Yep, the defenders have been great and Carrick did alot to contribute to but wasn't the only reason for our defensive prowess.
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.
Yep, the defenders have been great and Carrick did alot to contribute to but wasn't the only reason for our defensive prowess.
I don't know people compare any player to Keane. Keane was the best around and he makes most look poor in comparison, especially when it comes to the defensive aspects of the game./
My mistake, yes Keane is uncomparable as box to box and defense but Carrick did bring our 4-4-2 tactic back.
You can. Carrick relies on his partners to perform against big sides, a bit too much.
IMO Keane throgh out was something else defensively. Rio and Vidic in one player in that aspect.
Vidic became an instant hit so he was extremely important when it came to winning the title. Evra took Heinze's jersey after a couple of decent performances after a bad start.
Yea, I watched us play. Carrick was an obvious help. He is an improvement on Djemba-Djemba, Miller, Alan Smith and O'Shea in the middle. Not that hard really. He was an improvement on a Keane who's hips and legs had gone at that stage. Scholes was still there. He was class as that season as he usually was/is. Whatever midfielder we brought in was going to inevitably bring us back to a 4-4-2. He was taking over from shite players, atrocious players, so obviously we were going to improve with him in the team. If we didn't buy him, we were probably not going to go back fully to a 4-4-2 because we simply hadn't got the players.
Carrick did bring the 4-4-2 back. He has also being a major influence in us having to deploy a 4-5-1 against the better sides.
Minor point of order, Vidic was not an "instant hit" and only really started to look sound from the start of his first full season. In 2005/06, he was in and out of the side and in particular had a stinker at Blackburn, where his ineptitude helped us ship 4 goals.
We'd been experimenting with 4-5-1, particularly in Europe, long before Carrick arrived. That as one of Quieroz's big ideas. I can remember United fans chanting "4 4 2" at Ferguson in the years before 2006.
This is completely wrong. Vidic needed half a season to settle down and peaked in season 07/08. So saying him as an instant hit is completely wrong.
I don't quite understand the rely on partner if unless you're saying Carrick relied on Scholes more than Keane did, which to me CM both rely on their partners. In big games yes, Keane was just immense by the way he helped us, his influence to our game and overall game was way more better than Carrick. All I know that the key reason for our free flowing game started from Carrick's purchase plus Ronaldo forfilling his potential and our defense grew solid rock. I think all the good things started from Carrick. Maybe that's why I rated Carrick almost as good as Keane in some aspects of the game. Then again I'm not arguing that Keane is >>>>>>>> more than Carrick.
Exactly, I for one chanted in front of my TV. To prove that Giggs + O'shea in 4-4-2 just proved how significantly we can play in the 4-4-2 even though both weren't our top CMs in the latter season of 05/06.
No, I said defence, Carrick is part of that.
Scholes had a couple of terrible seasons prior to 2006/07
It is a common excuse on here that Carrick doesn't shine in big games because he needs his partners to play well for him to perform. Personally I don't buy it at all. For me when he play poorly it is all his own fault. Just like when he plays well it is all down to him.
I know what you mean. Carrick brought us many useful things that we missed when Keane became past it. Namely intelligent positioning, interception, experience and most importantly, crisp and accurate passing. It is one of the chief reasons we were so much better once he arrived. For a back in form Scholes had a reliable partner again. But there is no doubt our back 4 and Ronaldo's form were paramount in making us a major force again.
But 2006/07 he had a good season.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
This idiocy has to end
Rio Ferdinand and Ben Thatcher are both defenders, but Ferdinand’s obviously better than Thatcher. He’s a better footballer than Thatcher, and he’s a better defender than Thatcher. You could argue about whether he’s a better full-back than Thatcher, but he’s unquestionably a better defender, which is the higher-level category to which they both belong.
Likewise, Michael Carrick is, and Steven Gerrard has been for most of his career, a midfielder. Gerrard’s the better one. Whether he’d be better than Carrick as a holding midfielder is open to question. But he’s definitely a better midfielder.
People can fit into many categories at once, and be compared across those categories.
Steven Gerrard and Steve Harmison are both sportsmen. Gerrard is a better one than Harmison. Even though he's a worse cricketer.
Steven Gerrard and Pele are/were both footballers. Pele was a better player than Gerrard. Even though he'd probably have been a worse midfielder.
Steven Gerrard and Michael Carrick are/were both midfielders. Gerrard is/was better than Carrick. Even though he might not be as good in the holding role.
Steven Gerrard and Zinedine Zidane are/were both attacking midfielders. Zidane was better than Gerrard. Even though Gerrard might be better at one or other skill within that role, like long-range shooting.
So stop it. Stop the idiocy.
The only reason Gerrard isn't playing centre mid for Liverpool now is that Benitez found him too indisciplined positionally to play him there. If he was playing for United or most other clubs he would be playing in the centre of midfield as a box to box player.
***
It's the sporting equivalent of modern education - everyone is different, each person has their own particular talent, so it's unfair to compare people directly. Instead just praise them for what they can do. You just don't get this political correctness thingy, Plech.
Carrick joined us in the summer of 2006
”But Wayne is a totally different type of player to Ronaldo. I don’t think you can compare them, they are such different types,” said Ferguson.
I bet he's glad he didn't say that to Plech's face.
I bet he's glad he didn't say that to Plech's face.
I reckon he thinks Rooney's better than Pennant though, and Ronaldo's better than Alan Smith.
When two players are both absolutely top class, it can be hard to say who's better, whatever position they play in. Still, it's far from impossible - most of us would admit that at the moment, Ronaldo's better than Rooney. (I think Rooney was better than Ronaldo back in their teens.)
Most of us would also agree that Maradona was better than Beckenbauer. That's what it means when people argue about a player being the best of all time - that they were better than anyone else has been, regardless of position.
What would happen to us if Carrick and Fletcher got injured at the same time, for a few weeks?
Anderson, Gibson plus the old war horses, Giggs and Scholes, would have to fill in. JOS and young Cleverley could also be involved as options. Provided we didn't play any really decent teams it should be ok
Thought Cleverley was a winger ?
Looks versatile but I'd say he's an attacking midfielder.
He is saying that to be politic. You cant take what Fergie says at face value.
This debate never ceases to amaze me.
The midfield two of Fletcher and Scholes were good against Birmingham today. Birmingham had three in midfield, Lee Carsley, Barry Ferguson and Keith Fahey. When they had the ball, Fletcher was closing them down but they always had the extra man. We still bossed the midfield though. Fletcher was very good in the first half. Scholes was good in the second. Our midfield is definitely going to be good enough for most teams in the Premier League, even if they have three in the middle. We can play many different partnerships and they should nearly always be good enough for most teams. The Fletcher Carrick midfield partnership will play in the big matches and will obviously be considered the first choice. We are fine in midfield, in my honest opinion.
They did well with possession but didn't seem like there was enough legs in midfield defending, I was quite worried when Benitez came on.
I think that was more to do with a the defence, it was very un-organised today and lacked leadership. We often leave Rio and Vidic to deal one on one with forwards but Evans and O'Shea are not quite as good at winning the ball back and dealing with threats.
That's because it was against 3 and Giggs/Nani/Valencia weren't great at helping out. Fletcher was closing down the whole time but you could see he was closing down 3 players consistently and he became visibly knackered as the game went on.
Nah, this was one of those games where Fletch just doesn't look up to it. He made some tackles and put himself about, but that's not enough for Man United, you have to offer something on the ball. Too many nothing passes, too many given away.
With 4 4 2 the game plan is to spread it wide and get the wingers and full backs involved. Fletcher and Scholes did this adequately for quite a bit of the time yesterday. The trouble is when the opposition get the ball they can dominate because the two men in the middle can be overrun. I expect Fergie to revert to 4 3 3 or similar against better opposition. The problem is that means no place for Valencia unless he can vary his game more.
Has it dawned on you yet that you're completely wrong?
Evra and Vidic signed for Utd before Carrick. They joined in January 2006, midway through the 05-06 season, and Evra in particular struggled for the rest of that season. Carrick joined in the summer of 2006. They were all first team regulars in the team that won the league in 2006-07.
How far from fitness is hargreaves?
Last I heard he's supposed to be back in January. I'm not holding out much hope that he can play a significant role this season, although I hope I'm wrong.
Oh wow i thought he was projected to come back way earlier then that, sucks for you guys. He's a regular Tomas Rosicky.
Well Rosicky seems to be hit with a variety of injuries, to his calf, hamstring, groin, etc. Hargreaves' main concern is his knee. There were reports that he could be back as early as October, i believe even Fergie sounded optimistic during preseason, but he has had further complications with his knee and he's returned to Germany to have a look at it. I really don't hold too much hope for him anymore, i'm not an expert on medical issues but it sort of looks like a Ledley King situation, he'd be really lucky if he can still play at a high level, and even then could have to limit his appearances.
Agreed, ive been of the mind that we should simply write Hargreaves off and perhaps see if anyone would be willing to buy him (Everton?), and get in a new CM to replace him, rather than hang about.
My opinion remains that we still lack one quality central midfielder in our squad - we have plenty of *good* players, but no great ones, and most other top clubs have at least one *great* midfielder, and they normally play with 3 in the middle anyway.
My opinion remains that we still lack one quality central midfielder in our squad - we have plenty of *good* players, but no great ones, and most other top clubs have at least one *great* midfielder, and they normally play with 3 in the middle anyway.