I think his game is too subtle for you to see.
How can he be in the right place to pick off so many passes if he doesn't move, left or right or through the center and he's in the way, he has an economy of movement, its not laziness, its ability.
You've also missed what makes him a great passer and so important to United, its not the long passes over the top, its the shorter passes into the strikers feet which cut through the oppositions midfield which bring the best value to United.
You mention that we build our best chances through our skill players, these passes are exactly what they need to start a move, Hargreaves can't make those passes and Carrick makes them more often then Scholes and Anderson, thats why we would not have won the Premiership without him last season as you seem to think we could have.
He's a fantastic player, got great defensive and attacking ability, if he believed in himself he would be the best player in his position.
You're right, IF he would make more moderate distance passes. That is just a small aspect of his game however. He hoofs it far too much for my liking and this results in a loss of possession. This does not address his defensive ability.
Hargreaves would be the next Roy Keane if...
We're not talking about ifs here, we are talking about what is.
Carrick is not energetic. He is not pacey. He is not aggressive. He plays passively. He also costs us plenty of possession with his long ball play.
Let us talk now frankly about what Carrick offers defensively.
Can we agree that Carrick is not a fast nor an energetic player? When I called him lazy I did not mean he is a fat pie eating piece of shit. I meant that he has a lackadaisical style.
Carrick plays a good positional game but he does not combine the physical abilities with this positional game to really excel at it. He is limited by his movement in what he can do. Baiting a pass is great, it can work. It can work very well when your opposition is trash and will make these poor passes. Carrick thrives on that. He thrives on people forcing the ball into a passing lane he is baiting. Then he merely needs to step in and take the ball away.
That is very rudimentary stuff mind you. The problem with Carrick is that he does not possess the physical traits to cover ground. This means that Carrick will look good against mediocre average and maybe even good teams. He can and will be made to look foolish by teams with great midfielders and forwards.
Players that won't be baited by him, players that can dribble by him, run by him or pass by him easily. We have seen this last year. Perhaps it wasn't entirely his fault he was cut to ribbons in some of these games, perhaps he should have had support from a more athletic partner.
You see, when you match skill versus skill, Carrick will always lose out to the likes of Kaka. Kaka not only possesses a technical game, he has the physical tools to exploit someone like Carrick who does not. This is where a player like Hargreaves will outshine Carrick. Hargreaves may not make pretty or cutting passes, he makes economic passes. What Hargreaves offers however is the physical tools to nullify or at least help control a match winner like Kaka. Hargreaves is very quick. He can run forever. He is aggressive. His game is not about positioning which can be exposed by great passers. He is in essence willing to concede passes in an effort to force them into making bad ones.
Is Carrick a good player? Sure. Is he a great player? No.
The point of that post I made was not to bash Carrick. It was to point out the hypocrisy of certain posters about Carrick and Hargreaves by illustrating what Carrick is poor at and what he does to ruin our flow. Something people like you, the irrational Hargreaves haters will completely white wash while you continue to say rediculous hateful shit about Hargreaves.
I don't know, I guess that was too subtle for someone like yourself to pick up on.
yes, but I wonder if it's more to do with his style of running, which looks lackadaisical, and the fact that he's generally not a great athlete, rather than actual miles.