What people don’t understand is Michael Carrick was ahead of his time.. Only Sir Alex saw it. Remember Carrick was a long term replacement for a Treble Winning 7-time premier league winning captain. Many sides didn’t understand 15 years ago the importance of having a link man between defence and attack. Just wanted 20 goals from midfield. Too many lazy pundits in football nowadays

@dp04

2 жыл бұрын

right on lad. Hopefully carrick can stay at utd as a midfield coach cause if utd have half the player of carrick, they will have a solid midfield

@CampNou1999

2 жыл бұрын

You mean England was behind its time rather. Plenty of sides on the continent saw the importance of "a Carrick" in his time.

@markgreen5153

2 жыл бұрын

I think spurs saw it as well

@kevinfofana6565

Жыл бұрын

You right

@rohitnair9022

10 ай бұрын

How can a football player be ahead of his time? I don't understand..

Pep said himself Carrick is one of the best holding midfielders he’s watched play. Shows how underrated and overlooked he was.

@rauoool80s23

Ай бұрын

If Glen Hoddle was still the England manager I'm sure he would've picked Carrick ahead of one of the others in every match.

Gareth Barry starting over Michael Carrick for England was an absolute disgrace.

@andyking7621

Жыл бұрын

Anyone ahead of him was wrong. Essential position

@sacred1827

Жыл бұрын

@@andyking7621 Parker too. Euro 2012 England went out with Parker as the DM

@ankurbagai1056

Ай бұрын

The fact that Gareth Barry have 54 caps to Michael's 34 is Criminal. They mentioned Parker, Barry, Cole, Hargreaves and few other... none were better than Carrick. For the formation, an easy 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 would've worked. IMO, the reason England never worked was it's over realiance on Gerrard and Lampard, great players but Club Rivalary never let them play. It should've been Scholes, Carrick and Gerrard or Lampard depending on upon the opposition.

The English game had no appreciation for the importance of a player like Carrick. Between 2008 - 2013, he was playing Premier League and Champions league week in, week out. He started 3 CL finals!!! There was no manager brave enough to drop either Lampard or Gerrard. And even when Lampard/Gerrard started to fade, the press just started overhyping young unproven players like Wilshere. Carrick deserved better.

@dp04

2 жыл бұрын

I was suprised he wasnt selected in 2012 or 2014. He was utds best player from 2011-15, and arguably the best player in the prem in 12/13 after bale

@kairex4670

2 жыл бұрын

IMO the manager is just afraid to play 3 in midfield

@mojebi3804

2 жыл бұрын

Don't need to drop Gerrard or Lampard. Gerrard Carrick Lampard there you go. Mid 3. Carrick holding, Gerrard and Lampard box to box.

@archimedesscrew3710

Жыл бұрын

Spurs should never have sold him.

@pendafen7405

Жыл бұрын

In fairness, in their twilight years for internationals Lamps & Stevie trained Jordan Henderson (now, one of the only remaining players from the early 2010s squad) to be an England Skipper, like parents and mentors. And now Hendo in his turn has passed on their knowledge and pedigree to the current team, seniors & juniors alike. So it's hard to completely begrudge their lingering-on in the national squad.

He was starting for the best team in England at the time but was perceived not good enough for England… and people wonder why England always fail.

In Fergie's last season and Scholes retired before that season, Carrick was United's 2nd best player only behind Van Persie. You could argue that team wouldn't have been in the top-4 without Carrick because the next season, Moyes didn't know how to use Carrick & played Fellaini instead and the team finished 7th.

@mikeaprice09

2 жыл бұрын

Carrick was our player of the season in 12/13 for me. Don't get me wrong, sensational first season from RVP, but there was a spell after an injury where he couldn't score or influence a game.

@thrilla72

2 жыл бұрын

No Scholes retired when Fergie did. He played in his last season and I suspect it was a factor in Moyes' struggles at Man Utd.

@SW-fn7cl

2 жыл бұрын

Yeahvi thought Carrick was actually our best player gave the whole team composure

@andrewelliott5154

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I've always thought that... Jonny Evans also had a great season

@habilhussain3387

Жыл бұрын

@@thrilla72 lol scholes had a career break before the season he retired bro, that’s what he meant.

One of my favourite football quotes: "Scholes and Carrick together was peaceful. It was like going into a bar and hearing a piano playing. It’s relaxing. Listening to some good rock is good and you like that too but sometimes it’s nice to listen to a piano. Carrick’s a piano." Gary Neville

@callumalston5755

Жыл бұрын

If you actually consider that Utd side they had two cb’s (ferdinand and Vidic), two mids (Carrick and Scholes) and a three forward players (Rooney , Tevez and Ronaldo) who completely complimented each other

Carrick was a Players Player. He did all the work that others didn't, breaking up play, starting the move by giving the ball to the creative players. Under-appreciated by England bosses.

@WizzyImz

2 жыл бұрын

His actual technical ability was also very underrated but that was because he never needed to show it and let others do it instead. But he had a very good shot on him, was good at getting past players and his long passing was amazing as well. But he was a great lad and chose to do the defensive work to let the star players in front of him do the rest

Michael Carrick was any strikers dream to play with.

@jamesinhenley

Жыл бұрын

Why ? He didn’t really pass to strikers as much as many others in the team

He’s the type of player that would have been regarded as world class in a German , Spanish or Italian team but for some reason these players get overlooked here. Hindsight is 20/20 but I think a move abroad would have got him more caps because he would have shined more in leagues where that sort of player is appreciated.

@JamesWilson-xh9zt

2 жыл бұрын

Is he better than Scholes Lampard or Gerrard? No

@libademarquoyah6859

Жыл бұрын

@@JamesWilson-xh9zt he’s a completely different player to those you mentioned only scholes is close as he played deeper than Gerrard and Lampard for the majority of his career

@JamesWilson-xh9zt

Жыл бұрын

@@libademarquoyah6859 Scholes only started playing deeper when his legs went same as Stevie

A not needed debate. He was good enough to have earned way more

@r4h4al

2 жыл бұрын

Disagree.

@jamiejosh96

2 жыл бұрын

Same with scholes

@r4h4al

2 жыл бұрын

@@jamiejosh96 Oh Scholes was good enough to have 125+ caps. Players shouldn't have the choice to retire from international duty they should keep playing until the England manager doesn't want them anymore.

@jamiejosh96

2 жыл бұрын

@@r4h4al scholes was the best out of gerrard, lampard. But never got appreciated and wasn’t played…. Don’t blame him

@coachhbosoccer

2 жыл бұрын

@@r4h4al he was the starting midfielder for years in a ManU winning squad🤷🏾‍♂️

He was so calm and relaxed when playing, at least that's how he made it look. A wonderful player to watch never panicked on the ball.

@Mhh90

2 жыл бұрын

More like really slow. Poor ball control.

Simple Question; What Did we ACTUALLY win playing Lampard, Barry, Gerard, Hargreaves in the middle?

Turned this off as soon as I Hear Micah mention Gareth Barry in the same sentence

Carrick was phenomenal in the 2012/2013 season alongside Van Persie and Raphael. Such a great footballer to watch. Utd's midfield nowadays would cry out for him

@icemanire5467

2 жыл бұрын

He couldn't lace Roy Keane's boots.

@paulgiggs99

2 жыл бұрын

@@icemanire5467 hyperbole. I agree Keane was on another level but your deliberate over-exaggeration is beneath me and you

@vin8754

2 жыл бұрын

@@icemanire5467 yes, he could and i am an irish united supporter. Carrick is very much on Keanes level

Could have had Scholes, Hargreaves, and Carrick at one stage. An actual functioning midfield that won the PL and UCL. Unfortunately the managers didn't rate Carrick highly enough, and Scholes was too stubborn to come out of his early retirement.

@choiceda5920

2 жыл бұрын

If either Lampard or Gerrard played for United during that period Sir Alex would’ve never played that midfield. The Spain team made having Xavi, Xabi Alonso & Busquettes work, even though Alonso either played where Xavi or Busquettes plays. A good manager adapts.

@joshzulu8444

Жыл бұрын

@@choiceda5920 "If either Lampard or Gerrard played for United during that period Sir Alex would’ve never played that midfield." If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike.

@shahzadirani

9 ай бұрын

Yep, people think Sir Alex was just about the 4-4-2 but he was far ahead of his time in the 1980s, in the 1990s, and in the 2000s: 1. midfield 3 of Scholes/Carrick/Hargreaves 2. Ball playing CB in Stam (1999) and Rio (2008) and a goalkeeper to compliment a high-line (Schmeichel or Van Der Sar). 3. CM dropping in between the two central defenders when building out from the back.

The crazy thing is, you could easily have played a 3 man midfield of Carrick in the holding role (that he played for United), Gerrard or Hargreaves as the "legs" in midfield to run, press, and ping the ball around, and Lampard or Scholes closer to goal. But no, it was 4-4-2 or nothing. Such a waste.

@mojebi3804

2 жыл бұрын

especially when they never even had a LM for 442

@johnhoney657

Жыл бұрын

Ok so if you have a midfield three of Scholes-Carrick-Gerrard, who plays on left wing? If you instead play wing backs, who do you play right wing back?

@mumandubula1788

Жыл бұрын

The 442 could still work but if would be different in and out of possession, or it could be played in a diamond, with a Lcm instead of a Lm, with width provided by the Lb.

Carrick and Scholes are the best English central midfield partnership of all time and I will die on this hill. Gerrard and Lampard should've been warming the bench in the mid 2000s.

@EchosBeat

2 жыл бұрын

Imagine watching two players win absolutely everything playing next to each other and saying nah let’s go for these too so the media is happy 😂.

Where are the MOTD videos to these episodes located? I've been searching all over.

Carrick would be a goldmine in today’s game

The closest thing to Busquets the country has had, a proper anchor player who could dictate. Lampard, Gerrard, Barry and Milner couldn't control a game to save their life, all of who got picked over him.

YES!!!! And James Milner should of played far more as well. Problem with England’s midfield for a long time Wasnt can they players play together or not it was the system. England played 4-4-2 for 50 years.

Carrick should’ve played especially that period when they kept playing Barry and Parker instead of him

The closest we've ever had to Xabi Alonso and we overlooked him.

Carrick behind gerrard and lampard was just so obvious, and yet…

Always remember that plank Hodgson having Scott Parker as his holder against Italy in Euro 2012 while Carrick sat at home with his Premier League and CL medals. Only in England...

Carick was huge, when we came in 2007 United was still rebuilding, he was the glue to all that. After that United won 1 UCL, 5 EPL after missing 1 on 1 point and the other one on goal difference, and after facing one of the best team in history in Barcelona. With prime Carick in midflield to play alongside Bruno and Casemiro United would have at least 9 more points on the table.

Clearly playing Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes in the same team was always going to be tricky, especially in a 4-4-2. It worked quite well for a few games at Euro 2004 but it was never the best approach.

@r4h4al

2 жыл бұрын

But how else could you have fitted in all of those players? They all had to play really and at least one player had to play out of position to be fair to Sven.

@TheGregcellent

2 жыл бұрын

@@r4h4al 4-3-3 with Scholes slightly more advanced of Gerrard and Lampard with Beckham playing more advanced on the right wing

@r4h4al

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheGregcellent But Beckham would have been out of position as wing forward which would have been even worse and caused even more outrage. Do you see the problem Sven had?

@TheGregcellent

2 жыл бұрын

@@r4h4al he played that role when him and Darren Anderton swapped in 98

@r4h4al

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheGregcellent True.

thank you gary, for saying that. every big football country is very critical

Marcello Talkative alternated Del Piero and Totti, and won the World Cup with them. Sven could have and should have alternated Lampard and Gerrard.

@DR-uq4hn

2 жыл бұрын

Actually Lippi didn’t put Totti & Del Piero together at all in that WC 2006. It was always Francesco to start with then took him off for Alessandro in. & as for EnglandI just think they had the players to go 3-5-2 formation with Campbell, Terry & Rio at the back. Ashley & Becks on the sides. Gerrard & Lampard in the middle with Hargreaves to anchor the midfield. Rooney & Owen at the front. But the English players never adoptable & can’t play rather then boring easy 4-4-2 flat outdated formation 🤷🏻‍♂️ FACT

@Revelian1982

2 жыл бұрын

@@DR-uq4hn They can now, but you're right that they played for England in the same positions they did for their clubs. England could have won the World Cup in 2006. What a team we had! Ronaldo ruined our chances.

@DR-uq4hn

2 жыл бұрын

@@Revelian1982 I disagree mate. That Argentina side with Román Riquelme running the midfielder was definitely the right balanced team mixed with top players whom reached their peak in Ayala, Crespo, Heinze, the keeper & Riquelme himself with youths talents in Tevez, Mascherano & teenage Messi ready to win that World Cup if only wasn’t for the fatal substitute mistake the coach did against the host Germany when he took of player of the tournament in Román.

@Revelian1982

2 жыл бұрын

@@DR-uq4hn Yeah, I remember that match and that team. Maybe you're right. Would have been a hell of a final, though..

@DR-uq4hn

2 жыл бұрын

@@Revelian1982 oh mate that would have rivalled the 86 quarterfinal fixture for sure. Just thinking about it it’s mind blowing 🤯

The two first choice central midfielders for Man United from 2006 - 2009 were Paul Scholes and Michael Carrick. United won Three League titles in a row the European cup the league cup and the club world cup. England should of set up with Carrick and Gerrard as the two center mids and Lampard as the link man between Attack and Midfield.

Full version

It's not about Brazilian press being critical, it's about all their players not being in the country to read it. Even Barcelona has a separate press to Spain. Whereas our players live in the same country as the press that gives them hell.

@charlieparkeris

2 жыл бұрын

The Brazilian press are supposed to be absolutely brutal, they expect to win the world cup every time and when they don't I've heard the team and players get crucified.

@footballoldboy4818

2 жыл бұрын

@@charlieparkeris how many of their important players live in Brazil?

@charlieparkeris

2 жыл бұрын

@@footballoldboy4818 Well, during the 2014 world cup, 100% of them lived in Brazil.

If Carrick is Spanish, trust me, he will get more play time for Spain squad even though during that time Spain full of mad talent in mid like: prime Xavi, Xabi, Iniesta, Silva, Busi, Cesc, Santi.

Michael Carrick was one of those player who will give you 8 or 9 every game he plays in, will do everything a manager expects of him, and but never wants the limelight. It just how Pep described, "If you watch Barca, you won't see Busquets. If you see Busquets, you'll see the game." Michael Carrick was that player. If he was in today's era, he would have been a Captain at Manchester, Captain at England, and easily would've been talked in same debate as Rodri, Busquets and Casemiro.

Always amusing that absolutely nobody was saying this in that period.

@007Fusiion

2 жыл бұрын

I was. I would have played him Gerrard and Lampard. But I also think Carrick could have become more by getting more goals and assists.

@koncorde

2 жыл бұрын

@@007Fusiion Same here. I rated Carrick above Lampard when he first came onto the scene for West Ham and went out on loan. He was much more composed, more mobile, fit, super accurate, so smart - and he could shoot as well. Over the next few seasons though Carrick very much drifted into the holding midfielder role for Cole, while Lampard just went from strength to strength for Chelsea over the next few years. Still, I thought Carrick could have done more. He didn't shoot when he could. He really didn't push his passes or thread throughballs like Scholes, wasn't as all-action as Gerrard, and didn't score like Lampard - but probably would have complemented any of them better than they ever played together.

@NotJoeBurrows

2 жыл бұрын

I was

@sayan7912

2 жыл бұрын

@@koncorde lol. He was nowhere near lamps

@koncorde

2 жыл бұрын

@@sayan7912 As someone who watched them all come through youth team, into first team, and then move on: Lampard at West Ham was a shadow of the player he became. Carrick started with so much more natural talent than Lampard but seemed willing to play the water carrier. Lampard in contrast worked hard to become the goalscoring midfielder he did. Carrick remained very grounded. Lampard became very much a victim of the "Hollywood Ball" school of English midfielders between 2006 and their (Beckham and Gerrard) eventual retirements.

I do believe FIFA should look into the malpractice of Carrick not being CDM for England. Who even comes close? It is either francise malpractice or corruption. Carrick was class. Was our best player in our last title run. Thankyou Carrick.

Always said he was hugely underrated

I like these chats

i love this show to be honest, just found out about it today

45 mins against Ecuador in the World Cup 2006 and that’s all he got in a major tournament. Consolation is at least he played in a major tournament.

Most underrated England midfielder ever to play Man UTD -

Only when he's gone than we appreciate him.. SAF was brilliant to buy him from.west ham

Lineker was the ony success abroad put of these 3. Far greater player with much more experience and knowledge

@ProJeevez

2 жыл бұрын

2. Alan never went abroad

The problem with Carrick is he was necessary for an England side that couldn’t cope with the egos that dominated at the time. Everyone was saying you need to play “Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes” when Scholes was a controller (like Bernardo Silva), Lampard was a midfield goal scorer (like Kaka), and Gerrard was an all rounder. How do you balance a team like that? You can’t. It required you to drop one of them which would’ve been impossible at her time but a proper manager would have dealt with it and made the his own system that complimented one or the other.

It's a valid question, how do you bench them? The answer is probably leadership, that is how. It surely is going to be one tough dressing room but the choice was more obvious than it was easy. Hargreaves was out due to his injuries by 2007 so there was only one capable deep lying, screening midfielder left. And to get the most out of the other three, Lampard, Scholes and Gerrard, you needed one of those. They had Xabi Aloso, Makelele and Keane / Carrick at their respective clubs for screens and that was half of why they were so good. And yes, that would have meant somehow making Scholes stay on which again would have required man management and an intact dressing room, so again leadership. And a more ceremonious role for Becks thrown in for good measure - I know. But that would have given Englang a much better shot at at least one big title; that is of course just me thinking that. But there was objectively little need for great crosses with Owen and Rooney up front - so yeah, call the big shots and be Title winning England Manager or let the tabloids do your job and get somewhat close but - no cigar.

Is this even up for debate? The FA kept hiring managers who never struck balance with the English squads, constantly squeezing square pegs into round holes. Carrick should’ve easily gotten double the number of caps he has, he could’ve been the anchor for England’s midfield for a long time, absolutely world class, dynamic, football IQ off the charts

England should have had a double pivot with carrick and gerrard being able to go forward and have lamps as no10 (post scholes era)

I like it when the answer the question within 10 seconds. No need to listen to the rest.

Carrick would have gave more balance in the midfield , if England managers at those times had the balls and knowledge to put lampard on the bench and start with gerrard and Carrick

Gary lineker is a princess

Once Hargreaves had his injuries he should have been the main man in there

@NeilLewis77

2 жыл бұрын

Ahead of Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard? Nope.

@jonjonesongasstationdickpi6179

2 жыл бұрын

@@NeilLewis77 you've just shown your lack of knowledge with that comment, you need a Hargreaves in your midfield for the others to do there thing

@fred3831

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonjonesongasstationdickpi6179 I believe he is referring to carrick not Hargreaves’s

@JeDikkeMof

2 жыл бұрын

@@NeilLewis77 Scholes retired from the national team in 2004, when Carrick was 23 years old. I think that England should have gone for Carrick behind Lampard and Gerrard in the 2006-2012 period. I genuinely believe Gerrard and Lampard would've been great together with a holding midfielder like Carrick behind them

@NeilLewis77

2 жыл бұрын

@@JeDikkeMof ye people keep saying that. Everyone who wants to include Carrick also want to change the formation as well. Which would mean changing the manager too as Sven, mcclaren, cappello and hodgeson never played 3 man midfields back then. So then we are also going back and taking caps off the forwards to give to Carrick. Should Carrick have been played ahead of Rooney? Let's face it, it's easy to look back and want to change history but Carrick wasn't good enough to get ahead of our other better midfielders.

I think both Alan and Garry posted their England XI's at the time of these tournaments and didn't include him so. Weird

The best option for England was a 433 or a 4141. An extra midfielder. The insistence of playing with 2 strikers was insane. Midfield 3: Gerrard lampard and scholes/Carrick/Hargreaves in front of defence. Easy. Joe Cole on the left and Beckham on the right. Or whoever came after becks.

Let's see. So at the time when united won the double they were playing a central midfield of English players. Tells you all you need to know about England managers at the time.

@EchosBeat

2 жыл бұрын

Could have taken them all and played them in the English mid. Copy and paste. Better to have players who gel and are proven winners that season 😂

@breakdown461

2 жыл бұрын

@@EchosBeat You need to have balls of steel to do that. We all know what Sven used them for.

That generation of football was failed by the tactics that were used with the team. There was so much that could have been done if they just didnt use a 442

aye he should have got more but 34 clearly is ok

Should have played whenever he was fit. An unbelievable player that would have allowed Gerard and lampard actually play how they should play

If he was slotted at the base of the midfield consistently during that golden generation instead of shoehorning gerrard scholes and lampard into the same team I have no doubts we would have had a much better chance and winning something

That Midfield was so unbalanced and we had the perfect player in Carrick never getting a look in. Awful management

Scholes 1st Gerrard Carrick Lampard next (no particular order)

We should have been playing a midfield of Carrick, Gerrard and Lampard on regular basis

Carrick, Cole, Lampard, Ferdinand, Defoe and we flogged the lot

Stg if anybody brings up busquets, that guy had xavi and iniesta pulling the strings. Id prefer xabi alonso ahead o that twerp

Should Carrick have played more games for England, is like saying should have Cole, Fowler, Wright etc have got more caps… the simple fact is Shearer got the chances… and ultimately scored the goals… albeit 2 years before Euro 96 without a goal… Carrick was just in a squad that had other top players, but probably should have been utilised better…

Micah’s laugh is amazing

Defo should’ve played more tbf

If Carrick stayed at Tottenham he may have got more caps because he was the main creator. Everything went through him. Utd had other, flashier individuals who could create so Carrick became more of a continuity player.

Its like spain or guardiola not playing busquets. Its unbelievable to even think about.

Owen Hargreaves as well

Sometimes it feels as if Sven wasn't actually a football manager. To look at his work with England in isolation, you wouldn't think so.

They played scott parker in front of him they had no clue how football is played he was the best holding midfielder in england for a decade but they wanted to play barry and parker.

Carrick wasn’t competing against Scholes for a place in the England team cos Scholes retired in 2004. England should’ve played with 3 in midfield and Carrick should’ve started in the no.6. Gerrard and Lampard could’ve played in front. Ideally England would’ve had Scholes and Carrick in their pomp with Gerrard or Lampard in front.

Two of the best midfielders were in their prime. It was impossible.

If only England had a good tactical manager imagine a 4-4-2 diamond with carrick at the base gerrard and scholes each side and Lampard as a 10 we would’ve won it all

Arguably, it should have been Carrick at the base of midfield and only two out of Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard in front of him.

Should of been Scholes Carrick and Gerrard there in midfield! Scholes holding with Carrick and both swapping around with Gerrard pushing forward . Lampard shouldn’t of been in the picture at all. He scored a lot of goals but that’s all he did and we had strikers to do that

These guys are funny 😆 😂

Marcelo Brozović would be a perfect replacement for Carrick i think

@Baldii99

2 жыл бұрын

Aye for England so he would you absolute neep

The REAL “question” is that Matt Le Tissie should have played ore games for England! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Everyone disagreeing in the comments obviously do not have a fundamental understanding of football

Ha not the most mobile? Maybe not sprint speed. But he out ran park ji sung in training.

Don't forget the number of niggling injuries he had during his career, but I agree should have had many more caps.

Shouldve played gerrard in behind rooney. Then scholes, lampard and carrick in midfield, then im irish so im glad they didnt

he was just in the wrong era I mean Scholes, Gerrard, Lampard, Beckham, Cole, Hargreaves

Why is Micah's opinion so highly valued? I've never understood why he's even on this show.

@dozecrude

2 жыл бұрын

@@lat5163 are you trying to say he’s there because he’s black?

@onderozcan6045

2 жыл бұрын

I think the answer from the user called That'sAllright is NOT right at all. It's just a shame that some people suggest that he is on the show because of some sort of a diversity quota.

@r4h4al

2 жыл бұрын

He's an excellent football pundit.

@r4h4al

2 жыл бұрын

@John Kavanagh He does seem to be on everything though, this, MOTD, Sky, Football focus, Soccer aid, R5L Monday night club. Tbf other pundits should get a chance.

@WizzyImz

2 жыл бұрын

@@r4h4al other pundits deserve a chance but companies dont care about that. They care about getting viewers in and micah richards clearly does that so theyre going to continue doing that. Theres probably hundreds of pundits out there who can provide a better understanding of tactics and coaching than most of the pundits we see on tv but theyre not as entertaining as seeing keane argue with someone or micah richards laughing his head off at everything so theyll never get a look in

Carrick was levels but Busquets is an all time DMF…can’t be putting them in the same sentence

I don't buy the 'you can't bench all these other world class midfielders argument'. During Spain's successful period, they used the likes of Fabregas, Xabi Alonso and David Silva as bit part players, largely to accommodate a system with which other players happened to be more familiar (namely the Barcelona trio of Iniesta, Xavi and Busquets). The team and the system should always have come before the names on the starting XI.

@safebans1369

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed but benching Fabregas for Xavi and Lampard for Carrick are two very different things

@josephmathabela

2 жыл бұрын

@@safebans1369 missing the point entirely; if benching Lampard means you have a team playing in a coherent system, then so be it. England haven't had a footballing identity for a while, that's the issue. So successive managers fielded players like they were on FIFA, picking people with the highest ratings.

@revenone1077

2 жыл бұрын

Fabregas 110 caps. Xabi Alonso 114 caps. David Silva 125 caps. Bit part players lol. Alonso was never a doubt for Spain, Iniesta and Silva always played on the wings.

@josephmathabela

2 жыл бұрын

@@revenone1077 I specifically said during their most successful period, so jog on bud. You are not going to find a comment section argument here.

@revenone1077

2 жыл бұрын

@@josephmathabela Alonso played in the middle in every final for Spain! Fabregas started 2008 Euro and 2010 World Cup too! There is no argument because you are 100% wrong.

I don't get the arguement of why you can't drop Lampard or Gerrard. You play both there's no blance in the team. Spain had to drop Cesc Fabregas, so they can play Alonso, Busquets or Marcos Senna. Scott Parker and Gareth Barry over Michael Carrick is a joke too..

First name on the team sheet Carrick .... Now who are the other 10 going to be. ?

Hindsight…what’s the point of the question!?

@The_Iron_Pilgrim

2 жыл бұрын

It’s like saying “why wasn’t Harry Redknapp manager”…who gives a shit, it didn’t happen…

Because England managers had no balls!! Plain and simple. Managers just tried to fit all their star players into the team rather than a system that's good for the balance of the team. United had Scholes and Carrick... Liverpool had Gerrard and Alonso or Hamann... Chelsea had Lampard and Essien or Makelele. England would've had ALOT more success if they played Carrick and Scholes in midfield, they play week in week out together, too bad Scholes retired from international football early. But England definitely needed a more defensive player in that midfield rather than Lampard and Gerrard together.

@vlnakajr2346

2 жыл бұрын

England's issue wasn't that they never played a DM. Their issue was the rigid 4-4-2 system. They always played a DM, even when they played Gerrard-Lampard together in the middle Gerrard played the DM role. Other times they would play a Hargreaves/Barry/Carrick/Parker/even Ledley King next to Lampard with Gerrard coming from the LM or RM. If they had a manager ahead of their time who would just play Gerrard and Lampard in a 3 man midfield, it would easily work. Even Scholes would have been able to play the DM role in a 3 behind as a playmaker type. Instead they always chose to play 4-4-2.

@den_525

2 жыл бұрын

@@vlnakajr2346 442 was normal for that time, Barca was probably the only team around that time that played 433. Every English team played 442... Gerrard never played DM. neither Lampard or Gerrard had any discipline, that was the problem, they both wanted to go forward leaving team exposed, neither players can control the midfield, as great as they were, they were the controlling midfield type of players unlike their club team mates, Alonso, Hamann, Makelele, Essien, ballack. England would've done alot better if Hargreaves or Carrick regularly started for England, not just in qualifiers. And never given the chance in big tournaments. Liverpool/United won champions league playing 442... there was nothing wrong with that at the time, it was the players... if you think Scholes can play CDM how wrong lol or Gerrard or Lampard... they were run over in midfield by below average teams at world cups... not because of the system but the combination of players. Brazil won the 2002 world cup playing a 3412 formation... Italy won the 2006 world cup with a 442 formation. Spain won the 2010 world cup playing a 4231 formation. In UCL... 2002 RM 442 2003 Milan 442 2004 Porto 442 2005 Liverpool 442 2006 Barca 433 2007 Milan 442 2008 ManUtd 442 2009 Barca 433 2010 Inter 433 2011 Barca 433 2012 Chelsea 442 2013 Bayern 442 Formation is what the players were comfortable with and what the manager were comfortable with... Plenty of teams won massive trophies as shown playing 442, so the formation at that time with England's "golden" generation wasn't the problem, England should've played another formation that suited fitting both Gerrard and Lampard (or Scholes) into the team... But they also had Owen and Rooney who were strikers... Beckham who was a old school RM not a winger. As I said, England managers didn't have the balls to drop big players like Lampard, Beckham, Gerrard, Owen or Rooney for the good of the team and balance of a team that can win... they played a formation they were all familiar with rather than a formation and players that would win them trophies. PSG will NEVER win the UCL with Neymar, Mbappe and Messi... that's a fact. But which manager will have the balls to drop one of them? or 2? so they play in a more balanced team? That's why galaticos never really worked. It's so easy to say, if only manager were "ahead of time" duh!! If only United knew ahead of time to get Pep or Klopp they wouldn't suck so much right now... if only they got a manager that plays high possession high press football.

@vlnakajr2346

2 жыл бұрын

@@den_525 I have every England match from the 2000s. Gerrard played DM or the defensive role of the two CM's a bunch of times. Especially in Euro 2004 Gerrard was essentially the DM in 3 of the 4 England matches. Their 4-4-2 in fact resembled more of a diamond formation in that period with Stevie at the base, Lampard in the hole, Scholes and Beckham narrow left and right.

@den_525

2 жыл бұрын

@@vlnakajr2346 Yes, and he was absolute dog shit in that role. So point still stands, England needed a more balance team and not playing Gerrard is DM.

@vlnakajr2346

2 жыл бұрын

@@den_525 did you actually those matches or are you talking out of your ass? Gerrard was a top 3 player for England at Euro 2004 (alongside Rooney and Lampard) playing as a DM. All 3 were standouts. England were literally winning 1-0 against Portugal in the QF when they subbed out Gerrard in 82 minute and conceded literally seconds after he wasn't on the pitch and they went on to lose. A lot of people only remember moments and specific highlights/lowlights like Gerrard's backpass to Henry and think he was poor that tournament. In reality he was brilliant. Your point does not stand at all. You are regurgitating boring rhetoric and commentary you've heard about why those English sides failed. I've literally just rewatched all of Englands Euro 2004 matches this summer in preparation for Euro 2020 and England were very very good in that tournament. They were so unlucky against Portugal. Had a clear goal incorrectly disallowed and if they don't sub Gerrard late in the game they probably don't concede. He was so good for them in that DM role that match. Most teams that win international competitions usually get a little bit of luck go their way and that England sides never did.

England have a gift out of not making great teams when they can choose from great players.

He played for England 35 times that’s tons

Similar situation for Jordan Henderson atm, though at least he's got more than sixty caps and he did get to be Skipper for a few years. Still, underrated and not given due respect or field-time from the manager, all because he's not defensive and he plays for Liverpool.

Didn’t know my name 😂😂😂

Here was a rock in midfield. Carrick means rock in Irish. There. Now you know.

Carrick really peaked at the tail end of his career and was not really given much attention by outsiders whilst at Spurs. England still wouldn't have won anything though. Overhyped and under pressure. Best chance was 2004, but Carrick was in the first division that season, and really, imagine replacing Gerrard, Lampard, or Scholes. The media would have gone ape.

Carrick should have had 100 caps. endless halfwhit managers trying to crowbar Gerrard and Lampard together, when the answer was right under their noses.

No