Hannibal Mejbri - Manchester United Player

RedRover

Full Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
8,440
Then I don't know how you can be of the opinion that he's 'relegation Championship level'.

I watch a fair amount of Dortmund too as they have always been one of my favourite sides to watch. I also saw a good amount of this lad last season because my team was playing the same division. Always thought his ball-playing ability was remarkably average to be honest, but he can carry it pretty well, picks up good positions and statistically has always played a part in creating chances. He is a lot better defensively than people like to give him credit for too, particularly his pressing.

Yeah he's probably been told he will get games, but if he was genuinely the level you say he is, he wouldn't be playing this regularly. Especially when you consider the up-and-down season Dortmund have had, Favre's job was on the line and he still trusted this kid with minutes.

And may I remind you the guy is 17. We can talk about Mejbri all we want but until he is able to show he can step-up to senior level, there really is no comparison here. Bellingham is 6 months younger and has played 70+ games with the first team, including a lot in a top 4 league in the world and the Champions League, and has already made his international debut for a top 10 side in the world. Mejbri meanwhile still hasn't played a game of football against grown men.
Well said. To play regularly in midfield the Championship, given the physicality of it, at 16 is exceptional, let alone playing for a top German side and in the Champions League.

Watched him a few times least season and was generally impressed given his age. He had a decent game for Dortmund the other night too. Big future for him if he keeps progressing, and probably moved to the right club.
 

GueRed

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
534
Location
London
I seem to remember there being fierce hype around Ronnie Wallwork around 1997 (?), remember chatting to someone who claimed he was an absolute certainty to make it as a long-term United CB. Any thoughts?
He was a solid centre-back and defensive midfielder at youth and reserve team level but never stood out as exceptional.
 

RedRover

Full Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
8,440
Well said. To play regularly in midfield the Championship, given the physicality of it, at 16 is exceptional, let alone playing for a top German side and in the Champions League.

Watched him a few times least season and was generally impressed given his age. By no means brilliant on the ball but got forward well and was well involved. He had a decent game for Dortmund the other night to be fair to him, but that's the first I've seen of him for them. Big future if he keeps progressing, and probably moved to the right club.
 

RedRonaldo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
12,015
Fletcher became a talisman for us a couple of seasons. His form in 09 was as good as any season of Carricks. Neither were close to world class though and our midfield was the weakest part of our team in that period. We had world class players in every other department and a collection of good midfielders. We struggled against teams with good midfields but our forward line and defence was as good as anything.

Two good players. Neither great. Both had a great season. Nothing in it.
I just don’t agree they are close. As I’ve listed out clearly, Carrick has been playing more important role for us for far longer period. As for their peak comparison, I really think Carrick is better, at his best for me he is comparable to Pirlo (for 1-2 years), whereas Fletcher in his peak is considered very good but not quite near to Scholes/Keane level. But surely for peak comparison it’s just matter of opinion.
 
Last edited:

Asger

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
3,025
Been following our youth since the mid 90's

Scholes - amazing up top with Dion Dublin in the reserves. Excellent finisher and intelligent passer. Our Cantona for the reserves
Curtis - Captain material. Lilleshaw graduate
Brown - Another Lilleshaw graduate in Michael Owen's year
Fletcher - Because after a couple of reserve games at 15yrs old Fergie wanted to give his debut in the final PL game of 99/00 season.
Pogba - Physically and technically had it all
Morrison - Made football look so easy. Iniesta-like
Greenwood - Best finisher i've seen to come out of the academy. Exceptional finisher

were the only dead certs for me.
Rossi surely as well.
 

RedRonaldo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
12,015
Been following our youth since the mid 90's

Scholes - amazing up top with Dion Dublin in the reserves. Excellent finisher and intelligent passer. Our Cantona for the reserves
Curtis - Captain material. Lilleshaw graduate
Brown - Another Lilleshaw graduate in Michael Owen's year
Fletcher - Because after a couple of reserve games at 15yrs old Fergie wanted to give his debut in the final PL game of 99/00 season.
Pogba - Physically and technically had it all
Morrison - Made football look so easy. Iniesta-like
Greenwood - Best finisher i've seen to come out of the academy. Exceptional finisher

were the only dead certs for me.
How about Januzaj? Didn’t Butt recently said he considered Januzaj as best young talent from the club, ever since Giggs? Surely he was highly rated back then from our youth?
 

Jeppers7

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
2,693
I just don’t agree they are close. As I’ve listed out clearly, Carrick has been playing more important role for us for far longer period. As for their peak comparison, I really think Carrick is better, at his best for me he is comparable to Pirlo (for 1-2 years), whereas Fletcher in his peak is considered very good but not quite near to Scholes/Keane level. But surely for peak comparison it’s just matter of opinion.
here is the problem....neither of the two players we are talking about are anywhere near the level of the three players you have mentioned. One of them was kept out of the England side by Gareth Barry ffs.
 

Caesar2290

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 27, 2019
Messages
230
I just don’t agree they are close. As I’ve listed out clearly, Carrick has been playing more important role for us for far longer period. As for their peak comparison, I really think Carrick is better, at his best for me he is comparable to Pirlo (for 1-2 years), whereas Fletcher in his peak is considered very good but not quite near to Scholes/Keane level. But surely for peak comparison it’s just matter of opinion.
Not even close. Pirlo is in the Xavi/Scholes bracket. Ask any neutral to pick between him and Carrick, and 10/10 will go for Pirlo. The man world class. Not bashing on Carrick who was really good for us, but he was never in the same category.

Let me ask you this: did you watch our teams back in the late 2000's? Because your comments indicate that you didn't. Specifically you're overrating Carrick and underrating Fletcher.

I remember up until 2011 people would constantly ask "What does Carrick do". He was viewed as the Lindeloff of CMs back in those days. I clearly remember visiting "The Republik of Mancunia" and people were always like "Carrick can't shoot, can only pass the ball sideways and he falls like a bag of potatoes any time he gets near a challenge, why does he play for us again?". You should have seen the scenes where Olic outmuscled him to bring back Bayern into the tie. He was solid, but up until 2011 he never stood out. The only time he did was in the 7-1 Roma game. And here's my challenge for you: name me 3 games where Carrick stood out up until 2011. It's really hard, isn't it? I'll name you the 3 games for Fletcher below.

Fletcher at his peak from late 2009 up until his illness was basically Roy Keane lite. Not in the same league, but bloody good. At the time he was our best CM at the club at the time and made Hargreaves's injury a non-issue. Every time we played a big game, he bossed that midfield. He aded the much needed steel that we've been lacking in there ever since Keane retired. We weren't bullied anymore. It was way more difficult to bypass our midfield with Fletcher in it. But make no mistake, he wasn't just a brute. The man had excellent technique and a really good passing range. This goal at 8:32 still ranks as one of my favorites, thanks to it's simplicity and impact the time.

If it weren't for his illness, Fletcher would at the very least be talked in the same breath as Carrick. And the 3 games I mentioned are the 3-1 away win to Arsenal where he tore to shreds their midfield until he got that red card(feck that ref) in the dying minutes and sealing our fate in the 2009 CL final. I'm 100% certain that if Fletcher played we would have won it. Also remember the 4-3 against City? Guess who scored 2 goals that game and bossed the midfield. And lastly that 3-2 at San Siro, he had an amazing game there as well.

And why is there even a comparisson between Carrick and Fletcher. One played the Matic role and the other the Fred role. I don't see any direct comparisons between the 2.
 

RedRonaldo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
12,015
Not even close. Pirlo is in the Xavi/Scholes bracket. Ask any neutral to pick between him and Carrick, and 10/10 will go for Pirlo. The man world class. Not bashing on Carrick who was really good for us, but he was never in the same category.

Let me ask you this: did you watch our teams back in the late 2000's? Because your comments indicate that you didn't. Specifically you're overrating Carrick and underrating Fletcher.

I remember up until 2011 people would constantly ask "What does Carrick do". He was viewed as the Lindeloff of CMs back in those days. I clearly remember visiting "The Republik of Mancunia" and people were always like "Carrick can't shoot, can only pass the ball sideways and he falls like a bag of potatoes any time he gets near a challenge, why does he play for us again?". You should have seen the scenes where Olic outmuscled him to bring back Bayern into the tie. He was solid, but up until 2011 he never stood out. The only time he did was in the 7-1 Roma game. And here's my challenge for you: name me 3 games where Carrick stood out up until 2011. It's really hard, isn't it? I'll name you the 3 games for Fletcher below.

Fletcher at his peak from late 2009 up until his illness was basically Roy Keane lite. Not in the same league, but bloody good. At the time he was our best CM at the club at the time and made Hargreaves's injury a non-issue. Every time we played a big game, he bossed that midfield. He aded the much needed steel that we've been lacking in there ever since Keane retired. We weren't bullied anymore. It was way more difficult to bypass our midfield with Fletcher in it. But make no mistake, he wasn't just a brute. The man had excellent technique and a really good passing range. This goal at 8:32 still ranks as one of my favorites, thanks to it's simplicity and impact the time.

If it weren't for his illness, Fletcher would at the very least be talked in the same breath as Carrick. And the 3 games I mentioned are the 3-1 away win to Arsenal where he tore to shreds their midfield until he got that red card(feck that ref) in the dying minutes and sealing our fate in the 2009 CL final. I'm 100% certain that if Fletcher played we would have won it. Also remember the 4-3 against City? Guess who scored 2 goals that game and bossed the midfield. And lastly that 3-2 at San Siro, he had an amazing game there as well.

And why is there even a comparisson between Carrick and Fletcher. One played the Matic role and the other the Fred role. I don't see any direct comparisons between the 2.
Did you read properly? I didn’t say Carrick is as good as Pirlo, I only said at his peak he was comparable. Throughout their career of course Pirlo was far better.

I have watched Man Utd since early 90’s, and I have watched over 400 games of Carrick and Fletcher with us, since their very first debut game and up until their very last game. I have been complaining both of them being average for many games, and I have also praised both of them when they were performing well. But I am just giving my very honest opinion here, I think Carrick is better.

And no, Fletcher isn’t as good as you have described for majority of his time here. I still remembered he was first hyped as “Scottish Beckham” when he first break into our first team, I am disappointed of course after witnessing him to be nothing special but only squad player for us during first half of his career here. He started to play well later on though when Keane has retired and Scholes was ageing and no longer the main man, but Carrick was still the better player for me and for us during majority of that period.

But I agree he has been very unfortunate with illness which badly affected his form and game time during his last 4 seasons with us, or otherwise he would end up closer.
 
Last edited:

Grande

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
3,560
Location
The Land of Do-What-You-Will
Not even close. Pirlo is in the Xavi/Scholes bracket. Ask any neutral to pick between him and Carrick, and 10/10 will go for Pirlo. The man world class. Not bashing on Carrick who was really good for us, but he was never in the same category.

Let me ask you this: did you watch our teams back in the late 2000's? Because your comments indicate that you didn't. Specifically you're overrating Carrick and underrating Fletcher.

I remember up until 2011 people would constantly ask "What does Carrick do". He was viewed as the Lindeloff of CMs back in those days. I clearly remember visiting "The Republik of Mancunia" and people were always like "Carrick can't shoot, can only pass the ball sideways and he falls like a bag of potatoes any time he gets near a challenge, why does he play for us again?". You should have seen the scenes where Olic outmuscled him to bring back Bayern into the tie. He was solid, but up until 2011 he never stood out. The only time he did was in the 7-1 Roma game. And here's my challenge for you: name me 3 games where Carrick stood out up until 2011. It's really hard, isn't it? I'll name you the 3 games for Fletcher below.

Fletcher at his peak from late 2009 up until his illness was basically Roy Keane lite. Not in the same league, but bloody good. At the time he was our best CM at the club at the time and made Hargreaves's injury a non-issue. Every time we played a big game, he bossed that midfield. He aded the much needed steel that we've been lacking in there ever since Keane retired. We weren't bullied anymore. It was way more difficult to bypass our midfield with Fletcher in it. But make no mistake, he wasn't just a brute. The man had excellent technique and a really good passing range. This goal at 8:32 still ranks as one of my favorites, thanks to it's simplicity and impact the time.

If it weren't for his illness, Fletcher would at the very least be talked in the same breath as Carrick. And the 3 games I mentioned are the 3-1 away win to Arsenal where he tore to shreds their midfield until he got that red card(feck that ref) in the dying minutes and sealing our fate in the 2009 CL final. I'm 100% certain that if Fletcher played we would have won it. Also remember the 4-3 against City? Guess who scored 2 goals that game and bossed the midfield. And lastly that 3-2 at San Siro, he had an amazing game there as well.

And why is there even a comparisson between Carrick and Fletcher. One played the Matic role and the other the Fred role. I don't see any direct comparisons between the 2.
You sneaky little ... don’t deny you picked that clip because it features Fletch, Pirlo and Carrick in direct comparison, and Fletch won the day with two brilliant assists, Pirlo second and Carrick lost out with a deflected own goal and a red card ... no, just kidding ;)

It was a fun clip to watch, with Beckham, Ronaldinho, Pirlo lining up for them. We played a pretty bad game overall, but cruised the home game if I remember correctly? For those who preferred Valencia ahead of Nani, that game would also present sly evidence material - Nani’s crosses landing everywhere but near a red, andthen Valencia came on and pinpointed the ball straight onto Rooneys shiny scull on the back post.

For the record, I prefer both Carrick and Nani in thise comparisons, but loved Fletch and agree that in his best season, he was our best midfielder. Everything came together at once, and none deserved it more than him - though I’m not convinced he could have consolidated that form for several years if not for the disease.

I was one of those that said from the start about Carrick that it takes some football understanding to appreciate what he does. We were mocked, of course, by those who asked ‘What does Carrick do’, for trying to impersonate football connoiseurs or whatever, but I stand for it - Carrick was a brilliant and subtle player and as important as Scholes for that team that I class as United’s best ever. He was not like Pirlo who stood out in any team, though, he was the kind of player who used right, improved and made everyone around him look better. I agree, though, that there is no need to pit Carrick and Fletch against each other, rather, they had the capacity to form a great tandem.
 

GazTheLegend

Full Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
1,948
I seem to remember there being fierce hype around Ronnie Wallwork around 1997 (?), remember chatting to someone who claimed he was an absolute certainty to make it as a long-term United CB. Any thoughts?
Wallwork had off field issues as far as I recall, and a temper.
 

Kag

Full Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
16,471
Location
United Kingdom
Did you read properly? I didn’t say Carrick is as good as Pirlo, I only said at his peak he was comparable. Throughout their career of course Pirlo was far better.

I have watched Man Utd since early 90’s, and I have watched over 400 games of Carrick and Fletcher with us, since their very first debut game and up until their very last game. I have been complaining both of them being average for many games, and I have also praised both of them when they were performing well. But I am just giving my very honest opinion here, I think Carrick is better.

And no, Fletcher isn’t as good as you have described for majority of his time here. I still remembered he was first hyped as “Scottish Beckham” when he first break into our first team, I am disappointed of course after witnessing him to be nothing special but only squad player for us during first half of his career here. He started to play well later on though when Keane has retired and Scholes was ageing and no longer the main man, but Carrick was still the better player for me and for us during majority of that period.

But I agree he has been very unfortunate with illness which badly affected his form and game time during his last 4 seasons with us, or otherwise he would end up closer.
Fletcher consistently outperformed Carrick between 2009 and 2011.

Carrick will be remembered as a better player and rightly so, but Fletcher was in much better form prior to his illness and regularly outperformed some of the best midfielders in Europe in our biggest matches. Carrick would often wilt, as @Caesar2290 quite rightly infers.
 

Jeppers7

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
2,693
You sneaky little ... don’t deny you picked that clip because it features Fletch, Pirlo and Carrick in direct comparison, and Fletch won the day with two brilliant assists, Pirlo second and Carrick lost out with a deflected own goal and a red card ... no, just kidding ;)

It was a fun clip to watch, with Beckham, Ronaldinho, Pirlo lining up for them. We played a pretty bad game overall, but cruised the home game if I remember correctly? For those who preferred Valencia ahead of Nani, that game would also present sly evidence material - Nani’s crosses landing everywhere but near a red, andthen Valencia came on and pinpointed the ball straight onto Rooneys shiny scull on the back post.

For the record, I prefer both Carrick and Nani in thise comparisons, but loved Fletch and agree that in his best season, he was our best midfielder. Everything came together at once, and none deserved it more than him - though I’m not convinced he could have consolidated that form for several years if not for the disease.

I was one of those that said from the start about Carrick that it takes some football understanding to appreciate what he does. We were mocked, of course, by those who asked ‘What does Carrick do’, for trying to impersonate football connoiseurs or whatever, but I stand for it - Carrick was a brilliant and subtle player and as important as Scholes for that team that I class as United’s best ever. He was not like Pirlo who stood out in any team, though, he was the kind of player who used right, improved and made everyone around him look better. I agree, though, that there is no need to pit Carrick and Fletch against each other, rather, they had the capacity to form a great tandem.
Yeah yeah....you know all about football because you think Carrick was as good as Scholes.


That argument ffs. It’s built on nothing. It’s built on foundations that Carrick played in a brilliant team ergo must be brilliant and anyone who can’t see it mustn’t understand football.

It’s bollocks. He was a good player. End of.
 

Grande

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
3,560
Location
The Land of Do-What-You-Will
Yeah yeah....you know all about football because you think Carrick was as good as Scholes.


That argument ffs. It’s built on nothing. It’s built on foundations that Carrick played in a brilliant team ergo must be brilliant and anyone who can’t see it mustn’t understand football.

It’s bollocks. He was a good player. End of.
I didn’t intend to imply I know all about football, or that I’m better because I saw qualities in Carrick that not all others did. Nor that he was better than Pirlo, I think Pirlo was better, and Scoles. What I contend is that Carrick had capacities yhat made him as important for United as Scholes and really anyone bar Ronaldo was, for that period between 2005 and 2013. Which is an opinion, I don’t claim it as gospel.

But, yeah, what you wrote was mainly the counterargument you met if you tried to say there was more to Carrick than met the eye back then, particularily the first years after he went to United. Of course, for a while it is frustrating when you see something, like a quality, to constantly be told that you are just posing as a know-it-all, and that what you think you see doesn’t exist because they can’t see it, basically writing you off as stupid or rambling.

I took an interest in Carrick because I was very impressed with him in his debut season at West Ham, more so than the higher touted Joe Cole. Then, when he went to Tottenham and then came to United, I was underwhelmed with him at first, until I happened to look a game over following him in particular. Slowly I started seeing how his defensive movements affected the available spaces and the resulting movements of his teammates and the opposition, and how his passes did the same for our attacks. For me, he had a similar effect in making that team click together as Cantona and Bruno had had in other eras, only in a different fashion. You may of course disagree, but if you claim that Carricks abilities in terms of reading the play and dictating the flows of our games didn’t exist, I would recommend you to look closer, because I know what I saw, and it wasn’t bollocks, and it wasn’t an opinion I read others have and then regurgitated to seem knowledgeable.

Seeing what I saw, it also makes perfect sense to me why Barry, Lampard and Gerrard was preferred for England ahead of Scholes and him. I think Carrick was miles aabove Gareth Barry, but an entirely different type. I don’t think he was better than Gerrard and Lampard, who I think are among the best English I’ve ever seen, but I’ll hazard this: If Liverpool and United had swapped Carrick and Gerrard in 2005, I think Liverpool would have been worse for it and United had been worse for it.
 

Jeppers7

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
2,693
I didn’t intend to imply I know all about football, or that I’m better because I saw qualities in Carrick that not all others did. Nor that he was better than Pirlo, I think Pirlo was better, and Scoles. What I contend is that Carrick had capacities yhat made him as important for United as Scholes and really anyone bar Ronaldo was, for that period between 2005 and 2013. Which is an opinion, I don’t claim it as gospel.

But, yeah, what you wrote was mainly the counterargument you met if you tried to say there was more to Carrick than met the eye back then, particularily the first years after he went to United. Of course, for a while it is frustrating when you see something, like a quality, to constantly be told that you are just posing as a know-it-all, and that what you think you see doesn’t exist because they can’t see it, basically writing you off as stupid or rambling.

I took an interest in Carrick because I was very impressed with him in his debut season at West Ham, more so than the higher touted Joe Cole. Then, when he went to Tottenham and then came to United, I was underwhelmed with him at first, until I happened to look a game over following him in particular. Slowly I started seeing how his defensive movements affected the available spaces and the resulting movements of his teammates and the opposition, and how his passes did the same for our attacks. For me, he had a similar effect in making that team click together as Cantona and Bruno had had in other eras, only in a different fashion. You may of course disagree, but if you claim that Carricks abilities in terms of reading the play and dictating the flows of our games didn’t exist, I would recommend you to look closer, because I know what I saw, and it wasn’t bollocks, and it wasn’t an opinion I read others have and then regurgitated to seem knowledgeable.

Seeing what I saw, it also makes perfect sense to me why Barry, Lampard and Gerrard was preferred for England ahead of Scholes and him. I think Carrick was miles aabove Gareth Barry, but an entirely different type. I don’t think he was better than Gerrard and Lampard, who I think are among the best English I’ve ever seen, but I’ll hazard this: If Liverpool and United had swapped Carrick and Gerrard in 2005, I think Liverpool would have been worse for it and United had been worse for it.
Massively disagree. It’s funny how it’s just Carrick I can’t see it with...he looks good but what you can’t see is he is actually great. Nice try lumping Scholes in with Carrick for England. Shame it’s not lost on me that Scholes decided to retire from England than be shoehorned in, because great players you have to try and fit them in regardless of balance, especially for England.
Carrick was often in and out of the United side, there is absolutely no way he was as important to that side as VDS, Evra, Vidic, Rio, Scholes, Ronaldo, Rooney. He was as important as the others who would make up the 11 perhaps but nowhere near an on form Giggs even at the age he was.
Barry was a good player it’s a legitimate comparison I think most non united fans would agree (and a lot of United fans), won leagues with City was Villa’s best player before that, had interested United until City came in for him. Was regularly picked ahead of Carrick for England. His special abilities were too niche for England? Ridiculous also...great players play. As for Gerrard, I’m not his biggest fan, far from it....but he was head and shoulders better than Carrick and would’ve made a great signing for us....straight swap for Carrick....yes please. Don’t think you’ll find any Liverpool fans taking you up unfortunately.
Honestly the overrating of Carrick is astonishing. He was a good player.
 

GoldTrafford99

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
223
Fletcher consistently outperformed Carrick between 2009 and 2011.

Carrick will be remembered as a better player and rightly so, but Fletcher was in much better form prior to his illness and regularly outperformed some of the best midfielders in Europe in our biggest matches. Carrick would often wilt, as @Caesar2290 quite rightly infers.
@Jeppers7

As soon as Michael Carrick sat in the back line of our midfield, in August 2006, we went on the club's greatest ever run in our entire 140-year history.

Five league titles over the next seven years, we won - and in one other season we were beaten to it with the last kick of the campaign. In that time we got to three European Cup finals, too.

Michael Carrick is the most underrated player to play for our club, even though he is highly rated. We won more with Carrick as our control room in midfield than we did with Keane.
 

Kag

Full Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
16,471
Location
United Kingdom
@Jeppers7

As soon as Michael Carrick sat in the back line of our midfield, in August 2006, we went on the club's greatest ever run in our entire 140-year history.

Five league titles over the next seven years, we won - and in one other season we were beaten to it with the last kick of the campaign. In that time we got to three European Cup finals, too.

Michael Carrick is the most underrated player to play for our club, even though he is highly rated. We won more with Carrick as our control room in midfield than we did with Keane.
This isn’t really the thread for it so feel free to make a new one, but Carrick is rated exactly as he was: a very good player in a great United side that never quite stacked up against Europe’s best. Your Keane parallel is a little odd and I’m not sure where you’re going with it, to be frank.

Carrick was an important player in that team but let’s not pretend he was a catalyst.
 

GoldTrafford99

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
223
This isn’t really the thread for it so feel free to make a new one, but Carrick is rated exactly as he was: a very good player in a great United side that never quite stacked up against Europe’s best. Your Keane parallel is a little odd and I’m not sure where you’re going with it, to be frank.

Carrick was an important player in that team but let’s not pretend he was a catalyst.

He definitely made us more continental, we were at our best in Europe, having Carrick in there.

And we were never more dominant in the Premier League era... It was arguably not United's greatest sides on paper during most of that spell either. And let's not forget, our first team were a lot more of a ball retention team than we had ben in previous years under Ferguson. Carrick dictated all of that.

His influence is dreadfully underrated.

But I agree with you m'man. This should be all about Hannibal. My apologies for going off-road.
 

Strats

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
1,065
He's a regular on Swedish telly. Cracking personality on TV, unlike the other Ola Wenström and Martin Åslund...
You can tell Djordjic reads the Caf. Every now and then he discusses the fans opinions that are aligned with discussions in some of the threads on here.
 

Grande

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
3,560
Location
The Land of Do-What-You-Will
Massively disagree. It’s funny how it’s just Carrick I can’t see it with...he looks good but what you can’t see is he is actually great. Nice try lumping Scholes in with Carrick for England. Shame it’s not lost on me that Scholes decided to retire from England than be shoehorned in, because great players you have to try and fit them in regardless of balance, especially for England.
Carrick was often in and out of the United side, there is absolutely no way he was as important to that side as VDS, Evra, Vidic, Rio, Scholes, Ronaldo, Rooney. He was as important as the others who would make up the 11 perhaps but nowhere near an on form Giggs even at the age he was.
Barry was a good player it’s a legitimate comparison I think most non united fans would agree (and a lot of United fans), won leagues with City was Villa’s best player before that, had interested United until City came in for him. Was regularly picked ahead of Carrick for England. His special abilities were too niche for England? Ridiculous also...great players play. As for Gerrard, I’m not his biggest fan, far from it....but he was head and shoulders better than Carrick and would’ve made a great signing for us....straight swap for Carrick....yes please. Don’t think you’ll find any Liverpool fans taking you up unfortunately.
Honestly the overrating of Carrick is astonishing. He was a good player.
I can see you have your opinion made up and is not particularily interested in any perspectives I may have on that. Fair enough. I want to comment on Scholes and ‘great players play’ - Scholes didn’t just retire for England, he played 60-70 games for them first, sometimes but seldom playing to his capacity, partly because he was played out of position but mainly because he was given roles that to very small degrees accommodated his strengths. Then he was shunted out left to say there, and then he retired. England were at the time loaded with central midfielders (Scholes, Lampard, Gerard, Hargreaves, Carrick, Barry) and coaches with vague or different ideas about what they wanted from them (Svennis, McLaren, Cappello), which in the ende they all suffered from, I think it’s fair to say. Perhaps bar Barry.

Another issue is with saying Carrick was in and out of the team - he played 40+ games every season from he arrived till Fergie left, and was the most constant piece in CM all those years, ahead of Scholes, Fletcher and Hargreaves who was repositioned on left back. It’s worth remembering that while Fletcher had his unfortunate condition, Scholes had vision problems and Hargreaves was a part-time crock, Carrick suffered from depression in the period between 2009 and 2011.

Regarding Hannibal, whise thread this is, I imagined he was schooled more in the attacking midfielder/no 10 mold, which is why it surprised me that this thread was full of Carrick, Fletch and Pirlo. Is there an idea he will be drawn further back the pitch as he grow older?
 

Brightonian

Full Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
13,249
Location
Juanderlust
How about Januzaj? Didn’t Butt recently said he considered Januzaj as best young talent from the club, ever since Giggs? Surely he was highly rated back then from our youth?
Januzaj would be on my list, along with Pogba, Morrison and Greenwood. Every time he moved up an age group he so quickly became the most important player, it was incredible. That's what's so annoying about him, his mentality as a youth player was absolutely stellar; coaches complemented his attitude and determination all the time and you could see it in how well he took challenges in his stride too. So for attitude and mentality to be the thing that failed him in the end was so frustrating. And then of course the hindsight patrol turned up claiming he'd always been mentally weak and never looked a top prospect, which simply wasn't true.
 

lsd

The Oracle
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
5,712
There was me thinking Hannibal must be close to the first team as there are so many recent posts here.

I should have known it was a Carrick V Fletcher v Keane debate instead for some reason :rolleyes:
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
17,061
Location
Sydney
I still think he's quite far off in terms of physicality, which is normal for a CM of his age

it's rare for a CM to break through in the Prem until they are a bit older, so maybe a loan is on the cards for him to build experience

although he looks much more attack minded and box-to-boxy at the moment, I'd like to see us try him in a deeper role and see how that goes. He has the technical ability and football brain to play that role well, IMO.

it would also give him more options to break into the team if he adds that string to his bow
 

Glorio

Full Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
746
In the last 30 years, it has been rare for a talented young player to come through the youth system then dislodge a mid 20s established starter. If you go through the circumstances surrounding the breakthrough of those players that have gone on to make 50+ PL starts for United, you tend to see a fair amount of:

- dislodged older player past his prime, long term injuries providing opportunity for younger player to break through (see Gary Neville v Paul Parker, Jonny Evans helped by injuries to Ferdinand and Vidic)

- surprise departure helps young player (Kanchelskis leaving provided Beckham with his chance after we failed to buy Darren Anderton, Herrera and Fellaini leaving helped McTominay etc)

- young player fills injury related vacancies in different positions for several seasons before establishing themselves (O'Shea etc)

Key factors regarding Mejbri are likely to include his patience, adaptability and bounce-back-ability. His chances of making it at United increase significantly if he is prepared to stick around until Bruno or Scott are in their 30s, if he is capable of being a rotation player in more than one position, if he can handle being in and out of the team without it having a negative impact on his performance level.
Mctominay had forced his way into the team before Herrera and Fellaini left, and Scott himself is still developing. Mejbri has bags of talent and seems to be a born fighter. He has a decent chance as our midfielders at the moment have obvious deficiencies in their game.
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
19,889
Location
...
Januzaj would be on my list, along with Pogba, Morrison and Greenwood. Every time he moved up an age group he so quickly became the most important player, it was incredible. That's what's so annoying about him, his mentality as a youth player was absolutely stellar; coaches complemented his attitude and determination all the time and you could see it in how well he took challenges in his stride too. So for attitude and mentality to be the thing that failed him in the end was so frustrating. And then of course the hindsight patrol turned up claiming he'd always been mentally weak and never looked a top prospect, which simply wasn't true.
Adnan was never of the very top bracket IMO, for no other reason than him lacking the physical attributes to really be an elite decisive final third player. Technically, he was obviously brilliant, but he’s one of those ‘if he were half a yard quicker’ players for me.
 

In Rainbows

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
5,588
Januzaj would be on my list, along with Pogba, Morrison and Greenwood. Every time he moved up an age group he so quickly became the most important player, it was incredible. That's what's so annoying about him, his mentality as a youth player was absolutely stellar; coaches complemented his attitude and determination all the time and you could see it in how well he took challenges in his stride too. So for attitude and mentality to be the thing that failed him in the end was so frustrating. And then of course the hindsight patrol turned up claiming he'd always been mentally weak and never looked a top prospect, which simply wasn't true.
My list is Ravel, Pogba, Januzaj, Gomes, Greenwood

Will probably end up including Mejbri as I'm very impressed with his technical ability and composure.
Regarding Hannibal, whise thread this is, I imagined he was schooled more in the attacking midfielder/no 10 mold, which is why it surprised me that this thread was full of Carrick, Fletch and Pirlo. Is there an idea he will be drawn further back the pitch as he grow older?
Hannibal is similar to Modric and Frenkie. Yeah they can play #10 and deeper. I would like us to try him out in a Modric role and groom him with that in mind.
 

RedRonaldo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
12,015
@Jeppers7

As soon as Michael Carrick sat in the back line of our midfield, in August 2006, we went on the club's greatest ever run in our entire 140-year history.

Five league titles over the next seven years, we won - and in one other season we were beaten to it with the last kick of the campaign. In that time we got to three European Cup finals, too.

Michael Carrick is the most underrated player to play for our club, even though he is highly rated. We won more with Carrick as our control room in midfield than we did with Keane.
Have to admit I used to underrate him during his earlier career with us, which is unavoidable as there will be direct comparison of him with Keane and Scholes, and he seems like a pointless player to me. But later on starts to appreciate the subtlety in his game, he is actually a good passer and read the game well, with good positioning sense and seems always right place to make those “easy” interceptions. I rate him as good player but obviously still a level below Lampard and Gerrard at that time. But I still remember during his peak season he simply carry our midfield with many class performances, in similar fashion as Scholes used to do for us. He totally won me over during that season, unfortunately it didn’t last long as he was out injured and never return to same form again.