Exactly. We didn't change all of a sudden because of Carrick. He was an improvement on what we had, but Ronaldo was the reason everything changed.
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.
Exactly. We didn't change all of a sudden because of Carrick. He was an improvement on what we had, but Ronaldo was the reason everything changed.
FFS everyone, our center pairing won four trophies last season and are only getting better. We still have Ando and Gibbo to step up and still the injured Hargo to come back. Individually all those players mentioned might be a bit better than Carrick/Fletcher but as team play goes, I think Carrick + Fletcher are much more suited for us than all you mentioned.
Why ?
Gerrard isn’t a natural Cm where his best position is a free role behind the striker, fact that Liverpool has done better was Rafa’s vision of this.
Lampard to me is a very good all round player with a better shot and better passing than Fletch. Yes, Fletch edges on workrate and Defense for the back four but to hey it’s like comparing a CM to an Attacking Midfield which we have none in our team. ( IMO though )
So cut out the franks and stevens’ what we have left to compare are natural CM’s that do both ATT and DEF.
Essian, I’d pick him over Fletch and Carrick, I rate him as a top ten CM whenever he’s fit.
Fabregas, despite his size I still think Fabregas is a slightly better than carrick in terms of attacking. His defense might not be top notch but he’s showed that he’s been quality for Le’Arse. IMO I’d have him in our team since he’s young and still learning.
Stephan Ireland. Shitty with out him last season imo, would never reach the top 10 position in PL. He’s work rate is the sames as fletch, he’s passing still has to be judge but I like his influence and his determination. But still imo, Fletch + Carrick still edges it out for me since Ireland is more suited for a 4-4-3 than 4-4-2 ( Still not so sure about Ireland)
Barry, I haven’t watched many Villa games but whenever he plays against us he never stood out for me. He’s like average in both attack and def, he’s just been more consistant for villa that’s why he’s hype that way.
Xabi hit top form last season judging by last season he’s overall game improved dramastically, he might edge out Carrick.
Mascherano is a DM and I won’t compare him to Fletch because he’s not a CM ( attacking wise he’s only got a strong shot, he’s short/long passes are only simple ones ) I rate mascherano as one of the worlds top DM but not Cm.
Fellaini had a good run for everton and he’s tall so he scored a few headers. He’s game overall still needs improvement.
Cahill was injured too much the same goes for Arteta. ( Cahill also played striker/in the hole due to lack of strikers ) So I won’t judge cahill.
So our Cm has to be almost or at least in the top 5 otherwise we wouldn’t have won three titles in a row which is something we couldn’t achieve with the likes of Djemba,Kleberson,Miller and co.
Why ?
Gerrard isn’t a natural Cm where his best position is a free role behind the striker, fact that Liverpool has done better was Rafa’s vision of this.
Lampard to me is a very good all round player with a better shot and better passing than Fletch. Yes, Fletch edges on workrate and Defense for the back four but to hey it’s like comparing a CM to an Attacking Midfield which we have none in our team. ( IMO though )
So cut out the franks and stevens’ what we have left to compare are natural CM’s that do both ATT and DEF.
Essian, I’d pick him over Fletch and Carrick, I rate him as a top ten CM whenever he’s fit.
Fabregas, despite his size I still think Fabregas is a slightly better than carrick in terms of attacking. His defense might not be top notch but he’s showed that he’s been quality for Le’Arse. IMO I’d have him in our team since he’s young and still learning.
Stephan Ireland. Shitty with out him last season imo, would never reach the top 10 position in PL. He’s work rate is the sames as fletch, he’s passing still has to be judge but I like his influence and his determination. But still imo, Fletch + Carrick still edges it out for me since Ireland is more suited for a 4-4-3 than 4-4-2 ( Still not so sure about Ireland)
Barry, I haven’t watched many Villa games but whenever he plays against us he never stood out for me. He’s like average in both attack and def, he’s just been more consistant for villa that’s why he’s hype that way.
Xabi hit top form last season judging by last season he’s overall game improved dramastically, he might edge out Carrick.
Mascherano is a DM and I won’t compare him to Fletch because he’s not a CM ( attacking wise he’s only got a strong shot, he’s short/long passes are only simple ones ) I rate mascherano as one of the worlds top DM but not Cm.
Fellaini had a good run for everton and he’s tall so he scored a few headers. He’s game overall still needs improvement.
Cahill was injured too much the same goes for Arteta. ( Cahill also played striker/in the hole due to lack of strikers ) So I won’t judge cahill.
So our Cm has to be almost or at least in the top 5 otherwise we wouldn’t have won three titles in a row which is something we couldn’t achieve with the likes of Djemba,Kleberson,Miller and co.
Ronaldo was a big reason but so was Carrick, he allowed us to play 4-4-2 unlike when we had an aging Keane we needed someone to support him like P.Nev. Carrick brought stabability to our MF and he still is a certain start whenever fit to play.
Fletcher improved significantly in that regard last season though. Not to the level of Keane obviously, and hopefully he continues to improve further, but he was effective enough in his passing that he could actually dominate the midfield of smaller teams through his positioning and passing, not just his harrying.
It's not enough to just have 'graft'. You have to be effective in how you use it, which Fletch has always been in a defensive sense (hence why he was useful against good teams) and Anderson hasn't. Smith was a grafter. Djemba Djemba was a grafter. But they soon fell by the wayside because they didn't combine it with positioning and intelligence, let alone prove useful with the ball. Being in the right position is far more effective than running around a lot, and Fletch combines both attributes. That's what made him useful against the good teams.
Gerrard's not a central midfielder. Ballack, Deco and Scholes have been nowhere near as good as Carrick for the last two or more seasons. So I'd say he's 'about joint fourth with a bunch of other cnuts'.
No he isn't. He can be better, but he is very inconsistent in that role. Which is kind of a problem when central midfield is arguably the most important position on the field to have consistency in.
It's like saying Rooney is an excellent lead-the-line striker. Can be brilliant at it one day, then the next he's dropping too far deep and leaving us without a target man, effectively hurting the team as a whole. That's what Gerrard is like in the central midfield.
Carrick's overall performance last season was a little worrying. Never quite got to the heights of his previous season, and seems vulnerable to being overrun by quicker and more physical midfielders when we're not controlling the game.
Anderson had a very tough second season. Let's hope he shakes it off, either that or we find a better area to deploy him. Left wing anyone?
Scholes and Giggs won't get as many games, but still the best at controlling the tempo of a game when they're fresh and fit. Which is worrying when you think we've spent upwards of 50mil on 3 midfielders to replace them.
Hargreaves is becoming dimmer in my memory. Hopefully he jolts it when (and if) he returns to full fitness, and reminds me exactly why we waited two years for him in the first place.
Fletcher needs to start most of our games. He has the best balance of defensive and offensive ability, and been the most consistent over the past year. Until such time when Hargreaves starts playing for us again (if ever), we'll need him around a lot. And therefore the others should be vying for the right to play alongside him.
Anderson had a very tough second season. Let's hope he shakes it off, either that or we find a better area to deploy him. Left wing anyone?
Scholes and Giggs won't get as many games, but still the best at controlling the tempo of a game when they're fresh and fit. Which is worrying when you think we've spent upwards of 50mil on 3 midfielders to replace them.
Hargreaves is becoming dimmer in my memory. Hopefully he jolts it when (and if) he returns to full fitness, and reminds me exactly why we waited two years for him in the first place.
Fletcher needs to start most of our games. He has the best balance of defensive and offensive ability, and been the most consistent over the past year. Until such time when Hargreaves starts playing for us again (if ever), we'll need him around a lot. And therefore the others should be vying for the right to play alongside him.
Well put, fatboy, though I think Fletch still offers less than Carrick in both areas. He's got better though, I'm hoping for another big improvement this term.
Look, Gerrard's played first-class football for over a decade, and during that time, apart from his first season and the last season and a bit, he's almost always played in centre midfield. He's fecking brilliant. Does he have weaknesses? Yes, he tries too much and often lacks the discipline to run the tempo of the game - except for about the 1 in 5 games or whatever when he plays like Roy of the Rovers and runs riot. Can his attacking skills be utilised from other positions as well, maybe more effectively? Yes. He's that good he can play on the wing or behind the striker too.
Is he considerably better than Carrick in CM? Yes, obviously, unless you're too partisan to see reality. He was widely considered one of the very best midfielders in the world there for the best part of a decade. This business of bumping him off the list so our players look better is very small-time.
Actually he'd be great in centre mid alongside Carrick, I think they'd complement each other well.
Look, Gerrard's played first-class football for over a decade, and during that time, apart from his first season and the last season and a bit, he's almost always played in centre midfield. He's fecking brilliant. Does he have weaknesses? Yes, he tries too much and often lacks the discipline to run the tempo of the game - except for about the 1 in 5 games or whatever when he plays like Roy of the Rovers and runs riot. Can his attacking skills be utilised from other positions as well, maybe more effectively? Yes. He's that good he can play on the wing or behind the striker too.
Is he considerably better than Carrick in CM? Yes, obviously, unless you're too partisan to see reality. He was widely considered one of the very best midfielders in the world there for the best part of a decade. This business of bumping him off the list so our players look better is very small-time.
Actually he'd be great in centre mid alongside Carrick, I think they'd complement each other well.
The frustrating thing about Carrick is that he is quite close to being an amazing midfielder. His passing, vision and positioning are already fantastic. He just needs to impose himself on games more which surely should be easier to do since a lot of that simply involves graft. I was hoping he'd make that transition after 07-08 but his form dipped a bit last season.
I'm not going to argue against that, but Ronaldo's form was certainly helped by us no longer playing long ball all the time. The year before Carrick arrived was probably some of the worst football I've seen us play (actually, when we started playing O'Shea and Giggs in midfield at the end we improved greatly).
I'm not saying we won those titles solely because of Carrick, but I'm not sure we would have if we hadn't bought him (or someone like him) at the time.
Yes, Gerrard has been play CM for most of the start of his career, but to me I think Rafa's the only one who's brought out the best out of Gerrard in his behind the striker position. Like you mentioned discapline in MF I think that a very important attribute if you're considering someone to play CM who is responsible for both attack and defense. I don't agree with you that Gerrards a better CM because he can't defend and protect his backline as well as Carrick. All round skills of course Gerrard is better than Carrick as he can play more positions but just this position that I think Carrick is much more professional and thus concluding imo that Carrick is a better CM.
Just my thought though, I mean If you consider Attacking Midfielders the same as Center Midfielders then of course Gerrard would be my choice.
In other words, Gerrard is better than Carrick unless you're a spastic.
Gerrard can probably defend as well as Carrick if he was ever asked to. He's stronger, faster, can cover more ground, and tackles well (two footed or not). But he would never be asked to do so because he can do much more damage and influence games when he's slightly further forward, another area where he's also better than Carrick. So I really can't agree with your reasoning to say that Carrick is the better midfielder.
How is Carrick much more "professional" than Gerrard in the central midfield position?
Because he has more discipline as a CM.
The slight misunderstanding between us is how an actual CM is. To me it is someone who has discipline, stabalises the team both attacking and defensively. To me Carrick offers that more than Gerrard who is more focused on Attacking ( since it's one of his strong points ).
I think a lot of people are dwelling on his subdued CL final performance (with an anonymous partner) when they remember Carrick as having a poor season. The long term injury he picked up when rat-fink clattered him had a big impact but when Carrick reached full form/fitness he was playing some of the best football of his career.
Carrick better than Gerrard 
Attacking Role Gerrard >>> Carrick : No obligations
Defensive Role Carrick >= Gerrard : Gerrard lacks the discipline, I wouldn't argue with that
So yes Gerrard is way better playing the attacking role in MF which I don't consider a CM while Carrick has balance in both Defense and Attacking, imo. I can consider Carrick a better CM but Gerrard has better all round attributes playing hight up the pitch. Agree ? Even my Pool friends agree that Gerrard is shite in CM whilst playing for them, his best role is a free role.
CM's don't have free roles imo. only attacking MF like Totti and Ronaldinho (++Gerrard )does. Just my opinion though you can argue all you like. I do agree that Gerrard all round is a better player just not in CM.
Defensive Role Carrick >= Gerrard : Gerrard lacks the discipline, I wouldn't argue with that
So yes Gerrard is way better playing the attacking role in MF which I don't consider a CM while Carrick has balance in both Defense and Attacking, imo. I can consider Carrick a better CM but Gerrard has better all round attributes playing hight up the pitch. Agree ? Even my Pool friends agree that Gerrard is shite in CM whilst playing for them, his best role is a free role.
CM's don't have free roles imo. only attacking MF like Totti and Ronaldinho (++Gerrard )does. Just my opinion though you can argue all you like. I do agree that Gerrard all round is a better player just not in CM.
He isn't really a certain starter. SAF didn't play him against Chelsea so he doesn't have a divine right to play. SAF will obviously play the pairing that he thinks suits best. The main reason for success was Ronaldo, let's me honest about it. And that's for the last three years, not just that one. It was his goalscoring that won us things.
Lads, that was Fletcher's first real season when he was first choice in centre midfield. He is improving all the time and if he keeps improving, he will become a very very good player. He is still young and if he keeps improving, he will be a big player for the club. I don't know why so many slag him off, they'd want to get used to him playing.
Plus the defence of course. Essentially then, it was Ronaldo getting the goals and our defence stopping them which have been the pivotal reasons behind the success. The midfield was probably our weakest, or if you prefer, less consistent, area - hence the reason for this extended debate.
Well yea. I agree. Carrick steadied midfield and is an obvious improvement, massive improvement, on the likes of Smith and Djemba-Djemba. The defence got very strong. I'd still regard Ronaldo as the main reason for our success. Our strikers actually scored very few goals over the three years when you look at it compared to our success. Has Rooney even reached 50? I don't have the figures but as far as I recall he scored 18 in the treble winning season so he might not have reached it. I still believe Ronaldo was the main reason, but obviously not the only one, why we became so successful.
Rooney certainly has more than 50, If i'm not mistaken his five seasons here he's lowest goal rate was 12 but he's scored more than 15 goals nearly every season so I reckon he's on about 80.
Correct me if I'm wrong but for the past three seasons in CM Carrick has had the most games so I have a right to define that he was certain start if fit. I'm not sure about the Chelsea match where he just came back from injury and Fergie didn't want to rush him. The rest yeah well sometimes Fergie imployed other players for Carrick to rest.
No, I don't agree. You don't rest your certain starters for one of the biggest games of the season. SAF will play who he thinks will suit most to play against that particular opposition. And no, he wasn't injured. The only certain starters are Van Der Sar, Vidic, Ferdinand, Evra and probably Rooney. Nobody else.
65 goals according to Wikipedia (I'm not sure if there is a better site to check). So he quite conceivably scored 50ish over the last 3 years. I'd reckon about that.
It does not take away from the point I made which was that Ronaldo was weighing in with far more goals than anyone else. That was the point. Are you disagreeing with that or just making a point that Rooney may have scored 51 goals?
Rooney got dropped for the away game against Inter and SAf tends not to rotate his back four.
Defenders aside, Carrick is as much a certain starter as anyone else in the squad. I wouldn't read too much into that one game against Chelsea.
True. Rooney is one who could be dropped. Big games, Fletcher is probably more of a certain starter than any other midfielder.
Hopefully Rooney will revel in his role as main man for the club as Ronaldo has gone and hopefully he will score a lot more goals.
Gerrard is a better player than Carrick, obviously. But for a two man central midfield I would pick Carrick any day of the week. Gerrard may be more likely to win you individual matches, but over the course of a season Carrick will have the team as a whole perform better and win more matches.
Hell, there are no less than 9 players just in the 'big four' teams that I would play in the central midfield before Gerrard. Carrick, Fletcher, Alonso, Mascherano, Fabregas, Essien, Lampard, Mikel and Ballack (although it's hard to know whether he still has it in him as he's been quite poor for Chelsea). I rate Gerrard extremely highly, but just not in the central midfield. Never have, although when he was younger I thought he might grow into it.
Do you rate him as a centre midfielder when he was in his early 20's, just crowned young footballer of the year in that position and when he had starred in 5 straight wins against United as a centre midfielder?
I rated him as someone who could go on to be the best central midfielder on the planet, if he could work on his consistency and decision-making.
But simply, that didn't happen.
Fletcher a better centre mid than Gerrard now...
Mad Dogg... stop this, please
Mad Dogg... stop this, please
And Mikel. Let's hope Rafa is reading this and getting some ideas for player exchanges.
Every forum is turning into a Player A vs Player B debate.
You cant compare Gerrard and Carrick, because one plays off Torres and the other sits in front of the back four.
Different positions.
You cant compare Gerrard and Carrick, because one plays off Torres and the other sits in front of the back four.
Different positions.
Gerrard played in centre midfield for about 8 years.
Hey Scholesy, just out of interest, who at his peak was better, Zinedine Zidane or Titus Bramble?
Hey Scholesy, just out of interest, who at his peak was better, Zinedine Zidane or Titus Bramble?
Carrick and Gerrards roles are very different. Its just wrong to compare.
Zidane's and Bramble's roles were even more different.
Don't you think one was better than the other?
Don't you think one was better than the other?
One was better at attacking, the other is better at defending.
It just doesnt make sense. An invalid debate.
Not quite...
Have another go
Have another go