Fabregas has performed better than Carrick over the last three years, Carrick has been playing in a better team that's all.
Central midfield this season...
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- 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.
Carrick is a lovely player and it's true he's underrated. He's important to United - without him in the side, our passing lacks crispness and focus, it takes us ages to work it towards the box. He often bisects the midfield with very tidy passes, finds the wings well and occasionally lifts it over the top dangerously. At least, he does all that when Scholes isn't playing - when he is, Carrick has a tendency to just lay it square to him and concentrate on defending. (For that reason, I think there was a hint of truth to the 'passenger' comment in 06/7 - though that term's too strong. He was terrific in 07/8.) His positioning's really excellent, and with a powerful CM next to him I think he'd be even better.
What he lacks is mainly psychological. A calm head is great, but often in midfield what you need is balls and a bit of nastiness.
What Fabregas has over him is that his passing is a notch above - he opens up defences more; plus he scores more, he's quicker, he's more dynamic, he's more athletic, he's more charismatic, and he's a leader.
What he lacks is mainly psychological. A calm head is great, but often in midfield what you need is balls and a bit of nastiness.
What Fabregas has over him is that his passing is a notch above - he opens up defences more; plus he scores more, he's quicker, he's more dynamic, he's more athletic, he's more charismatic, and he's a leader.
Carrick has played a very large part in making us play like a better team though. It's no co-incidence that after a few seasons of mediocrity (by our standards), our midfield instantly started working once he joined. And he's the one midfielder we have who has been able to form working partnerships with every other midfielder.
Fabregas might have (perhaps even probably would've) been better if put in an equally good team. But he hasn't.
I love Carrick, i think he's instrumental for us but in terms of ability it really shouldn't be an argument. Fabregas is better. Where Fabregas struggles is consistency though, but he can't be helped by his team at the moment.
Having said that though they offer different roles, when asked to defend or dig deep and hold the midfield Fabregas is often left wanting hence why he has to have a player like Flamini beside him, and it was no coincidence that Flamini's last year at Arsennal was his best and Fabregas' too.
Having said that though they offer different roles, when asked to defend or dig deep and hold the midfield Fabregas is often left wanting hence why he has to have a player like Flamini beside him, and it was no coincidence that Flamini's last year at Arsennal was his best and Fabregas' too.
Why are people comparing Carrick and Fabregas when they play two completely different roles?
Over exaggeration but i agree.
We've been short of a top class central midfield for some time, but its only really since the Barca game that people have started to fully realise this (oddly, against perhaps the best midfield seen anywhere in a decade, when any team would struggle).
The first time it really hammered home for me was the previous years CL final. After a great first half, Chelsea simply wore us down. We were hanging on. We lacked leadership, and we still do. I'm sure the players could see what was happening (same as Barca) but nobody seemed to know how to do anything about it. You can't often win the football battle unless you can compete in the physical battle. Carrick doesn't want to get involved in a battle, and he is our best midfielder.
As a squad, we are in a situation very similar to Arsenal at the moment. Possibly needs its own thread this point, but by bringing in talented young players who are not yet ready we leave ourselves in an awkward position. Do we sign established players at the risk of developing these youngsters, or give them the time to flourish? Is it possible to do both?
One route might benefit us in the short term, but reduce our ability to be a 'real football club', to create a team. The other is a longer-term strategy with potentially much greater benefits, both on the field and financially. The truth is probably that ourselves and Arsenal are restricted in our decision-making by our debt situations.
We'll be fine though. Its very rare to see a complete team anywhere in football. These things work in cycles. I'd wager that Ferguson's most pressing concern at the moment is finding this club a new Roy Keane. We need one now, but we'll need one even more when Ferguson retires.
The first time it really hammered home for me was the previous years CL final. After a great first half, Chelsea simply wore us down. We were hanging on. We lacked leadership, and we still do. I'm sure the players could see what was happening (same as Barca) but nobody seemed to know how to do anything about it. You can't often win the football battle unless you can compete in the physical battle. Carrick doesn't want to get involved in a battle, and he is our best midfielder.
As a squad, we are in a situation very similar to Arsenal at the moment. Possibly needs its own thread this point, but by bringing in talented young players who are not yet ready we leave ourselves in an awkward position. Do we sign established players at the risk of developing these youngsters, or give them the time to flourish? Is it possible to do both?
One route might benefit us in the short term, but reduce our ability to be a 'real football club', to create a team. The other is a longer-term strategy with potentially much greater benefits, both on the field and financially. The truth is probably that ourselves and Arsenal are restricted in our decision-making by our debt situations.
We'll be fine though. Its very rare to see a complete team anywhere in football. These things work in cycles. I'd wager that Ferguson's most pressing concern at the moment is finding this club a new Roy Keane. We need one now, but we'll need one even more when Ferguson retires.
I don't think that's true, if we were genuinely on the lookout for a centre midfielder the tabloids would have picked up on it and linked us with ever midfielder under the sun. Though to be honest, if i had to sign a midfielder right now i'd take someone with a bit of creativity rather than a hard man.
We have Carrick, Fletcher, Anderson and Hargreaves, I think we are fine on paper. Only problems are Anderson does look inconsistent and Hargreaves is never fit.
To be fair, I don't think Carrick could play in Fabergas' role and visa versa. That said, Fabergas is the better player - and probably the player we need.
Damn.
Of course they have different roles. Doesn't for a moment mean you can't compare them - obviously. As you make clear when you point out Fabregas is better. Or indeed over in the pavilion where you're comparing players from different sports.
can we sign fabregas please
Hehe... sorry Chief, I couldn't resist.
You're a man of true grace.
You're a man of true grace.
Should we fax them a bid?
I've got a few notes under my mattress.
Bramble > Fabergas?
Sad thing is, I have a mate who would probably consider beardedgenius a visionary.
https://www.redcafe.net/f7/football-fans-spastics-206313/?highlight=football+fans+are+spastics
brophs' spastic mate said:
The last couple of seasons we have played counter attack against the better teams. Solid defence and hardworking midfielders. Even our forwards where contributing to this formula. When we score the first goal or is on top we are a worldclass team and this tactic is spot on. But against Pool x 2 and Barca we didn't have a midfield to take control and keep possession. That's why we looked so poor in this matches.
This season we saw that Riquelme outshone all of our midfielders against Boca and we didn't exactly control the game aganst BM.
Without Ronaldo we are short of counter attacking threat and that means we need a midfield who can control the game and distribute good options for our forwards.
The only player who have that capability is Carrick, and in a lesser exstend the young Anderson. Fletcher and Hargreaves is worldclass watercarriers. Scholes and Giggs are the past so I don't include them.
All this tells me we are short of a playmaker when we sold Ronaldo.
This season we saw that Riquelme outshone all of our midfielders against Boca and we didn't exactly control the game aganst BM.
Without Ronaldo we are short of counter attacking threat and that means we need a midfield who can control the game and distribute good options for our forwards.
The only player who have that capability is Carrick, and in a lesser exstend the young Anderson. Fletcher and Hargreaves is worldclass watercarriers. Scholes and Giggs are the past so I don't include them.
All this tells me we are short of a playmaker when we sold Ronaldo.
There aren't any creative playmakers or defensive midfielders with physical presence on the market, I'm afraid. At least not for a reasonable price.
Everybody knows that we could do with some improvements but neither can you steal them nor can you conjure them up.
Everybody knows that we could do with some improvements but neither can you steal them nor can you conjure them up.
If only Viera was a bit younger and less of a prick.
If only Roy Keane was a bit younger and still a United player.
Urm, Ronaldo wasn't a huge counter-attacking threat in his last season with us. Granted in 06/07 he was fantastic at it but not so much since. That one Arsenal goal asides I can't remember him leading many counter attacks at all last season - no small part due to the fact that he rarely even entered his own half last season. It's quite hard to start a counter attack when you're standing by the opposition's penalty box.
Valencia looks like the classic counter attacking winger. He'll track back to collect the ball and run at the opposition all day long. Rooney is vital to counter attacking moves too due to his combination of pace, movement and vision. So we'll be fine in that respect in my opinion. It will certainly be interesting to see if Nani or Tosic can contribute also, or if Owen still has it in him to score goals like this.
I'm sorry but I just don't buy this. You don't win 3 titles on the row and win one European Cup (and reach another final and another semi) without a top class central midfield.
Well, it depends what you mean by 'top class'
Chelsea have Essien, Lampard, Ballack, Deco, Mikel, Cole and until recently Makelele. Essien and Lampard alone are all better than any of our CMs, and there's an argument for Ballack and Deco too. If ours is top class, theirs is hypersuperduperclass, and it's all a bit academic.
With pretty much the best defence in the world, and pretty much the best attack, which is what I'd say we had, it's perfectly possible to do what we did with only a very good midfield.
i want to see Fletcher and Carrick starting pretty much every game for us this season.
Anderson needs to prove his worth much more than he has thus far, and during preseason he looks out of shape AND out of sorts.
Anderson needs to prove his worth much more than he has thus far, and during preseason he looks out of shape AND out of sorts.
Ronaldo is not a playmaker.
Re: Scholes and Giggs. Ok both of them maybe past their best but you cannot ignore their contribution. They wont play 60 games but if each of them feature in 30 games, its like having one world class player for 60 games.
I can't blame you. That post is funny in the wackiest way
why, thank you.
The more I see of him the more I like Valencia's old team-mate Palacios. Good hustler, physical, fairly fast, and quite a good passer. Unfortunately something tells me Spurs would be looking for 2/3rd's of the Ronaldo fee
it's not a winning argument though -- Ballack and Deco are each different types of players from Carrick and Fletcher, so a direct comparison is difficult, but I would choose the latter partnership every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Aye, Ballack and Deco have been passengers for the vast majority of their Chelsea career and while you can just about get away with that in a three man midfield they'd get torn apart in a two man midfield on that form.
The more I see of him the more I like Valencia's old team-mate Palacios. Good hustler, physical, fairly fast, and quite a good passer. Unfortunately something tells me Spurs would be looking for 2/3rd's of the Ronaldo fee
Same here actually. I mean, I'm not desperate to get him or anything, but I think he'd do well here and be happy if we bought him.
They're both midfielders. Messi and Ronaldo play similarly different roles yet it doesn't stop people comparing them.
On a semi-related note, i cant see how some people still rate Scholes as world class. He used to be world class and there can be no doubts about that, but in the current day - really? He doesnt bring a lot to the table anymore, and his tackling/general defending has always been woeful.
Doesn't bring a lot to the table? On his day his long passing range is one of the best in the world, definitely top two in the league, his short passing game can be as cutting and imaginative as anyone in the league or as simple and and easy to receive as it'd ever need to be, and it just makes the game flow.
He can control a midfield better than anyone in this team.
So no, he's not world class, and he's becoming increasingly dependent on having space given to him rather than creating it himself(for whatever reason - some say stamina related, which makes sense given his age, but it rarely becomes apparent that it's the sole reason any time I see him) but he's still more capable than any of our midfielders of controlling the game and that's a big asset to have in a midfielder.
He can control a midfield better than anyone in this team.
So no, he's not world class, and he's becoming increasingly dependent on having space given to him rather than creating it himself(for whatever reason - some say stamina related, which makes sense given his age, but it rarely becomes apparent that it's the sole reason any time I see him) but he's still more capable than any of our midfielders of controlling the game and that's a big asset to have in a midfielder.
One thing world class players never seem to lose is the footballing brain. Admittedly, Scholes is nowhere near where he used to be, and at his age it's not particularly surprising, but his sharpness still shines through every so often.
At the arse end of last season, he did have quite a few underwhelming performances, but one example of his brilliance for me was the assist for Carrick against Pompey (think it was his 600th appearance, coincidentally) where he split the defence right down the middle with a pin-point through ball. From this I deduce that his eye for a pass hasn't deteriorated dramatically, though his physical ability to follow through with the mental has.
At the arse end of last season, he did have quite a few underwhelming performances, but one example of his brilliance for me was the assist for Carrick against Pompey (think it was his 600th appearance, coincidentally) where he split the defence right down the middle with a pin-point through ball. From this I deduce that his eye for a pass hasn't deteriorated dramatically, though his physical ability to follow through with the mental has.
His defensive duties against Barca in 2008 was amazing.
AND he is still the best passer on United. Still the best at keeping the ball and still the best at dictating our general play. Maybe not world class anymore but class and can still split teams in half.
The Fulham-match at Old Trafford earlier this season was proof that Scholes still got it.
Still going back to Barca 2008? About one great game per season doesnt constitute world class to me, consistency is a big factor in it.
Yes, becase they afforded him space and time in the middle of the park to play his passing game. Again, one of the biggest things I look for in what makes a world class midfielder is consistency, Scholes no longer has that by any stretch of the imagination, other than consistantly getting booked.
Walrus is right.
On his day, Scholes is still as good as anyone. Brwned has already described his qualities. But due to his age, these days have become very rare. If you want to be considered world-class, you'll have to perform regularly at a world-class level. Scholes doesn't do that anymore, and there's no shame in that. Scholes is 34 years old and as a footballer, you won't be consistently world-class anymore at that age. It's to be expected, it's part of life.
On his day, Scholes is still as good as anyone. Brwned has already described his qualities. But due to his age, these days have become very rare. If you want to be considered world-class, you'll have to perform regularly at a world-class level. Scholes doesn't do that anymore, and there's no shame in that. Scholes is 34 years old and as a footballer, you won't be consistently world-class anymore at that age. It's to be expected, it's part of life.