Did I miss something?
Alas poor Carrick...WTF has happened?
- Thread starter Carl
- Start date
Fletcher is doing ok, whilst not playing at the standards of last year. His "running headless" as you so adequately put it, allows Scholes to do whatever he wants.
Carrick is obviously not being playing well enough to be put in the team or he would have got a chance. I urge you to watch the reserve game against City and tell me that Carrick is playing well enough to get in front of Fletcher who is doing fine, although not up to his usual. Carrick was very average in that to be fair. At the moment, unless there are dramatic rises/falls in form, I can't imagine the midfield combination not being Scholes & Fletcher if we are playing 4-4-2.
The problem with Fletcher's "running headless" is that sometimes it can have a negative effect caused by him being caught out of position, which was really noticable against Fulham.
It's a bit like the criticism Rooney got off Capello when he first took over, saying that the fact he wants to always win the ball back and do well for the team can be a problem for England because then when we got the ball, he was miles away from where we actually needed him. Up front.
Because Fletcher is always so determined to win the ball back he hustles and harries all over the pitch, but when we play 442 it can often leave Scholes isolated in the middle against 2 or 3 midfield players. This happened time and time again against Fulham which is why they got at our back 4 time after time after time. It's made even worse when Scholes is also caught up the pitch as well.
I just think Fletcher needs a bit more positional discipline at times.
Hopefully for the best for himself he decides to hand in a transfer request and looks to get his career back on track.
Are things that bad for him? He looks happy enough
why,he is happy to fight for his place.
he means Fletcher
Why because he hasn't started the first 3 games of the season? Rotation for the sake of it is silly. I think it cost us when we did it last year at Burnley and added a bit of inconsistency to our game overall.
Scholes has been the heartbeat of the team so far and regardless of your opinion Fletcher - Carrick/Scholes in a 4-4-2 especially today can work against us - much like it did against Sunderland last year.
Perhaps Carrick should have come on earlier against WHU but, there is no reason for Carrick to hand in a request - that's just plain ole retarded. After this break we'll be playing a couple games a week - you think he won't get starts then?
Except it isn't a fair fight is it? He played well against Chelski, and found himself dropped for three games, whilst he sees Fletcher play shit and still gets picked.
Fletcher hasn't played shit though. He's not been good, but he's not been shit either.
Except that he isn't getting picked for Fletcher's role and being kept out by an absolutely on form Paul Scholes ... Next you'll be saying he is being kept out of the team by O'Shea who has also been some what poor..
You're right, rotation for the sake of it is silly, yet you've gone on to say he'll get starts when we play a couple games a week. Is that not rotation?
Why because he hasn't started the first 3 games of the season? Rotation for the sake of it is silly. I think it cost us when we did it last year at Burnley and added a bit of inconsistency to our game overall.
Scholes has been the heartbeat of the team so far and regardless of your opinion Fletcher - Carrick/Scholes in a 4-4-2 especially today can work against us - much like it did against Sunderland last year.
Perhaps Carrick should have come on earlier against WHU but, there is no reason for Carrick to hand in a request - that's just plain ole retarded. After this break we'll be playing a couple games a week - you think he won't get starts then?
Genius.
He's not Rooney. He's not Van Der Sar. He's not Vidic. Surely he doesn't expect to be a nailed on first choice, and that he has to fight for his place in the team? I highly doubt Carrick is the type of player to hand in transfer requests willy-nilly just because he isn't getting his game.
He played well against Chelsea after starting off the game poorly. He wasn't that good in preason and was poor enough in the reserve game that I saw him play in anyway. Whereas Fletcher is not actually playing shit, he's doing fine. At the moment, Fletcher is playing better than Carrick, which is why he is playing. It's not rocket science. It's up to Carrick to raise his performances.
Blame Solius for starting that thread
I wouldn't even bother pointing out to yer man that Fletcher isn't playing shit.
In fact, you're better off not discussing midfield with him at all. He has some very strange ideas.
In fact, you're better off not discussing midfield with him at all. He has some very strange ideas.
I think that's the role that Fletcher is given. If he wanted a player to come in to play in a particular position and not deviate from it that much, then Carrick would start. I think the fact that Fletcher does chase back and harry so much that that's the reason he is playing. It gives Scholes more freedom. It obviously does put more pressure on us defensively, but I think that that's what's going to happen if you want to allow Scholes do what he is doing. Playing Fletcher and Carrick as a combination would have us extremely good defensively, but I think that SAF is sacrificing us a bit defensively to allow Scholes do what he can do. Fletcher is doing the running for both he and Scholes. If you contain Fletcher to a certain area of the pitch, then he won't be able to do the running half as well, which could equally leave us as exposed anyway.
Some think he is though. The fact is that he is not playing as well as he can. Maybe his game is being sacrificed a little to let Scholes do what he can do but I for one am all for it. The fact does remain that Carrick is not playing that well at the moment, and really there is no real justification in playing him over Fletcher as things stand. If Carrick improves, then he will get a start.
Fletcher hasn't been at his best but he's been ok.
Carrick did play well in the CS but was a bit sloppy in the reserves game last week, which probably scuppered his chances of starting against West Ham.
Good to see competition for places though. This talk of transfer requests is melodramatic in the extreme.
Carrick did play well in the CS but was a bit sloppy in the reserves game last week, which probably scuppered his chances of starting against West Ham.
Good to see competition for places though. This talk of transfer requests is melodramatic in the extreme.
It didn't take running around a lot from Carrick to let Scholes do what he wants
Well that's not rotation for rotation's sake now is it?You're right, rotation for the sake of it is silly, yet you've gone on to say he'll get starts when we play a couple games a week. Is that not rotation?
That is to give players a break so they don't get burnt out, a week is more than enough time to get ready for the next game whereas a couple of days is a bit different especially for some of the older players.
Nor did we have Berbatov in the team, so it's something of a moot point.
We had Ronaldo who could be a very lazy player
Carrick covers a lot of ground when he plays. I'd call that "running around"
Yes, that is rotation but, will have to spell it out for you - it's not rotation for the sake of it when you don't play Scholes twice a week. Right now when we've playing 1 game a week, Carrick hasn't got a start because Scholes has been fantastic.You're right, rotation for the sake of it is silly, yet you've gone on to say he'll get starts when we play a couple games a week. Is that not rotation?
When we play 2 games a week and Scholes doesn't play twice in a short span, Carrick will start.
When are you referring to?
It's different with Ronaldo. His threat alone scared the shit out of the opposition, and a lot of teams played more rigidly as a result. He could actually occupy a lot of players without actually doing a thing.
Poor teams maybe, good teams would expolit imbalance like that
Any time they play together
Like at Anfield last season you mean? that being the last time we paired them together in a meaningful game (thank christ), what a rip-roaring success that was......
Your living in 2007 pal, Carrick aint the same player and Scholes is 3 years older.
How about Champions League final 08 since you know we're picking games
You mean when we had Hargreaves providing the legs in the midfield?
And again you have to go back over 2 years, a lots changed, Carricks half the player he was back then and Scholes as ive already said is years older and needs extra legs around him hence Fletcher.
Carrick and Scholes dont work as a pairing against meaningful opposition anymore, Fergie sussed this Last season after they were decimated at Anfield and hence weve not seen them together since (almost a full year now) and i dont expect we will anytime soon unless injury deems it our only option.
Which necessitated a second half switch to 3 CM's with Hargreaves moving infield, as we threatened to be buried in the second half.
The fact of the matter is Carrick doesn't deserve to be in the first team at the moment.
The lad has seemed to be playing on autopilot since he got his contract extension.
The lad has seemed to be playing on autopilot since he got his contract extension.
Hargreaves was on the right wing
Scholes is covering just as much ground as he normally does, he's been making more runs into the box this season then normal. Also the idea that one player can provide the legs for another is very simplistic, to cover the width of the pitch it takes 4 players, this isn't school football where you just chase the ball
Anfiled last season was a similar performance to our last 4 down there, we sit back and hope to nick something, didn't work in the last 2 years, did in the previous 2 before that
Scholes came off, Hargreves moved inside, the wingers and forwards were shuffled about but it was still 442
He never finished that game on the right wing. Quit trying to re write history.
Scholes is much slower than he used to be so he is definitely NOT covering as much ground as he normally used to.
Furthermore central midfield is not covered by 4 players but by 2 in a 4-4-2.
Bullshit. At Anfeild last season we got taken to school because we had two midfielders who couldn't harry nor tackle with any bite trying to play passing football against 3 aggressive central midfielders all faster than them and with bigger stamina engines. In fact the only time we've ever controlled Liverpool in midfield at Anfield is when Hargreaves and Anderson player. Usually they've just sat on us and we've rolled over for a spanking in midfield, taking smash and grab wins till our luck finally run out.
No way. Giggs came on and played right in between Carrick and Hargreaves.
He wasn't, he was in the hole
But he did start it there, he wasn't the legs in midfield.
Still got to cover the center ground and one player can't do it, the opposition can just pass round him
Scholes is much slower than he used to be so he is definitely NOT covering as much ground as he normally used to.
Furthermore central midfield is not covered by 4 players but by 2 in a 4-4-2.
Possesion was even last season, 51/49 in United favour, they just fouled a lot more. Hargreaves and Anderson did not control the game in 2007, that game Liverpool had 61% of the possesion, had 19 shots to our 5, smash and grab perfectly describes that performance.