You said he's not in the running when Anderson and Cleverley are fit...I just think you're getting a bit carried away, and your bias towards Carrick's fuelling it. He'll make an important contribution as he always does and he'll do it ahead of Cleverley and Anderson, no doubt. I absolutely love their youthful exuberance and energy they bring, and the fact that they're willing and able to involve themselves in every attack in and around the box, but it has and will continue to leave us open and at some point that'll come back and bite us on the arse. It's inevitable. That's why it's handy to have Carrick there when the time comes, IMO.
Carrick
- Thread starter Kevin
- Start date
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber
Thus says Kemo
Vs a Barca I'd say yes. Vs them mobility is everything.Know what you mean.
Anyway isn't fletcher a better option behind ando and clev cus of his better energy and mobility?
apotheosis
O'Fortuna
No because he is not a defender. He is not a naturally defensive player and does not have the required discipline or the passing range to be an effective DM. Last season with Scholes we conceded 9 goals in 4 games (Fulham, Everton, Dippers and Bolton) with Fletcher as DM.Know what you mean.
Anyway isn't fletcher a better option behind ando and clev cus of his better energy and mobility?
The rot only stopped when Carrick came back.
As much as i don't rate Carrick in any 2 man pairing, he is undoubtedly our best defensive midfield option and playing him behind TC and Ando would give us additional defensive security when we lose possession.
mu77
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2002
- Messages
- 7,004
we know fergie will rest cleverly after a few matches - it's what he does. all of the midf's the club have will see games including carrick and fletcher - possibly even gibson if he does end up staying. the club players too many matches for any player to play all of them.
acnumber9
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 22,290
If you think Carrick won't feature then you're retarded. I make no apologies in saying so. I only hope for your sake you aren't allowed to handle sharp objects.your saying anyone that thinks carrick won't features retarded..which is a generalization. But how can anyone say he will? He might pick up an injury and be out for the season...Cleverly and Anderson might play so well he can't get in...we won a league with Giggs and O'shea one year.....the fact is time will tell. I don't take offence from a Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime who's trying to predict the future based on our present form. The fact is Berbatov can't even get a game up top. When will he feature? Or Fletcher...believe me you should be open minded to things because I don't know anyone on here would would have suggested we'd play a 4-4-2 today against Arsenal....which goes to show, people don't know do they?
I would dispute his importance. Some people think he's an incredible player, like Mozza.....and maybe his relatives. At a time when Scholes retires, he can't even get in a head of Cleverly and Anderson....two who apparently can't even wipe Carricks arse. Inspite of the space in the midfield and again we played two up top....we're not doing too badly.
acnumber9
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 22,290
Oh and we never won the league with Giggs and O'Shea as a midfield pairing. Quit while you're not too far behind.your saying anyone that thinks carrick won't features retarded..which is a generalization. But how can anyone say he will? He might pick up an injury and be out for the season...Cleverly and Anderson might play so well he can't get in...we won a league with Giggs and O'shea one year.....the fact is time will tell. I don't take offence from a Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime who's trying to predict the future based on our present form. The fact is Berbatov can't even get a game up top. When will he feature? Or Fletcher...believe me you should be open minded to things because I don't know anyone on here would would have suggested we'd play a 4-4-2 today against Arsenal....which goes to show, people don't know do they?
I would dispute his importance. Some people think he's an incredible player, like Mozza.....and maybe his relatives. At a time when Scholes retires, he can't even get in a head of Cleverly and Anderson....two who apparently can't even wipe Carricks arse. Inspite of the space in the midfield and again we played two up top....we're not doing too badly.
apotheosis
O'Fortuna
Carrick will feature, the point should'nt even be up for debate. He will undoubtedly play games at OT, although hopefully only as part of a 3 away from OT.If you think Carrick won't feature then you're retarded. I make no apologies in saying so. I only hope for your sake you aren't allowed to handle sharp objects.
We saw last season the cost of playing him in a 2 away from OT. Too slow and not dominant enough in the vast majority of away games last season.
Without Carrick at present we are still devastating enough on the counter to win games without dominating possession, which imo was not the case often enough last year.
That said i have little doubt that he will once again be a key player at OT and in the CL this season.We now have the options up front to play an effective 4-3-3, and if we do adopt that system, and relieve Carrick of many of the duties he is not confident fulfilling, imo we could once again see him return to the type of form he showed in his very first season.
mu77
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2002
- Messages
- 7,004
you like using that word "retard" don't you. lowest common denominator i guess.If you think Carrick won't feature then you're retarded. I make no apologies in saying so. I only hope for your sake you aren't allowed to handle sharp objects.
acnumber9
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 22,290
It was used initially to describe those who think Carrick won't feature or contribute and has only been used to reiterate that. I fail to think of a word more apt for anyone of that mindset.you like using that word "retard" don't you. lowest common denominator i guess.
Irwinwastheking
Gimpier than Alex and Feeky
Hard to know where Fletcher is going to come in. Will he get the game time required to get back to his 2009 best?Know what you mean.
Anyway isn't fletcher a better option behind ando and clev cus of his better energy and mobility?
That's fine and acceptable Brwned. You have you're opinion and I have mine. I respect that and acknowledge that I could be wrong about how much of a part he will play this year. What you did there was have a mature debate rather than the immature and uncalled for name-calling usually associated with any Carrick debate. See below for perfect example;You said he's not in the running when Anderson and Cleverley are fit...I just think you're getting a bit carried away, and your bias towards Carrick's fuelling it. He'll make an important contribution as he always does and he'll do it ahead of Cleverley and Anderson, no doubt. I absolutely love their youthful exuberance and energy they bring, and the fact that they're willing and able to involve themselves in every attack in and around the box, but it has and will continue to leave us open and at some point that'll come back and bite us on the arse. It's inevitable. That's why it's handy to have Carrick there when the time comes, IMO.
What a wonderfully worded post. Maybe when you're a big boy you're vocabulary will expand beyond petty insults to actually being able to have a sensible debate.If you think Carrick won't feature then you're retarded. I make no apologies in saying so. I only hope for your sake you aren't allowed to handle sharp objects.
mu77
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2002
- Messages
- 7,004
stupid , ignorant , silly , daft even twatish etc. many different words. no need for that one.It was used initially to describe those who think Carrick won't feature or contribute and has only been used to reiterate that. I fail to think of a word more apt for anyone of that mindset.
acnumber9
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 22,290
I apologise if you've taken offence at the word used but I'd hardly be the first and won't be the last to use it in those terms.stupid , ignorant , silly , daft even twatish etc. many different words. no need for that one.
mu77
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2002
- Messages
- 7,004
maybe you will be. start now. call him a twat instead. see easy as.I apologise if you've taken offence at the word used but I'd hardly be the first and won't be the last to use it in those terms.
no offence to any and all. cnuts!
apotheosis
O'Fortuna
That may be true but that fact should not make it any more acceptable. I expect it may be offensive to some, but personally i just find it very insensitive and uncomfortable. Other words would be much more appropriate and specific without being as insulting.I apologise if you've taken offence at the word used but I'd hardly be the first and won't be the last to use it in those terms.
The use of the term in the context you and others use it, brands the extremely unfortunate alongside the intentionally ridiculous, which draws a undeserving and unnecessary comparison with those already suffering unenviable difficulties outside of their control.
Not having a go at you in particular mate, just saying it as honestly as i see it.
acnumber9
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 22,290
It's a fair point well made. It won't stop me using the word as language is just language. It's the meaning intended in words that should be deemed offensive rather than the actual word itself. If I were use it to intentionally insult somebody with a mental disability it's a different matter. I'll be expecting the moral stance to be taken every time yourself and mu77 see it being used.That may be true but that fact should not make it any more acceptable. I expect it may be offensive to some, but personally i just find it very insensitive and uncomfortable. Other words would be much more appropriate and specific without being as insulting.
The use of the term in the context you and others use it, brands the extremely unfortunate alongside the intentionally ridiculous, which draws a undeserving and unnecessary comparison with those already suffering unenviable difficulties outside of their control.
Not having a go at you in particular mate, just saying it as honestly as i see it.
apotheosis
O'Fortuna
Well that's the point you actually are. By directly associating somebody with full capacity making poor choices, with someone whose mental capacities are diminished through no fault of their own. So it is not only insulting but wholly inaccurate. One has a direct choice in how they choose to act, the other's capacity to choose has beenseverely limited by disability.It's a fair point well made. It won't stop me using the word as language is just language. It's the meaning intended in words that should be deemed offensive rather than the actual word itself. If I were use it to intentionally insult somebody with a mental disability it's a different matter. I'll be expecting the moral stance to be taken every time yourself and mu77 see it being used.
Language is not really just language though is it, it can be manipulated in countless ways to deliver very powerful messages, evoking both very strong positive or negative emotions and the subsequent reactions.
I certainly did not criticise you mate or others, it is not for me to judge how others should voice their views. You indicated you thought the usage may be offensive to some, so i simply gave you my thoughts on why some including myself, do indeed find it a bit inappropriate and uncomfortable.
You are of course free to use whatever terms you deem necessary, but for someone who can deliver reasonably precise and well considered opinions, i struggle to see why you would choose to place yourself in a position of having to justify your choice of words, while appearing easily capable of providing more accurate and appropriate terminology.