Utd Sign Carrick

CnutOfAllCnuts said:
Are they anymore rare these days than 10-20 years ago?

Basically, what you have done is to name some of the greatest midfielders of the last couple of decades. Not a very good way to explain it.

What a team needs is two midfielders who complement eachother, just like a team needs two centrehalves who complement eachother and two strikers who complement eachother.

IMO, the best thing would be to have two midfielders who could attack and defend - which, to be frank, is the job of a midfielder; support the defense and support the attack.
Click to expand...

Like Ince and Keane in the 2 seasons they were together(albeit Keane was injured for much of 94/95 and played some games at right back). They could both defend and attack.
 
Fortitude said:
Having the likes of Butt, Ince, Robbo, Keane infield is not the same as having Carrick and Scholes. The times the wingers needed to tuck in for the top lot was minimal. It would be an every game thing with Scholes-Carrick in the middle.
Click to expand...
Those guys we're good but they couldn't have defended with minimal support from our wingers, they worked hard
 
Fortitude said:
If you want to contest it simply name me some top rate box-to-boxers of this current era like I asked you to do about 20posts ago...

Conversely, why is it that there are so many top notch DM's out there now that were not around yrs ago. Answer these points and I'll concede you're right if you can't, then stop going on about it.
Click to expand...

It's because of your pigeon-holing. Just because a player plays to a sepcific role, doesn't mean he is limited to that role.
 
Mozza said:
Those guys we're good but they couldn't have defended with minimal support from our wingers, they worked hard
Click to expand...
But difference is they were proper midfielders. And 'good' is an understatement, they were brilliant defensively. Carrick is not.
 
CnutOfAllCnuts said:
It's because of your pigeon-holing. Just because a player plays to a sepcific role, doesn't mean he is limited to that role.
Click to expand...
Come on... you're just having a laugh now, surely.

Makelele is a shite footballer. How many goals has the fella scored in his career? Have you ever even seen him shoot? That is not pidgeon-holing. It's just a fact Makelele is absolutely superb defensively and atrocious going forward. He would be an offensive liability so if you didn't limit him you would be harming your own team.
 
CnutOfAllCnuts said:
Are they anymore rare these days than 10-20 years ago?

Basically, what you have done is to name some of the greatest midfielders of the last couple of decades. Not a very good way to explain it.

What a team needs is two midfielders who complement eachother, just like a team needs two centrehalves who complement eachother and two strikers who complement eachother.

IMO, the best thing would be to have two midfielders who could attack and defend - which, to be frank, is the job of a midfielder; support the defense and support the attack.
Click to expand...
Right, but a Carrick-Scholes pairing dont really compliment each other, giving they play very similar games, especially these days when Scholes hangs back and plays passes far deeper. You saw that early pre-season where he basically sat in front of the defence and kept his runs forward to a minimum, that is the sort of game he played in the games he did last season. I think that is more or less what Carrick will do, but better and more consistently hopefully.

As you say, any midfield needs balance (which is why Gerrard-Lampard will never work), Carrick needs a partner whose strengths are his weaknesses. Most people will agree that Carrick isnt that strong defensively (hence why Sven wouldnt play him against a top playmaker like Deco v. Portugal, only played him against defensive team like Ecuador), and that whilst he's no slouch he doesnt have an incredible amount of energy. So what is wrong with simply suggesting he needs a partner who has those qualities?

This thread has been good anyway, some good discussion going on. Glad to see it can still exist on the Caf these days. And notice; no rival fans! ;)
 
Fortitude said:
Come on... you're just haing a laugh now, surely.

Makelele is a shite footballer. How many goals has the fella scored in his career? Have you ever even seen him shoot? That is not pidgeon-holing. It's just a fact Makelele is absolutely superb defensively and atrocious going forward. He would be an offensive liability so if you didn't limit him you would be harming your own team.
Click to expand...

And I hope we never employ a Makelele type player in a Makelele type role.
 
Fortitude said:
But difference is they were proper midfielders. And 'good' is an understatement, they were brilliant defensively. Carrick is not.
Click to expand...
And Carrick isn't? Butt was nver brilliant defensively, Carrick could well be
 
VanNistelrater said:
Right, but a Carrick-Scholes pairing dont really compliment each other, giving they play very similar games, especially these days when Scholes hangs back and plays passes far deeper. You saw that early pre-season where he basically sat in front of the defence and kept his runs forward to a minimum, that is the sort of game he played in the games he did last season. I think that is more or less what Carrick will do, but better and more consistently hopefully.

As you say, any midfield needs balance (which is why Gerrard-Lampard will never work), Carrick needs a partner whose strengths are his weaknesses. Most people will agree that Carrick isnt that strong defensively (hence why Sven wouldnt play him against a top playmaker like Deco v. Portugal, only played him against defensive team like Ecuador), and that whilst he's no slouch he doesnt have an incredible amount of energy. So what is wrong with simply suggesting he needs a partner who has those qualities?

This thread has been good anyway, some good discussion going on. Glad to see it can still exist on the Caf these days. And notice; no rival fans! ;)
Click to expand...
It passes the day and it's better than transfer muppetry :) no harm done either. Rather enjoyed it.
 
VanNistelrater said:
Right, but a Carrick-Scholes pairing dont really compliment each other, giving they play very similar games, especially these days when Scholes hangs back and plays passes far deeper. You saw that early pre-season where he basically sat in front of the defence and kept his runs forward to a minimum, that is the sort of game he played in the games he did last season. I think that is more or less what Carrick will do, but better and more consistently hopefully.
Click to expand...

If Carricks doing that Scholes doesn;t have to, he can get forward again

As you say, any midfield needs balance (which is why Gerrard-Lampard will never work), Carrick needs a partner whose strengths are his weaknesses. Most people will agree that Carrick isnt that strong defensively (hence why Sven wouldnt play him against a top playmaker like Deco v. Portugal, only played him against defensive team like Ecuador), and that whilst he's no slouch he doesnt have an incredible amount of energy. So what is wrong with simply suggesting he needs a partner who has those qualities?
Click to expand...

Svens an idiot, he can defend, only morons think you have run around like a nutter to be strong defensively
 
CnutOfAllCnuts said:
And I hope we never employ a Makelele type player in a Makelele type role.
Click to expand...
You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. It would make us absolutely solid in midfield and with complimentary passing quality of Scholes and Carrick the forwards would have a field day.
 
VanNistelrater said:
Right, but a Carrick-Scholes pairing dont really compliment each other, giving they play very similar games, especially these days when Scholes hangs back and plays passes far deeper. You saw that early pre-season where he basically sat in front of the defence and kept his runs forward to a minimum, that is the sort of game he played in the games he did last season. I think that is more or less what Carrick will do, but better and more consistently hopefully.

As you say, any midfield needs balance (which is why Gerrard-Lampard will never work), Carrick needs a partner whose strengths are his weaknesses. Most people will agree that Carrick isnt that strong defensively (hence why Sven wouldnt play him against a top playmaker like Deco v. Portugal, only played him against defensive team like Ecuador), and that whilst he's no slouch he doesnt have an incredible amount of energy. So what is wrong with simply suggesting he needs a partner who has those qualities?

This thread has been good anyway, some good discussion going on. Glad to see it can still exist on the Caf these days. And notice; no rival fans! ;)
Click to expand...

But can the reason to Scholes playing so deep being that he has had no option, as no one else could spread the ball well enough for him to play further up the field?

There is in theory no reason whatsoever why a Lampard - Gerrard combination should not work. If they were disciplined and clever, it would have been a superb combination.
 
VanNistelrater said:
Why? It is relevant to getting our midfield sorted.
Click to expand...
This discussion goes on since ever and there wont be an end, people discussing over the same shite and using the same arguments, dont you all have nothing better to do? Do you want to win a discussion on the internet so badly?

And who can say whether it will work out or not? So leave it there and wait until he plays
 
Mozza said:
And Carrick isn't? Butt was nver brilliant defensively, Carrick could well be
Click to expand...
Butt was superb going back, it was going forward where he struggle. A perfect example of just how much quality Butt had defensively was his WC2002 where he was one of, if not the best English player. It was out of him Campbell and Rio anyway.
 
Fortitude said:
You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. It would make us absolutely solid in midfield and with complimentary passing quality of Scholes and Carrick the forwards would have a field day.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

I want a midfield four that can attack. Makelele, to me, is a defender, as he just defends. He is not a midfielder. He is basically a sweeper who plays in front of the back-line, instead of behind it.

If you play a midfield four with one player who doesn't cross the halfway line, it makes the opposition's job defensively much easier, as they will only have one central midfielder to take out of the game. That luxury they will not have, if you have to centre midfielders making runs.
 
Fortitude said:
Butt was superb going back, it was going forward where he struggle. A perfect example of just how much quality Butt had defensively was his WC2002 where he was one of, if not the best English player. It was out of him Campbell and Rio anyway.
Click to expand...
Carrick was superb defensively for a whole season at Tottenham, whats the problem then?
 
Mozza said:
We've always played that way and non of our wingers have been dead towards the end of the season
Click to expand...

But the whole point Fortitude is getting at is, that without sufficent protection a midfield of scholes and carrick will be badly exploited in a 442. Its very easy to recognise. Simply think of a pitch, picture where they usually position themselves when in possession and attacking. Now picture a breakaway by AC milan, the play is played from the left back into Kaka who is behind carrick, off he goes exposing the CB and creating chance. That scenario is repeated if you dont have a dedicated defensive midfielder....
 
Mozza said:
If Carricks doing that Scholes doesn;t have to, he can get forward again
Click to expand...
Hopefully that will be the case but I have doubts whether Scholesy has the legs to get up there like he used to, hence why he has hung back a lot when he's played in the last year or so.

Svens an idiot, he can defend, only morons think you have run around like a nutter to be strong defensively
Click to expand...

Not a case of running around like an idiot, but Carricks qualities are his passing, vision, willingness to get on the ball, positioning etc. Doesnt neccessarily equate to him being poor defensively but he isnt renound as a ball winner. Yes, for the pedants, im sure he can tackle, but any top midfield needs a player whose niche is to win the ball back, get in and around the player on the ball. Look at any top midfield in the world and you'll see a player like that, Madrids failings in recent years have been their inability to find a midfielder like that.

Having said that, Gravesen might be a decent option? Would compliment Carrick very well IMO.
 
CnutOfAllCnuts said:
But can the reason to Scholes playing so deep being that he has had no option, as no one else could spread the ball well enough for him to play further up the field?

There is in theory no reason whatsoever why a Lampard - Gerrard combination should not work. If they were disciplined and clever, it would have been a superb combination.
Click to expand...

But Lampard-Gerrard combination never works. I have doubts on Scholes-Carrick combination too, as I'd prefer Scholes-Smith or Carrick-Smith or Giggs-O'Shea rather than Scholes-Carrick with another 2 wingers in midfield.
 
tilo said:
But the whole point Fortitude is getting at is, that without sufficent protection a midfield of scholes and carrick will be badly exploited in a 442. Its very easy to recognise. Simply think of a pitch, picture where they usually position themselves when in possession and attacking. Now picture a breakaway by AC milan, the play is played from the left back into Kaka who is behind carrick, off he goes exposing the CB and creating chance. That scenario is repeated if you dont have a dedicated defensive midfielder....
Click to expand...

Like always, when one midfielder goes, the other holds. Basic football, which you learn in your teens.
 
Michel04 said:
This discussion goes on since ever and there wont be an end, people discussing over the same shite and using the same arguments, dont you all have nothing better to do? Do you want to win a discussion on the internet so badly?

And who can say whether it will work out or not? So leave it there and wait until he plays
Click to expand...
This is the first time i've read one about this!, maybe I dont pay much attention to the transfer forum much.

Let people talk about what they want.
 
tilo said:
But the whole point Fortitude is getting at is, that without sufficent protection a midfield of scholes and carrick will be badly exploited in a 442. Its very easy to recognise. Simply think of a pitch, picture where they usually position themselves when in possession and attacking. Now picture a breakaway by AC milan, the play is played from the left back into Kaka who is behind carrick, off he goes exposing the CB and creating chance. That scenario is repeated if you dont have a dedicated defensive midfielder....
Click to expand...
When we break forward Carrick will stay back, the center backs will puch forward, theres your two centerbacks with a midifelder infront of them, theres no room for Kaka
 
CnutOfAllCnuts said:
Like always, when one midfielder goes, the other holds. Basic football, which you learn in your teens.
Click to expand...
But it's how good Carrick is at holding that position, defensively that is, that is peoples concern. No ones saying he wont do it, but is he good enough in the tackling/tracking department?

We'll see anyway. Ferguson will know his strengths/weaknesses and I trust Fergie absolutely on domestic buys.
 
RedRonaldo said:
But Lampard-Gerrard combination never works.
Click to expand...

Which suggests that they are not disciplined or clever enough. Or both.

In terms of ability, there is no reasons why it should't be a success.
 
CnutOfAllCnuts said:
Not at all.

I want a midfield four that can attack. Makelele, to me, is a defender, as he just defends. He is not a midfielder. He is basically a sweeper who plays in front of the back-line, instead of behind it.

If you play a midfield four with one player who doesn't cross the halfway line, it makes the opposition's job defensively much easier, as they will only have one central midfielder to take out of the game. That luxury they will not have, if you have to centre midfielders making runs.
Click to expand...
Makelele is aboslutely key to Chelsea's success. Without him they are half the side and when he retires they will be in trouble. He may be basic and linear, but his job is essential. He makes Terry look much better than he is and he allows Lampard to play. I would not complain if we had him here, Scholes would be on to score 15 in a season!

I don't think what you're saying matches with what is happening around us for the past 3yrs. Barcelona won 2 league titles and the CL using a DM. And look how aggressive they are as an attacking unit. In many ways a DM allows more players around him to join the attack without having to worry about the counter. It doesn't have to be used negatively like Chelsea do it. Lyon play it and Real Madrid won 2 CL titles with a DM (Makelele in fact) playing some of the best football you're ever likely to see. In fact, I think we're the last side to win the CL without a DM and the PL has not been won without one since the last time we won it in a 4-4-2.
 
Mozza said:
When we break forward Carrick will stay back, the center backs will puch forward, theres your two centerbacks with a midifelder infront of them, theres no room for Kaka
Click to expand...

Which is a very good point when people arer talking about how disastrous it was for Liverpool to play Alonso and Gerrard in midfield. They ignore the fact that Liverpool had a back four without any genuine pace, which ment that if the back four pushed up, they would leave space behind them which they would not be able to recover, or if they did not push up, they had a big gap between the back four and the midfield.
 
VanNistelrater said:
But it's how good Carrick is at holding that position, defensively that is, that is peoples concern. No ones saying he wont do it, but is he good enough in the tackling/tracking department?
Click to expand...

I have no idea.
 
Carrick's a brilliant player - I'm surprised by the amount of negativity.

Get a ball-winner alongside him, and your team would look the nuts. A midfield 3 of Mascherano, Scholes and Carrick would compliment each other perfectly.

With the passing range of Scholes and Carrick in particular - combined with with your fast, tricky and mobile front 3 - you'd be playing some great football.
 
Fortitude said:
Makelele is aboslutely key to Chelsea's success. Without him they are half the side and when he retires they will be in trouble. He may be basic and linear, but his job is essential. He makes Terry look much better than he is and he allows Lampard to play. I would not complain if we had him here, Scholes would be on to score 15 in a season!

I don't think what you're saying matches with what is happening around us for the past 3yrs. Barcelona won 2 league titles and the CL using a DM. And look how aggressive they are as an attacking unit. In many ways a DM allows more players around him to join the attack without having to worry about the counter. It doesn't have to be used negatively like Chelsea do it. Lyon play it and Real Madrid won 2 CL titles with a DM (Makelele in fact) playing some of the best football you're ever likely to see. In fact, I think we're the last side to win the CL without a DM and the PL has not been won without one since the last time we won it in a 4-4-2.
Click to expand...

He is a key player for them, although I believe people generally think he is more important than what he is.

However, I don't want United to play like Chelsea. That is not United.
 
VanNistelrater said:
Hopefully that will be the case but I have doubts whether Scholesy has the legs to get up there like he used to, hence why he has hung back a lot when he's played in the last year or so.
Click to expand...

Scholes will get there, his late runs into the box will jus be a little later.

Not a case of running around like an idiot, but Carricks qualities are his passing, vision, willingness to get on the ball, positioning etc. Doesnt neccessarily equate to him being poor defensively but he isnt renound as a ball winner. Yes, for the pedants, im sure he can tackle, but any top midfield needs a player whose niche is to win the ball back, get in and around the player on the ball. Look at any top midfield in the world and you'll see a player like that, Madrids failings in recent years have been their inability to find a midfielder like that.
Click to expand...

They don't have to be a dedicated ball winner, the type I want is a young Keano, strong all round attacking midfielder, a bit of skill and a bit of graft, not just a runner like the scousers Sissoko.

Having said that, Gravesen might be a decent option? Would compliment Carrick very well IMO.
Click to expand...

Gravsen is a good passer, good if you want someone like Scholes (without the goals) in reserve
 
CnutOfAllCnuts said:
He is a key player for them, although I believe people generally think he is more important than what he is.

However, I don't want United to play like Chelsea. That is not United.
Click to expand...
Did you actually bother to read my post...:confused:

I just cited at least 5more teams that don't play like Chelsea but use a DM. The best attacking sides in Europe all use a DM, in fact.
 
French Henry said:
Carrick's a brilliant player - I'm surprised by the amount of negativity.

Get a ball-winner alongside him, and your team would look the nuts. A midfield 3 of Mascherano, Scholes and Carrick would compliment each other perfectly.

With the passing range of Scholes and Carrick in particular - combined with with your fast, tricky and mobile front 3 - you'd be playing some great football.
Click to expand...
A pint for that man. He speaks sense..
 
Fortitude said:
Did you actually bother to read my post...:confused:

I just cited at least 5more teams that don't play like Chelsea but use a DM. The best attacking sides in Europe all use a DM, in fact.
Click to expand...

We haven't got the players to play like Barca, nor have we got the players to play like Real when Makelele was there.
 
BE HAPPY!!

We've just signed a young, talented player with premiership experience.


Yes we paid over the odds. Most big clubs do, especially in the EPL market.



Now all we need is a bit of steal in the centre of the park. Either Mascherano or Diarra and I will be over the moon!



I, for one, and over-joyed by this signing!
 
CnutOfAllCnuts said:
We haven't got the players to play like Barca, nor have we got the players to play like Real when Makelele was there.
Click to expand...
With Carrick we absolutely do, which is the whole point of the argument. What FH said and VanNistlerator is 100% spot on.
 
French Henry said:
Carrick's a brilliant player - I'm surprised by the amount of negativity.

Get a ball-winner alongside him, and your team would look the nuts. A midfield 3 of Mascherano, Scholes and Carrick would compliment each other perfectly.

With the passing range of Scholes and Carrick in particular - combined with with your fast, tricky and mobile front 3 - you'd be playing some great football.
Click to expand...

Good Point. I'm looking forward to the season ahead, and who knows what players will come out way either this summer, or in January
 
Fortitude said:
With Carrick we absolutely do, which is the whole point of the argument. What FH said and VanNistlerator is 100% spot on.
Click to expand...

We don't. We don't have a Ronaldinho or a Zidane
 
You must log in or register to reply here.