He can become that 'type' of player without improving at all. Arguably he already is.
But yeah, he's still a work in progress.
Carrick
- Thread starter bananaman
- Start date
But yeah, he's still a work in progress.
Well I suppose he is that type. He is nowhere near the level though.
He could do a few simple things to improve himself though. A bit of jogging for example, he obviously has absolutely no stamina. He definitely has more potential than our other midfielders to break into the world's best.
Right on the money.
There is nothing deceptive about it. He can play out wide and pretty much beat fullbacks for pace when the need arises.
Iniesta is deceptively quick.
The vast majority of people will agree, and it's been said numerous times already.
Arguing otherwise is pointless.
The vast majority of people will agree, and it's been said numerous times already.
Arguing otherwise is pointless.
It is pretty obvious to any who have faced him or seen him play that he is fast. To call it deceptive is frankly fool hardy. An example of deceptively quick is Berbatov.
No one in Italy puts Carrick at the same level of Iniesta.
Carrick IS on that level, there's no chance you can convince me or many other otherwise.
All could be an upgrade, slightly, but it doesn't make a big difference... there's a reason the Italian media drool over the mention of Michael Carrick, they can appreciate a master-class player.
Giggs is deceptively quick too.
Iniesta only uses his pace in bursts, which is part of the reason as to why he's deceptively quick.
A lot of the time he just dribbles at a slow pace which is why he's deceptively quick.
Iniesta only uses his pace in bursts, which is part of the reason as to why he's deceptively quick.
A lot of the time he just dribbles at a slow pace which is why he's deceptively quick.
Would they put him on the same level as Pirlo?
I doubt it. Altough they do rate Iniesta as better then Pirlo.
I'd be surprised if they didn't.
Well yeah, but doesn't everyone? Iniesta's twice the player Pirlo is.
Brwned do you not rate Pirlo that highly? I know he may not be as good now as he was at his best, but at his best he's up there with the best CMs in the world for me.
I think he's the equivalent of Paul Scholes now.
Great range of passing, and as good as anyone around at putting on a passing masterclass when on form, but he's on form so infrequently and when he's off form teams just play right through him with ease.
If he could get back to the level of consistency he had before then he'd be a brilliant player again, but right now he's closer to just being a good player.
Needs a move to revitalise his career, or just a kick up his arse at Milan like Scholes in 06/07. A manager change might help in that way.
Great range of passing, and as good as anyone around at putting on a passing masterclass when on form, but he's on form so infrequently and when he's off form teams just play right through him with ease.
If he could get back to the level of consistency he had before then he'd be a brilliant player again, but right now he's closer to just being a good player.
Needs a move to revitalise his career, or just a kick up his arse at Milan like Scholes in 06/07. A manager change might help in that way.
The problem is that Carrick (and Xavi and Pirlo for that matter) aren't capable of doing everything themselves. They need their midfield partners to be giving them the option to just simply lay it off to them when they don't have any other options. They need their attacking players to be getting into space and making the right runs to be making themselves available for a through ball, a long pass or just a simple pass. Scholes suffers from the same thing now. Which is why the instant he came on both he and Carrick started holding the ball a bit better.
So on the one hand, Carrick is limited. But I don't think by much more than Xavi and Pirlo are. On the times they 'humiliated' us, their partners turned up whereas Carrick's didn't. Actually, to be fair Carrick didn't turn up against Milan either. But to some extent, players of that type are reliant on their team-mates to give them options. If their team-mates don't turn up and if they are being closed down fast, these players don't really have the physical ability to take on players themselves and force things to happen that way.
As for if Carrick is on the same level as Xavi and Pirlo, it's very hard to say. Obviously he's not as good a passer as them, but equally obvious is the fact that he is better defensively than them. Because players who stand out in one particularly regard are often rated higher than an all-rounder, they are held in higher regard than Carrick. But ultimately, it depends on what the team needs. There's no way we'd have won the premiership with Pirlo or Xavi partnering Scholes in 06/07, for example. But Carrick, unlike them, is capable of playing that more defensive role on a consistent basis. Like I said earlier, I don't like him playing it against the very top teams, but in 9 games out of 10 he's fine. Which releases the other midfielder to be a more attacking player, whereas both Xavi and Pirlo almost always need a more defensive player with them. Horses for courses.
sorry i dont rate him ! he has a gifted touch at times and scores some great goals but as a midfield player that has to perform week in week out he has not done it for me and i think also that although scholes is a legend we need to think of a replacement midfield player that is going to start to dominate the central area of the park because carrick aint doing it
It isn't hard at all. The others have consistently proven themselves against the toughest opponents at any level, while Carrick has more than once been found out it in simlar circumstances. Carrick is good but he is clearly below their level.
True, unfortunately. Carrick is a good player but nowhere near their level. He is in his prime now, he turns 28 next month. If he's going to turn into a top class midfielder, he'd want to do it next season/
Maybe not. But he is getting older so if he wants to break into the top echelons of the world's top midfielders, he'd need to get a move on!! That's all I'm saying![/B]
shouldn't he have done it by now?
But would they have been able to consistently prove themselves if they've consistently been played as the main defensive midfielder for their team? Carrick has never been found out when he's had Fletch next to him, it's only when he's been asked to do most of that defensive work by himself that he can be over-run occasionally.
I guess I do agree that Xavi and Pirlo (well, Pirlo of a few seasons ago) are better, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as many people think.
I find this a strange argument. Why does Carrick need Fletcher for him to perform? He shouldn't need him. It goes the other way also, Fletcher shouldn't need Carrick to perform for him to play well. A midfielder can play well even though his midfield companion is not.
It is clear cut. Xavi is a wonderful footballer and Carrick does not come close to that level. That is not slagging off Carrick, there are only a couple of players in the world who are on Xavi's level. There is no shame in not being as good as Xavi. In relation to Pirlo, I don't watch Italian football much anymore and have not witnessed his demise. Brwned says he has been terrible and he watches a lot of Italian football so I'd take him at his word because he seems to know what he is talking about.
Spot on. A top class midfielder should be able to do this.
Correct.
The point I'm making is that the positon that Carrick is playing in these matches where he is 'over-run', is a completely different position to where the likes of Xavi and Pirlo play. He's playing as our main defensive midfielder, so he should be getting compared to Toure, Gattuso, Mascherano, etc. That is his primary job, it's more his midfield partner who is supposed to be driving us forward. The fact that Carrick is doing so much playmaking from that role is a massive advantage over these other players who play that role. Although the fact he is getting over-run indicates he perhaps isn't strong enough defensively to play it on a consistent basis against the very top teams.
The only time he plays in the same position as Xavi and Pirlo is when he is partnered with Fletcher. This allows him to push forward more and become our primary playmaker, and he has never, ever been outshone in this set-up.
If Xavi and Carrick had been involved in a straight swap in the final, do you honsetly think Xavi would've been much better in our team than Carrick was? A match where he was basically left all alone because no-one else (bar Ronaldo and Park) turned up. He would've found it hard to play all his little triangles when no-one was available to pass to, and he was regularly forced to play long-balls when they really weren't on simply because there was no other option.
He might've been a little better, but he certainly wouln't have driven us forward single-handedly and turned the tide.
Xavi's passing would never have been as poor as Carrick was that night. Same goes for Pirlo. Carrick is simply not as good as either of them. No disrespect meant to him.
Besides, this season when partnered with Barry at England level he was still taken to school by Xavi and Iniesta. Yet he had been given the same type of role he has when played with Fletcher. Carrick is a very good player. But he is still a notch below the likes of Xavi. Because he has a regular habit of going missing when things are not going his team's way.
I don't see anyone claiming otherwise.
No disrespect to Carrick but he lacks ball dribbling skill to get him out of tight situation like Giggs did with his left leg against Chelsea at Old Trafford earlier this season. Carrick is still a very good player.
With all due respect, Carrick is too damn slow to do anything and when rushed a little his whole game collapses. He is a darling of the Italian media because he slows the game down the way they like it. The game against Barcelona wasn't the first one he has been rendered totally clueless and ineffective this season, even playing against some of the cannon fodder he was easily nullified especially when the opposition had three men in centre mid.
Not too long ago some one claimed it wasn't a clear cut thing to say who was better between him and the likes of Xavi and Pirlo.
Carrick's better than Pirlo.
Xavi's far better than Pirlo.
Xavi's far better than Pirlo.
You guys are jokers! 3 years ago, Pirlo was the best in the business in his position, all of a sudden A.C aren't doing that well and he's a nobody. As for Carrick, plan and simple if he'd a switched sides with Xavi in the final i doubt anyone would have spotted the difference, its just that Xavi had a better partner on the night!
Yes.
Rooney's better.
Rooney's better.
Says who, you? You're having more and more 'Thus spoke the Chief' moments.
Do you still think Anton Ferdinand is a way better right back than Wes Brown?
Mainoldo hit the nail on the head - next time Pirlo plays a blinder the vast majority of your 45 posts a day will be centered on what a great player he is.
This bit is true
, the difference in quality between the two is like night and dayNo shit sherlock.
No.
They won't, though. Pirlo's like Scholes these days, inconsistent but has the ability to dictate the tempo of the game as well as anyone.
There would have been a massive difference. Barca didn't do anything different that United except make triangles. Messi came inside and it was just Messi to Iniesta to Xavi and back and so on. For these triangles to work, the person off the ball must create the space by moving. In the final anyway, all the midfielders, including Carrick, were static. There was never anywhere for anyone to pass it. And on the few occasions when Giggs had the ball, he was forced to go forward and lose it because Anderson and Carrick were never free. And even when Anderson was free, the other players seemed relutant to pass it to him because he would inevitably lost the ball. You would have noticed a static Carrick in the Barca team. Their triangles wouldn't have worked with him being so stationary in that particular match (unusual for him to be like that by the way). And we can't say Carrick would have played better with better teammates because then you are leaving the door open for people to say Anderson would have played better if he played with better players than Carrick and Giggs. All our 3 midfielders were awful when it comes down to it. None performed to their ability. And Barca didn't even have to play close to their best to steamroll us.
Fair enough. Well then unless we bought Essien, Fletcher is naturally probably the best partner that Carrick could possibly have.
Carrick wasn't great at moving into space in the final, but he did it far more than Giggs, Anderson or Rooney did. He was basically the only one doing it. That's his speciality. Always moving to get into the right place so that he can recieve the easy ball if the ball-player has no other option. Likewise, to play at his best he needs someone else also giving him that same easy option when necessary. Which is why Carrick-Fletcher and Carrick-Scholes is so good, as all three of those are constantly moving to put themselves in the right place to recieve the ball.
Giggs disappeared. Anderson disappeared. Rooney disappeared. Carrick didnt play well, but at least he turned up and tried to play his normal game. So I give him the benefit of the doubt that the reason he didn't play well is that his normal game requires players to be giving him options, so seeing that that didn't happen it's hardly surprising he didn't play well. Which is the exact same reason that I doubt Xavi would have done significantly better.
If you'd done the straight swap Xavi may well have played a little bit better than Carrick did for us. And Carrick probably wouldn't have played quite as well for Barca as Xavi did. But at the end of the day I'd be very surprised if anyone would have said that Xavi for us played better than Carrick for Barca.