michael carrick and goals from central midfield

Originally Posted by Part 36 Offer

no, youre right it doesnt.

I dont know tbh. I dont think they will.

So you think we should sell the useless £#%&!er then?

In all seriousness though, maybe he is the right player in the wrong team?

I like Carrick in a three, I just don't like him in a two.

Given when we play a three Rooney gets £#%&!ed around I would prefer us to play a two in midfield.

Any combination of all our midfielders together( excluding Hargreaves) in a two worried me in big games. I actually think it's our weakest area and given that most of our rivals (Liverpool, Chelsea in the premiership, and those plus Barca in Europe) were strongest in those areas last season then I don't think it's making him a scapegoat to ask the question.

The question should really be asked of the midfield as a whole but given he is recognised as the most talented then it's natural the spotlight will fall on him the most.

Originally Posted by dunk

I've noticed that recently, definitely the early favourite.

well after rome fergie wasnt exactly a fan of him. ripped into him alot as pure was 'exagerrating'

carrick is a consistent player and sometimes that is what works against him.

he cant 'raise' his game when he needs to and just gives you a constant 7/10 every game when sometimes a midfielder needs to have a blinder.

taking nothing away from the player.

Originally Posted by marlo

well after rome fergie wasnt exactly a fan of him. ripped into him alot as pure was 'exagerrating'

carrick is a consistent player and sometimes that is what works against him.

he cant 'raise' his game when he needs to and just gives you a constant 7/10 every game when sometimes a midfielder needs to have a blinder.

taking nothing away from the player.

Someone mentioned yesterday that he gets players playing around him - so if you have top, top players alongside him they'll also flourish as Carrick is a good player. He can't however, drag a team kicking & screaming to a victory, he's not going to steam into a tackle, he intercepts, he's like Rio only in midfield. Doesn't come off the pitch with mud on his shorts. I don't think that is a bad thing, if you have him, you surround him with players with a good touch & good passing & away you go. The team sorts itself out. But if you're looking for some inspiration, something outrageous, it wont come from him, because he knows that if you deviate from consistency you'll hand over the majority of the possession. The man is like our metronome, he can set the tempo of the passing, but only in the right circumstances. It's not exactly pushing the boat out to say he should be good all the time given we are Mancherster United however the midfield can get £#%&!ed over when Fergie does brain meltingly stupid things like the CL final.

Carrick & Scholes was a joy to watch, you keep the ball you don't need to tackle. I don't think Fletcher quite has the talent to retain the ball like Scholesy, but he's progressing & if he kicks on again from last season they might just make an unlikely central midfield partnership that could let us return to 4-4-2.

The two midfield signings we're gonna make will surely address this?

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

The two midfield signings we're gonna make will surely address this?

The hope is killing me

Originally Posted by Baron_van_Marlon

Someone mentioned yesterday that he gets players playing around him - so if you have top, top players alongside him they'll also flourish as Carrick is a good player. He can't however, drag a team kicking & screaming to a victory, he's not going to steam into a tackle, he intercepts, he's like Rio only in midfield. Doesn't come off the pitch with mud on his shorts. I don't think that is a bad thing, if you have him, you surround him with players with a good touch & good passing & away you go. The team sorts itself out. But if you're looking for some inspiration, something outrageous, it wont come from him, because he knows that if you deviate from consistency you'll hand over the majority of the possession. The man is like our metronome, he can set the tempo of the passing, but only in the right circumstances. It's not exactly pushing the boat out to say he should be good all the time given we are Mancherster United however the midfield can get £#%&!ed over when Fergie does brain meltingly stupid things like the CL final.

Carrick & Scholes was a joy to watch, you keep the ball you don't need to tackle. I don't think Fletcher quite has the talent to retain the ball like Scholesy, but he's progressing & if he kicks on again from last season they might just make an unlikely central midfield partnership that could let us return to 4-4-2.

i dont think fletcher and carrick can be a successful two man midfield.

carrick has to always be the consistent 'support act' in a midfield and not the 'main man'

Originally Posted by marlo

i dont think fletcher and carrick can be a successful two man midfield.

carrick has to always be the consistent 'support act' in a midfield and not the 'main man'

Which is why I wanted an attacking, creative, goal scoring central midfielder. & have been banging on about it for ages.

Unless we play with 2 in front of the back 4, 3 ahead & 1 up top I'm not sure if Carrick & Fletcher will work either. I'd imagine the two of them, with Anderson would be good though, but then that's Rooney out of his true position & round & round we go....

Originally Posted by Baron_van_Marlon

however the midfield can get £#%&!ed over when Fergie does brain meltingly stupid things like the CL final.

[Carrick & Fletcher] might just make an unlikely central midfield partnership that could let us return to 4-4-2.

Originally Posted by Baron_van_Marlon

Which is why I wanted an attacking, creative, goal scoring central midfielder. & have been banging on about it for ages.

Unless we play with 2 in front of the back 4, 3 ahead & 1 up top I'm not sure if Carrick & Fletcher will work either. I'd imagine the two of them, with Anderson would be good though, but then that's Rooney out of his true position & round & round we go....

What was so meltingly stupid about the CL final tactics? Seriously? Seemed to me that once barcelona scored it was pretty difficult to tell exactly what United's tactical plan was because too many of the key men froze. Barcelona ended up playing easily around us, but no doubt the intention was entirely the opposite. fwiw I think regardless of whether we had actually scored during either of the two decent spells of attacking and possession we had it was still the personnel chosen that was the problem. No Berbatov, Tevez in the 18, no Nani who'd done so well in the previous game against them etc

As for a midfield pair I think the squad is not bad at all in that area, with plenty of decent partnerships. The thing for me is that even if you have the perfect balance of defence and attack in a central midfield pairing these days you still need to drop back to a 5 during most games against the top sides. And it's way beyond just having a striker drop in and help as used to be the case in the 'old days'. These days teams actually force you back, they force you to change your formation during matches. If you can't adjust you lose.

The two CL finals are decent examples. In 2008 we were decent at first, starting from a classic 4-4-2, and using Ronaldo to pin back Essien in particular. But by halfway through the second half it was blatantly obvious that we were going to lose until Ferguson changed it to a 5. So what was Rooney's best position in the match? Well basically, even though he was under par, his best position was not his favourite one.

In 2009 United didn't adjust to the opposition. Messi and Eto'o switched, but Evra stayed where he was. Guardiola knew exactly how United would set up and he knew exactly that they would be rigid. The plan to give Rooney space to operate in didn't work, and not only because he was painfully overawed. To be fair we were missing both Hargreaves and Fletcher. As it was though Barcelona ended up producing a pretty average and safe 90 minutes and winning the match without really being exposed. And yet they'd started that game being forced back and looking like an utter £#%&!ing shambles. United never adjusted to falling behind - literally, they never adjusted. It was hardly the first time Messi had been used more centrally. Were United trying to mimick them?

This could all be incidental of course. Ferguson said the other day that he knew exactly what went wrong in Rome. But he didn't want to talk about it. Sounds to me that what he really thinks went wrong is that one or two players weren't entirely honest with him about their fitness.

just think he isn't the kind of lad who will drag the team to win when its on top, as said above. The scapegoatism wont be on him this year - ferie out

Originally Posted by marlo

i dont think fletcher and carrick can be a successful two man midfield.

carrick has to always be the consistent 'support act' in a midfield and not the 'main man'

Fletcher and Carrick will end up in competition for the 'support act' or watercarrier spot.

I think Fletcher will win out.

Either of Anderson or Gibson fancy being the boss of United's midfield and there's a spot available.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

What was so meltingly stupid about the CL final tactics? Seriously?

For me, it was playing Giggs way forwards against no one, effecting nothing, leaving Anderson & Carrick to cope with Iniesta, Xavi, Messi who switched inside & Eto'o moving to the right. Which was basically allowing them to play tri-angles at will. Park was in no mans land as well, literally doing £#%&! all except miscontrolling everything & Rooney was played left to allow Ronaldo to take the ball on & shoot at will, he never passed the ball when in a half decent area. Fergie MUST have known the guy had a propensity for trying to do it on his own on the big stage, especially after all the Messi vs Ronnie hype.

For me, leaving Carrick & Anderson stranded, with a winger (Park) who couldn't control a bag of cement & a striker intent on doing whatever he wanted (Ronnie) & Rooney covering rather than attacking was tantramount to complete idiocy.

Their defence was a shambles, they were nervous, if we'd of lined up with a proper striker (Berbatov) & Ronaldo on the right along with a midfield 3 to directly match up against them rather than getting out numbered, we'd of pissed all over them.

It's been a long time since I saw a team so scared to play, & so geared up to allow one man the glory. & Fergie facilitated that rather than allowing a plethora of attacking talent to over run a mickey mouse defence.

I'm still massively pissed off about how dogshit we were & that starts with the manager. Ordinarilly, you take the highs & lows, if we'd of lost to Chelsea in the previous one it would have been because the players didn't perform, but this time around he hamstrung them picking the wrong players, the wrong formation & basically telling 10 of our players to bow down to Ronnie & let him win it for us in the wrong circumstances.

Originally Posted by celtbion

Fletcher and Carrick will end up in competition for the 'support act' or watercarrier spot.

I think Fletcher will win out.

Either of Anderson or Gibson fancy being the boss of United's midfield and there's a spot available.

Erm, how do I say this, aaah, that's it. £#%&! off.

Originally Posted by Baron_van_Marlon

For me, it was playing Giggs way forwards against no one, effecting nothing, leaving Anderson & Carrick to cope with Iniesta, Xavi, Messi who switched inside & Eto'o moving to the right. Which was basically allowing them to play tri-angles at will. Park was in no mans land as well, literally doing £#%&! all except miscontrolling everything & Rooney was played left to allow Ronaldo to take the ball on & shoot at will, he never passed the ball when in a half decent area. Fergie MUST have known the guy had a propensity for trying to do it on his own on the big stage, especially after all the Messi vs Ronnie hype.

For me, leaving Carrick & Anderson stranded, with a winger (Park) who couldn't control a bag of cement & a striker intent on doing whatever he wanted (Ronnie) & Rooney covering rather than attacking was tantramount to complete idiocy.

Their defence was a shambles, they were nervous, if we'd of lined up with a proper striker (Berbatov) & Ronaldo on the right along with a midfield 3 to directly match up against them rather than getting out numbered, we'd of pissed all over them.

It's been a long time since I saw a team so scared to play, & so geared up to allow one man the glory. & Fergie facilitated that rather than allowing a plethora of attacking talent to over run a mickey mouse defence.

I'm still massively pissed off about how dogshit we were & that starts with the manager. Ordinarilly, you take the highs & lows, if we'd of lost to Chelsea in the previous one it would have been because the players didn't perform, but this time around he hamstrung them picking the wrong players, the wrong formation & basically telling 10 of our players to bow down to Ronnie & let him win it for us in the wrong circumstances.

blimey

certainly agree that Park was not the right choice for the final, and that rather than Giggs or Berbatov it should've been Giggs and Berbatov. but virtually every single prediction i read, especially on here, had Park involved and Ronaldo through the centre. again for me it wasn't the starting formation that was at fault, it was the failure to adjust to the opposition. Guardiola knew exactly how we were going to play and stopped us.

Very good analysis Baron

Agree entirely.
I could still £#%&!ing put my fist through the £#%&!ing wall when I think about how inept we were in Rome.

It still rankles with Fergie as well. Read that interview with him in one of the broadsheets a week or two back & every question about the Final was batted away with a very #@&%!ly "I don't want to talk about that"

the really galling thing for me was how efficiently chelsea dealt with barca in the semi.

admitedly we don't have exactly the same type of players, but surely it was clear that barca can be rendered very ineffective with a few basic tactics.

instead we got the so-called 'masterclass' of european football (i.e. barca players passing and moving into space in a midfield that was curiously absent any manchester united players).

i thought park didn't do that badly, nobody played well for us. he certainly worked hard and got in his fair share of tackles and god knows it must have been energy sapping chasing the ball for 80 minutes.

tevez for andy at half time was the game killer, when he got them in at half time, the opportunity was then to try to combat what was going on.

Barca were missing basically their entire first choice back 4, Messi played central, purely & simply Fergie must have known that they would play the same way as they did against Chelsea.

So you match up in midfield, work hard, & have your 3 most potent attacking players up the pitch basically matching what Barca had - yet we'd be playing against their rot, and we'd have basically our first choice back 4. All be it with Vidic & Rio apparently a bit knacked. I heard Crerand was staggered Vidic was patched up & allowed to play, Evans should absolutely have played in that instance. Why the £#%&! take the risk knowing that a goal in that game was absolutely huge for the oppo given the shit they were defending with?

Even with Tevez being a slapped arse I would have been happy to see him, Ronnie & Rooney start up top a la Moscow.

Park... if he was to play, he should have man marked someone in the centre (Iniesta for me as he makes the runs) & that would have left Carrick & Anderson to match up against Messi playing up top & Xavi. Their defensive midfielder barely gets beyond the halfway line at the best of times & Rooney would always fill in if needed.

We all know it's "if's" & "buts" but surely Fergie looks back & wonders what might have been had he got it right.

Originally Posted by Baron_van_Marlon

Barca were missing basically their entire first choice back 4, Messi played central, purely & simply Fergie must have known that they would play the same way as they did against Chelsea.

So you match up in midfield, work hard, & have your 3 most potent attacking players up the pitch basically matching what Barca had - yet we'd be playing against their rot, and we'd have basically our first choice back 4. All be it with Vidic & Rio apparently a bit knacked. I heard Crerand was staggered Vidic was patched up & allowed to play, Evans should absolutely have played in that instance. Why the £#%&! take the risk knowing that a goal in that game was absolutely huge for the oppo given the shit they were defending with?

Even with Tevez being a slapped arse I would have been happy to see him, Ronnie & Rooney start up top a la Moscow.

Park... if he was to play, he should have man marked someone in the centre (Iniesta for me as he makes the runs) & that would have left Carrick & Anderson to match up against Messi playing up top & Xavi. Their defensive midfielder barely gets beyond the halfway line at the best of times & Rooney would always fill in if needed.

We all know it's "if's" & "buts" but surely Fergie looks back & wonders what might have been had he got it right.

blimey

Barcelona's defence was patched up but hardly shit

United were 4-4-2 in Moscow

Using Park as a midfielder tracker would've defeated the object of playing 4-3-3

I'm sure Ferguson looks back and knows we missed a big opportunity. doubt very much whether he thinks the game-plan was fundamentally flawed.

anyway, let's move on...

i'm not having a pop at carrick btw. I just t6hink he needs to add that string to his bow, well maybe not just him but anderson looks a mile off being a goal threat, fletch only scores tap in really too.

park
scholes
carrick
anderson
fletcher
evra (considering his runs)

all need to start chipping in with at least 6 each.

Originally Posted by wonky no

i'm not having a pop at carrick btw. I just t6hink he needs to add that string to his bow, well maybe not just him but anderson looks a mile off being a goal threat, fletch only scores tap in really too.

park
scholes
carrick
anderson
fletcher
evra (considering his runs)

all need to start chipping in with at least 6 each.

6 off Evra?