|
|
Post by ratbag on Jan 11, 2013 13:24:56 GMT
I think he is a lot better than he is given credit for...if either or both of those compilations were shown about someone we were looking to buy, we would be saying he's great and we should sign him up....
I think one of the issues is that he isn't always utilised to his best either by design or by something that occasionally holds him back....this is most noticeable when he plays together with Scholes....he seems to play a restricted role.
If you look at some of his play when given (taking?) free rein, he can make those Scholes-esque passes and can control the tempo of the game...he just needs to be let off the leash or let himself off...
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbonda on Jan 11, 2013 18:07:05 GMT
what does let off the leash mean? it basically means that he's not asked to screen the defence or be the deep sitting midfielder playing forward passes. but that's his job. what exactly do you people who say this want from him? if you want him to be an attacking midfielder then who do we buy to sit deep?
he should score more goals, but the lack of aggression in his game in the attacking half of the pitch and his reluctance to shoot is a personality thing, not a tactical thing.
apart from being overly casual at times he's an excellent, classy player, a key man in the team, and someone misunderstood and unappreciated to a good extent. he makes difficult things look easy
|
|
|
|
Post by Bestie on Jan 11, 2013 19:09:25 GMT
what does let off the leash mean? it basically means that he's not asked to screen the defence or be the deep sitting midfielder playing forward passes. but that's his job. what exactly do you people who say this want from him? if you want him to be an attacking midfielder then who do we buy to sit deep? We want him to be trusted to do a job that is more than sitting and passing. The goal vs. QPR and various other clips (Galatasary goal is a perfect example) show off just how good an attacking player Carrick is when he does get forward and get into the box. Some of the intricate, one-touch passing in those clips is supreme. He's the type of player who could control games on his own if he would just come out of his shell (whether thats's personality or tactics -led.) We don't need to buy someone to 'sit deep', we just have to allow Carrick greater freedom to get forward and influnce our play in the oppo half more. Which he has been doing with Cleverley beside him. People are trying to actually compliment the guy for a change, stop seeming so over-defensive. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbonda on Jan 13, 2013 8:41:24 GMT
i'm not being defensive, it had to be asked. i've been reading 'let him off the leash' 'he's had his attacking coached out of him'... i don't see it that way.
he's the holding midfielder, it's a risk every time he goes forward, even with a tight defence but even more so when we leak goals at the rate we do. asking him to get forward more in this team is asking for trouble. if we want to see more of him in the attacking half then we need someone next to him who'll drop off and give him the cover and anchor in his place. cleverley's not shown he's that player, he presses further up. i don't agree that carrick's been spending more time in the attacking half when they play together, i've not noticed that at all. anderson's not got the discipline to be that player. scholes sits is left exposed when it's him. fletcher is the obvious choice but we know his playing time is limited.
basically this comes back to my old argument that we should buy a partner for him. that box to box player, predominantly an aggressive mid looking to get forward but one who is comfortable defending his own box and allows carrick to get forward, not gung ho style but a bit more than he does now.
you've also got to look at carrick himself, i'd defo like to see him be more aggressive in the opponents half but is he wired that way? he's one of the most laid back players you'll ever see, he's clearly a very placid, chilled out bloke, and his personality plays out in the way he plays the game, for better and worse
|
|
|
|
Post by tommyred on Jan 13, 2013 10:08:56 GMT
Yeah its naive nonsense basically.
He's perfect for the job he does. We never sign an out and out defensive midfielder (a policy I agree with) but you need somebody like Carrick to sit deep and do the defensive job. He does contribute a huge amount going forward to with his vision and range of passing.
Some people are obsessed with goals and think that's what makes a player. It's not Carrick's job to score goals. He could get a couple more but it's not a major issue because he does everything else so well.
He's one of the very best.
|
|
|
|
Post by redcase on Jan 13, 2013 10:13:50 GMT
well said tommo.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbonda on Jan 13, 2013 11:43:36 GMT
specifically with goals i think it's a massive bonus and midfielders should be looking to get goals. you'd have to say that between the regular midfielders - carrick, valencia, cleverley, young - we don't see nearly enough goals.
specifically with carrick he needs to shoot more, he often pops up 20 yards out and he's always looking to feed someone in. but tommo's right, goals aren't the most important thing from a player like carrick. if he spent as much time in the attacking half as people seem to be calling for then we'd be conceding twice the amount of goals that we already are.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbonda on Jan 13, 2013 11:51:33 GMT
We never sign an out and out defensive midfielder (a policy I agree with) yeah, hargreaves was the closest we've had to a defensive midfielder but he got forward and popped up with big goals. the calls for us to sign tiote have pretty much gone away like i thought they would. even when he was playing well for the mags he didn't convince me too much |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2013 13:28:58 GMT
didnt realise Carrick has been with us 7 years
|
|
|
|
Post by fletcherini on Jan 13, 2013 17:28:15 GMT
didnt realise Carrick has been with us 7 years Think he was our only signing that particular season, if memory serves me correct. Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong..!  |
|
|
|
Post by jimbonda on Jan 13, 2013 18:29:10 GMT
him and PIG. think PIG was a loan signing at that point so you're right in a sense
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2013 18:37:05 GMT
does PIG count as a signing  |
|
|
|
Post by fletcherini on Jan 13, 2013 19:10:10 GMT
him and PIG. think PIG was a loan signing at that point so you're right in a sense Carrick was our only outfield signing. Thought so.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bestie on Jan 13, 2013 20:57:11 GMT
Regardless of how unique a signing he was that summer, he was woeful today.
Cleverley was poor too.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbonda on Jan 14, 2013 9:07:46 GMT
did you miss the first half bestie? carrick was immense
less so second half when mistakes crept in.
|
|
