Carrick-Cleverley partnership

Platato

Do we have a new partnership brewing here? Both did well to pressure Arsenal's midfielders and from a defensive standpoint, we looked quite solid with them in the center today.

SteveJ

Yup - Carrick can give the ball away, and Clevs can foul 'em; perfect.

Scrumpet

Bad against Chelsea, pretty good as a partnership today.

Randall Flagg

Anderson is a better player than Cleverley in my opinion. But his fitness is still such a worry.

I think Carrick Anderson can be a better partnership

Brightonian

I'd say it's fairly obvious that we should be playing all three. Young would hardly have been missed today. Carrick brings control, Cleverley brings tempo, and Anderson brings creativity.

Redlambs

My only worry is Carrick needs dragging into games, rather than forcing the issue himself. I don't think Cleverly is the best partner for that, but today was promising.

The Black Pearl

Anderson and Carrick were by far a better looking partnership in the 2nd half. Carrick looked a lot more solid defensively and Anderson was a constant threat going forward.

Jimy_Hills_Chin

Funny, I thought that Rooney was the best defensive midfielder today. For me, Carrick and Cleverley are too similar and neither offer enough attacking threat in a midfield two.

It was a good result but Arsenal bottled it before they got on the pitch. I don't really think that we learnt too much from the game.

KingEric7

Agreed. I don't see why Fergie is so resistant to the idea. Nani isn't a starter, Young was almost completely pointless today, so why not play all 3?

Steven Seagull

Anderson was playing against 10 men to be fair to Cleverley, who'd played 60 minutes against 4 naturally central players in Ramsey, Wilshere, Arteta and Cazorla. There was loads more space for Anderson when Arshavin and Walcott came on.

amolbhatia100

Carrick was a bit shit today. Cleverley was good today, particularly in the first half. We saw that one touch quick thinking football from him which he did more of last season.

BD94

Cleverley-Anderson.

I want to see this again.

Forevergiggs

This team will become a very good team from a good team, that it is now, when we learn to play Carrick-Clev with one of Ando or Kagawa. Getting the ball to the wings is still our number 1 priority and we don't try enough to create through the middle.

A Scholesque pass to the wings is not Cleverley's strength. His strength is short passes, finding space and moving the game forward. He could really benefit from having another creative player in front of him. It would be awesome to see us transitioning and moving towards a 4-3-3 than the current 4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1.

amolbhatia100

Because our wide players aren't very suited to playing as part of an attacking trio. Valencia is an touchline hugging winger. Young is.. whatever young is. And they're the ones who are in favour these days anyway.

Brightonian

I'd be interested to hear what objections people have to playing all three of them. Can't think of a downside myself.

Harsh to claim that Anderson played better than Cleverley. They were both very good, but Cleverley was a big part of the reason we got on top in this game in the first place, against what was essentially a four-man central midfield. Anderson was playing against 10 thoroughly beaten men, and Ramsey had gone off for Walcott. He had so much space it was laughable.

Brightonian

Why can't Valencia play in a front three? There's no rule that you have to be a cut-inside Pedro type to do that. As for Young, he's shown nothing that makes me think we need to fit him into the side. Anderson and Cleverley, on the other hand, are both doing brilliantly.

BD94

I'd love to see a 433 for us, but who plays as the top 3? Rooney is best behind the striker, who has to be RVP. There is no width in that team, so you need to then play one of Valencia/Nani/Young, which would just make us unbalanced. Nani would be ideal as h could swap wings regularly, but he seems to be going. I suppose we could have Welbeck up there, but then that's just a diamond, which has no width at all.

Aint gota Kalou

It just means that Rooney has to play on the wing where he's not as influential. Rooney and RVP as a partnership looks great so I don't think the advantage of playing all three at the same time really outweighs that.

Carl

In the 2nd half when we were already 2-0 up and they were down to 10 men... It's hardly a good comparison.

I do agree Anderson needs to play more though.

Platato

They'll never offer much of an attacking threat if we're setup like we were today against teams who like to overload midfield. Said it before, the emphasis in a midfield 2 will be just to keep our play ticking. Cleverley actually did a good job of staying more disciplined and taking up good defensive positions. He did get caught out at times but you could see he was more focused on being defensively sound rather than joining the attack too much.

Playing in a midfield 2 is quite tough these days. Requires the right kind of balance. Hence, why we struggle to play consistent midfield pairs.

KingEric7

I don't even think it means Rooney needs to play strictly out wide. It would just require the team being flexible enough to provide an option down that side whether it be Van Persie, Rooney, Anderson or Cleverley. All of them are capable of doing what Young did today. We may lose a little width from not constantly having a fixed option there, but I'm sure we'd gain more from having those three in the centre than we'd lose. We're in good form currently, but there is an absolute void a lot of the time between our midfield and attack - Carrick does not move forward with the ball at all, meaning that Cleverley stays deep by default a lot of the time to give him an option. Playing Anderson would go some way to rectifying that problem, but if it was just him and Cleverley then perhaps there'd be an issue in terms of positioning of our midfielders off the ball.

Playing them altogether would mean that we should get the best of both worlds, whilst perhaps losing something down the left. For me, rectifying our midfield situation would far outweigh any losses here though.

Brosstan

Rotation issues. Right now we play well every game with midfield 2s and we can rotate Anderson and Cleverley, giving both of them rest. If we played a midfield 3 we would be more likely to have problems with squad rotation.

Also, with Rooney and RVP playing every match guaranteed, a midfield 3 would leave us with a bit few options up front. There would only be one "free" slot left. If Valencia were to play either Rooney would have to go wide, essentially wasting a lot of his talent, or Anderson or Cleverley would have to provide the width on the left. Which makes the midfield 3 pointless.
Similarily, Welbeck would have to play on the left if he were to play, which is a bit pointless imo. Hernandez wouldnt even have anywhere he could fit in well without Rooney going to the left.

To sum up, now that we have two quality offensive players in Rooney and RVP who will be playing centrally in attacking positions every game, it doesnt make much sense to have a midfield three as our main formation.

Stobzilla

----Carrick

Clev------Anderson

----Rooney

Platato

Maybe we should rotate these two a bit more then? We don't need them in every game.

Brosstan

No we dont need them, but do you think we need a midfield 3 more than we do both Rooney and RVP? They are our two best players and I see no point in rotating them as long as they dont look tired and play good football. I think the negatives consequences of a midfield 3 outweigh the positives. Theres really no point to change as long as we keep playing well and winning with a midfield 2.

Devil may care

Well today Carrick was sloppy and Cleverley was close to being sent of so maybe not the best time to bring this up. At any rate I don't think it's a great long term option, Cleverley is better in a 3 or the diamond where he can operate higher up the pitch.

Platato

It depends on the game really. Hence, why we've used the diamond along with the 4-2-3-1. I see your point but I'm not sure what you see that is so negative about a midfield 3. Care to elaborate?

sammsky1

very astute point

Brosstan

We dont have players to keep a good rotation going if we play a midfield three as our main formation.

Rooney will have to play on the left if we want any width. That or Cleverley would have to be left-ish. I wouldnt mind the latter but then it wouldnt really be a midfield 3, more a midfield 2 (or diamond) with Cleverley on the left.

amolbhatia100

You don't need to play that sort of player but it's more ideal. Generally, I think that in a 433 it's preferable to have wide players who are as dynamic as possible who provide enough goal-threat to make up for the lack of a second striker (particularly when, like us, you don't have a natural goalscorer from midfield).

Platato

You're making the assumption about it becoming our main formation. I see it as an option. I think trying out a midfield 3 wouldn't be such a bad idea in some games. In fact, I don't even know what our best setup is at the moment. Each formation/setup has its own merits and I think it varies based on the teams we play.

The problem whenever we discuss formations, tactics, lineups what have you, is that some people assume it's going to be our main option. We have a plethora of options with this squad and this is what I'm simply exploring. Realistically, I think what we say today will be our main setup unless we begin to perform better in the diamond formation. However, that shouldn't mean playing in a 4-3-3 shouldn't be an option. It's worth a try at least because currently, even though the diamond does a better job of getting the best out of our CMs, I would think a 4-3-3 would allow our midfield to a be more solid unit.

It comes down to what's best for the team versus what we want to see. I dont think we've reached the point where we know what's best for the team just yet. Maybe that's just me though.

Platato

Looks like this partnership could be returning to the fore.

Dargonk

Hopefully. They look fairly good together. Particularly with anderson out. I'd be starting the pair in each game and then bring on scholes if required or to change the pace of games in the second half.

KM

They've now been paired for Chelsea(A), Arsenal(H) and City(A) and have done well in all of the three matches. Gotta say that's pretty impressive.

Cina

Interesting. Maybe it's a case of SAF saving them for the bigger games then. He must know it's probably our best available partnership, but with Cleverley's previous issues he doesn't want to risk playing him too much and not having it at his disposal.

Rozay

Anderson would be in my strongest midfield, personally.

#07

Agreed.

Before these matches I had little faith in the Carrick, Cleverley partnership as I feel to some extent that they both benefit from someone next to them taking more responsibility: Carrick because it suits him to sit back and defer to his midfield partner, Cleverley because he likes taking the game to the opposition with someone close to him.

But in the big games this year Carrick and Cleverley have proved they can play together. Carrick has certainly been at his most aggressive in the Chelsea, Arsenal and City games and Cleverley has picked his runs more in those three outings and played closer to Carrick to ensure the angle is always on.

Cevno

Worked poorly in other games like Southampton away though.

Think they work better against bigger teams where they can play it simple and wide vis a vis games where more creativity is required.

Brightonian

Good against teams who don't sit back against us. Sometimes they don't know how to crack a tough defensive display, ten men behind the ball etc. For that, they need Anderson alongside them. However, whilst Anderson is injured this is far and away our best partnership.

KM

I'd take more from impressive displays against Arsenal(H) and City(A) rather than Southampton(A). I also think they'll work well against the smaller sides, no reason they shouldn't. Carrick is a good passer and Cleverley's movement creates a lot of confusion in the opposing half.