Worst part is when they're desperately out of position so have to 'bust a gut to get back' and then come flying in with a mistimed challenge, give away a free kick...and then are praised for 'breaking up the play'. Yet when Carrick is already in position, shields the player away from bringing it forward and then eventually forces him to make the only available pass and makes the interception, he's criticised for not getting stuck in there in the first place.
Alas poor Carrick...WTF has happened?
- Thread starter Carl
- Start date
He's excellent at what he does, and when he is at his best he is great to watch. Do you think we are still longing for a 'new Keane' in the centre, which is why our midfield options tend to come in for some stick?
I'm clearly not suggesting that Phil Jones is in anyway a top class Central midfield player, simply highlighting the fact that its a position in which a lot of clubs might place a player who's first position is elsewhere on the pitch.
Anderson and Cleverly have been excellent in moving the ball quickly, and with them is the side all signs point to the fact that we don't need a player sweeping up in front of the back four.
When Carrick has played in the league we've looked no more solid than with Anderson and Cleverly and last week in Europe, even with a three man midfield we were overran at times.
I agree whole heartedly that Carrick has an important role to play, its a squad game, but I'm simply adding my opinion to the debate whereby it seems that some people are prepared to suggest that he's a key component of our success by "protecting the back four" when in reality there's a good chance he'll be behind Cleverly, Anderson and Fletcher in terms of selection.
I'm not having that.
Fergie desperately tried to get him back for the Champions League final the other year, to teh point where he broke down again.
He may have played elsewhere (where he incidentally also did very well) often against sides where we'd be dominating possession anyway and we didnt need a holding player.
So Fergie dropping him for the start of the season 'tells us what we need to know' about Carrick as defensive shield... but Fergie starting him regularly for half a decade doesn't?
If it's emperor's new clothes, then Fergie and the coaching staff have been fooled. Which seems unlikely. I reckon they can see him adding something important, and I reckon whatever it is exists.
It's fairly easy to see what he adds by watching us when he's not playing. In general we're much more porous, and our back four, excellent though they indeed are, look much more vulnerable. That's been the case at times even in the current brilliant run.
Totally agree - cluess comments from some people suggesting he wasnt good enough!
You only have to look at his history in CL Final, WC etc to know that he was a top class defensive mid. His time at United was not representative because he was never 100% fit so never got the chance to properly settle into the team - even then he played a vital role in winning the double that year.
To me it is clear that the injuries to Hargreaves forced Fergie to push Carrick into a more defensive role from 2008 onward - since then Carrick has curbed his creative attacking side in favour of a more disciplined defensive game, many United fans pine for the old Carrick and that is why he ends up getting so much stick.
Maybe - but certain comments about players running around like maniac's etc in my view show a certain amount of ignorance. I'm sure most people on here wont be swayed by players simply running around.
Tackling is a dying art in the game. Players do less contact in training and young kids coming through rarely know how to tackle these days. Its a valuable skill.
I have been on Carrick's back for a few seasons now. He should have been shipped off in the summer imo, and Banega been brought in (if he was available). Banega is more than capable of the defensive duties that Carrick is played for while also being an attacking threat. Would have been perfect for our 4-4-2.
he's been dropped on mopre than one occaision, and for the vast majority of the time he has played for United they ave played a vastly different system from that they do now.
You also ignore the fact that he was signed for big money, initially played well (in a different role to that he's deployed now) and has largely failed to reach the standards he did initially. As I've said, its a squad game and he's played an important role but more recently he's been in teh side when Fletcher (and now Cleverly) have been injured.
As for how we look when he's not playing, on this seasons evidence I don't agree. With Anderson and Cleverly (although it's early days) we look much more dynamic in midfield and able to move the ball much more quickly, getting in behind teams and getting good service to the wingers and front two and In my opinion we look a much more dangerous side.
Why would his injury issues stop him from excelling as a defensive midfielder, and let's face it he never got close to excelling there, but didn't stop him from excelling out wide?
Because its easier to slot in out wide which is why Fergie often starts new players out there even when it isnt their natural positon - whereas it takes time to grow into a CM position for a new team, time he never had due to injuries.
Like I said you only have to look at his time at Bayern or even for England at WC2006 to see he was one of the best DM in the world pre-injury.
Anyway dont want to derail this into a Hargo thread - what do you think about my other point that his injuries forced Fergie to push Carrick into a more defensive role?
It's the truth. I don't care if you're having it or not.
I'm not so sure, if you look at his first two seasons and ones that everyone agrees are his best seasons, he was played alongside Scholes and Anderson as the two main players. In 06/07 Scholes started 29 games, in 07/08 Anderson started 18 league games and Scholes started 22. This suggests to me Carrick was at his best when he was the the more defensive player. At his best, he's never purely a defensive player, and he's not shown his ability to combine his defensive game with a strong passing game often enough in the past couple of years...but he's always been the more defensive player, at his peak. In 08/09 he played further forward than Fletcher in a lot of games, and for the most part found it very difficult right up until the last couple of months with a few very important attacking contributions.
I think a lot people feel Carrick is "already in position", because he rarely moves far away from that position (25-40 yards from goal, pretty central). He rarely seems to go further forward to press from a more offensive position, rarely seems to go wide.
The Makelele-type defensive midfields get more recognition because they seemed to be all over the pitch. Defending from the front, out wide and "last gasp" at the back.
Carrick doesn't get criticised for what he does do (ie shielding/anticipation/intercepting etc), he gets criticised for what he doesn't do (the cutting range of passing/creativity he used to be renowned for). At a club like ours in such an important position you have to contribute far more.
That's a good summary.
You also don't need to look back that far to see Carrick at his best. For some strange reason, a bunch of people on here are deliberately ignoring the string of very good performances Carrick put in at the back end of last season.
This coincided with Anderson, then Giggs, hitting some form and allowing Carrick to do what he has always done best. Screen the back four, keep things simple and create opportunities for his partner to hurt the opposition. The exact same formula that made him the perfect partner for Scholes in his first 2 or 3 seasons at the club. Back in the days before Scholes legs started to go and Carrick was (presumably) encouraged to try and get forwards more, allowing Scholes to sit deep and conserve his energy (a tactic that didn't seem to suit Carrick)
Of course, when Carrick is on top of his game he can also pick out penetrative forward passes of his own from deep. Which is what separates him from the more vanilla DMs that a lot of people seem to think we need. Players who run round kicking people all day long but don't have the vision or ability to pick out a team-mate further than 10m away.
I'm genuinely baffled as to how our charge to the top of the league last season and the way we swatted aside Chelsea and Schalke en route to the CL final - with Carrick playing an integral part in all our best performances - has apparently slipped from so many caftard's memories. Nowt so blind...
Aw now, that's some definite racism right there.
If we're talking skin tones, you don't get much more vanilla than our Geordie milkman.
You speak with certainty. Well done you.
You obviously haven't seen me. True Irish skin, I have.
Thats a very fair point.
Even if we accept that he does a good job shielding the back four, in a side with United's quality in every other area, its probably a job which a much less talented player could do. For example, nobody on here would suggest Gareth Barry is any more than a decent PL player but I dont see that Carrick does any more than he does for City a lot of the time.
United have clearly been spoilt in the past with an embarrasment of riches in central midfield so he's held to high standards, but he frsutrates me in the same way that Nani used to - being a player with clear ability and talent who often looks ordinary.
For instance in certain games last year when an experienced central pair including Carrick were outclassed by much less talented players. Were he to be Gibson or an Alan Smith its much easier to accept poor performaces and inability to stamp you're authority on a game but when a player has started so well early in his club career and previously shown he has the ability to do so its much more frustrating.
As I've said before, its all a matter of opinion and is obviously subjective.
Numerous occasions he pressed high and wide against Benfica in midweek, so to me, it does seem like he's criticised for what he does do (as well). Because some people don't see it, so it didn't happen. For anyone to suggest that Makelele covered more areas of the pitch than Carrick is just crazy/ludicrous.
To me, he's criticised for not doing enough all-action stuff more than his passing, because when he's at his best it's not hard to see how influential he can be with his passing, it's when he gets timid and plays conservative passing that people focus on other parts of his game...and then either ignore them, or can't see them. People keep comparing Carrick against this mystical complete midfielder (AKA Roy Keane) and of course, he falls short. But he wasn't bought to be that. If he was, if Sir Alex expected him to dominate teams with his physique, his mentality or his passing...he dropped a bollocks. I don't think he did though, he was bought to a good team player, a very able partner to someone else who will dominate the midfield, and he'll make it easier for them. I've no doubt that if Busquets was here he'd be roundly criticised every other week, not because people can't appreciate his style but because people don't want to, they're looking for an all-action, box-to-box, dominant midfielder and anyone who doesn't do that, or doesn't dominate the play with his passing (see Anderson consistently criticised despite his other good attributes, because he wasn't the new Scholes) is going to fall short. Not every important player has to be an exceptional individual.
There is one criticism that I think almost everyone agrees on - his inconsistency. When he's playing well, as he was for 3/4 of the games from January onwards last season, then he's not sloppy, not a regressive passer and doesn't slow down the play - he keeps us ticking along perfectly, feeding the attackers in good positions and early. This lack of unerring self-belief is the only thing that holds him back from being a player who starts every game (aside from being rested) just like Anderson is developing into now, IMO. He doesn't need to make more tackles, he doesn't need to make bursts forward into the attack, he doesn't even need to be immediately noticeable for me; he just needs to keep us ticking smoothly. As it is, he hasn't found that consistency for 3 years now and he's on the verge of becoming just a rotation player, a player who comes in for specific games and a player who comes in when others are rested. Even at that, he's one I'm very grateful to have.
It totally disagree with the bolded part. Cleverley came in and wasn't particularly dominant, all-action or box-to-box, but still in my opinion showed even the biggest Carrick fans what we have been missing - someone who can turn on the ball, pass and move, always be available for the pass and be creative, whilst also putting in the legwork defensively. I also believe that Fergie did buy him almost solely for his range of passing, which he did show for a couple of seasons, but hasn't of late.
The worst thing is that now I don't think he is particularly inconsistant (I did up until about a year ago). I think that he has found a relatively consistant level that in my opinion isn't good enough to command a starting place for United. For maybe 40 of his last 50 games for us I've felt exactly the same. At his best he is a great player, but over the last few years this has been a 1 in 5 showing at best.
Give it a couple of months and Cleverley will start being criticised for not being creative enough and for not doing enough defensively, I reckon. Not that either's fair, but when you're being compared to two of the best midfielders we've ever had it's hard not to come up short. IMO, of course. Carrick divides opinion, is the way and always will be the way. I'm just glad to have him.
Surely that all depends on performance? It seems he's a player who has the speed of thought and ability to play the game simply - its idol speculation to suggest that his performaces will dip.
Its also fair to say that a player like Cleverly should be cut a bit more slack owing to his age and relative inexperience.
That is the most important point and it is my view that he has now (progressively since 2008/9) virtually become a purely defensive player. As I said, I think this was forced upon us by Hargreaves' injuries as I reckon he was the player that Fergie wanted to be our DM but it never happened so we had to go for plan B.
I dont really disagree with much of what you say there but you are comparing Carrick only in relative terms to other midfielders as being 'the more defensive player' - Im talking more in absolute terms about Carrick himself.
It seems that a couple of years of having a complete focus on defensive duties has meant that Carrick has almost forgotten his previous creative abilities - some people call it a confidence issue, but I think it is more about the way that instilling a defensive discpline in a player will always come at a cost to their attacking side.
Thanks. It's quite easy to speak with certainy when you've seen it happen. He played in centre midfield, was largely rubbish and dropped only regaining his place in the team in a wide position.
You make this opinion from three and half games for Manchester United? All players form dip at some point. That's some more certainty for you.
I'm going to have to draw your attention back to that graph on the previous page. "A couple of years having a complete focus on defensive duties" doesn't really fit with a midfielder who spent 09/10 in the second most advanced position of his five years at United.
Why are you so determined to ignore his first two years playing for United? Not to mention his entire career at Spurs? Carrick has always been a deep-lying central midfielder. We signed him as someone with a reputation as someone who excelled at sitting deep, intercepting passes and starting counter-attacks. His previous manager, Martin Jol, even described him as exactly that sort of player.
As I told you yesterday, 08/09 (and to a lesser extent 09/10) was an anomaly in his terms of his role over the five years at United. He reverted to type in the back end of last season. Playing the same role he did at Spurs, the same role he did in his first two seasons with United. The role that comes most naturally to him, which is sitting deep, protecting the back four and looking to spring counter-attacks from deep.Martin Jol said:
If you think a Senna lacked energy then you never watched him properly. Alonso to is a similar. It's because since he left Soicedad he stop being overly engrossed in physicality that people imagine him to be like Busquet or Carrick.
The truth is at Spurs he was the Pirlo of the team running things from deep, not a Makelele clone. We have only seen that side of Carrick in 2008 and from the mid point last season. That version of him is the real Carrick.
Spot on. He was never bought to emulate Mascherano, Makelele and De Jong's passing practices. He was instead bought to give us what we lost with the end of Keane's reign. A protector of our back 4 who could really pass the ball creatively.
Fletcher played really well in the DM role although he tired late on understandably. He's got far more drive and energy than Carrick and I was pleased he started instead.
I didn't say his performances would dip I said he would get criticised more. Sadly, the two aren't always directly linked.
Perhaps not.
At the moment the buzz around him is generally positive. If he continues to perform how he has I hope it remains as such.
I'm not sure about that. If that was the case why go all out to get Hargreaves?
I personally think fergie watched Carrick at Spurs and was impressed by his use of the ball in getting Spurs going rather than looking at him as a direct replacement for anyone.
Try reading what I actually posted rather than trying to be obtuse and twisting my words.
His form may very well dip but I'll wait until it happens before I make a judgement rather than speculating if and when it will happen.
You'll also note that I suggested that he'll be afforded more time given his relative inexperience, more so than a player who's been at the club for years which you conveniently ignore.
Compare his performance against Chelsea last weekend (albeit as a sub) with how he bitchslapped all contenders in midfield at Stamford Bridge last season. It was as if he was a different player that match. He was more assertive, he took control
. I'm not asking for him to run around like a rabid dog, it's just that when he plays so insipidly he puts all the onus on his partner to create and provide energy to the midfield, while he becomes a third center back. And the annoying part is, he can play much better, that is not his level! If Carrick played like he did in 07-08 near the end of the season, and at patches between that period and now, I don't think we would have had all the begging for Schneider and co.
We're not footballing neatherthals who can't see the finer, more subtle parts of the game. Carrick is one of those players you have to see live in order to appreciate more, I'll concede. But the bitching was never as prevalent from 06-08 as it is now, his level of performance has dropped. He'll get the job done though, but now he's behind Cleverley and Anderson in the pecking order, and that's a shame
I dont ignore his first 2 years but where he played in 2006/7/8 (or before) is not so relevant to the point I am making about becoming progressively more and more defensive post 2008 because the entire team, tactics and dynamic changed in the meantime (and after).
Re: the graph - There are 2 lines in the graph and you seem to be ignoring the red one (The Team) and just focus on the blue (Carrick).
In 08/09 eventhough Carrick moved forward, the whole team moved forward. A stark constrast to 09/10 where the team continued to move forward yet Carrick was pushed in the opposite direction, this to me shows a complete change in his role in the team. The year after the team did move back a bit but Carrick was pushed deeper at an even faster rate. It is absolutely clear on the graph and I find it quite strange that you cant see it and just call the years that dont fit your view 'an anomaly'!
What Jol says there was true at the time but I note that he does not say anything about 'sitting deep and protecting the back four', that is just what you have inferred and added in - regardless it is pretty irrelevant now because that was said before he started his conversion to a predominately DM after 2008/9.
The difference being last weekend he was obviously told to slow the game down, retain possession and put a stop to the end to end madness which could have seen a load more goals scored in the closing stages.Compare his performance against Chelsea last weekend (albeit as a sub) with how he bitchslapped all contenders in midfield at Stamford Bridge last season. It was as if he was a different player that match. He was more assertive, he took control
I'm not asking for him to run around like a rabid dog, it's just that when he plays so insipidly he puts all the onus on his partner to create and provide energy to the midfield, while he becomes a third center back. And the annoying part is, he can play much better, that is not his level! If Carrick played like he did in 07-08 near the end of the season, and at patches between that period and now, I don't think we would have had all the begging for Schneider and co.
We're not footballing neatherthals who can't see the finer, more subtle parts of the game. Carrick is one of those players you have to see live in order to appreciate more, I'll concede. But the bitching was never as prevalent from 06-08 as it is now, his level of performance has dropped. He'll get the job done though, but now he's behind Cleverley and Anderson in the pecking order, and that's a shame
It is frustrating to debate with people who don't fully comprehend what they are watching, isn't it Brwned? For the most part, I have given up. I have seen no mention that it was Carrick's recovery of possession that led to the attack for Giggs' goal against Benfica, but this does not surprise me. Instead, unpopular but useful facets of his game are criticised. As another poster has previously stated, how dare Carrick attempt to maintain possession when we have a comfortable lead or are in a favourable position in a difficult European away game.