33 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said:

The coming midweek game against Norwich has a similar feel to the Southampton game earlier in the season when Carrick was under pressure for the first time and desperately needed a result. I suspect he will go with a back five again and look for breaks and set plays. It has worked in other games for him so I wouldn't be surprised if he gets something out of this game but and it's a huge BUT, I'm not sure the Players are buying into what it is he is trying to do anymore, the body language of many of them yesterday was appalling. This is a far bigger ask than that Southampton game when the majority of fans hearts were still with him.

Agree about the back five.  A Villa type performance is needed.  Obviously with better outcome 

I honestly don’t think the crowd would turn against him if he deviated away from 4231 slow build up

i think it’s rubbing people up the wrong way with the stubbornness to not change and then not just not scoring goals but not even getting shots on target.
 He is playing Forss on the right who is our best finisher. He’s not helping himself either to fans with his post match assessment of ‘the lads tried hard’ 

insulting to the fans who graft all week and spend hard earned money in the real world and he says the players are trying. I honestly don’t see 11 players busting a gut for this club and manager and that is very concerning to me 

 

Totaly surprised Carrick is still with us. 

4 hours ago, Skinemrippers said:

I keep reading this but honestly, it’s not by any stretch of the imagination attacking football and I can’t imagine Carrick is watching our walking pace build up play, side to side passing, no shots and thinking “yep, bad spell but this is my philosophy”. It’s genuinely boring to watch. 

Actually I've noticed we can and do play some pretty slick, effective build-up play.

It just all comes undone around the penalty area because there is rarely anyone in space to receive the ball...or the final pass / cross is wayward.

Its mystifying and annoying. Technically we are not terrible and can play some neat one-touch stuff. We can also get the ball around the pitch when we want to. Its just those final touches and the positioning / timing of runs by our forwards that usually lets us down.

Edited March 3, 20241 yr by AnglianRed

10 hours ago, macapes said:

Off the top my head those scorers include Gyokeres, Akpom, Mitrovic, Piroe, Breton Diaz, Solanke, Toney, Armstrong, Sharp, Gayle.  Why can I name them?  Because they all had exceptional seasons. They would also cost a fortune to replace after those seasons.

Just because there are players who do it regularly, doesn't make it easy to replace them when you lose one. Just because Akpom cost us peanuts, doesn't mean we can pick up a 20 goal a season player for a reasonable fee. Be lovely if we could, obviously. 

But even then, it's not purely about scoring goals.  Akpom's role was more than that, he had an exceptional all round season and was one of the main reasons the system worked, he was the fulcrum. Similarly Giles wasn't purely about assists, his attacking threat pushed teams back, drew defenders in, gave us space to play and a decent cross occasionally. He enabled us to play our way.

He's back in the championship because he's not good enough for the PL and Hull are setting money on fire. Not sure how that relates to us.

It's unusual that you are going with the simple goals or assists as sole arbiter of their value to us. Your takes are normally more nuanced.

24 players in five years tells you that it's not exceptional though.  If nine players can do it one season then it isn't exceptional at least to me anyway.  You're right that just because other players can do it then it doesn't mean it's easy to replace when you lose one.  I do understand that.  But it does mean that it's not impossible, or unrealistic, to find a replacement, which is my point.  Maybe Latte Lath could turn out to be that player, and he's just not there yet, I dunno.  But I do think it's a big factor in where we are this season.  Again, you're absolutely right to say that Akpom's role was more than just scoring goals, helping us get the ball forwards was something he played a big part in as well.  However, if he hadn't scored those goals then we'd have been midtable regardless of how he played.  Those goals were massive for us, and helped turn us into a side that could overpower teams.  As much as anything else, it's precisely what we lack now, someone who would regularly take the chances created for him.  The simple goals or assists are why we are where we are.  I'm sure there are contributory factors that lead to fewer goals and assists but it's also fairly clear that we are the worst side in the league when it comes to taking chances, and this is reflected in the lower amount of goals scored obviously.  Finally, how Giles relates to us is that you said he was irreplaceable, and yet he's playing for another Championship club, and we apparently were trying to sign him in the summer.  He's clearly not irreplaceable, we have just done a poor job of it so far.

10 hours ago, macapes said:

If we hadn't fluked the undeserved win against Leicester, we'd be in serious trouble right now. But we'll stick with the same tactics and see how low we can go.

We are in big trouble.  Make no mistake I don't think that things are fine or whatever.  We are one of the worst half dozen teams in the league, maybe even one of the three worst.  Our league position of 14th is down to the run of six wins in a row months back because outside of that we would be bottom three.  If we stay up this season it's likely to be because of that little run unless we suddenly find some form now of course.

9 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 

Whether they were making Carrick look good, or Carrick was making them look good is almost irrelevant.  The fact is that with different players we were a much better team so whatever Carrick does can work with different players.  Where it becomes relevant I suppose is if you say that how we operate now will not include bringing in those types of players for some reason.  In which case you have to ask yourself if Carrick can get the most out of an inferior set of players, and if the answer is no then you've probably got the wrong fella in charge unfortunately.

8 hours ago, Fab4TT said:

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.

It's an interesting point you make whether a club's history/culture can influence what actually happens on the field.  It's not something I give too much mind to but that's mostly because I see teams/clubs changing their identities for want of a better word.  I think what we saw last season was a world away from what we saw under Pulis for example.  You're right that opposition views won't change week in/week out but I think they would change as the team changes it's identity.  Man City were underachievers for years.  It took a lot of money of course but they completely changed that point of view of them.  It easier to set up a team not to lose than it is to set them up to win but I don't believe the former tends to get you where you want to be over time, and just speaking from my own point of view, it's not something I want to spend my money/time watching.  I genuinely hated how we played under Pulis, and just wouldn't bother with us if we went back to something along those lines.  It's a crappy thing to admit but it's where I'm at now as a Boro fan.  I want to watch something worth watching or at least have the belief that every game I go to we will try and play well even if we won't always manage it.

 

I do find it funny that this time last year Carrick was seen as almost a genius for switching Akpoms role and getting a great season out of him. A year later and apparently Akpom was actually the genius and let Carrick fluke a good season.

I mean if your saying last season was all down to the players and they made Carrick look good, why can that not also apply to this season and it’s the players making Carrick look bad? Let’s be honest it’s just reactionary opinions and confirmation bias and it’s really an irrelevant argument.

I’m not trying to take one side over the other but we can at least be fair when analysing Carricks performance. We can’t take away the credit he got last season just because he’s now in the bad books. If you don’t want give him credit for last season then by definition you should absolve him of blame for this season.

Its almost as bad as the guy who said ‘we were only good for 6 months last season’ lol.

9 minutes ago, LinoJo3 said:

I do find it funny that this time last year Carrick was seen as almost a genius for switching Akpoms role and getting a great season out of him. A year later and apparently Akpom was actually the genius and let Carrick fluke a good season.

I mean if your saying last season was all down to the players and they made Carrick look good, why can that not also apply to this season and it’s the players making Carrick look bad? Let’s be honest it’s just reactionary opinions and confirmation bias and it’s really an irrelevant argument.

I’m not trying to take one side over the other but we can at least be fair when analysing Carricks performance. We can’t take away the credit he got last season just because he’s now in the bad books. If you don’t want give him credit for last season then by definition you should absolve him of blame for this season.

Its almost as bad as the guy who said ‘we were only good for 6 months last season’ lol.

Some say it was the players that carried us to the UEFA Cup final, rather than McLaren's managerial genius. Just saying... 🤷‍♂️

Although in that case it was their fault we got drubbed in the final.

12 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

It's an interesting point you make whether a club's history/culture can influence what actually happens on the field.  It's not something I give too much mind to but that's mostly because I see teams/clubs changing their identities for want of a better word.  I think what we saw last season was a world away from what we saw under Pulis for example.  You're right that opposition views won't change week in/week out but I think they would change as the team changes it's identity.  Man City were underachievers for years.  It took a lot of money of course but they completely changed that point of view of them.  It easier to set up a team not to lose than it is to set them up to win but I don't believe the former tends to get you where you want to be over time, and just speaking from my own point of view, it's not something I want to spend my money/time watching.  I genuinely hated how we played under Pulis, and just wouldn't bother with us if we went back to something along those lines.  It's a crappy thing to admit but it's where I'm at now as a Boro fan.  I want to watch something worth watching or at least have the belief that every game I go to we will try and play well even if we won't always manage it.

 

I agree with that last bit, I’m hoping supporters don’t start crying to get a defensive guy in bc the attacking guy didn’t work because that would make us just as bad as the clubs been playing ver the past few years. If Carrick did leave then someone in the same vein is a must otherwise there’s just no point.

11 minutes ago, LinoJo3 said:

I agree with that last bit, I’m hoping supporters don’t start crying to get a defensive guy in bc the attacking guy didn’t work because that would make us just as bad as the clubs been playing ver the past few years. If Carrick did leave then someone in the same vein is a must otherwise there’s just no point.

I think the issue I have is that fans take a binary approach. It’s as though you can’t be attacking and still know how to defend and vice versa. You look at most league tables and you will see the top performing teams score the most and concede the least.

If you wanted to be binary then we have a big issue because we aren’t doing it at either end. We aren’t loosing games 4-3 we are largely being easily beaten.

I think at this point there’s a strong argument to tighten things up. Give us a platform to build on.

For me it’s about shape, positioning and probability a bit on the mental side of the game. 

3 hours ago, LinoJo3 said:

I do find it funny that this time last year Carrick was seen as almost a genius for switching Akpoms role and getting a great season out of him. A year later and apparently Akpom was actually the genius and let Carrick fluke a good season.

I mean if your saying last season was all down to the players and they made Carrick look good, why can that not also apply to this season and it’s the players making Carrick look bad? Let’s be honest it’s just reactionary opinions and confirmation bias and it’s really an irrelevant argument.

I’m not trying to take one side over the other but we can at least be fair when analysing Carricks performance. We can’t take away the credit he got last season just because he’s now in the bad books. If you don’t want give him credit for last season then by definition you should absolve him of blame for this season.

Its almost as bad as the guy who said ‘we were only good for 6 months last season’ lol.

agree with the reactionary opinions. but most probably feel that way for a reason. i think carrick found a system that worked with the team last season. but has still tried to use it this season with different players. it clearly does not work one bit. hes tried changing things in games but nothing is working for him. but he is very stubborn and we are all seeing the same failing and carrick doesnt seem to mix it up much. he still doesnt change things ingame at all most of the time and when he does make a change its usually to late anyway. i think hes had his hands tied somewhat with the injuries but reality is he is coming up short time and time again. i'm feeling like he just got lucky last season with the likes of chuba and hackney doing so well, the team were really giving it a go. but that all seems a long time ago now. he has a good start and thats it. hes not done anything to suggest hes a good manager. i'm only seeing signs hes not a very good manager. the signs are, the players look lost on the pitch, poorly motivated and all we see is the same mistakes from the same players every week and he does nothing. hes finished here. 

36 minutes ago, Dynamo Kev said:

agree with the reactionary opinions. but most probably feel that way for a reason. i think carrick found a system that worked with the team last season. but has still tried to use it this season with different players. it clearly does not work one bit. hes tried changing things in games but nothing is working for him. but he is very stubborn and we are all seeing the same failing and carrick doesnt seem to mix it up much. he still doesnt change things ingame at all most of the time and when he does make a change its usually to late anyway. i think hes had his hands tied somewhat with the injuries but reality is he is coming up short time and time again. i'm feeling like he just got lucky last season with the likes of chuba and hackney doing so well, the team were really giving it a go. but that all seems a long time ago now. he has a good start and thats it. hes not done anything to suggest hes a good manager. i'm only seeing signs hes not a very good manager. the signs are, the players look lost on the pitch, poorly motivated and all we see is the same mistakes from the same players every week and he does nothing. hes finished here. 

Again im not arguing whether he is or isn’t a good manager, simply that it’s a bit unfair to dismiss last season as ‘lucky’, it’s no surprise that a manager does better with better players surely? 
 

I do think Carrick is a ‘luxury’ manager though and he needs better than average championship players to do well. I also agree about the stubbornness to adapt to the quality of player we have.

11 hours ago, LinoJo3 said:

I do think Carrick is a ‘luxury’ manager though and he needs better than average championship players to do well. I also agree about the stubbornness to adapt to the quality of player we have.

For me the word "luxury" pretty much nails it with him. Put him in charge of a United or City or a Liverpool and I think he would like as not be successful, it's where he is familiar and comfortable. Last Season he had pretty much five players who were probably the best in the Championship in their respective positions or at least amongst the very best and others who were pretty decent at the level. I think he is struggling because he is trying to get donkeys to run like thoroughbreds and simply doesn't know any other way.