Michael Carrick demonstrates why he could be crucial to England’s World Cup hopes
It’s difficult to make the case for Michael Carrick being in the England side without coming across as a pretentious, know-it-all bore. Comments like “He does the quiet things well”, “He keeps things simple”, and “He brings the best out of his team-mates” are all classic ‘underrated player’ arguments. But like it or not, they’re all true in Carrick’s case, so it’s pretentious, know-it all bore time.
Carrick is not the most spectacular footballer England have, and if England had a dedicated ‘ball-winner’ in the form of a Claude Makelele or even a Nigel de Jong, there might not be a case for Carrick’s inclusion. But England only have one really top-notch holding midfielder (placing Carrick to one side), and that man is Owen Hargreaves. Hargreaves would be a regular if he was anywhere near fit, but he simply isn’t going to make the squad.
Amidst the fact that England currently have a left-back crisis, a captain who can’t play consecutive games, a right-back who hasn’t played right-back all season, a lack of goalscorers and a mock headless chicken on the right-hand side, it seems to have been forgotten that perhaps England’s most pressing problem is a complete lack of anyone to play the holding midfield role. The aforementioned problems can all be realistically solved in three months’ time with a good run of form from certain players, but unless Hargreaves makes a miraculous recovery, the issue of a lack of a deep-lying midfielder will not go away.
In qualification, this role was filled by Gareth Barry – by all accounts, a very good footballer who deserves his place in the England side. But the difference between playing the sides England faced in qualification (Andorra, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and a surprisingly poor Croatia side) and the sides England will play at the World Cup, is that the role requires completely different characteristics. Against those lesser sides, perhaps 80% of the role involves passing ability, only 20% concerns defensive duties. When England play sides that can actually pass the ball, as they did tonight, then they will suffer if they continue to rely on Barry as the deepest midfield player, because they won’t be good enough defensively. The role shifts to roughly 50-50. Indeed, in the first half tonight, England had less than 50% of possession. Gareth Barry is not – and has never been – a ‘defensive’ midfielder. Even when he plays deep, he is primarily a passer. For Manchester City this season he has played alongside at least one, sometimes two, holding midfielders who do the dirty work whilst he plays slightly more offensively.
Of course, this is pretty much the same description of Michael Carrick. Play Carrick in a midfield alongside Steven Gerrard, Frank Lampard and Theo Walcott and you’ll be faced with the exact same problem when you don’t have the ball. And that’s why there is surely a need to play both Barry and Carrick together in the centre of midfield. Carrick is not a tough tackler, but he is excellent positionally. It’s no coincidence that as soon as Carrick replaced Lampard, Barry had the freedom to storm forward – and got into the box to pass for Crouch for England’s opening goal, in a superb move that was started from a Carrick forward pass. If England don’t have a midfield general who can play the holding role alone, there is the need to compensate for this by playing an extra midfielder in that zone.
If this means a switch to a 4-3-3, with Lampard at the head of the midfield triangle, Gerrard in a wide forward role, and Rooney upfront alone (with one other player on the right), then so be it. Frankly, this would bring the best out of Lampard (who clearly favours this role) and Rooney (who has proved at the Emirates and at the San Siro that he is superb as a lone striker against top opposition). Gerrard would be out of position, but no more so than in the narrow left-sided role he currently plays in, and he would be closer to Rooney, who he links up with very well. The right-sided role is up for grabs – Aaron Lennon looks favourite. With Lennon and Gerrard defensively poor, you’d rather play them wide in a 4-3-3 than wide in a 4-4-2, considering you’d have an extra deep midfielder. Another deep midfielder would also give Ashley Cole and Glen Johnson slightly more license to get forward, which is where both are at their best.
In fact, all signs seem to point to a 4-3-3 for England in the summer, but whether Capello will switch a shape so successful in qualifying remains doubtful. The “Don’t change a winning system” brigade will point to Heskey’s role in qualifying as proof that England need a ‘big man’ upfront, but Capello’s use of Jermain Defoe surely indicates he is thinking beyond what worked well against minnows in qualification.
It is doubtful any other ‘contender’ for the World Cup will line up with only two central midfielders. That is not to say you can’t be successful with only two, but they need to function better than the Barry-Lampard combination did yesterday. England’s best players in 2002 and 2006 were ’surprise’ holding midfielders – Nicky Butt and Owen Hargreaves. Don’t be surprised if Michael Carrick continues the trend this summer.
Michael Carrick demonstrates why he could be crucial to England’s World Cup hopes
I think tonight was Defoe’s last chance to impress Capello. He failed, mainly because the team was not set up to make chances for him like the Spurs team is. He’ll go to South Africa but there’s no chance he’ll start.
I remember reading somewhere that Ferguson brought Carrick and Hargreaves to United at roughly the same time because he wanted to replicate the Pirlo/Gattuso axis from the Milan and Italy teams. Carrick is definitely England’s most accomplished deep-lying central midfielder but I get the impression that if he wants to get into Capello’s starting XI it will be at the expense of Barry and no-one else. Shifting to 4-3-3 just three months from the tournament would be far too radical and I can’t see Lampard getting dropped.
I agree about Defoe. Not clever enough for international level. He’ll go, but even then I can’t actually imagine Capello turning to him to get a goal. Was shocked he started tonight.
I don’t see such a radical change of shape happening over the next couple of months. What might possibly happen is Rooney playing up top in a 4-2-3-1 with Gerrard-Lampard-Lennon behind. Of course, Capello has come out and said he wants a big man/small man combo up front (making Defoe’s selection tonight even more baffling) so even that is unlikely. Crouch might well be on his way to a starting spot.
If Lennon is still unfit by squad selection time I’d like to see Milner played from the start against Mexico and Japan. His lack of pace will hopefully be compensated by the return of Johnson, much as Gerrard’s tendency to drift in is covered by Cole’s propensity to bomb forward on the left. We’d still have the option of a one-dimensional speed merchant such as Wright-Phillips or Walcott to punish tired defenders, but I think Milner’s invention and work rate will be more valuable against quality opposition. Then Carrick and Barry as the two deep midfielders, unless Lampard’s form picks up.
Hi, I missed the match but really good analysis.
If England did switch to a 4-3-3 this match, I think it was because Egypt was playing a three man defense. The 4-3-3 exploits its weakness on the wings and there is only one CF for three CBs to deal with. England will face Algeria at the world cup who play a 3 man defense too.
England didn’t actually go 4-3-3 this game, it was just a suggestion for future games. But the fact that Egypt effectively had an extra man in midfield meant they had more possession in the first half and really outplayed England.
If england plays three upfront against Algeria, the wingbacks of Algeria would defend the two forwards of England on either wings. So, it becomes a 3 vs 3 in the middle and england has enough quality to win.
I think Defoe was used with the intention to exploit the spaces left by Egypt’s 3 man defense(he is very good at making runs into the channel). But Egypt are always well organized and England don’t have a creative midfield so it didn’t work.
People are forgetting that at Man United, Rooney has good wingers who create chances for him when he plays as a lone forward. What wingers do England have ? England as a team play better with someone who holds up the ball with Rooney and Gerrard just behind. Individual performances are not so important.
Carrick works as a holding player if there is a mobile destroyer in front of him. Barry can play this role but it means dropping Lampard which won’t happen.
[...] Michael Carrick – England looked far better when Carrick slotted into centre-midfield. He used the ball well and is positionally excellent. A great article from the superb Zonal Marking goes into Carrick’s performance in more detail. [...]
There was a double cover rather than a holding player as such when Carrick came on. Barry was initially the deeper midfielder and his role was more functional because of Ashley Cole’s absence (i.e. covering for the space vacated by the left back).
Carrick’s intensity however is underrated. For United he pressures more higher than envisaged by many and he did the same against Egypt. Lamaprd was lax in that respect as all he did was hold his position and this allowed Egypt to build from the back and create triangles without much pressure.
Good point, Brain.
There is a mistaken notion that a holding midfielder has to be overtly destructive, but a considerable part of defending in midfield consists of occupying space, cutting off passing options or forcing an opponent to seek space elsewhere.
Interesting………but can England get away with a Lampard Carrick midfield ? A decent attacking midfielder would destroy them.
Or not?
As The Brain points out Barry has a huge advantage because he is left footed and has played as a left back so can cover when the left back goes forward and can play as a winger when Gerrard cuts inside. Lampard won’t get dropped so unless there is an injury I don’t see that partnership changing.
I’d like them to play Barry and Carrick. I think that gives the side a real solidity in midfield, brilliant distribution and allows Gerrard, Rooney and whoever plays on the right massive freedom as they know that base is there.
Carrick is a fine passer and a very under-rated player. I’m not sure Lampard gives the team the balance that Carrick would and Capello, with his selection of Heskey, shows that the team matters more than the personnel.
RCM
http://leftbackinthechangingroom.blogspot.com
I completely agree with this, I thought the Egypt match was the perfect opportunity to try out a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 formation. A more worthwhile experiment that the Rooney/Defoe partnership at least.
Lampard was awful in the first half, as he tends to be for England. He’s asked to perform a role that he’s just not good at. Playing Carrick and Barry would free him up to play his usual attacking role.
I am so happy to see an article highlighting Carrick. I find that people who do not watch Man United week in week out, like myself, do not give him the credit he deserves. I was at the game and I thought Carrick did brilliantly when he came on. Lamps was all over the place and made everyone else’s job much harder. He seemed to be getting in everyone’s way. I think that Carrick should be in the 11. Great article, great website.
I really wish Capello was brave enough to drop Lampard. He’s never performed well at an international level, because of both the system and what I perceive as a lack of commitment/motivation.
I agree with the point made by Pheteesh. Capello is trying to get the best out of Rooney with a forward alongside him, but at United he excels with wingers players to feed him with crosses. Dropping Lampard would allow Rooney to play solo up front, with Gerrard playing high and central behind him, and Milner and Lennon taking wide roles. Gerrard would be in his favoured position, and he has consistently demonstrated better link-up with Rooney than Lampard ever has. Milner always puts in the work for England, and he’s in form at the moment. Lennon, if fit, demonstrated early in the season an improved ability to feed crosses into the 6-yard box.
And of course with this structure high up the pitch, Barry and Carrick can be played together deeper in midfield. I feel a 4-2-3-1 set-up would bring out the best team performances.
———-Rooney————
-Milner—Gerrard—Lennon–
—–Barry——Carrick—–
Cole-Ferdinand-Terry-Johnson
————?—————
It’s a pity this World Cup comes too soon for Lee Cattermole. Now there’s a central midfielder who plays with the energy and tenacity that the others mentioned seem to lack (Hargreaves notwithstanding).
And as for Milner, surely he does his fair share of the holding work in tandem with Stilian Petrov.
Lamapard, like Gerrard, needs the freedom to make forward runs to be successful, and he benefits from playing in front of a devoted holding player.
England are not a finesse team. Egypt was technically superior in their build-up play. England will benefit from playing a striker with unique physical qualities whether they be Crouch, very tall and technical, or Heskey, big, strong, quick, physical, and selfless.
well why not consider d fletcher? i think he s d best in winnin balls as well as passin them…and rooney wud like fletcher in the team…considering quality teams like brazil and spain keeping posession wud be the key…
^^^ Fletcher is ineligible to play for England as he is Scottish.
Is Gerrard considered defensively poor? I have always thought of him as a hard worker and though tackler. Has he lost his energy over the past few seasons? Is he positionally poor?
Yeah he’s seen as being a bit positionally naive, when he plays central midfield, he goes wondering up the pitch when he should be keeping his position. He and Lampard never really played well together in the middle.
But when he plays as a winger he is above average interested in the defensive work compared to other wingers? He is not a lazy ass like Arshavin and Ronaldinho.
Yeah that’s fair. But in a four-man midfield he’s a little defensively naive. He’s been given the license to wander infield by Capello, but considering England play with two forwards and a ‘direct’ winger in Lennon/Walcott on the other side and two central midfielders who aren’t really defensive, England do need defensive solidarity from at least one wide position, I think.
Could there not be a simple straight swap of Lampard for Carrick and keep the 4-2-3-1 shape from the qualifiers just with a deeper-lying player more likely to hold position forming the other man in the 2. Will also help keeping hold of possession no end to have more depth in possession and a natural passer like Carrick who is happy being a bit more patient in build up rather than Lampard who is more direct.
The trouble with the 4-3-3 you talk of I think is that England’s real threat comes from runners coming from the midfield – Gerrard and Rooney in particular – and then the quick man down the right wing just offers some variety. That system relies on the wide men to make a lot of the play and while you say there is not much difference for Gerrard, the fact that he is pushed further up the pitch into a forward line rather than a midfield line makes him a lot easier to pick up and mark I feel and possibly makes linking with Rooney harder than easier.
Finally, Zamora up front as the link man is surely better than Crouch or Heskey. A better player at using technique to bring others into play and can play killer passes around the box which neither of the other two can – they just tempt us into playing a long ball game when we actually have world class attackers who don’t need to do that.
The calls for Zamora are clearly growing and whilst he’s certainly the best of the three – would it not be foolish to go for someone completely untested with these players? Heskey is only in because of the very fact that he links well with his teammates and brings the best out of them, so surely it would be silly to play someone else there?
On a side note, Carrick’s form since this article was originally published has been shocking…
Lol..I was just about to post the same thing.
Only catching this article now (Im new to the site, its brilliant by the way!) and his form since has been woeful.
Has your opinion changed?
I hope MC doesn’t go to the world cup. He’s had a terrible season at Man Utd; originally bought to be the successor to Scholes, the man who can make the team move with his passing from the centre circle, he seems to have completely lost confidence. Whenever he gets the ball, it goes a few yards sideways or backwards. He almost never plays an attacking pass, if he does it almost never finds its mark, and he hardly ever makes the kind of attacking runs that Scholes used to (and sometimes still does) make from midfield to get into scoring positions. If either Lampard or Gerrard aren’t fit, I’m much rather see Barry (indeed, almost anyone) else in that position.
I’ve been saying for quite a while that I’d go with the lineup you suggested in the article (albeit with a slightly different formation). I’d set it up as a 4-2-3-1, Carrick and Barry holders on their respective “sides” (so as to fill the gaps when Johnson and Cole bomb on), and Rooney playing the false nine. He’s shown he can lead the line alone.
I’d play Lampard just off him so he can exploit the space when Rooney drops off and do what he does best (get into the box and score goals), Gerrard wide left, Lennon wide right. With Rooney’s natural tendency to drift left and Cole providing width on the left, Gerrard would be able to make runs into the box without the side losing its shape. He also gives England a decent ball-winner.
However I doubt we’ll see that. It’ll probably be the same system that was used in qualifying. More’s the pity.