Hargreaves + Carrick + Scholes

I watched today and especially in the first half i thought Hargreaves and Carrick were doing the same job. They look to be very similiar players and i'm not sure whether it's right to play them together. I think you have to play one or ther other or else Carrick is going to have to learn to play a new role because i think hargreaves is going to take the DM role judging by his work rate today.

Carrick sort of plays a sort of intermediary role between the defensive role and general midfield but the positions he takes up and the passes he makes are the same ones hargreaves wants.

I'm willing to wait it out and see how things develop - what do you think? can they play together or should we be looking to use one or the other? can Carrick push up a bit and play a more attacking role and adapt to Hargreaves presence?

Originally Posted by Lou_Macari_Chippy

I watched today and especially in the first half i thought Hargreaves and Carrick were doing the same job. They look to be very similiar players and i'm not sure whether it's right to play them together. I think you have to play one or ther other or else Carrick is going to have to learn to play a new role because i think hargreaves is going to take the DM role judging by his work rate today.

Carrick sort of plays a sort of intermediary role between the defensive role and general midfield but the positions he takes up and the passes he makes are the same ones hargreaves wants.

I'm willing to wait it out and see how things develop - what do you think? can they play together or should we be looking to use one or the other? can Carrick push up a bit and play a more attacking role and adapt to Hargreaves presence?

I thought for the goal that Giovanni was given far too much time and space infront of the back 4 to have a shot. Hargreaves should have dropped deeper as he is our defensive midfielder afterall. Hargreaves can also carry the ball from deep far better than carrick. Carrick should be the one in the middle of the park spraying the passes about. Scholes should have provided more support to Tevez.

I don't think they're similar at all to be honest.

I think Vidic might be 'rested'. He's £#%&! sometimes - in every game.

Originally Posted by Ether

I don't think they're similar at all to be honest.

i wanted to say the same

Originally Posted by Sparky6899

I thought for the goal that Giovanni was given far too much time and space infront of the back 4 to have a shot. Hargreaves should have dropped deeper as he is our defensive midfielder afterall. Hargreaves can also carry the ball from deep far better than carrick. Carrick should be the one in the middle of the park spraying the passes about. Scholes should have provided more support to Tevez.

I was wondering about that one too, i mean we have three central midfielders playing, why the £#%&! was there nobody in front of him other than a defender?

I would just put that down to the fact that they are not used to playing together yet - lack of communication - if hargreaves goes forward, carrick should drop back and visa versa.

Other than the fact we have some new players and look a bit 'short' up front (pardon the pun) we've not looked that bad. But what i think has happend is that other teams have figured out a method of grinding out results against us. I think despite trying to play good football we are going to have to add something a bit different to our game because if it carries on like this over the course of the season we are definitely going to struggle to get the points required to win the league.

From the current available squad i'd like to have see this today-

VDS

Brown Ferdinand Vidick Evra

Hargreaves

giggs scholes nani

Oshea tevez


Yeah i know it's a joke having Oshea up front but today we looked like a team of midgets up front and were over powered at least O'shea would provide something of a target and could perhaps knock something on for tevez.

chalk and pepper

We need to drop Scholes for Carrick and Hargreaves.

I will repeat this ad nauseum until ye see sense.

Originally Posted by celtbion

We need to drop Scholes for Carrick and Hargreaves.

I will repeat this ad nauseum until ye see sense.

100% agree.

Originally Posted by Ether

I don't think they're similar at all to be honest.

I guess the main difference is that hargreaves puts himself about more and wins more tackles which is a difference, what i'm really referring to though is positions on the ball and distribution which is very similar.

Today was one of the quietest games i have ever seen from Carrick who has generally been class for us - they are going to have to work things out but at the moment Carrick is looking a bit lost and thats a shame because like i say he has generally been a class act for us.

scholes and tevez look good together,scholes is playing well, the team is playing well our nidfield isn't a problem

Originally Posted by Lou_Macari_Chippy

I guess the main difference is that hargreaves puts himself about more and wins more tackles which is a difference, what i'm really referring to though is positions on the ball and distribution which is very similar.

Today was one of the quietest games i have ever seen from Carrick who has generally been class for us - they are going to have to work things out but at the moment Carrick is looking a bit lost and thats a shame because like i say he has generally been a class act for us.

Carrick is very good when not burdened with having to pass every single ball to Paul Scholes.

Originally Posted by hughes......oh i say!

scholes and tevez look good together,scholes is playing well, the team is playing well our nidfield isn't a problem

our midfield is the problem mate.

Originally Posted by celtbion

Carrick is very good when not burdened with having to pass every single ball to Paul Scholes.

He defers to him too much, so he tends to stay back too far, especially with Hargreaves playing. Scholes doesn't have the legs to play that far forward, so Carrick is kind of out of place.

Originally Posted by violater

our midfield is the problem mate.

check again, it's not

Originally Posted by hughes......oh i say!

check again, it's not

it is when we have 5 midfielders two of which are doing the same thing and only 1 isolated midget forward...

Originally Posted by Lou_Macari_Chippy

it is when we have 5 midfielders two of which are doing the same thing and only 1 isolated midget forward...

Carrick and scholes are similar but not the same, Hargreaves is our only defensive midfielder. Those three can work superbly if we had a lineker/rush/nistlelroy/fowler type striker.

our distribution from midfield to attack was very good all day, our breaking up of City's attack was also good. Where we came unstuck was with tevez and scholes. they desperately needed another outlet, cute passes between them had city baffled especially in the first half.

we need a 6 yard box striker

Originally Posted by celtbion

We need to drop Scholes for Carrick and Hargreaves.

I will repeat this ad nauseum until ye see sense.

It's true, Scholes is one of my all time United favourites, but there can be no room for sentiment. He still has a role to play, but we have to look towards the future

Carricks best performances last season were when Scholes never played, MOTWYW

Originally Posted by celtbion

We need to drop Scholes for Carrick and Hargreaves.

I will repeat this ad nauseum until ye see sense.

Good plan but we arent allowed to play 12 players. Even Fergie the shrewd chap that he is hasnt managed to pull that one off.