Alas poor Carrick...WTF has happened?

[Pogue Mahone]

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 07/08 eventhough Carrick moved forward, the whole team moved forward. A stark constrast to 08/09 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 in 2008/9.

In 07/08 his position was identical to the previous season (relative to the rest of the team he actually dropped a lot deeper).

In 08/09 he advanced his starting position by a greater amount than the rest of the team did, as compared to the previous season.

You're having a shocker here!

EDIT: although I think I know where you're going wrong. You seem to think the data is continual, rather than point summaries for each season as a whole.

 

[Rood]

meh - it should all be 1 year later, the point is the same!

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I'm not sure about that. If that was the case why go all out to get Hargreaves?

Because Hargreaves had other facets of Keane's game Carrick didn't possess. More speed, better tackling, a willingness and ability to press opponents directly rather than standing off of them and a bigger engine. All that came with tactical awareness and champions league experience. The plan was always to eventually pair the two of them together long term. Hargreaves fitness issue however put paid to that.

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.

SAF almost never signs direct replacements for his stars. Rather he signs players who give him certain facets of the game that his previous stars did. Or goes for players completely different.

 

[Rood]

EDIT: although I think I know where you're going wrong. You seem to think the data is continual, rather than point summaries for each season as a whole.

I was actually thinking about it a bit like that TBF (as a kind of continual evolution), although I realise the graph hasnt been done in that way.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I was actually thinking about it a bit like that TBF (as a kind of continual evolution), although I realise the graph hasnt been done in that way.

Yeah, it's a bit misleading. We're really splitting hairs here anyway. Which is a bit silly, as I think both our opinions on Carrick as a footballer are very similar.

 

[adexkola]

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.

True, which is why I indicated he came on as a sub. I doubt his impact on the game would have increased if he started though.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

True, which is why I indicated he came on as a sub. I doubt his impact on the game would have increased if he started though.

Well that's just conjecture, isn't it?

Bearing in mind he played so well the last time he started against Chelsea and the team put in our best away performance since the season before last when Carrick played 85 minutes against Bolton, I'm not sure I agree with your prediction.

 

[gooDevil]

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.

This is a useful comparison, for me.

He reminds me of Xavi Alonso as well, who isn't very crunching in the tackle but seems to have been the one player that kept Liverpool in the top 4, where they haven't been since without him.

He was rarely singled out as that crucial until he left and everyone, including me, realized better how important he was to them.

Not only have we won tons of trophies with Carrick, we've posted some of our best defensive numbers in our history during that time. Carrick was central to those successes, and our offense has been excellent while he's been here too.

 

[Rood]

Yeah, it's a bit misleading. We're really splitting hairs here anyway. Which is a bit silly, as I think both our opinions on Carrick as a footballer are very similar.

Well yes I think we both agree that he plays an important defensive midfield role in the current squad - the main difference of opinion seems to be on exactly how and when he ended up in that role - and maybe just how defensive that role now is.

I am also not so sure if this is really his natural position, or if he has had to compromise some of his previous creative instinct to become a more disciplined team player.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

This is a useful comparison, for me.

He reminds me of Xavi Alonso as well, who isn't very crunching in the tackle but seems to have been the one player that kept Liverpool in the top 4, where they haven't been since without him.

He was rarely singled out as that crucial until he left and everyone, including me, realized better how important he was to them.

Not only have we won tons of trophies with Carrick, we've posted some of our best defensive numbers in our history during that time. Carrick was central to those successes, and our offense has been excellent while he's been here too.

That is why I honestly marvel at the types who paint him as this limited, supporting role holding player. That isnt the Carick we signed from Spurs.

 

[acnumber9]

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.

No need to conveniently ignore anything. The point you made bears no relevance to Cleverley having a dip in form. It's also not if it will happen. No player in football has ever not had a dip in form at some point.

 

[Van Piorsing]

Let's hope he'll be good at defending the space.

 

[gza the genius]

Let's hope he'll be good at defending the space.

I'm not really worried about Carrick as a center back at all. He played there last year when we had a defensive crisis for quite a few games and he was fine.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

That is why I honestly marvel at the types who paint him as this limited, supporting role holding player. That isnt the Carick we signed from Spurs.

Well he's brought it upon himself hasn't he? He has gone through some terribly prolonged phases of really poor form where he's genuinely looked that limited. That skews people's opinions. You'll always get people who will ignore his strengths when they were at the fore during times when he is weak. The only way to fight that is by trying to improve oneself to a point where their 'true self' is on show most of the time.

 

[Suedesi]

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.

It's also Carrick giving away possession that caused Barcelona's goal in Rome that completely took away the wind from our sails, it was also Carrick who lost possession against City when Yaya scored.

 

[Feed Me]

So what did he do wrong tonight then?

 

[Feed Me]

It's also Carrick giving away possession that caused Barcelona's goal in Rome that completely took away the wind from our sails, it was also Carrick who lost possession against City when Yaya scored.

On both occasions Vidic was guilty of rather flaky defending after the concession of the ball. Losing the ball shouldn't equate to a goal conceded - on both occasions, we had opportunity to defend properly, but didn't.

 

[RedSky]

So what did he do wrong tonight then?

Rarely got forward.

 

[hungrywing]

He also touched the ball. With his feet. Several times. Unacceptable.

 

[All 3 United]

Carrick did very well in an unfamiliar position tonight. Still don't get why people get on his back at every opportunity. Very intelligent footballer, hence SAF trusts him at CB.

 

[acnumber9]

It's also Carrick giving away possession that caused Barcelona's goal in Rome that completely took away the wind from our sails, it was also Carrick who lost possession against City when Yaya scored.

Nothing to do with poor defending by Vidic and poor positioning from Van der Sar then?

 

[kietotheworld]

It's also Carrick giving away possession that caused Barcelona's goal in Rome that completely took away the wind from our sails, it was also Carrick who lost possession against City when Yaya scored.

Not sure how much impact the goal actually had, the pattern of the game at Wembley was exactly the same without any goal occurring. In any case, what they do with the ball after he gives it away is pretty much irrelevant, if Eto'o had skied his shot or tripped or whatever, or if we had reacted well to the goal, it wouldn't have made his mistake any worse. The pass to Toure was a complete disgrace, I agree, but he doesn't make a lot of mistakes, and I'm pretty sure his pass completion is among the best in his possession.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

I didn't get to see the game tonight. I'm keeping me going to the pub brownie points for bigger fish, but by all accounts he was very good tonight. I'll try to watch the game sometime later.

 

[pillory]

So what did he do wrong tonight then?

Played at least one backpass.

 

[gooDevil]

Talk about playing too deep....

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

It's amazing that now VDS is being blamed for that first goal in Rome. Jesus wept....

 

[Shimo]

Carrick lost the ball in CM that lead to the corner that Robben scored from in the second leg against Bayern and then he didn't close down fast enough ... fecking Carrick such a liability.

It's like Carrick invented making mistakes that lead to conceding goals in important matches. It's overlooking the fact that Carrick has played in so many important matches for us because SAF has trusted in his ability. When you play those many games there are going to be incidents where a player makes a mistake and in some cases lead to conceding. That doesn't make him a liability. Like Ando's mistake the other day, it went unpunished so will probably be forgotten. Carrick makes very few mistakes in a game that leaves us vulnerable overall though.

Ok am rambling - just pointing out that Carrick is not flawless but, pointing out a few errors by him leading to goals isn't proof that he sucketh the big one.

 

[marjen]

Why do people feel the need to criticize Carrick, simply cause Cleverley has come in and done alright?

IMO Carrick is still the far superior player, and that's no slight on Tom!

The need for a CAF scapegoat is baffling, really is.

 

[RedRover]

No need to conveniently ignore anything. The point you made bears no relevance to Cleverley having a dip in form. It's also not if it will happen. No player in football has ever not had a dip in form at some point.

The point I made was in response to someone jumping the gun and indulging in idol speculation that fans will soon be on the back of Cleverly as they have been with Michael Carrick, and I suggested that I didn't neccessarily think that this would be the case.

I now have no idea what you are talking about so lets leave it at that.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

It's amazing that now VDS is being blamed for that first goal in Rome. Jesus wept....

I would have though he'd be blamed for the second not the first.

 

[Boss]

I would have though he'd be blamed for the second not the first.

I wouldv'e blamed the defending to be honest by quite a few of our players.

Not sure what VDS is supposed to do about a ball looping over his head into the corner, same goal happened with Crespo in 05. It's too accurate.

The first goal I wouldn't blame him. Eto'o had a shot at such close range it would've been very hard to stop. Vidic was at fault getting beaten so easily as was Carrick and Anderson who left the gap for Iniesta to glide pas them.

 

[Name Changed]

Every player makes mistakes that leads to opposition goals. Some players are immune from criticism, some great criticised far more than they should.

 

[Boss]

For what it's worth Carrick I felt had a shocker in Rome. He kept giving the ball away everytime I thought we were on to something.

First time and probably the last time I truly felt that 'Carrick rage' alot of people on the Caf seem to have.

 

[Roy]

Carrick's a good player, but not a great one. It was obvious from day one, even before he signed for us. And whenever you get a good player, people who "like" him claim he's a great player, and people who don't claim he's rubbish.

 

[Boss]

Carrick's a good player, but not a great one. It was obvious from day one, even before he signed for us. And whenever you get a good player, people who "like" him claim he's a great player, and people who don't claim he's rubbish.

In his first season I really thought he could be a great player.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

In his first season I really thought he could be a great player.

What do you think now?

 

[Boss]

What do you think now?

He's a good player, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I would have though he'd be blamed for the second not the first.

He wasn't to blame for a single goal we conceeded. The first goal was all Vidic's fault even though Carrick is the one who first gave the ball away. The second was Evra's. Once Barca had the ball in the situation he gave it to them in, they easily created and scored a goal no defence or keeper would have stopped.

I'm even more appalled that Carrick who spent that night putting out loads of fires is being blamed for any of the goals we let in that night. Then only thing he could be faulted for on that night was resorting to long balls repeatedly when they weren't coming off.

 

[NextSeason]

Holy shit some of you have too much time.

 

[Rood]

Michael Carrick: The Judgement | Bagsy Not In - The Football Blog

The case FOR – Nik, Manchester

I think criticism of Carrick always playing the safe ball is fair enough, however generally he rarely loses possession. On Sunday it was Anderson who kept giving the ball away, which is exactly why Fergie replaced him with Carrick. He did good work to keep possession and defend our lead, its not flashy and its not exciting but sometimes it is necessary to play like that. I don’t think the claims that he gives the ball away too much are true – in fact against Chelsea, he misplaced two passes, whereas Anderson gave it away ten times. His most important work is done off the ball, if you are only watching on TV then you don’t even see that. It is only when he is not there that you realise i.e. the stat that each team visiting Old Trafford this season has had over twenty strikes on goal.

I reckon Fergie has drilled him to play with a focus on the defensive rather than the creative. His instinct now is just to go for the quick safe ball rather than look up and see how he might be able to start an attacking move. His role in the team changed completely after 2008 to a deeper one. Although Scholes ended up playing in a similar area of the pitch as his legs went but he retained his passing ability, he was never asked to play a defensive, shielding role like Carrick. Without those defensive responsibilities so was free to focus on the creative side. So while Carrick is more conservative than he should be, a lot is down to this progression of role.



The case AGAINST – Simon, Bury

The moment that summed him up at the weekend occurred when we were bringing the ball out from the back, and as soon as it came his way, without a second thought back it went to the keeper. I would rather see Anderson attempt a creative pass than Carrick knock it straight back to someone without looking up or knocking it across to the other team. He just looks for the simplest pass he can complete as soon as possible. Not in a Xavi or Scholes kind of way of retaining possession; but a kind of ‘oh crap here comes the bloody ball again’ sense.

In fairness, he keeps us ticking over and he screens the back four relatively well. He’s no superstar but he’s a good player to have. He is though rightly behind Cleverley in the pecking order at the moment. Nobody is disputing that Carrick doesn’t find red shirts with the majority of his passes, merely that he is ultra conservative in his choices and given the obvious lack of confidence in his play, he will happily lay off the easy option and put the onus on the receiver in a tight position, rather than doing something risky himself. It’s been like this since Rome 2008, he’s looked something of a passenger ever since.