Kag
Full Member
I'd like to know what makes you so sure that Schneiderlin has been objectively better if his presence in the team hasn't resulted in better results or better performances. It's all well and good saying Carrick has just coincidentally played in winning teams but surely you have an explanation for why Schneiderlin hasn't been part of well performing teams in the majority of his appearances despite "objectively" playing well?
I agree - Schneiderlin would've helped in the Arsenal game. Though that's the only game you can point to then it suggests he's not quite that critical. On the flipside we can point to an inability to score on multiple occasions with him in the team...and I think there's every reason to believe that's not just coincidental, IMO.
I just think he's generally played better individually. His work rate is outstanding, he's crucial to our much improved pressing game and his passing has been greatly improved of late - after an iffy start. I think he stamps more authority on the game than Carrick and is better on the ball under pressure. This season, anyway.
I approach the debate from a position of weakness because we so obviously see better results with Carrick on the field. But I don't think we get better performances.
Even if you analyse the dropped points when without Carrick, if you pick the games apart on an individual basis then you'd see that Romero played a dud in the defeat to Swansea, Rooney couldn't hit a barn door in the draw against Newcastle, and although we dropped points to City at home, our midfield was superior to theirs. Carrick didn't play (I think) and we didn't win those games. Was that because of his absence? I'm not so sure.
I thought this last season, too, for what it's worth. The stats dictated that he was important to us, but I was rarely greatly impressed with him.
I don't think Schneiderlin is to blame for our lack of goals. I don't think any of the midfielders are, to be honest.