It's certainly controversial but I wouldn't put him in tier 1 simply because of what he might have achieved.Especially if Keane through all his actual perfomances isn't tier 1.
Where does Carrick go in terms of all time greats for United?
- Thread starter Cooksen
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Top 5, top 5, top 5.
Very good player at his best and he's been a fine servant for United. i wouldn't put him in the top tier of central midfielders of this generation either.
Well then we just have to disagree. To me, Rio was one of the best defenders of all time and vital to our success even more so than Vidic. His calm presence in defense, sort of like Carrick in midfield, made our defending seem relaxed at times. I don't think Ferguson dropped Rio either. Scholes was indeed dropped for Butt at times, but that was when Scholes was still almost an attacking midfielder. Scholes actually became more important to the team as he got older, not because the team got worse but because he dropped deeper and dictated play and tempo to a much greater extent. No way would Nicky Butt have replaced him then.
I don't know if this has been mentioned in the six pages so far, but Carrick was woeful, relatively speaking, got a considerable period of time from 2008 to 2012. He never really dominated matches, and Fletcher at his peak was more influential.
So many England managers ruined their England careers by overlooking him. Pretty much every England manager has tried to lump goal scoring central midfielders or ball winning central midfielders into the team without having a deep-lying playmaker to orchestrate the whole thing. Fergie could never get his head around it
Pirlo Xavi and alonso have all been fantastic players, and great controllers of play but I was looking more to the future when suggesting keeps and busquets; their best years are surely ahead of them after all.
I consider Modric to be a more advanced midfielder, no so much an anchor and with lesser defensive capabilities then carrick. And of course I've heard a lot about verratti, but very difficult to gauge his ability at this stage as in my opinion the French league doesn't match up to the PL.
As of now the only two I can think of that could come in and definitely fill the carrick void are kroos and busquets, though inevitably more players will emerge in the coming years.
You just wont admit anything will you? We signed Vidic in January 2006, 4 months after Van De Sar started playing for us. If you want to believe that our success after 2006 is just down to Vidic thats your prerogative. We will just have to agree to disagree. And for the record I also consider Rio to be a better defender than Vidic which you have a tier above Rio in your original post.
Favouritism is part of it and someone in Carrick's position rarely makes it.
The midfield slots in the team of the years are for #10s, #8s and wingers. Ashley Young and has been in it twice. The fact that Carrick, with his playing style, made it in to the team is impressive in itself.
So it's only favouritism when it reinforces your point? Makes sense.
I asked which other season when Carrick was seemingly overlooked and you ignored it.
Patrick Vieira and Roy Keane played in similar positions before him and had no trouble getting in( 6 and 5 times respectively).Kante and Matic have made the team too in recent years so it blows that theory out of the water.
There was a period where I absolutely hated seeing his name on the team sheet. Those games against Bayern in 2010 and the semi final against City in 2011 come to mind. He's never really been able to cope in a two man midfield.
What does it matter when holding players rarely make the team. How many Toty had Alonso make while he was in England? How many of these awards has Busquets picked up despite being widely consider one of the best holding midfielders..
Keane and Viera played different roles to Carrick, certainly more eye catching, and I'm not going into that if you can't see that for yourself. Quite frankly, holding midfielders like Carrick rarely pick up these awards. Yes, since Parker made it in 2012, more DM's have made it into the team so maybe there is more of an appreciation for more balanced midfields in recent seasons.
I just can't decide which is more braindead, the "he's on the same level as Butt" comment, or the response to that which puts Butt barely above Darren fecking Gibson.
I think it's the latter.
I think it's the latter.
Here's a method to consider: take the players who've featured for us; make teams based around all our formations that brought us success at the highest level (Europe); place said players in these systems; after you've made the first set of xi players, do so again with the second string of xi players. Whittle your way down until you find a spot for each midfielder. This will establish their place in terms of tier.
Carrick's competition is Crerand, Butt, Ince, Fletcher, Muhren, Moses, Stiles, etc imo. Putting him up against our most famous (or infamous) midfielders is just an exercise in besmirching him, as it's both unfair and way outside of his standing.
Amongst the aforementioned, however, there are arguments to be had for and against Carrick verses most of them. The problem Carrick has is that in terms of charisma, aura and projection, he's extremely atypical of a United midfielder as he has no bite and is not at his best in the biggest games whereas the likes of Ince, Crerand, Stiles and even Butt and Fletcher rose to the occasion and gave their best performances when called upon. On the other hand, Carrick is a solid, consistent performer throughout a league campaign and has a body of work in that respect that none of the others can match. If you rank him with that kind of approach, he has to shoot up in terms of regard because he was a component in league-winning or challenging sides for longer than any of the others.
Carrick's five best games in a United shirt aren't going to be universally agreed upon, I don't think, and he doesn't have a career-defining moment or extreme peak, which again, is quite atypical for a United midfielder. In terms of playing style he only has direct competition with Crerand as a DLP/defensive midfield hybrid (from the aforementioned grouping) , and of the two, Crerand's the one I'd pick first in a draft format. What does all this say? First and foremost that we've got a storied élan jostling for position in our midfield tree. It's very easy to misinterpret Carrick's standing as a knock on him rather than acknowledgement of how many good midfielders we've had - contextually, we are a league-winning and European Cup winning club over a number of decades, and with that territory comes a lot of good midfielders, so it doesn't have to be a knock on Carrick for him to not be mixing it at the top whilst still being a very good player with a solid CV behind him... it's just that, in such company, he's not close to being the only one with credentials.
Another way to look at it is, if you wanted a DLP at the base of midfield who can both defend and play out, Carrick can lay claim to being there or thereabouts our third best in the role... probably because that's not the way we've played the majority of our football, but that's beside the point.
Carrick's competition is Crerand, Butt, Ince, Fletcher, Muhren, Moses, Stiles, etc imo. Putting him up against our most famous (or infamous) midfielders is just an exercise in besmirching him, as it's both unfair and way outside of his standing.
Amongst the aforementioned, however, there are arguments to be had for and against Carrick verses most of them. The problem Carrick has is that in terms of charisma, aura and projection, he's extremely atypical of a United midfielder as he has no bite and is not at his best in the biggest games whereas the likes of Ince, Crerand, Stiles and even Butt and Fletcher rose to the occasion and gave their best performances when called upon. On the other hand, Carrick is a solid, consistent performer throughout a league campaign and has a body of work in that respect that none of the others can match. If you rank him with that kind of approach, he has to shoot up in terms of regard because he was a component in league-winning or challenging sides for longer than any of the others.
Carrick's five best games in a United shirt aren't going to be universally agreed upon, I don't think, and he doesn't have a career-defining moment or extreme peak, which again, is quite atypical for a United midfielder. In terms of playing style he only has direct competition with Crerand as a DLP/defensive midfield hybrid (from the aforementioned grouping) , and of the two, Crerand's the one I'd pick first in a draft format. What does all this say? First and foremost that we've got a storied élan jostling for position in our midfield tree. It's very easy to misinterpret Carrick's standing as a knock on him rather than acknowledgement of how many good midfielders we've had - contextually, we are a league-winning and European Cup winning club over a number of decades, and with that territory comes a lot of good midfielders, so it doesn't have to be a knock on Carrick for him to not be mixing it at the top whilst still being a very good player with a solid CV behind him... it's just that, in such company, he's not close to being the only one with credentials.
Another way to look at it is, if you wanted a DLP at the base of midfield who can both defend and play out, Carrick can lay claim to being there or thereabouts our third best in the role... probably because that's not the way we've played the majority of our football, but that's beside the point.
So the PFA team of the year is just a favouritism tool, then around the time Carrick makes it, it stops being so.Yet since those balanced midfield team's, Carrick has only made it in once.You are complaining about supposed bias yet you are using every excuse in the book to justify your own bias.
And Busquets has certainly not made it into any PFA team of the year but he's made it into la liga, Euro championships and Uefa teams of the year.
As fan who doesn't subscribe to the Carrick-cult. I find this thread laughable.
Almost as laughable as putting him in the same bracket as Nicky Butt.
Tier 3.
Seriously, what don't you get? Are you WUMming? I've already said unless you have an eye catching style of play that even a Robbie Savage/Lee Dixon can fawn over on MoTD, you'll struggle to make these teams.
The Busquets point was made because he is widely considered, by far and away, the best holding midfielder in Europe, yet his individual awards will never show it.
2 of the 3 Busquets awards you are referring to are squad awards. Squads of 23 and 18, not XI's. Both put together by "The UEFA Technical Team", not your average Stoke player, MoTD viewer or The Sun reader..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014–15_UEFA_Champions_League#Squad_of_the_season
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2012#Awards
A great achievement but who ever put the squads together had to give it more thought. In an XI, holding midfielders are rarely, if ever favored over for #8 and #10s. The midfield slots are reserved for headline makers.
These team of the year awards are only useful when you are looking to buy your next Galactico. They mean feck all when assessing holding midfielders.
It's not a glaring issue for him as a player. It's a glaring issue separating him from being a great Man Utd player vs. one of the all time great Man United players.
He's not there because of his goal scoring ability, he's there in spite of his goal scoring ability. Because he's very good at what he does do well.
That said when you look around at the best players in his position they tend to pop up with the occasional goal.
I can't read this thread as I have a deep fear some people are saying Carrick rates higher than Keane ..I can only pray I'm wrong as anyone who thinks that should not only not call themselves a united fan but also should not be allowed outside a mental facility
Busquets plays in Carrick's position and is better than him. 12 goals in 9 years as opposed to Carrick's 24 goals in 11 years (I think). So no, goals aren't important for that sort of player.
Brilliant player and has contributed to the most successful spell in Uniteds history.
Can only comment on the 80s- current era.
Robson, Keane, Scholes are the best in that time.
Ince and Carrick sit easily in the second tier.
Butt, Fletcher sit in tier 3.
Veron and Hargreaves were massive disappointments for a variety of reasons but both tier 2 at their best.
Pogba has the potential for tier 1 and Herrera tier 2.
The end.
Can only comment on the 80s- current era.
Robson, Keane, Scholes are the best in that time.
Ince and Carrick sit easily in the second tier.
Butt, Fletcher sit in tier 3.
Veron and Hargreaves were massive disappointments for a variety of reasons but both tier 2 at their best.
Pogba has the potential for tier 1 and Herrera tier 2.
The end.
Yet you just admitted that you'd hasn't been true recently. Even gave the Scott Parker example.
Kante and Matic have made the team in the last two seasons and one or both will likely be in again.So no, it's very possible for non flashy players to make it.Yet Carrick still doesn't.
If they mean feck all, can we ignore Carrick' s inclusion then? And Kante's ? Matic? And Parker?
No wumming whatsoever. Just finding holes in your argument which you keep twisting at every turn.
Go ahead, ignore them. I'd rather applaud them for making the team despite not being #8s or #10s. Matic stood out the year he won it and Kante was hugely instrumental in Leicester winning the league.
Now can you explain why Busquets, the standout player in the holding role, has rarely got the acknowledgement he deserves with these XI's (except when it's in squads of 18 and 23)? If it doesn't favour more exotic roles such as #8s or #10s, or a stand out style such as combative DM, then what is it?
We finished bottom in CL group before January 2006. I consider Vidic is a better defender than Rio. And how many times do I need to tell you, just because I put a player in a higher tier doesn't make him a better player.
That's just a bonus that Rio had ahead of Vidic, that doesn't make him a better defender. Being more complete as a defender doesn't make you better. Scholes was getting better as he gets older which is true but the list that I made wasn't about who's better as a player but who is more influence and to me Vidic was more vital in our back four.
Gonna butt in your convo here but I agree, Vidic was better imo.
It's a bit like Keane and Scholes. Scholes/Rio the better individual but as influence and performance, it's Keane/Vidic.
Margins and different standards but still.
I just don't agree. Rio could make defending seem like an invisible job and let Vidic go into tackles and duels where Rio would always have his back if he failed. Rio facilitated the entire defense.
Scholes was vital to our success. I think Gary Neville summed it up nicely when he said that Scholes dictated play unlike any other. He did the things one doesn't notice,just like Rio did, and just like Carrick does,albeit not at the highest level like Rio and Scholes.
I see a lot of comments rating Alonso and Busquets a level above Carrick. Alonso, I agree; Busquets no chance.
The latter has always played in a midfield three with the two of the best midfielders of our generation. Carrick has mostly played in a midfield two. Just see how Busquets has struggled without Xavi and Iniesta this season.
The latter has always played in a midfield three with the two of the best midfielders of our generation. Carrick has mostly played in a midfield two. Just see how Busquets has struggled without Xavi and Iniesta this season.
Busquets has often been a key component of that midfield; it was a fantastic trio even if the other two were the stronger parts of it. Busquets having a poor season in no way proves he's somehow been coasting by for years. I like Carrick but Busquets will go down as a better player, probably comfortably. And that's no insult to Carrick either, considering Busquets has been a regular, key member of a side that's won multiple CL's.
On Busquet, it's depended on personal perspective.
IMO, Busquet is definitely worth the rating. Busquet has the ability to receive a hard ball and output an easy ball for his teammate to control (!). It's hard to describe but CBJ has similar ability. When you watch CBJ, you have a feeling he can just get out of tight situation like nothing happened, and his pass (simple pass) leave his teammate in easy situation where they have many options to do. So it's hard to press Busquet as there is always chance of him find way to supply to his teammates (who are deadly in offensive play making). Busquet can do this enough deep into opponent half at times when Xavi Iniesta drops deep to lose their marker. Different with Pogba's is that Pogba did fancy stuff and while Busquet just casual simple pass and achieve similar effect.
Situation I meant is like at 3:45 in this video. Seeing CBJ is being pressed still pass an simple but easy ball for Bastian to have options to pass out of the tight situation.
Busquet long passing may not as fancy as Carrick but he's capable of some peach of long ball from time to time. Barcelona style is different so don't expect him to do as much as Alonso or Carrick.
Busquet is superior in pressing. There is only that much positioning can do for a team playing on opponent' half. Aggressiveness in pressing is needed and Busquet is very good in this that allows Barcelona to play the way they have been in recent time. Busquet is dirty and that part enable him getting away with foul or part of play breaking tactic. Fans may not appreciate but coaches and his teammates appreciate much of this part of his game.
In contrast, I said in an early post in this thread that Carrick is clean player that his ultimate aim is positioning for intercepting, cutting angle. His pressing is on low end of the defensive midfielders. Hardly anytime he bullies opponents off the ball or dirty psyched opponents. Carrick is more dependent on his midfield partners to do the dirty work for him. Carrick lacks that bit of tidy pass I mentioned above to step up field and allow his partners the comfortable space behind to operate when thing get tough, so Carrick's team's passing game is more predictable in case opponent midfield quality can catch up to that level.
Thanks, not trying to imply that he had been coasting by
Just that in my opinion, he is not as good as a lot of people call him - I am not a fan of his passing, although I enjoy his positional awareness (untill the previous season) and the way he keeps things ticking over.
Thanks for sharing the video.
Very interesting that you compare CBJ to Busquets. A United supporter friend of mine did the same a few months - would like to pay attention to that. I agree that Busquets scores well on getting out of tight situations; where I think he loses out is forward passing. I think he really missed Xavi there, as Rakitic is a different type of player.
Had read this a couple of days back, which was good to see. However, not sure if he is getting enough number of games:
http://www.tribalfootball.com/artic...at-mourinho-says-in-our-regular-chats-4160933
Well, that's what you think. But what I think as a defender Vidic is more important than Rio. Defensively Vidic is better than Rio, Rio is just more complete as a defender but doesn't make him a better defender.
Keane was more vital in our midfield than Scholes in our success. While Vidic was the most influential player in our defense, a very crucial in our defense for our 5 PL winning.
I'm sticking with my word, Keane/Vidic is higher in term of influence and performance. Rio/Scholes are only better in term of individual.
Although I've worshiped Carrick from the moment he 'resurrected' Scholes' career, I have to admit that Busquet is a level above him as footballer in general.Thanks, not trying to imply that he had been coasting by
Just that in my opinion, he is not as good as a lot of people call him - I am not a fan of his passing, although I enjoy his positional awareness (untill the previous season) and the way he keeps things ticking over.
But on a side note, I don't think Busquets could be better in midfield two, the way Carrick has had it with Scholes, Fletcher, and Cleverley throughout his career.
I would rank Carrick and Irwin on the same level.
Youre a revisionist. How many games did Scholes play in our title winning season in 2013? How many when we pushed City to the final kick in 2012?
Getting to 3 european cup finals in 4 years and managing to win 3 league titles in that time is an incredible feat.
We're arguing about how good someone who has more winners medals than almost any other player in the league right now is.
Crazy to try and say he isnt worthy of being recognised as one of our top ever midfielders.
While @Balu in his first post made some interesting points, I'm surprised so many are just agreeing with it when it says that Carrick has 'never excelled in the CL', which is just plain wrong. We went through one of our best (if not the best) times in our history in the CL with him in midfield and he turned in a bucketload of brilliant midfield performances against some of the best teams in Europe over those years. Reducing his career to some standout seasons in the PL (which would be a nice achievement in itself) is simply re-writing history.