25 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said:

I think Sheffield Wednesday was worse but there isn't much in it unfortunately.

Wednesday was a worse first half and some individually worse performances but at least we turned it around, partially, in the second half. Yesterday there was nothing positive anywhere across the board.

26 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said:

The common denominator in all this for me is a manager who is showing a clear case of being very limited.

I'm not ready to make that judgement yet. It does feel like Woodgate: a manager who has an ideal image in his head of what he wants who doesn't know how to get there. I think last season led us down the garden path. Because we had Akpom playing at a Champions League level and Giles who was on his wavelength we were playing on cheat mode. When we had to get real at the end of the season, it turned out that Carrick had just got very, very lucky. 

Sometimes being lucky is the worst thing that can happen. He tried to replicate last season with players who aren't capable of it and failed. However, the season has been so fubared by injuries that you could argue for a long, long time that it would work when the injury crisis eased. The crisis hasn't eased so Carrick can still plausibly think the problem is the injuries, not the system. 

Even so, he still has to set up his team up to make the best of who is available and he has failed to do that.

As supporters we all know that we get behind the club through thick and thin because they are our club and none of us can walk away completely can we?

Trouble is we are going through a period of both thick and thin combined which is difficult to deal with and we do not know where and in which direction the pendelum is swinging.

Some members may have seen this right from the start of the season (results clearly showed) but many of us me included did not forsee just where we are right now and because we thought that there would be some visible improvement to our overall game plan for this season has now become quite alarming for all of us especially MFC itself!

Roller Coaster? I just want to get off as I am feeling a little bit icky!

Still we can now look ahead to the RB game against Norwich I suppose🤔

7 hours ago, macapes said:

Yes, but if your system needs a player in those positions to have a season like Akpom, Archer and Giles had, there's a problem with the system too. 

That was always going to be unreplaceable, yet we're still here, with the same system, without the necessary adaptation.

None of those players have gone on to replicate the form they had here with their new clubs. So does that not say the system we had got the best out of them as well as the other way around?

Just gone back to my happy place and watched last seasons highlights of boro beating Norwich 5-1. God we were good to watch 😔😔

1 minute ago, HoyteForLeftBack said:

Just gone back to my happy place and watched last seasons highlights of boro beating Norwich 5-1. God we were good to watch 😔😔

That was the last time we were in a happy place, we took our foot off the gas after that and the rest sadly is history and the story of Carrick's fall from grace!

9 hours ago, Changing Times said:

See, this to me is incorrect.  We know that with some different players we were good but it was last season of course.  Nobody we signed in the summer is at the same level as the players we lost at the end of last season.  VDB is a cracking prospect but his performance level isn't that of Akpom, Archer or Giles at the moment, and he's probably the best of the bunch.  I think it's fair enough to criticise Carrick for not adapting to the squad he has to work with but to say that no matter the players we just aren't that good in his set up is wrong.  We know we can be even if we aren't at the moment.   

You’re right, but I was meaning this season. I’ve written off last season as an anomaly due to him having Akpom, Archer, Giles and Ramsay. Was Carrick making them good or were they making Carrick look better than he was? 
 

The fact we still conceded goals and had to rely on out scoring the opposition tells me he’s had two seasons of a soft and weak defence that hasn’t been addressed 

15 minutes ago, ManBearPig said:

You’re right, but I was meaning this season. I’ve written off last season as an anomaly due to him having Akpom, Archer, Giles and Ramsay. Was Carrick making them good or were they making Carrick look better than he was? 
 

The fact we still conceded goals and had to rely on out scoring the opposition tells me he’s had two seasons of a soft and weak defence that hasn’t been addressed 

The evidence so far since those players have moved on suggest that Carrick made them play above their abilities. For akpom there's years of evidence of this before he came to us too. They were good championship players, that's all. Not these amazing world beaters that carricks critics like to make out. 

Same thing happened with karanka. You'd think he had this super squad of players that he needed to get promoted when the reality is only one or two max went on to show they were any better than championship level

You need premier league quality players to get promoted from this league 9 times out of 10, and we don't have them atm

1 hour ago, Neverbefore said:

None of those players have gone on to replicate the form they had here with their new clubs. So does that not say the system we had got the best out of them as well as the other way around?

You could say that yes. But they have all went on to play at a higher level. 

Just now, Mfcdanny said:

You could say that yes. But they have all went on to play at a higher level. 

One of which is back down here (Giles), 3 of which aren't playing (akpom, Archer and ramsey) and one of which is off on early retirement (steffen). 

31 minutes ago, Neverbefore said:

The evidence so far since those players have moved on suggest that Carrick made them play above their abilities. For akpom there's years of evidence of this before he came to us too. They were good championship players, that's all. Not these amazing world beaters that carricks critics like to make out. 

Same thing happened with karanka. You'd think he had this super squad of players that he needed to get promoted when the reality is only one or two max went on to show they were any better than championship level

You need premier league quality players to get promoted from this league 9 times out of 10, and we don't have them atm

I don't think so. Akpom scores goals for Ajax whenever they let him play. Giles looks to have picked up where he left off at Hull. 

I agree that Carrick's system makes attacking players look better I  the same way that AK's system makes defenders look better. 

I think Giles is a classic case of too good for the Championship but not good enough for the Premier. Akpom is caught in limbo. Archer is good enough for the Premier but playing in the wrong team. Ramsey is made of glass. 

Personally, I think the attacking 4231/325 that De Zerbi pioneered and Carrick copied has been rumbled in general. 

 

17 hours ago, Changing Times said:

Ok but what has what a manager said about a Middlesbrough side under a different manager got to do with the Boro side today?  That's the bit I'm confused about.

This is without me being combative CT.

Whatever Carrick's tactically employing at home, with a back 4, it seems to have at its core an intention to retain the ball, recycle the ball, and attack with a low risk of losing possession. I'm not saying it'll never work, but it needs 'performing' players to execute it. 

My philosophical question is; is this down to the clubs history, culture, training facilities and vision. I.e is there a reputation that proceeds us? Hence why I gave the historic example. I don't think opposition views will change week in/week out.

I don't blame Carrick. Do I blame Scott/Gibson? Hard to say. They've certainly not attracted/found those players, but that's not to say they haven't tried. Maybe if we we're in the know, we'd be aware that there wasn't the money in the summer window, and the players weren't available or within our budget in the winter window. It looks like we're saving our pennies for this summer.

There is a risk to football, its easier not to lose than it is to win tactically, and maybe it's our pride/vision that's preventing us from seeing that.

Edited March 3, 20241 yr by Fab4TT

20 minutes ago, Bruce said:

I don't think so. Akpom scores goals for Ajax whenever they let him play. Giles looks to have picked up where he left off at Hull. 

I agree that Carrick's system makes attacking players look better I  the same way that AK's system makes defenders look better. 

I think Giles is a classic case of too good for the Championship but not good enough for the Premier. Akpom is caught in limbo. Archer is good enough for the Premier but playing in the wrong team. Ramsey is made of glass. 

Personally, I think the attacking 4231/325 that De Zerbi pioneered and Carrick copied has been rumbled in general. 

 

Brighton another excellent example of what I'm talking about. So many of their players have moved on after looking like world beaters in their system but out of their depth when they've moved any higher up. The system is do important for players and ours happened to get the best out of out team last season. 

2 hours ago, Neverbefore said:

None of those players have gone on to replicate the form they had here with their new clubs. So does that not say the system we had got the best out of them as well as the other way around?

That wasn't the point though.

Players go to different clubs, have to play with new team mates, possibly under a different system and fail to recreate the performances that garnered attention in the first place. Fairly common problem.

What macapes was saying is WE never replaced the critical parts that made OUR system work and, worse, failed to find a system that worked with the players we had available.

Last season was clearly a happy accident where the loan signings we made, plus the return of a rejuvenated Akpom, were a match made in heaven. But apparently it was not a sustainable arrangement and we can't afford to permanently sign, or keep loaning players of that quality.

Which begs the question - why haven't the manager & coaches been able to identify an effective system our squad can actually play to?

 

2 hours ago, ManBearPig said:

You’re right, but I was meaning this season. I’ve written off last season as an anomaly due to him having Akpom, Archer, Giles and Ramsay. Was Carrick making them good or were they making Carrick look better than he was? 
 

The fact we still conceded goals and had to rely on out scoring the opposition tells me he’s had two seasons of a soft and weak defence that hasn’t been addressed 

Fully agree.

I mean its great that he likes to play attacking football, but even last season our defence was terrible (conceded about 20 goals more than any of the other top 6 teams) and led to us dropping points where maybe we shouldn't have. Extrapolating from that we could have finished higher up and not have had to face Coventry in the play-offs.

Speaking of which, our games against them should have had alarm bells ringing about Carrick's limitations.

 

Edited March 3, 20241 yr by AnglianRed

13 minutes ago, AnglianRed said:

That wasn't the point though.

Players go to different clubs, have to play with new team mates, possibly under a different system and fail to recreate the performances that garnered attention in the first place. Fairly common problem.

What macapes was saying is WE never replaced the critical parts that made OUR system work and, worse, failed to find a system that worked with the players we had available.

Last season was clearly a happy accident where the loan signings we made, plus the return of a rejuvenated Akpom, were a match made in heaven. But apparently it was not a sustainable arrangement and we can't afford to permanently sign, or keep loaning players of that quality.

Which begs the question - why haven't the manager & coaches been able to identify an effective system our squad can actually play to?

 

No, what he said was -

"That was always going to be unreplaceable, yet we're still here, with the same system, without the necessary adaptation."

And my point is no, they're not unreplaceable. Those players were great in our system but there's no evidence since to say that they're at a level that's unobtainable. I agree that we haven't replaced those players adequately, that wasn't my point. My point was that it's not impossible to find players who can fit the system just as well, we just didn't do a good job of it.