Carrick tactically set us up badly

I have no idea why we dropped the 532. Dijksteel is more than capable of playing a wing back and has proved to be a very mobile defender. Having Howson drop into that back line was disastrous. I can accept losing but last night was an embarrassment. The insistency to continue to play from the back was not working and I understand that is how we play at Championship level but we cannot play that against a very athletic and pacey Chelsea attack. We always seemed to be a man short in the centre of midfield which is where we lost the ball the majority of the time and this was evident with VDB's reaction following the 6th goal. It was a nice touch of Poch to speak with Glover at the end, as he must have been feeling very low.

What a run though - it gave everyone some form of hope and it put us all in a fantastic mood, for a fortnight! :p Plus Rogers goal stuck another £5m on his price tag!
 
Redwurzel said:
We had so few options. I would have played the goal kicks long towards Crooks which would have at least saved us a goal.
Click to expand...
Not sure it would, the ball was lost every time, it would have just given tehm more possession which was already high and invited more pressure.
 
BoroMart said:
I thought RVDB did OK, but yes, they targeted our left side, was it 5 goals originated that side?

The loss of Bangura was crucial for us, his pace was vital to nullify Sterling. We nullified him in the first leg largely doubling up with a back 5 once Bangura went off.

Last night: Engel-Sterling that is a mismatch of pace, but we had no other option and didn't have enough fit players to play a back 5
Click to expand...
The BBC had Rogers 3rd best Boro player after Foss and Glover .. did Glover have a save to make? All of Chelseas on target shots ended up in the net
 
The playing it out from our 6 yard box stuff is the Manager's fault. Surely you play it if you have the players who can do it but our Centre Backs and Barlaser?
 
BoroMart said:
Not sure it would, the ball was lost every time, it would have just given tehm more possession which was already high and invited more pressure.
Click to expand...
Chelsea struggle to break teams down (like we do when we come up against that type of team in the championship). They know it and we know it, everyone knows it. We would have been better letting them attempt something they struggle with multiple times instead of something they are good at which is winning the ball high up the pitch and taking the chances. They could have tried, failed and got frustrated. Yes, we'd have given the ball back more and they'd have had even more possession but they were most dangerous when we were in possession anyway. They don't like playing against a low block.

There is a reason why International football is a lot tighter these days than it used to be despite the mismatch in ability between teams. The lower ranked teams know they can keep top teams out by defending well. They don't try and play and they play very differently against top teams than they do against similarly matched teams. If two teams playing the same way go toe to toe then the best team comes out on top. As a weaker team you have to force the better team to do what they are worst at and that reduces the gulf a bit.
 
Nano said:
Chelsea struggle to break teams down (like we do when we come up against that type of team in the championship).
Click to expand...
In the prem yes, against us they ripped through us 4 times in a poor performance at the riverside, and really should have won 4-1.

At home, and a better performance you would expect a lot more opportunities, they got them and took them this time.

They had some fortune, they played a lot better in the last 3rd.

End of the day it was a rediuclous mountain to climb:


.....................Dieng
Ayling....Smith.....Lenihan.....Bangura
Jones......Azaz.......McGree.......Greenwood
...............Coburn*....Lath

Sub: Silvera

A whole team not available to start

On top of that:
- Clarke - over played after 18 months out
- Dijksteel - had to play 45 despite not match sharp or fully fit
- Howson - wouldn't have played due to injury if other options were available
- O'Brien - played 30 mins despite lack of match fitness
- Forss - was only supposed to play 2x 20min cameos, but because of injuries played 80 against Rotherham and 45 last night.
 
alanmoodysdog said:
The BBC had Rogers 3rd best Boro player after Foss and Glover .. did Glover have a save to make? All of Chelseas on target shots ended up in the net
Click to expand...
It was for Glover's work ethic during the match, he will need physio on his back picking the ball out of the net so many times 😂
 
alanmoodysdog said:
The BBC had Rogers 3rd best Boro player after Foss and Glover .. did Glover have a save to make? All of Chelseas on target shots ended up in the net
Click to expand...

I think the statisticians have messed up here, they definitely had at least one shot on goal that Glover saved. I think between the first and second, a low down save to his left?
I agree with Forss being one of our best players. Seemed strange him coming off at half time though it could have been fitness issues.
 
Druss_The_Legend said:
For me I don't think A prime Alex Ferguson with Pep as assistant could of got a win last night with the players available.
Click to expand...
But that's precisely the point that several people have tried to make - we didn't actually need a win.

Even a defeat by only a one goal margin would have been enough to get us to penalties, which I think most people would have seen as a highly creditable outcome.
 
Last edited:
I agree that he was and is tactically naive however I don’t think there were many alternative options on Tuesday.

I do think though this is the time to review as otherwise he won’t learn.

He has shown some flexibility and nuance in the recent past (Leicester, villa, Chelsea first leg) which was good to see but we need some other plans as were not good enough to just play one way and blow the opposition away which by and large worked for a long period last year.
 
Last edited:
VestasBoro said:
If both clubs had their best eleven available, and both played at 100% then they'd batter us all day long. They've spent millions, their team/squad is full of internationals and a few really top drawer footballers we had no right to think otherwise. We had our day in the sun in the first leg where we clung on, we fought like beavers and they missed countless chances and on another day they win that leg by a similar scoreline to last night.

We had to play out of our skin last night and hope they had another shocker to stand any hope whatsoever, it was the slimmest of slim chances and it turns out that they turned up and we never, we made some poor decisions on and off the field and were beaten by the better team. It happens, im not sore about that, im still more annoyed about the Rotherham game than i am about last night.

I do think sticking with playing it out from the back was a disaster but we had no out ball, long ball to who? Nobody there to hold the ball up, not with the team on the pitch anyway. If we had our best XI available i think its a totally different system and scoreline. I'm not saying we win or get to the final but i think Carrick had his hands tied with just what he had available to him.
Click to expand...
Good post, which sums up where I'm at too. One point I would make is that if we do go up - a very long shot - then we are going to have to have a Plan B against overwhelmingly superior teams. We're going to need to develop the all-round tenacity that avoids heavy defeats as well as different ways of getting up the park. The one-touch football we play in the middle of the park looks great, but smaller sides who have prospered in recent years - look at Brentford - often have to base their games around long balls and set pieces. I'm not saying that's the way to go but defensive organisation is the first brick to lay. On that point, Karanka was right (where he got it wrong was at the other end of the park).

Whilst we were good in the first leg, we still rode our luck a little and yielded chances through risky play at the back. Ultimately, are any of our defenders good enough for the top flight? Maybe... if they get proper protection in the form of a dedicated holding player? Or maybe if they play in a back 5? Whatever the solution, the 'build from the back' adage has never been more true. Right now, a settled defensive unit is what has arguably prevented us from being a top team in this league - injuries notwithstanding.
 
People on a message board complaining about Michael Carrick being tactically naive, madness. He’s always been a footballing intellectual.

People have to have something to
Complain about, but with the injuries we were
On an absolute hiding to nothing and a couple of players really messed up
 
Last edited:
Not read the whole thread so someone probably said this, we set up the only way we could with the players available. If we could have played 5221/3421 like agaisnt villa or the starting formation against chelsea we would have. We were hamstrung with Jones' injury (pun intended) add in no latte lath, or Bangura and we had no out ball.

Chelsea could press higher safe in the knowledge crooksy ain't running in behind, and we had to play short as there were no options up the pitch or to be able to play in behind and turn them round
 
bottom line is that we had a very very limited squad available that game and in fact many games this season, and last seasons squad was financially and technically not in the top 6. So Carrick has consistently over achieved with us, but unless he wins every game and we never have an off day, then he's apparently tactically naive.....and so it starts again, a decent guy, working his **** off, showing ability starts to get slaughtered by a section of our 'fanbase'. you have to question what people's expectations are, win the league at a canter against teams with 3x our income, overcome every injury spell without defeat. Go away to billion pound teams with a thread bare side and take them all the way? A reality check is needed, getting anything against any prem side is a miracle with this squad. Overcoming parachute money to finish high up the table is also a miracle.

budget to league position ratio, Carrick must be in the top 4 last season and still top 6 this season in spite of injuries. He has his philosophy and sticking to it is how you get familiarity, improvement, and advance. Abandoning it is how you regress as a tam and a club.

He's only been in charge what 14 months? 2 and a bit transfer windows, 13 of the squad are inherited players, and many of the others are projects, it'll take two years for this squad to really develop to where we need it.
 
Last edited:
Got to admit I was really surprised in pre match commentary when Carrick said he hadn’t set a specific formation. Don’t know if it was just an attempt to bluff the opposition.
But I couldn’t help but think surely you mean different shapes with or without the ball, different shapes for set pieces?

Gary Neville couldn’t understand it too, if early commentary was anything to go by.
 
smoggs03 said:
Got to admit I was really surprised in pre match commentary when Carrick said he hadn’t set a specific formation. Don’t know if it was just an attempt to bluff the opposition.
But I couldn’t help but think surely you mean different shapes with or without the ball, different shapes for set pieces?

Gary Neville couldn’t understand it too, if early commentary was anything to go by.
Click to expand...
He didn't want the back 4's shape to be disjointed by midfield runners, so had Howson going back in with Fernandez. We did the exact same thing against Liecester, with Howson going back in with Dewsbury hall which made it a 5 at times. And it worked a treat. Certainly wasn't accused of tactical naivety after that game.

He very much did have a specific formation, just knew it could deviate at times. Its the same with giving injury updates, Carrick likes to be vague. No point giving the opposition extra info
 
smoggs03 said:
Got to admit I was really surprised in pre match commentary when Carrick said he hadn’t set a specific formation. Don’t know if it was just an attempt to bluff the opposition.
But I couldn’t help but think surely you mean different shapes with or without the ball, different shapes for set pieces?

Gary Neville couldn’t understand it too, if early commentary was anything to go by.
Click to expand...
I must say I don’t take much notice of Gary Neville, he whines on too much for me, I would look further than him for opinion.
 
BoroMart said:
People on a message board complaining about Michael Carrick being tactically naive, madness. He’s always been a footballing intellectual.

People have to have something to
Complain about, but with the injuries we were
On an absolute hiding to nothing and a couple of players really messed up
Click to expand...
Agree after all Carrick has achieved with the limited squad at his disposal you get posters coming on here saying he doesn’t know what he is doing. And not just posting once but banging on and on about it.

A lot of people don’t like the playing out from the back or any attempt at being clever no matter how many teams are doing it. There’s a bloke sits behind me who moans without fail every match and wants them to just ‘get it up the field’.

You won’t change them, that’s what it was like in 1935.
 
HolgateCorner said:
A lot of people don’t like the playing out from the back or any attempt at being clever no matter how many teams are doing it. There’s a bloke sits behind me who moans without fail every match and wants them to just ‘get it up the field’.
Click to expand...
because a century of doing that has brought us so much success 🤣

I think it's a bit of resistance to intellectualise and professionalise football. But like any game, you improve through structure, a long term strategic approach, not going ad hoc. Football isn't jazz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top