Over the past few weeks I have seen a large number of references made to "Mick's Style Of Player" in the context of either he is or he isn't "A Mick Style Of Player!" Please can someone clarify for me what this term actually means and who it best describes because I can't quite figure out if it's meant in a good way or bad! An example of this reference has been made on the Owen Garvan thread when someone alluded to Garvan not being a "Mick Style of Player!" In the case of Garvan he wasnt particularly a "Roy Keane Style of Player" either! It would be great to know what skills and attributes you have to have to be described as a "Mick Style Of Player!" and indeed what traits would make them not to be a Mick Style of Player?
I would say that the archetypal Mick McCarthy midfielder would be someone like Karl Henry A tough tackling, hard working, blood and guts midfielder who leaves everything on the pitch by the final whistle. Will always give you a solid 7/10 performance by hard graft and positional discipline, not losing his personal battle and keeping things simple when in possession Mick's mantra of "Thou shall not lose" personified in a player That would be my definition of a central midfield player in a MM team. Solid spine and difficult to break down
I would say A Mick type of player has to be broken down a little. Centrally he likes solid players, probably not creative players, just solid, hard working players to keeping the spine of the side strong. Wide players, he like to work hard defensively, but also to add the creative flair for the team.
Definitely no shirkers, whingers or excuses. First of all don't lose, secondly win and thirdly play football. Wolves had some very good footballers, but only once the backbone was there.
Admittedly i've been guilty of over-using this term in describing players. I think, thinking about it more, it's more a case of a player fitting the McCarthy type of team. It seems that Mick is extremely well organised and he likes his players to go exactly what he says, and nothing more. Each and every player will have their strict and specific jobs to do on the day, and i don't think that MM would like players to deviate from their respective jobs - hence why i don;t believe he likes players in the Taylor and Wordsworth mould, as they seem the players to be a little unpredictable - in fact, that word sums MM up to a tee, predictable. I bet MM has OCD, and that everything in his life is extremely well organised and nothing is left out of place. Now, going back to thr original question...if there is a difference, i think its more a case of players fitting (or not) into an MM type of team, as opposed to an MM style of player. Skuse, for example, wouldn't normally be classed as an MM style player, but, i reckon he has been given strict instructions to stay within a radius of the centre circle and to patrol that area(with certain exceptions of course) he's a very tidy player, but does not, and will not "think outside the box"
I think Mick likes to know what a player WILL give him on the pitch and not what a player COULD/MIGHT or SHOULD do in terms of commitment and talent. As someone said earlier 7 out of 10 every game rather than 9 one game then 4 in the next 2. For me it's a good thing as I believe in this league if a team can be consistent it will be in a good position come the end of the season.
A fair amount of truth in this although our performance levels do vary wildly it's never down to one player.
Some very good points made by all of you so far and I have to say that I pretty much agree with everything thats been said! It will be interesting to get PTC and Tractorbhoy's take on this.
I didnt realise my thoughts were so interesting that i get name checked! My views of a MM style player has pretty well been summed up in the early comments. Committed and dependable. RK liked commitment and workrate over everything else and therefore we had players that couldnt kick a ball in the squad! MM likes a similar kind of player but one which also has a footballing brain. The centre of the pitch seems to be 100% risk free whether that is in defence or midfield. The excitement traditionally comes from the wings but so far in his period here we havent had the players to really express this. Is it a good or bad thing? For me mainly good - just look at our position and how far we have come since appointing MM especially considering the lack of transfers/ money involved. My slight niggles are over the 'entertainment' factor but we are exceeding my expectation levels so it would be very harsh to suggest what he does is a bad thing.
TB I name checked you as you always give a well balanced view on things and you watch a hell of a lot of games during the season! You also do not have any hidden agenda as to your preferred manager!
It seems the general consensus is that MM goes for steady Eddies, players who give their all each week on limited technical ability, will do as they are instructed and stick to the plan.......That actually leaves me even more confused as to how Nouble gets in the team most weeks.! Warky, Pablo would never have got in a MM side......unfortunately.!
Disagree with you Stretchy I think Skuse is the archetypal MM player,solid ,reliable and does exactly what is asked of him.In fact from where I sit at PR you can often hear him issuing instructions to Skuse and I'm surprised he's not been made Skipper.
In my view Mick Priorities in a player are 1. Dependability 2. Hard - Working 3. Professionalism 4. Footballing skill 5. Flair and the ability to excite - This being the only truly unnecessary thing for a Mick signing This is why we see Taylor only on the fringes 1. Dep- Can he be trusted to 'turn up' every game? 2. HW -Maybe, no clear evidence either way 3. Prof. - Chequered history 4. FS - Appears to have bags of it 5. Flair - The fact that the fans want to see him on the pitch says it all The label a Mick player in no way a bad thing, the evidence is in the results. But can lead to lack of excitement, both on the pitch and in the signings - and therefore a lack of inspiration for the fans. Excitement is generated by league position and form alone.
I agree with alot of the views here, it's not a bad thing to have consistent players, the Burley team was fairly consistent without any real flair players to be fair although how the team was set out was more attacking and to play football with the concentration being focused more on the ball rather than off it. I think the big thing is Mick first a foremost seems to judge a player on their ability when the team doesn't have the ball because I mean can we really say players like Hyam/Edwards/Chambers/Tabb/Anderson/Nouble are really 7 out of 10 every week, I mean have they done more on the ball than say JET/Hewitt/Taylor/Wordsworth etc I don't think so infact these players in terms of being in possession of the ball have been pretty poor. This is where I differ as I generally judge a player more on what they do on the ball than when we are defending (obviously this is also important). The one strange one really is McGoldrick. Also even though Mick likes a bit of creativity down the wing those players I wouldn't neccessarily say are flair players his wingers are still usually tenacious players who work really hard off the ball. As I've said loads of times Skuse opitimizes Micks style in that he's a very talented footballer who I feel could offer alot more but is overly cautious and often not purposeful enough, you just get the feeling whilst he's a good player he hasn't got that ambition to be anything other than solid even though he has the potential to.
