• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Jake Livermore

ArcspacE said:
Carrick in my view is nothing like Parker and currently lines up alongside Scholes, making his the ball player most of the time

BTW Batman, you're possibly the last person left on GG left who still possibly rates O'Hara of Spurs days higher than Livermore. Do you still feel the same? Many have held their hands up so far. Don't you think it's time to give this man credit where it's due
Click to expand...

No Carrick isn't very similar to Parker, but he's still a defensive midfielder.

And many have held their hands up to say Livermore is better than they gave him credit for.

But he still isn't and won't ever be as technically gifted as O'Hara (first touch, passing range, shooting etc). Which was the point I and others were making.

Feel free to put up a poll if you think that opinion has changed.
 
uksb said:
No Carrick isn't very similar to Parker, but he's still a defensive midfielder.

And many have held their hands up to say Livermore is better than they gave him credit for.

But he still isn't and won't ever be as technically gifted as O'Hara (first touch, passing range, shooting etc). Which was the point I and others were making.

Feel free to put up a poll if you think that opinion has changed.
Click to expand...

That opinion has changed considerably but I knew you'd never acknowledge that

He was a bit-time semi-clogger who had a decent left-peg and scored a cracker at West Ham and subsequently lived off that for weeks similar to a small criter off food leftovers. Then went on to become a regular at a relegation fodder outfit. Livermore has had a few MotM performances this season alone and has kept the likes of Sandro on the bench on more than one occasions. His passing has been very good, even looking beyond the chalk-board stats of over 90% completion rate in numerous games. In the current context - Gio would be the equivalent of what O'Hara was to us back then - last resort option when all else fails/is injured. He wouldn't even make the first 18 when Hudd is back.
 
Last edited:
uksb said:
No Carrick isn't very similar to Parker, but he's still a defensive midfielder.

And many have held their hands up to say Livermore is better than they gave him credit for.

But he still isn't and won't ever be as technically gifted as O'Hara (first touch, passing range, shooting etc). Which was the point I and others were making.

Feel free to put up a poll if you think that opinion has changed.
Click to expand...

Does make me laugh how people concentrate on the style of the way a player plays the position and not the position itself. You are right, Carrick IS a defensive midfielder. He plays the same role as Parker does.
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
He plays the same role as Parker does.
Click to expand...

Errrr.., so where does he play next to Scholes then considering he spends most of his time in the opposition half. He's played mostly as a ball-playing CM in his Utd days and was never brought in as a DM destroyer which is what Parker is. They've had Anderson, Sholes and previously Hargreaves as that

Carrick is also able to cross the half-way line and execute a successful forward pass to a team-mate over a distance equal or greater than 5 yards
 
ArcspacE said:
That opinion has changed considerably but I knew you'd never acknowledge that

He was a bit-time semi-clogger who had a decent left-peg and scored a cracker at West Ham and subsequently lived off that for weeks similar to a small criter off food leftovers. Then went on to become a regular at a relegation fodder outfit. Livermore has had a few MotM performances this season alone and has kept the likes of Sandro on the bench on more than one occasions. His passing has been very good, even looking beyond the chalk-board stats of over 90% completion rate in numerous games. In the current context - Gio would be the equivalent of what O'Hara was to us back then - last resort option when all else fails/is injured. He wouldn't even make the first 18 when Hudd is back.
Click to expand...

I really don't believe that opinion has changed at all - and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise. All I've seen is a few people say they underestimated Livermore.

The only facts we have right now is that you were in the minority when this topic last arose. But like I said - feel free to put up a poll if you want.

You seem to be making out like I'm some sort of Livermore hater, when I'm not at all. He's done really well this season.

And any opinion you have on O'Hara can be completely discredited as you seemed to think he was some sort of push and run winger who had pace.
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
Does make me laugh how people concentrate on the style of the way a player plays the position and not the position itself. You are right, Carrick IS a defensive midfielder. He plays the same role as Parker does.
Click to expand...

Does role=position?

I thought there were many different roles a player could have in a team in the same position.
 
No need for a poll - the last 10 pages serve that purpose far better. Or any other post-match analysis

You'd most likely ignore that of course and continue to cling-on to another strawman argument about O'Hara ability to pass with the outside of his foot over short distance or something similarly absurd. Livermore has had (up to now) twice the season Jamie did for us back then.
 
ArcspacE said:
No need for a poll - the last 10 pages serve that purpose far better. Or any other post-match analysis

You'd most likely ignore that of course and continue to cling-on to another strawman argument about O'Hara ability to pass with the outside of his foot over short distance or something similarly absurd. Livermore has had (up to now) twice the season Jamie did for us back then.
Click to expand...

People are praising Livermore, and they should. But no one is saying 'Wow - he's such a more technical player than O'Hara!'. So this thread isn't disproving my point, nor is it solidifying yours.

In fact I think you're completely missing my point. It was never 'who is the better player' - it was 'who is the more technical player'.
 
But passing alone (a strong aspect of technical ability, imv) - he's been ahead of O'Hara this season alone.

I would also argue he passes and moves better than him, always making himself available. Also closes down space far more efficiently.
 
O'Hara has plenty of talent and I have no doubt he could play Livermores role very well. Better ? Who knows, we haven't missed him cause Jake has been just as good and perhaps better fitted to the needs as of this date - an outright defensive midfielder.

It's more about what the players want. Jake is another local boy, he looks like he is enjoying his squad role at this stage and he is up and coming. O'Hara was a bit beyond that stage of development and wanted to play every game. He can't at Spurs and he left.

So it's not about who is marginally better. It's about realpolitical managment. We need a good first 18 and then squad players who are happy to compete. When said squad players get too ambitious to be in the squad group, they have either improved to get in the first 18 or even 11 or they'll want to leave.

Thus good managment is about constantly keeping as good a pool as possible, hungry and ready, outside the first XI whoever they may be.
 
braineclipse said:
Does role=position?

I thought there were many different roles a player could have in a team in the same position.
Click to expand...

That's a more valid point, and then there are primary and secondary roles.

What seems to confuse people is ability (or lack of). There are Sunday morning teams that play with a holding midfielder. How good a player is is irrelevant. Carrick I felt actually suffered for his football ability. Everyone seemed to liken him to a deep lying playmaker (which is usually a dual role holder, again coming down to ability) but Carrick actually isn't that creative. And Carrick's passing ability was always way over rated. But in return Carrick's defensive contribution is way under rated. He is a world class defensive midfielder, who also happens to have a great first touch and technique. Carrick's positional sense is one of the best I've ever seen.

Comparing Parker to Carrick is a like for like comparison, because their primary roles is breaking up attacks and recycling possession. But it's also an unfair comparison because Carrick is a lot better than Parker defensively, as well as on the ball.
 
SUIYHA said:
Livermore = Poor man's Michael Essien
O'Hara = Poor man's Charlie Adam
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Livermore isn't a tough tackling tank. In fact Livermore's defensive game isn't that great. What he is good at is getting forward and retaining possession in tight spaces. I also think if he was given a prolonged run in the team he'd be the biggest goal threat from central midfield that we have. Livemore and Jenas is probably the best comparison of recent Spurs players.
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
That's a more valid point, and then there are primary and secondary roles.

What seems to confuse people is ability (or lack of). There are Sunday morning teams that play with a holding midfielder. How good a player is is irrelevant. Carrick I felt actually suffered for his football ability. Everyone seemed to liken him to a deep lying playmaker (which is usually a dual role holder, again coming down to ability) but Carrick actually isn't that creative. And Carrick's passing ability was always way over rated. But in return Carrick's defensive contribution is way under rated. He is a world class defensive midfielder, who also happens to have a great first touch and technique. Carrick's positional sense is one of the best I've ever seen.

Comparing Parker to Carrick is a like for like comparison, because their primary roles is breaking up attacks and recycling possession. But it's also an unfair comparison because Carrick is a lot better than Parker defensively, as well as on the ball.
Click to expand...

I think Carrick is a very good passer and a very good deep playmaker. I always thought we suffered when opponents put a man on Carrick and denied us the ability to let him dictate play.

He is also good defensively, but he does his defensive play in quite a different way to Parker. A different defensive role you might even say.
 
ArcspacE said:
But passing alone (a strong aspect of technical ability, imv) - he's been ahead of O'Hara this season alone.

I would also argue he passes and moves better than him, always making himself available. Also closes down space far more efficiently.
Click to expand...

In what way is he ahead of O'Hara on passing this season? Stats aren't going to help here, because they're two different types of players.
 
uksb said:
In what way is he ahead of O'Hara on passing this season? Stats aren't going to help here, because they're two different types of players.
Click to expand...

Righto. Another strawman

And on that note - I'm out. Your stuborness only rivals that of another poster on here and I'm not prepared to put in the necessary energy this afternoon. Have a nice day, Batman. I'm not going down that road again and have only myself to blame for re-sparking this semi-iditiotic debate again.
 
Last edited:
braineclipse said:
I think Carrick is a very good passer and a very good deep playmaker. I always thought we suffered when opponents put a man on Carrick and denied us the ability to let him dictate play.

He is also good defensively, but he does his defensive play in quite a different way to Parker. A different defensive role you might even say.
Click to expand...

See I don't think. The difference is Carrick is so good positionally that he doesn't have to run around as much as Parker. Parker has been excellent for us, our player of the season in my opinion, but he is also very visual because he is chasing play and diving in. Carrick didn't have to do this, because he had already anticipated where he needed to be to make the interception.
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
See I don't think. The difference is Carrick is so good positionally that he doesn't have to run around as much as Parker. Parker has been excellent for us, our player of the season in my opinion, but he is also very visual because he is chasing play and diving in. Carrick didn't have to do this, because he had already anticipated where he needed to be to make the interception.
Click to expand...

But Carrick has played as a ball-playing CM for most of his Utd days - the complete opposite of Parker. If anything - he's more alike to Modric lately
 
He did play that role at Spurs (largerly) but has been nothing of sorts at Utd since they have the destroyers for that position and desperately needed CM with good skill on the ball
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back