Doesn't mean I don't believe you underrate him
Declan Rice | signs for arsenal
- Thread starter Zoo
- Start date
- Status
They were number 10s playing in 3 man midfield. When they actually play in a two together they struggled to match the illustrious midfields of Greece, Ghana and 2010 USA.
Saying both of them are better than Carrick is like saying Bruno is better than Busquets.
I think I rate him fairly. A good player who was, at times, very good. At other times he wasn’t as good, and struggled to impose himself against the very best midfielders of his generation. Also not as good or influential as Gerrard or Lampard, albeit different profiles.
Only on a United forum would that opinion be outlandish.
You would, I think I rate him fairly too.
They were midfielders. Don’t be a plank. That they were forced into a two man midfield wasn’t up to them.
You’re getting upset about a completely reasonable comparison between Rice and Carrick, particularly when you assess them at the point at which they got their big moves.
Rice may well struggle against the best midfielders of his generation, too. Let’s wait and see.
They played different roles with different tasks. You clearly value their task and function higher. In my opinion, it is as stupid as saying that Lampard was better than Rio.
Right now, I would prefer a young Keane, Buequets, Xabi Alonso or Carrick over Lampard or Gerrard. (And I have no issues accepting that Carrick was not as good as Keane or Busquets.)
That’s fine. I don’t think you’ve said anything stupid, so happy to agree to disagree.
Different profiles, I agree. I said as much.
I took issue with the suggestion that Carrick was one of the finest midfielders the UK has ever produced. He wasn’t.
Instead I said he was, at times, very good. Which he was. At other times, he wasn’t quite so good. Also true.
I also took issue with the suggestion that people preferred pashun and long range passes, which was clearly a dig at Lampard and Gerrard, both of whom were quite rightly ahead of Carrick in the pecking order at the time, and were clearly so much more than reducing them to nonsense like that.
In truth, there was probably room for all three of them, but we made a hash of that.
And if they couldn’t do the job in a 2 man midfield then they weren’t as good at doing a midfielder job as the one who did play in a 2 man midfield and gathered more titles than them, it’s that simple.
And when you said Carrick struggled against the best of his generation, it really boiled down to that Barca midfield in the 2 finals. Who else? And which midfielder imposed themselves on those 3 in their pomp? That’s a ridiculously unfair assessment when you can construct a midfield by drawing 2 all time great and pitch them against those 3 and they would lose out every time. Carrick had Anderson alongside him in 09, and 38 year old Giggs in 11, I would like to see how your ‘better midfielders’ fare when put into the same spot.
As many have responded to you in the meantime, you're totally wrong in your assessment of Carrick. But that's fine.
Maybe. I’m not saying that they’re a dead certain to be top / within 5 points of the top next season. But going by their football last season and (so far) strengthening in the summer, the logical step next season would be for them to be in and around the top - most likely chasing City. Obviously long way to go this summer and to see how they reach to the collapse this season, fixture congestion and other teams improving.
Carrick is/was world class then. Many people disagreed just last week not just @Kag. Your not entirely wrong either then.
"We all needed Michael Carrick next to us ... Someone who could actually play the position"
- Paul Scholes on why he, Gerrard and Lampard didn't do better for England.
Good enough for me.
- Paul Scholes on why he, Gerrard and Lampard didn't do better for England.
Good enough for me.
Last edited:
No, I dont think you have it mate.
Fistly, we dont badly need a CF. Of course it would be great to get one but we scored 88 goals in the PL last season, 103 goals overall. Our system is based on spreading the goals through the team. More importantly, I think the club have likely seen that there isnt a CF profile available on the market right now, that's not going to cost serious money. If I had to guess, I think Arsenal are looking to do a CF next season, someone like Brighton's Ferguson. A forward I'd say we need yes, because I would like to see Saka get more rotation next season. Whereas Nelson can be that player, I would like another explosive addition.
Secondly, I think Rice will surprise many and people will quickly see why he was targeted by Arsenal, City and Bayern as well. I dont think you can conclude that he cant be elite with such interest at play. Possibly not worth 100m yeah, as these teams quickly dropped their interest. But the interest is definitely a clue. Not concrete, because City were interested in Maguire as well, and Maguire isnt an elite player. But a sign nonetheless.
Historically isnt a valid argument though because different people are making the decisions at Arsenal now. Historically United also dont do well with big signings (Maguire, Pogba, Lukaku), and that doesnt automatically mean Ten Hag makes bad money decisions.
There are lots of opinions on Rice and Havertz, and rightfully so. But I think time will be the real test here. With the Arsenal signings as well as United ones.
This is why i dont agree with the fan who said Rice would be pushed out the squad for a more technical player for england. Its more about the balance & stability players like carrick or rice provides.
No he was not world class and the vast majority of United and non United fans will say similar.
But I also disagree with @Kag that he was (very) good at times. He was very good most of the time.
With Carrick he didn’t lack talent, reading of the game or tactical understanding.
However unless you are a genius like Best or Messi, you also need top level mentality, desire to be among the best and a certain personality. That’s where Carrick mostly comes short in comparison to the likes of Keane, Beckham, or even Gerrard or Lampard. Carrick had those attributes too, but not at the same level as some others.
Rice is currently also not world class but I see more potential in him to come closer to someone like Keane than I saw in Carrick.
Yes, forwards cost a lot these days, but in the same breath you are still shelling 100m+ on a DM. You scored lot of goals this season but that doesn't automatically translate to having the same output next year.
Martial had one great season and 7 good to crap ones in the last 8 years for example.
Also you have young squad but still Saka, Martinelli, Odegaard played 45 games each along with WC season and playing them in the same mold could end up running them into the ground on a short basis. There's also no guarantee that most teams won't adapt to your style next season and as witnessed you started letting off steam at the end of the season. You will lose Xhaka most likely too and there's a bit question mark whether Havertz will adapt or generally what his role in the team would be.
As for us making bad big money signings lately - that's absolutely correct and one of the reason we're at this mess, so I'm not sure we're the right barometer.
It was the first half of the season when they were really performing, and built up a big lead at the top of the table.
Not a single person has really countered what I have said with anything remotely intelligent. Just some vacuous nonsense about Anderson, number of titles won, and something to do with pashun.
Michael Carrick was a good player. At times, very good. For the fourth time.
You’re right here. Carrick didn’t demand the ball the same way these players did, and I agree that mentality was more of a barrier to this than talent in isolation.
He absolutely was. Extremely intelligent player who was exceptionel at reading the game and imposing himself and disrupting the oppositions play simply through off the Ball movement and interceptions. And his pasning was very good.
The likes of Scholes and Gascoigne are examples of the finest midfielders the UK has ever produced. Not Carrick, who is clearly a tier or two below. I’m willing to accept that our definition of what that actually is may well be different, however.
Carrick absolutely was exactly that, and very underrated and underappreciated by many - just as your posts are showing. And posting "he was sometimes very good" doesn't counter that.
Because interest in a player has proven to mean they are that good? Not at all that the majority don't prove to be close to their hype.
Are you high? He was continually the player who was most on the ball at United, and more on the ball than Lampard or Gerrard.
If this were a United saga the handbags would be flying
Edit shit source I agree but it’s posted now
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Edit shit source I agree but it’s posted now
I don’t know why I just have a feeling he doesn’t end up at Arsenal.
Watch him be announced tomorrow, but it feels odd he hasn’t yet.
Watch him be announced tomorrow, but it feels odd he hasn’t yet.
They were ahead of Carrick because of pure incompetence in the management and bowing to public pressure.
Gerrard and Lampard were better 'players' than Carrick. But Carrick was a better central midfielder than they were. They were better attacking midfielders, and in that role they were better than Carrick was as a central midfielder, but that doesn't mean that they should have been getting chosen ahead of him in that central midfield role.
Anybody with any sense would have played Carrick and Scholes as the deeper two, with Lampard and Gerrard either fighting it out for one spot ahead of them or playing both of them with Gerrard out wide. That completely unbalanced midfield that they kept trying to pick is what wasted one of the most talented generations of players that England have ever had. Hell, alternate one of Carrick/Scholes out for Parker or Barry and the balance is still largely right, rather than dropping one of Lampard or Gerrard (or both!) back there.
He is not in the same category as Scholes and Gascoigne for feck sake. Get a hold.
I’m not, no. I’m being realistic. I’m also assessing Carrick through the lens he was judged at during the time period, not some misty-eyed lens over a decade later.
I agree that the England midfield was mismanaged. I said as much. Carrick didn’t do enough in an England shirt, mind you. He’d admit that himself.
I’m still being quoted for spreading some honesty here. Essentially for saying that Carrick was, at times, very good.
Before anyone here fancies another crack, do me a favour. Type Michael Carrick into the search function and flick through the 25 pages of threads dedicated to him during his time at the club. Then read the frequent debate that occurs over the years, including posts by existing members (who many of you would consider fairly switched on). Then come back and tell me that what Carrick was actually doing on the pitch was more than a player who was, at times, very good.
I’ll let you into a clue: it wasn’t. Carrick had periods of really poor form at United, and our midfield was often outfought and outmatched when up against the very best midfields. Carrick was part of that problem, at times. At other times, he was really good, and this is my point. Ultimately, he lacked the gusto to really get on the ball and drive matches forward, albeit he became more confident in his later years.
Some of you are guilty of reflecting upon Carrick’s time here with a picture in your mind of the player you think he was, or perhaps was in certain moments of time, not necessarily the player he actually was.
I’m also quite sure a fair few of you will neglect to look at the threads I’m referring to. Way less convenient for your argument if you avoid it completely.
Anyway, Declan Rice is very good, at times.
Whether he has the stones to take matches by the scruff of the neck remains to be seen.
Whether he has the stones to take matches by the scruff of the neck remains to be seen.
There was a period of about 18 months where he did struggle a bit, a period where he later admitted he was suffering from depression. But even then I wouldn't say he was 'really poor'.
The problem with going back to see how people talked about Carrick is that he always seemed to be compared to people who were ultimately doing a different job, and then he got judged harshly because he wasn't as good at doing their job. The likes of Scholes, Pirlo, Xavi, etc, were all their teams main playmaker and controller, whereas Carrick spent most of his career here as our main defensive midfielder. The fact that he was also good enough on the ball that he was getting compared to those players (albeit harshly), while also being good enough defensively to play in a two man midfield next to Scholes who was fairly poor defensive, shows just how much he was bringing to the team as a whole. Then when Scholes retired Carrick was then able to step up and take on that role as the main playmaker himself, while still being our main DM. Other than Busquets I don't think there was anyone else at his time who could do that (some might point to Alonso, but I don't think he was good enough defensively to play next to Scholes for example).
I think the reality is somewhere in between where you seem to rate him and where some of the others who responded to you seem to.
I think when we gauge interest, its likely from a professional point of view, and not a layman view like yours or mine.
Not a definitive measure yes, I agree. But an indicator of the quality of a player, so lets note that.
Last edited:
Xabi Alonso, Makelele, De Rossi, Gattuso, Cambiasso, Mascherano.
Maybe they weren’t all great - but Carrick was never talked about as being one of the best CDM in my memory; he could also be argued for being a CM by some considering he was better in the ball than probably off it. If he was regarded as a CM then there was much better players than him as CM like Fabregas, Xavi, Iniesta, Scholes, Schweinsteiger, Gerard, essien, Pirlo, Sneidjer etc
It’s more due to a lack of quality - but Rice is talked about as one of the best in his position already at his age; something I don’t remember happening with Carrick.
Ooohh cliffhanger!
IF true, he’s not fully convinced that the move is the right one for him..yet
I remember Xavi and Xabi praising him numerous times, and one of them stating he was one of few players that would be able to play for Spain (at that time). Xabi also argued he was underappreciated in England.
Pep also said in his first season in the PL that Carrick was the only Man Utd-player who would have been good enough for his Barcelona-side.
Aren’t Arsenal and West Ham still discussing payment structure?
Sure, i always thought he was world class in my point of view but this is about if Rice can be Carricks standard or potentially 1 day better & if we are talking about Peps appreciation/getting to his team then he did just make a rejected 90mil pound offer him at the age of 24. Plus peps descendants apprreciate him in arteta & ten hag. With regard to players 1 of rices big fans is verrati who talked him up during the euro final & just last month - this is whilst he hasnt had 1 game in the CL yet, so his world wide appreciation is likely to grow as he moves to a bigger more competitive club.
Carrick was a very good player, but he is one of the most serially overrated players by United fans. Every year post his retirement he seems to get better and better.
Was our most consistent midfielder during the most successful spell in the clubs history. He was a top player, and is serially underrated, particularly my non-United fans.
Agreed. He was a very good, classy and understated midfielder but nowhere near world class.
But this is also true. Non-United fans tend to think of him as, bang average, mainly because he was so understated and subtle in his playing style. No flashy qualities, very few 30 yard bangers. So United fans big him up a little too much in response.
- Status