My point was that Spurs never fell apart when Carrick, having overall far better results and a far better season without him shielding their defence or their midfield. Thinsg you claimed by the way. On top your lie that ouf defence got better cause of Carrick's arrival
No I didn't merely pointed out the difference in how both teams have fared with and without Carrick. It's up to the individual's opinion whether Carrcik was a big influence or otherwise. Spurs never had a far better season. They finished the league season with 11 points fewer than they did the season before with Carrick instrumental. A team's performance in cup competitions is not a true barometer of success as they are dependant upon draws etc. The league is, simple as that. Spurs are not as good as they were when Carrick was playing for them.
We only beat a 10 man Chlesea in the league. We havne't beatn Arsenal in teh league yet.
We beat both teams with Carrick being instrumental both. Fact.
That's just dumb. I never said we lost to Bolton at all. You must think West Ham is pooucned Bolton. Besides we actually lost to Bolton, this season, with Carrick very present and rather poor
You did mention Bolton. You may remember Hargreaves was equall poor against Bolton
I insist. You first tell us how Carrick is the reason our defence was brilliant this season and last, and how our away from in Europe has besn shit since. Then you will earn the right to ask me such questions.
You really are rather pompous aren't you? I didn't say he was the reason our defence improved though I do believe he contributed to it. And as I have already stated our away form has imrpoved in comparison to the two seasons proceeding it. Keep ducking the questions though. /QUOTE]