They are comparable in terms of style, as things stand now. But at Scholes' peak, he was a very, very different player.
I'd still say that Xavi plays the role with a great deal more mobility than Scholes does.
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.
They are comparable in terms of style, as things stand now. But at Scholes' peak, he was a very, very different player.
I'd still say that Xavi plays the role with a great deal more mobility than Scholes does.
I don't see much prospect of goals coming from our midfield. Mind you if Carrick plays further upfield he might get more than his usual few. Fletcher likewise although he's reluctant to shoot from distance and I see him in a more holding role whilst OH is out. Anderson doesn't normally score at all and Gibson maybe a few. In any event the midfield's primary responsibilty is to win the ball and create for the front runners as well as stifling the opposition playmakers. We don't have a Robson or a Keane or even an Ince these days. The goals are going to have to come from Berbatov, Rooney, Owen, Macheda and Welbeck primarily with the wingers chipping in when they can. Unfortunately they can't all play at the same time !
I agree that it's not imperative that the midfield scores prolifically, provided that they continue to lay the chances on for the forwards. If anything, our strikers' profligacy in front of goal last season was the real "problem".
If it's a Carrick-Fletcher partnership, then it will be Carrick who will "hold". In that pairing, it would still be Fletcher most likely to get into the box. He doesn't really come across as a particularly composed finisher though.
How does this jibe with your contention, over in the other forum, that Arsenal's "soft center" will limit its success this season? Few match your description as well as Fabregas.
IMO unless Berbatov replicates his Spurs scoring form and Rooney his England scoring form, we will have a problem getting goals.
That's been the case so far but is it the right way round ? I think Carrick with his passing ability and goal scoring "potential" - he can at least shoot -shouldn't be holding the midfield. He reads the game exceptionally well but can be swamped or bypassed, if put under too much pressure. He should be even more influential playing further forward. Fletcher is pretty mobile and can make a nuisance of himself in breaking up opposition attacks and sticking close to players. Anderson can perhaps play the role but perhaps his main forte is in going forward. Actually I don't think anyone knows what he's best at, not yet anyway and this will undoubtedly be a big season for him. The fact is, we don't have a ready made replacement for OH.
Carrick and Fletcher if we're playing 2 in centre mid.
Carrick, Fletcher and Anderson if we are playing three.
Carrick, Fletcher and Anderson if we are playing three.
I couldn't agree more tbh.We don't really have anyone who looks like stepping up though Chief.
Carrick: we are willing him to play a more advanced position on the field, but it's just not his way. His job is to sit and dictate from deep. As such, it's hard to envisage him being massively prolific. It's unfair to compare to the likes of Barry (who takes free kicks and pens), and Lampard and Gerrard (who both play far more advanced).
Anderson:
Hargreaves: if he ever gets fit, we are looking at a player who could be a regular goalscorer from penalties and free kicks. But again, he's not going to be prolific from open play. Not the most composed player is he? It's a different game when striking a dead ball.
Fletcher: he is the only real all round, box-to-box player at our disposal. He is the one who actually gets into the area, but his goals record is still quite patchy. He is the one with the greatest scope for goals for me.
Scholes: never going to play regularly enough and when he does, a bit like Carrick, he operates from far too deep these days.
Giggs: he's fairly cavalier still, and he has notched a few in pre-season, but he's not going to get many is he?
I still believe that we could do with an attacking midfield player in the squad. Then we'd have a complete blend, in my opinion. As things stand, there is a lot of pressure on the strikers.
That's true and there is a lot of reliance on Owen depending on how much game time he gets. Both Berba and Rooney have a natural tendency to hang back which won't help things. I'm not sure if Berba will indeed make a good focal point of the attack with Rooney in close attendance trying to take advantage. Indeed Owen, being a natural predator, might be more suited to play alongside Berba but that will marginalise Rooney, who, being the better allround player would be no real solution. It will also mean Owen playing more often than Fergie intends, fearful as he must be of an injury breakdown. At his age there shouldn't be that concern but the record in recent times is not great - so it's most definitely a concern. The gamble for me is, having lost our top scorer over the last three seasons, instead of going and getting a proven striker, Fergie has, for whatever financial reasons, gambled on resuscitating one whose best days might just be behind him.
I have been quite extensive in explaining my views on Carrick. I'm not necessarily correct, but from my point of view, I don't think he'd be anywhere near as effective if played in a more advanced role. He would not be able to fulfill his playmaking role (where he keeps the play moving from deep) if we asked him to station himself further up the field. In addition, I think we'd miss his understated defensive contribution (with his clever positional sense and reading of the play). The thing I have always said about Carrick is that he is an outstanding continuity player - at his best, he keeps the ball moving crisply and quickly. He establishes a flow that transmits throughout the team. I think this is his forte and for all the talk about his passing abilities, I don't think he is incisive or creative enough with his passing to talk about playing him further up the field.
The thing about a Fletcher/Hargreaves type player is that they are erroneosly expected to perform their function from a deep lying position. Someone like Makelele operated at the deepest point of the midfield but that is because he had a specific destroyer role. It is actually not a role that you expend a lot of energy in (you tend to stay in a 20 square yard area). But Fletcher and Hargreaves play with a great deal of energy - pressing and harrying the opponents. With that in mind, these types of midfielders actually do their work in the middle of the park and actually further up the field - hence they tend to be the more advanced of the midfield two. It is a fallacy to suggest that when Fletcher and Hargreaves play, they are the deepest lying of the midfield - they are often the most mobile and advanced. If you are playing a Barcelona type outfit, then you don't really want an achoring midfielder. You want an Essien/Hargreaves/Fletcher to be pressing high up the pitch so that you disrupt their flow in their own half.
As things stand, Carrick provides a good base. I think we're struggling in terms of a partner. Scholes was superb in the 0607 season as a partner for Carrick because he has such a brilliant creative element to his play. But playing Carrick as the more advanced midfielder of two would just disrupt our rhythm and make us a less coherent/cohesive outfit.
Totally agree, Fabregas can run a game. But it is undeniable that he lacks a partner with some mettle. I don't think that's the biggest problem though. As I said, a partnership of Scholes-Carrick worked brilliantly for us. Your real problem is/has been/ (and I suspect) will continue to be the central defence area where you lack height, aggression and organisation/leadership.
We could indulge a less aggressive pairing in Carrick and Scholes, safe in the knowledge that we had Ferdinand and Vidic at the back.
Agreed. We will at times just be screaming out for someone to stay in the box when it's a pairing of Berbatov and Rooney, I suspect.
It's why Owen is such an invaluable asset to have in the squad.
Hope you're right !
And explaining them very well, I think. However, whilst I don't doubt Carrick's abilities in reading the game and the resulting good positional sense, he doesn't seem to me to be the ideal defensive midfielder. He needs a true ball winner to play alongside. I think my question stemmed more from the hope that more goals would or should come from our midfielders and that perhaps Carrick is the most likely of the incumbents to up his tally from previous seasons. As regards that and his "holding role" I'd be interested to know how many goals he's scored so far at OT, where there's generally less pressure on him defensively and he has more opportunity to get forward, compared with the number he's scored away.
3 seasons, where for the majority of the time Carricks played with a player least like a true ball winner, and you still conclude that is what he needs? As long as he gets a decent amount of graft from his partner he'll be fine, sitting and dictating is his natural game.
And for quite a bit of that time our midfield has not been our strongpoint. The main reason why OH was brought in.
& are praying for Welbeck and Macheda to prove the real deal..as his cover.
fair enough
And last season Darren Fletcher became the leading midfielder as Scholes' career gradually winds down. He simply isn't as good as you think he is. If we come up against a decent midfield with him as our main midfielder, we will lose more often than not. Our central midfield has been our biggest weakness. Saying we'll be fine just because somebody runs around beside Carrick is absolutely ridiculous.
The midfield has never kept possession better then in the past 3 seasons.
Owen Hargreaves was very quickly shunted to the wing when it was realised he made things worse because he couldn't pass the ball as well and Scholes and Carrick
Funny you say that seeing as that is all Fletchers done to become considered the leading midfielder
He didn't out score Carrick nor did he create as many goals, you still consider him our leading midfielder, running around (where he also only matches Carrick) is all thats leftYea Fletcher only runs around. That's all he does.
Carrick and Fletcher are our top midfielders. They can control games but there's a lack of attacking edge when we play them both. I don't think Carrick is dynamic enough for an attacking midfield role. He's different from, say, Xavi. We need to see more from Anderson.
In what way is Fletcher 'our leading midfielder'? Carrick virtually always plays in important games, he's clearly the main man in midfield. Which isn't to say he doesn't have weaknesses, he does. But he's easily our best ball-player now that Scholes is on the wane.
That said, I'm hoping for a major step up from Fletch this season, I've just got a feeling. He may never be absolutely top class but he's been on an upward curve the last three years.
That said, I'm hoping for a major step up from Fletch this season, I've just got a feeling. He may never be absolutely top class but he's been on an upward curve the last three years.
Agree with the Anderson bit, he's a player that works every bit as hard as Carrick and Fletcher, but unlike the latter he also has the skill to open up the opposition regularly
Is Anderson really a CM? He looks more like an AM to me.
He is central midfielder, I think it better he starts deeper as it gives him a little more space and time to make his mind up
Agree. He can run at defenders, which Giggs can and Scholes can't.
Oh dear, Mozza, that's your second silly post on this page.
My prediction: Anderson will become the main man in the middle this year.
I read the post wrong, it happens
If Anderson steps up he can do this season what Giggs did last time round.
Interesting to note who SAF thought was the best partner for Giggs in the game that turned out to be our best performance against any top four team last season.
Fletcher? He played in both the 3-1 win at Effeminates and the 3-0 beating of the renties.
Expect this to be all lost on on Mozza. A huge fan of Makelele's playmaking skills.
Can anyone remember a game with Fletcher plus Giggs or Anderson in central midfield when we were anything other than excellent?
I'm struggling.
I'd like to see Anderson in the left-side-but-not-wing, part-inside-forward-part-centre-mid role that Giggs has played a lot in recent years. It allows us to switch fluidly between 4-4-2 and 4-3-3, and should be well suited to his abilities.
What's a bit worrying is that each of us seems to be hoping/expecting a different player to 'step up' to another level... Fletcher, Anderson, Nani, Berbatov, Rooney, Valencia, Wellbeck, Macheda... It doesn't happen that often, and I don't think we can expect it of more than one or two of them. Berbatov and Fletcher is my bet/hope.
What's a bit worrying is that each of us seems to be hoping/expecting a different player to 'step up' to another level... Fletcher, Anderson, Nani, Berbatov, Rooney, Valencia, Wellbeck, Macheda... It doesn't happen that often, and I don't think we can expect it of more than one or two of them. Berbatov and Fletcher is my bet/hope.
It's fair to say that Fletcher has already stepped up. He might not be the sexiest option, but he is bloody effective.
I don't think it's beyond reasonable expectation to see Rooney and Berbatov strike up a good partnership either and improve on their respective seasons just gone.
He controlled the big matches. He completely controlled the midfield in both legs of the CL semi for example. Carrick has not got the capacity to control a match like that. He didn't do that by just running around. Your blind ignorance is becoming boring.
Nobody is saying Carrick is a bad player in any way. I certainly am not anyway. But you're blind ignorance is ridiculous. Carrick is a good player but he is nowhere near as good as you think he is.
Performances make players what they are. Performances made Fletcher our best midfield last season regardless of what the purists may believe. Just because Fletcher is not a flair player or a popular player, it does not mean he wasn't the best player in his position at a particular time.
Carrick may be better next season, but maybe he won't. Maybe Fletcher will improve even more. And when he does, I'd still expect you to be singing the same aul boring shite.
Why do we need to diminish one over the other? They both fecking play for us and can both play in the same fecking team!
I can't. But then again, Fletcher didn't become a first choice until last season and he really stepped it up then.
Mozza would probably say that we were shite against Chelsea with Fletcher and Giggs as the partnership and that it would have been better had Carrick not have been dropped.