With England failing time and time again at an international stage, could Michael Carrick have held the key to success? He has never really been able to nail down a place in the England team, often being overlooked and shunted aside to make way for Steven Gerrard, Frank Lampard and Gareth Barry; a decision which continues to baffle me even today.
We have been told time and time again that the key to international (and European) football is possession. There is no better English player to Michael Carrick playing the possession game which makes it hard for me to see why he has been overlooked time and time again.
What makes a top class midfielder is all about how well they apply themselves within the role that they have been given to play. Michael Carrick is a tactical player, he plays in a disciplined role at Manchester United and in my opinion he applies himself to the role superbly game in, game out.
When in possession his primary objective is to keep possession of the ball and to simply move the ball onto the more clinical players. He sits in front of the back four and doesn’t go forward often, possibly a role likened to Sergio Busquets at Barcelona. Michael Carrick’s biggest quality is to move play from defence to attack and win the ball. Because of him, other players play better.
So why is Michael Carrick often criticised? I believe it is because he is a simple player. People are often deceived by the glamour players, the greedy players, the players who go for the spectacular when in reality they are just wasteful, wasteful in possession. Paul Scholes hit on this point a few weeks back:
For me it is important to have players that complement each other. The 11 best players are not necessarily the best 11. World Cup winner Xabi Alonso also touched on this point in an interview he gave on 4th July 2010. He believes that one of the reasons why England fails internationally may be due to the absence of Michael Carrick.
More often than not, criticism of Michael Carrick’s passing is misguided. To criticise his passing is to misunderstand the role that he now plays at Manchester United. It’s given that earlier on in his career he was allowed the freedom to play his own game in midfield however now that he plays deeper he cannot afford to play as many risky passes as he used to due to the area of the pitch he now operates in. One thing is for certain, he is still highly rated by Sir Alex Ferguson:
So has England missed a trick with Michael Carrick? Over the past 5 seasons, Manchester United have enjoyed one of their most successful eras in history winning 4 league titles as well as reaching 3 Champions League finals and winning it once. It is no coincidence that Michael Carrick’s presence has been long-standing in that same period. Only Patrice Evra has made more appearances for Manchester United in that time with 233 appearances whereas Michael Carrick has made 232.
Michael Carrick was most definitely ever present for Manchester United in the bigger games last season. In the home leg of Manchester United’s Champions League tie with Marseille, Michael Carrick’s pass completion rate was an incredible 93.1%. In the away Champions League tie at Stamford Bridge he bettered that with a 95% completion rate as well as playing that sublime pass to Ryan Giggs which led to Wayne Rooney’s bottom corner finish.
At times Michael Carrick was imperious in his passing. Over the two league games against Blackburn Michael Carrick attempted 202 passes, 107 of which were in Manchester United’s title winning 1-1 draw at Blacburn. In addition to this, in Manchester United’s Champions League group stage game away to Rangers, Michael Carrick completed 107/117 passes. Some could say such stats are Xavi territory.
Michael Carrick also made more forward passes in last season’s Champions League than Barcelona’s Andres Iniesta, rubbishing the myth that he only passes sideways and backwards. Michael Carrick (417), Andres Iniesta (384).
Criticism of Michael Carrick’s excessive short passing also seems very harsh. Interestingly he does not even appear in the top 10 for players who made the most short passes in the Champions League however Manchester United’s rumoured target Wesley Sneijder does. I wonder whether he would receive the same criticism if he joined?
There also appears to be a rumour going round that Michael Carrick is poor at defending and that Manchester United need to buy a midfield destroyer. I suppose the fact that no other player, except Schalke defender Benedikt Howedes, made more interceptions in last season’s Champions League puts that myth to bed too.
Surely with Michael Carrick having been such a prominent player over the past 5 years, some of our accomplishments are due to his brilliance? He is reliable, dependable and plays his role admirably. Due to the simple, unspectacular nature of his game, he often comes under much criticism, undeservedly so.
Manchester United have enjoyed great success with Michael Carrick over the past 5 seasons and his exclusion from the national side in that same period looks to be England’s loss. Michael Carrick’s game is suited to the European and International game and in my opinion he would have been a very good player for the national team had he ever been given the chance. Maybe if Michael Carrick was European he would have been appreciated more…
I had the same opinion that England lacked Midfielder like Carrick to keep it simple and keep the game ticking. He plays very simple game and the reason why he gets so much criticism. He is second in the most interceptions in the champions league and also made more forward passes than Iniesta.
p.s You can agree/disagree with the article, but try to do with constructive points rather than smart *** one liners.
We have been told time and time again that the key to international (and European) football is possession. There is no better English player to Michael Carrick playing the possession game which makes it hard for me to see why he has been overlooked time and time again.
What makes a top class midfielder is all about how well they apply themselves within the role that they have been given to play. Michael Carrick is a tactical player, he plays in a disciplined role at Manchester United and in my opinion he applies himself to the role superbly game in, game out.
When in possession his primary objective is to keep possession of the ball and to simply move the ball onto the more clinical players. He sits in front of the back four and doesn’t go forward often, possibly a role likened to Sergio Busquets at Barcelona. Michael Carrick’s biggest quality is to move play from defence to attack and win the ball. Because of him, other players play better.
So why is Michael Carrick often criticised? I believe it is because he is a simple player. People are often deceived by the glamour players, the greedy players, the players who go for the spectacular when in reality they are just wasteful, wasteful in possession. Paul Scholes hit on this point a few weeks back:
Tactically it is obvious that a partnership of Gerrard and Lampard just does not work. Both players are ‘glamour players’ who like to get forward which could leave the defence exposed. Even with a player like Gareth Barry accompanying them England has failed to impress on an international stage because his passing range is virtually non-existent.
For me it is important to have players that complement each other. The 11 best players are not necessarily the best 11. World Cup winner Xabi Alonso also touched on this point in an interview he gave on 4th July 2010. He believes that one of the reasons why England fails internationally may be due to the absence of Michael Carrick.
I suppose Xabi Alonso could be right. Gerrard enjoyed his best period at Liverpool while playing alongside Xabi Alonso, a player whose passing is as good as Michael Carrick’s. The English mentality in recent times has been the more direct game. It’s an approach that I do not think works at an international level, especially in a summer international tournament such as the World Cup playing in the blistering heat, chasing the ball every time it is lost.
More often than not, criticism of Michael Carrick’s passing is misguided. To criticise his passing is to misunderstand the role that he now plays at Manchester United. It’s given that earlier on in his career he was allowed the freedom to play his own game in midfield however now that he plays deeper he cannot afford to play as many risky passes as he used to due to the area of the pitch he now operates in. One thing is for certain, he is still highly rated by Sir Alex Ferguson:
So has England missed a trick with Michael Carrick? Over the past 5 seasons, Manchester United have enjoyed one of their most successful eras in history winning 4 league titles as well as reaching 3 Champions League finals and winning it once. It is no coincidence that Michael Carrick’s presence has been long-standing in that same period. Only Patrice Evra has made more appearances for Manchester United in that time with 233 appearances whereas Michael Carrick has made 232.
Michael Carrick was most definitely ever present for Manchester United in the bigger games last season. In the home leg of Manchester United’s Champions League tie with Marseille, Michael Carrick’s pass completion rate was an incredible 93.1%. In the away Champions League tie at Stamford Bridge he bettered that with a 95% completion rate as well as playing that sublime pass to Ryan Giggs which led to Wayne Rooney’s bottom corner finish.
At times Michael Carrick was imperious in his passing. Over the two league games against Blackburn Michael Carrick attempted 202 passes, 107 of which were in Manchester United’s title winning 1-1 draw at Blacburn. In addition to this, in Manchester United’s Champions League group stage game away to Rangers, Michael Carrick completed 107/117 passes. Some could say such stats are Xavi territory.
Michael Carrick also made more forward passes in last season’s Champions League than Barcelona’s Andres Iniesta, rubbishing the myth that he only passes sideways and backwards. Michael Carrick (417), Andres Iniesta (384).
Criticism of Michael Carrick’s excessive short passing also seems very harsh. Interestingly he does not even appear in the top 10 for players who made the most short passes in the Champions League however Manchester United’s rumoured target Wesley Sneijder does. I wonder whether he would receive the same criticism if he joined?
There also appears to be a rumour going round that Michael Carrick is poor at defending and that Manchester United need to buy a midfield destroyer. I suppose the fact that no other player, except Schalke defender Benedikt Howedes, made more interceptions in last season’s Champions League puts that myth to bed too.
Surely with Michael Carrick having been such a prominent player over the past 5 years, some of our accomplishments are due to his brilliance? He is reliable, dependable and plays his role admirably. Due to the simple, unspectacular nature of his game, he often comes under much criticism, undeservedly so.
Manchester United have enjoyed great success with Michael Carrick over the past 5 seasons and his exclusion from the national side in that same period looks to be England’s loss. Michael Carrick’s game is suited to the European and International game and in my opinion he would have been a very good player for the national team had he ever been given the chance. Maybe if Michael Carrick was European he would have been appreciated more…
I had the same opinion that England lacked Midfielder like Carrick to keep it simple and keep the game ticking. He plays very simple game and the reason why he gets so much criticism. He is second in the most interceptions in the champions league and also made more forward passes than Iniesta.
p.s You can agree/disagree with the article, but try to do with constructive points rather than smart *** one liners.
from a very big Carrick fan!
