point is that we could have improved our midfield in the last couple of years. No divine intervention was required.
 
There have been so many speculations about De Rossi just as well as Totti every damn year and they both never left Roma, so why should this year be different?

I think only an outlandish bid like 60+ mio. for the player and some 250k-300k per week would convince De Rossi and Roma to do the deal.

That being said the prospect of a midfield partnership of Yaya and Daniele would be quite scary.
 
In fairness gambit I think De Rossi showed at the Euros he's a much better player than you've suggested in this thread.
 
Brwned said:
In fairness gambit I think De Rossi showed at the Euros he's a much better player than you've suggested in this thread.
Click to expand...

Nicky Butt had a great world cup as well once.
 
evra said:
I'd take Nicky Butt in his prime over Carrick any day.
Click to expand...

That says a lot more about you than it does Carrick. In my opinion of course :)

Personally I wouldn't swap Carrick for De Rossi. In fact there is probably only a handful of midfielders in Europe I would swap him for. Busquets, Xavi, Fabregas and Alonso being the only ones that come to mind right now though I'm sure I've missed a couple.
 
Pexbo said:
That says a lot more about you than it does Carrick. In my opinion of course :)

Personally I wouldn't swap Carrick for De Rossi. In fact there is probably only a handful of midfielders in Europe I would swap him for. Busquets, Xavi, Fabregas and Alonso being the only ones that come to mind right now though I'm sure I've missed a couple.
Click to expand...

What can Carrick do that Butt couldn't?
 
evra said:
What can Carrick do that Butt couldn't?
Click to expand...

Nothing, he just does it all better, cleaner and more calculated. Butt was a good player but very limited in some areas. His passing is nowhere near Carricks and his reading of the game was inferior.
 
Pexbo said:
That says a lot more about you than it does Carrick. In my opinion of course :)

Personally I wouldn't swap Carrick for De Rossi. In fact there is probably only a handful of midfielders in Europe I would swap him for. Busquets, Xavi, Fabregas and Alonso being the only ones that come to mind right now though I'm sure I've missed a couple.
Click to expand...

Missed a load IMO, he's not that great really. To put him in the Top 5 CM's (though you did say you missed a couple, so maybe Top 10) is overrating him by quite a distance.

He didn't even get in the England midfield to start, but would have been made a reserve, which he obviously didn't want to be. I think he had a great season, but he's slightly overrated on the caf. If you asked a City fan to swap Carrick for Yaya they would literally piss themselves, same with Modric at Spurs, Song at Arsenal, probably even Lucas for Liverpool.
 
Theon said:
Missed a load IMO, he's not that great really. To put him in the Top 5 CM's (though you did say you missed a couple, so maybe Top 10) is overrating him by quite a distance.

He didn't even get in the England midfield to start, but would have been made a reserve, which he obviously didn't want to be. I think he had a great season, but he's slightly overrated on the caf. If you asked a City fan to swap Carrick for Yaya they would literally piss themselves, same with Modric at Spurs, Song at Arsenal, probably even Lucas for Liverpool.
Click to expand...

No City fan would swap Barry for Carrick, nevermind Yaya.
 
Its curious. I wonder if 5 years after Carrick has retired, people will hype him up as a better player like they've done with Butt.
 
Carrick's a good player, much underrated by opposition and some United fans, but also not the world-beater others take him to be. You do have to know a little bit about football to see what he does.

He's a much better player than Butty and Barry, and not nearly as good as Yaya Toure.
 
UnofficialDevil said:
Ahhh to think we had a midfield of Scholes Keane Giggs and Beckham, we were extremely lucky to have such a midfield, even more considering it was always 442 back then.
Click to expand...

That was literally the perfect midfield for a 4-4-2.

I miss Keane :(
 
Plechazunga said:
Carrick's a good player, much underrated by opposition and some United fans, but also not the world-beater others take him to be. You do have to know a little bit about football to see what he does.

He's a much better player than Butty and Barry, and not nearly as good as Yaya Toure.
Click to expand...

Your right, he is a technically gifted player. He has no bollocks though and goes missing in big games.
When United have all the ball and he has time to spray it about he is great to watch. Put him under any pressure though and he seems to go missing. He is also liable to make a mistake as well.
I think Carricks problems are more in his head than with his ability.
 
newtonheathdave said:
Your right, he is a technically gifted player. He has no bollocks though and goes missing in big games.
When United have all the ball and he has time to spray it about he is great to watch. Put him under any pressure though and he seems to go missing. He is also liable to make a mistake as well.
I think Carricks problems are more in his head than with his ability.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Plechazunga said:
Carrick's a good player, much underrated by opposition and some United fans, but also not the world-beater others take him to be. You do have to know a little bit about football to see what he does.

He's a much better player than Butty and Barry, and not nearly as good as Yaya Toure.
Click to expand...

Everyone can see what he does; he is a good positional player who doesn't give the ball away very often. If he is given room on the ball he is a positive passer who can have a real impact on a match, if he has someone on him he is fairly easily negated.

Butt was sound defensively, kept the ball well, could spot a pass and got up and down the pitch. If Keano hadn't been around he would have played a lot more than he did, I'd have him in my team over Carrick every day of the week. I wouldn't swap Carrick for that plodder Barry mind you.
 
gambit28 said:
Nicky Butt had a great world cup as well once.
Click to expand...

Oh please do stop talking shit (for the record i was a big fan of Butt)

Michael Carrick is a one of the best Midfielders we have had in the modern generation, as good as Keane? as good as Scholes? No but he is quality, Carrick has been out main Midfielder since about 2008 the most important position on the pitch for me and in that time we have won a few league titles, the CL and reached another 2 finals. I'm not saying he is the best player but sides don't do that when your midfielder is no good, yes other players are vital but Manchester United would not of won the treble in 99 if you removed Keane and replaced him with Butt for the whole season.

It's about time people accept he is a very very good footballer
 
evra said:
Everyone can see what he does; he is a good positional player who doesn't give the ball away very often. If he is given room on the ball he is a positive passer who can have a real impact on a match, if he has someone on him he is fairly easily negated.
Click to expand...

Nah, a lot of people think he's just shit.

Also, I think Carrick is often at his best when he has less time on the ball - when he tends to play incisive first-time balls through midfield. When he has time to think he will tend to defer to Scholes with a simple and unnecessary square ball (an unprogressive pass of a kind that Scholes hardly ever plays, even when he's keeping it simple and retaining possession). It's only when he's in really poor form that he gets caught on the ball a lot by quick pressing...it's not as if teams didn't press us from 06-09 when him and Scholes were highly effective together.

Butt was sound defensively, kept the ball well, could spot a pass and got up and down the pitch. If Keano hadn't been around he would have played a lot more than he did, I'd have him in my team over Carrick every day of the week. I wouldn't swap Carrick for that plodder Barry mind you.
Click to expand...

Carrick's a far better passer than Butt was, and just as good defensively. Butt was more of a goal threat in his early days, but not much more. Carrick's just a much classier player. No top club was ever going to spend 17 million quid on Nicky Butt, good player though he was, and if they'd offered it we'd have bitten their hands off.
 
Plechazunga said:
You do have to know a little bit about football to see what he [Carrick] does.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly where I fall down - my lack of deep knowledge about the sport. Perhaps this is why I view Carrick as far too timid - or rather, negative - and a possession-losing liability, particularly in vital matches against excellent opponents. Granted I'm not the most perceptive person but I must be missing something...otherwise some very good posters, not to mention some great players who often speak of Michael in glowing terms, are wrong.
 
I'm not claiming to know that much about football, by the way - just enough to appreciate that Carrick's a good player, but not enough to understand why buying Veron and pushing Scholes up into the hole didn't work, or how Mikael Silvestre was able to play at the top level for years with a kidney for a head.

But yeah, you are missing something there. Though I agreed with your swiftly hedged 'too timid'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.