Michael Carrick

[Stevie]

pwned

[Rebellious]

pwned

 

 

[NE5]

Michael Carrick is not good enough as a defensive midfielder. He is a playmaker, a deep lying playmaker, a poor man Andrea Pirlo,  a poor man Xabi Alonso, though I believe with experience he could be as good as Pirlo. Playing him as a defensive midfielder (as Man U and England do) are a waste of his talent and place. Carrick offers no grip of the game. Putting him deep he makes no tackle, no blocking, no hussles and tussles. He collects the loose ball, makes himself available for passing (from the defender), but because of his position, his either simply squares it off to Scholes, or passing to wingers.

 

This makes him a waste of space water carrier. And in a high level team there is little room for such position waste. Someone like Deschamp, Mascherano, Makelele, offers excellent defensive shielding apart from linking the defensive line and midfield. It is no surprise that even though Benitez bought Xabi Alonson for 10M£, he still proceeds to acquire the destroyer Sissoko (and later Mascherano). It's no surprise that without Hamann first half, Liverpool nearly lost the CL final against AC Milan. Xabi Alonso is a player I adore very much, the very brain and heart of a team he is. Even though he puts in a lot more tackles than Carrick, he is still not specialised enough.

 

In the Premiership, Carrick has been very lucky to have Scholes alongside him and Vidic + Ferdinand behind him. Scholes a clumsy tackler he is, puts in many tackles during games. He is tolerated by Premiership referee, and hence doing Carrick's job too. Behind Carrick Man U have Vidic + Ferdinand who play high defensive line and who are not afraid to come into the middle of park to nullify the opponents. Instead of Carrick offering more defensive work to the team, it is the defenders and Scholes doing defensive work for Carrick.

 

Against a good side, a specialist defensive midfielder is a must, no longer an option. Of course, a purely defensive midfielder without forward passing ability won't be good enough for a top team. Makelele is always clam and composed, and always passes the ball (if situation allows) to attacking minded players. John Obi Mikel does not fully acquire Makelele's nous yet, however he dribbles the ball and drives the team forward.

 

Michael Carrick scores nice goals occassionally. He certainly has the class with him. But playing him as a defensive midfielder, while benefitial against lesser team for his attacking threat, is detrimental against high quality opponents. Man U dither at the transfer of Owen Hagreaves, and is playing for the price now.

 

Newcastle United have a very good defensive midfielder in our rank, his name is Scott Parker. Yeah he does slow the team down, but as a defensive midfielder his defensive service is better than Michael Carrick's.

 

what prompted this ?

 

Are you comparing him to Roy Keane ?

 

There's no comparison there, only Gerrard could fill Keane's boots, but he's a different sort of player, and a good one. And if you offered me the chance of replacing Parker with Carrick I'd drive Parker to Old Trafford myself.

 

 

[Delima]

It's a rare post when kingdawson isn't talking s**** but this is one of those rare occasions.  Delima I couldn't possibly disagree more with you.  It's amazing how fickle people are, Carrick has been absolutely magnificent in front of the back four in the second half of the season, he's not Roy Keane but he has assets to his game that Keane didn't, and I'm amazed how easily people jump on the band wagon after one s*** game.

 

Stevie I am not being fickle. I have always wanted to write a post about Carrick after Man U trash Roma 7-1 but I only write this eventually after Man U lost to Milan 0-3. Even so I didn't write the post immediately after the game. I am not jumping at any bandwagon (I don't see any mass critisism out at Carrick in N-O by the way) and the defeat only serves as a particular reference.

 

I agree with you that he has assets that Roy Keane hasn't, but Roy Keane has more important assets that Carrick hasn't. As I said in my first post I think Carrick is a playmaker in Paul Schole's, Xabi Alonso's, Andrea Pirlo's mould. He is much better being played as an attacking midfielder than a defensive midfielder. In the game against Roma (2nd leg), Carrick was magnificient, because Scholes was absent and he was the attacking midfielder. Darren Fletcher had an excellent game as defensive midfielder that day and Carrick was thus able to concentrate on what he does the best, forward passing.

 

In the first half of the season Carrick concentrate on being a purely defensive midfielder and he naturally failed to reach the standard desired. In the 2nd half he became braver, came forward more, attacked more and hence the upturn of his fortune. In terms of his defensive duty he is still the same, below par, not much of note. The reasons Carrick's sub defensive contribution could be tolerated much of the time are because 1) Paul Scholes tackles as much as anyone if not more 2) He has excellent tough defenders behind him.

 

I think, with consistency, Carrick is NOW a better offensive midfielder than Scholes. If played with freedom, Carrick possesses better shooting accuray, is more direct, more offensive, more movements. It is not surprising Man U's best game came with Carrick assuming Scholes' duty during the 7-1 game.

[Keefaz]

Michael Carrick is a better offensive midfielder than Paul Scholes? You what?

[Delima]

Michael Carrick is a better offensive midfielder than Paul Scholes? You what?

 

Is twat the word you wanted to say 

[Guest triggy99]

carricks good but not good enough for man utd

[Keefaz]

Michael Carrick is a better offensive midfielder than Paul Scholes? You what?

 

Is twat the word you wanted to say 

 

Alright: Michael Carrick is a better offensive twat than Paul Scholes? You what?

[wacko]

Against a good side, a specialist defensive midfielder is a must, no longer an option. Of course, a purely defensive midfielder without forward passing ability won't be good enough for a top team. Makelele is always clam and composed, and always passes the ball (if situation allows) to attacking minded players. John Obi Mikel does not fully acquire Makelele's nous yet, however he dribbles the ball and drives the team forward.

Agree with every word apart from this bit. One of the defining characteristics of the game's best DMs (Makelele, Hamann, Gattuso) is that they NEVER concede possession precisely because they keep their passes short and simple and concentrate almost entirely on breaking up the opposition's play. They play as fifth defenders and in terms of attacking play, they are carried entirely by the more creative players. If a player is as good as them defensively, they don't need to be able to drive forward, and, arguably, shouldn't.

 

Mikel, Mascherano, Essien, (Gerrard, too, if played in that role) and Sissoko  are different. The first four are more "midfield generals", like Keane, who can dominate the game up and down the pitch, driving forward and chasing back. Sissoko simply can't pass.

[Thespence]

carricks good but not good enough for man utd

 

 

How good do they have to be?

[Howaythelads]

Anyone who thinks Carrick is a better attacking midfielder than Scholes needs a brain transplant.

[2sheds]

why do you think ferguson is continuing to chase hargreaves?

 

To replace an aging Scholes?