The in between transfer windows discussion period!

[Bruce 2,524 2.1k]

1 hour ago, Borodane said:

To me it looks like the opposition manager tends to figure Carrick out as the game goes on and Carrick simply doesn't have the tactical nous to see what's going wrong and how to change it.

I actually think this is a deliberate strategy from Carrick. Although he does make small changes in a game, I believe his strategy is to keep what his team does 90% the same in every match. The idea seems to be to have us so well-drilled and familiar with our system that any player can switch in and out on demand. I think he wants us to be "asking the question" and forcing the other team to adapt. It's why his subs are usually like-for-like and based more fitness than tactics. He will change things in the last 10 minutes if we need a goal or in the last few minutes to protect a lead and run down time but that's largely it.

This seems to have become more extreme under him. When he started we were pretty middle of the road in our approach.

I think the idea is to become a Championship Man City but our never-ending injury crisis has prevented him from making it work. Not sure that it could ever work anyway and he's probably picked the wrong time to use this approach seeing as teams have found effective ways to counter it.

I don't think Carrick lacks tactical nous or anything like that. I think he's simply gone down a dead-end road with his game plan. The problem is, as Macbeth discovered, once you go this far down the road, turning back is harder than carrying on.

[Rob 6,084 9.3k]

2 hours ago, Bruce said:

I actually think this is a deliberate strategy from Carrick. Although he does make small changes in a game, I believe his strategy is to keep what his team does 90% the same in every match. The idea seems to be to have us so well-drilled and familiar with our system that any player can switch in and out on demand. I think he wants us to be "asking the question" and forcing the other team to adapt. It's why his subs are usually like-for-like and based more fitness than tactics. He will change things in the last 10 minutes if we need a goal or in the last few minutes to protect a lead and run down time but that's largely it.

This seems to have become more extreme under him. When he started we were pretty middle of the road in our approach.

I think the idea is to become a Championship Man City but our never-ending injury crisis has prevented him from making it work. Not sure that it could ever work anyway and he's probably picked the wrong time to use this approach seeing as teams have found effective ways to counter it.

I don't think Carrick lacks tactical nous or anything like that. I think he's simply gone down a dead-end road with his game plan. The problem is, as Macbeth discovered, once you go this far down the road, turning back is harder than carrying on.

to be fair we are playing like man city have been recently , so he has made it happen

[Redcar Rioja 8,076 7.9k]

2 hours ago, Bruce said:

The problem is, as Macbeth discovered, once you go this far down the road, turning back is harder than carrying on.

I'm reminded of Blackadder and Baldrick and their "cunning plans" when I watch Woodgate and Carrick talking with hands over mouths. 

Blackadder: "Am I jumping the gun, Baldrick, or are the words 'I have a cunning plan' marching with ill-deserved confidence in the direction of this conversation?"

Baldrick: ‘Shall I do my war poem, sir?’ Blackadder: ‘How hurt will you be if I give the honest answer, which is, No – I’d rather French-kiss a skunk?’

[Borodane 7,456 27.1k]

2 hours ago, Bruce said:

I actually think this is a deliberate strategy from Carrick. Although he does make small changes in a game, I believe his strategy is to keep what his team does 90% the same in every match. The idea seems to be to have us so well-drilled and familiar with our system that any player can switch in and out on demand. I think he wants us to be "asking the question" and forcing the other team to adapt. It's why his subs are usually like-for-like and based more fitness than tactics. He will change things in the last 10 minutes if we need a goal or in the last few minutes to protect a lead and run down time but that's largely it.

This seems to have become more extreme under him. When he started we were pretty middle of the road in our approach.

I think the idea is to become a Championship Man City but our never-ending injury crisis has prevented him from making it work. Not sure that it could ever work anyway and he's probably picked the wrong time to use this approach seeing as teams have found effective ways to counter it.

I don't think Carrick lacks tactical nous or anything like that. I think he's simply gone down a dead-end road with his game plan. The problem is, as Macbeth discovered, once you go this far down the road, turning back is harder than carrying on.

If what you're saying is the case then I would definately put it down as tactically stupid. If you simply refuse to adapt your tactics to what's going on in front of you then it's because you simply aren't good enough tactically. I don't think it's a choice though but rather inexperience and a lack of knowledge to outsmart the other manager when the clock is ticking and you need to react quick and smart. And being surrounded by inexperienced staff doesn't really help if they can't see it either. This is why I was never worried that a club like West Ham would actually seriously consider poaching him. It would have been suicide from them.

[Riverside94 1,303 1.8k]

Was listening to an interesting podcast can’t remember which one now where they were speaking about playing out from the back and playing the Man City way. Basically discussing how it’s now a style that doesn’t work and teams who are atchletic pace, counter attack seems to be way forward Bournemouth etc. said that Pep had commented on it and why Man City are struggling as they need to change style. Made me think of Carrick and maybe his style just isn’t suited to win games and may be worth looking at a new approach 

[Rob 6,084 9.3k]

tag carrick with it on twitter lol

[Robin Johnson 1,326 1.9k]

4 hours ago, Rob said:

to be fair we are playing like man city have been recently , so he has made it happen

More like Spuds in my opinion.

[Nobby Barnes 371 628]

1 hour ago, Robin Johnson said:

More like Spuds in my opinion.

Oh Robin...

[Downsouth 7,794 38.4k]

Good keeping

[Bruce 2,524 2.1k]

I said at the time that I thought the window felt incoherent. It only made sense if Carrick had diagnosed the problem as the team not scoring while on top and, therefore, needing players to solve that.

As I see it, the problem with Iheanacho and Junior is that they're both badly deconditioned from not playing for an extended period so they're not going to be able to "hit the ground running." That would be less of a problem if the rest of our forwards weren't either injured (McGree, Doak) deconditioned from injuries (Forss, Conway) or badly off-form (Azaz, Whittaker still traumatised from being Rooneyed). We literally have one match-sharp forward who is on form: Burgzorg. By the time Iheanacho and Iling Junior are up to speed we're going to be into the last 10 games of the season.

It feels a bit like the Balogun and Connolly window where we loaned in players where it made us weaker while we tried to get them match sharp.

 

[Hammy legend 1,196 1.3k]

We also have lost a lot of pace up front with Latte Lath and Jones going and Doak being injured.  

[Neverbefore 14,012 28.5k]

6 hours ago, Bruce said:

I said at the time that I thought the window felt incoherent. It only made sense if Carrick had diagnosed the problem as the team not scoring while on top and, therefore, needing players to solve that.

As I see it, the problem with Iheanacho and Junior is that they're both badly deconditioned from not playing for an extended period so they're not going to be able to "hit the ground running." That would be less of a problem if the rest of our forwards weren't either injured (McGree, Doak) deconditioned from injuries (Forss, Conway) or badly off-form (Azaz, Whittaker still traumatised from being Rooneyed). We literally have one match-sharp forward who is on form: Burgzorg. By the time Iheanacho and Iling Junior are up to speed we're going to be into the last 10 games of the season.

It feels a bit like the Balogun and Connolly window where we loaned in players where it made us weaker while we tried to get them match sharp.

 

The biggest issue here is that so many of us on here were questioning the strategy and the players being targeted, yet the club didn't see the issues? We could all see this coming a mile away.

[BillyWoofs_shinpad 2,119 10.2k]

12 minutes ago, Neverbefore said:

The biggest issue here is that so many of us on here were questioning the strategy and the players being targeted, yet the club didn't see the issues? We could all see this coming a mile away.

Yes it was a very strange window, I understand signing Whittaker to play alongside Azaz, although they haven’t yet both been on the pitch at the same time, but I really don’t get the other signings. 

[Bruce 2,524 2.1k]

4 minutes ago, Neverbefore said:

The biggest issue here is that so many of us on here were questioning the strategy and the players being targeted, yet the club didn't see the issues? We could all see this coming a mile away.

They probably did. Ultimately there is only so much money and only so many players who are actually available. If Carrick's perspective was that the problem was not scoring goals when we're on top, then the solution is to buy better forwards. Or to change how we play but Carrick has made it plain that that won't happen. If we only have a limited budget and focus it on attacking players then all we can do is hope that the other parts of the team will make do.

There is no "The Club." There is Carrick and Scott plus Gibson holding the purse strings.

Maybe Carrick said "we need better defenders" but Scott ignored him and loaned Iheanacho and Iling Junior for the lolz. Seems unlikely. Judging by who Carrick has played and when, he really wanted Iling Junior, Iheanacho and Giles but was unsure about Whittaker. The first three all went into the team at the first chance while the only player who was actually match-sharp - Whittaker - didn't. 

Fundamentally, some combination of Carrick, the other coaches and Scott have decided that the solution was in the forwards so we focused there. It seems ludicrous from the outside but it's the only explanation that makes sense. To be fair, if you look at the forwards available at the start of January:

ELL - wanted out

Conway - struggling to return from his second injury; may not be fully match fit until March.

Doak - struggling with burnout in his first full-season then would get an injury that has ruled him out for some number of weeks.

Jones - catastrophic loss of form for outside reasons, needed out.

Forss - hardly played in a year due to recurrent injuries; no idea whether he would play a meaningful part for the rest of the season.

Azaz - complete loss of form, unsure when he'll recover it

Gilbert - not wanted by Carrick and some unfortunate timing with injuries

McGree - hardly played in a year due to recurrent injuries; no idea whether he would play a meaningful part for the rest of the season.

Hamilton - not able to make the jump to senior football; needs a loan

Burzorg - indifferent start to season but improving; decent back-up on the left.

When you lay it out like that, you can see the thinking. That said, pinning your hopes on two loanees who are a long way off match-ready seems odd.

 

 

[TeaCider24 16,744 21.9k]

I don't think we were ever actually in for him again, but Akpom has scored in each of his first 2 games for Lille. 

Good for him.