This is bullshit mama. I'm sorry but you're pulling half of this crap out of your ass. Most of that is just opinion or inaccurate reporting which you seem to be dressing up as some kind of fact. Let me break it down for you.
No, it's not.
Starting with the first team. As I say, USA and Colombia might as well not have been a first team, but at the time it was. It was the best team we could put out, lots were unavailable for various reasons. Colombia more than the US. Anyway, as for the other starts:
Uruguay, first team:
Paul Robinson, Gary Neville, Rio Ferdinand, John Terry, Wayne Bridge, David Beckham, Michael Carrick, Steven Gerrard, Joe Cole, Wayne Rooney, Darren Bent
Equador, first team:
Paul Robinson, Ashley Cole, Steven Gerrard, Rio Ferdinand, John Terry, David Beckham, Frank Lampard, Wayne Rooney, Joe Cole, Owen Hargreaves, Michael Carrick.
You say unusual formation here, but not really. Hargreaves is right back, Carrick is in his favoured position...the only thing truly unusual is Gerrard pushed furhter forwards to help Rooney up front. Shouldn't affect the way Carrick plays, hell it's basically the same formation United played yesterday againt Blackburn.
Macedonia home, first team:
Robinson, Gary Neville, Ashley Cole, Steven Gerrard, Ledley King, John Terry, Michael Carrick, Frank Lampard, Wayne Rooney, Peter Crouch, Stuart Downing
You say stupid formation, I say standard 4-4-2. I can only assume you're referring to Gerrard being on the right, but that's not a formation thing, it's still a 4-4-2.
Croatia away, first team:
Paul Robinson, Gary Neville, Ashley Cole, Jamie Carragher, Rio Ferdinand, John Terry, Michael Carrick, Frank Lampard, Wayne Rooney, Peter Crouch, Scott Parker
Now here it actually is a strange formation, but still, Carrick's in his ideal position surrounded by good players.
Holland, first team:
Paul Robinson, Micah Richards, Ashley Cole, Steven Gerrard, Rio Ferdinand, John Terry, Michael Carrick, Frank Lampard, Wayne Rooney, Andy Johnson, Joe Cole
Another 4-4-2, nothing weird about the formation.
Spain, first team:
Ben Foster, Gary Neville, Jonathan Woodgate, Rio Ferdinand, Phil Neville, Shaun Wright-Phillips Steven Gerrard, Michael Carrick, Frank Lampard, Kieron Dyer, Peter Crouch
Not the ideal first team, far from it, but the first team from those available, ie. he wasn't being played with a load of sub trialists
I don't know why you've highlighted the other bit, about him finishing the game everytime he's started. It's true, he has finished everytime he's started.
MY PERSONAL OPINION IS I THINK ENGLAND ARE CRAP (not minority opinion!) AND CARRICK IS THE MAN WHO CAN TIE IT ALL TOGETHER GIVEN A CHANCE.
I know it's you personal opinion, but we can argue personal opinion for the next thousand years and get nowhere. But your opnion has to be based on something, and so far all we're getting is that England are crap and Carrick can fix it. Based on his United performances. I on the other hand am showing that he's played numerous times for England, with the first team, and hasn't made a difference. Even against Uruguay, when he got man of the match and we can assume was at his best, we played absolute shite, our worst game of the whole world cup. Even he can't make the difference at his best surrounded by the first team against not the brilliant opposition, when will he?
But the only way I will be proved right is if Carrick gets a run of say 3 games in a row with a stable side.
Well he's had over 3 games in a row, and as for a stable side...well, it's hard to come across those at international level with games so far apart, too many chances for players to get injured or suspended or drop in form. Aside from actual final tournaments, you rarely get three games together. And why would we play carrick 3 games in a row in crucial tournament fictures when he hasn't shown he can make any difference to England, whilst players liek Hargreaves, Gerrard and Lampard have done?
He may have played badly when he's been shoe-horned in, but so has every other player - right?
It's not like he's ever been played out os position or not got the chance witht he firts team or a normal formation. I don't see much shoe horning, unlike say Gerrard who could actually make that claim.
You constantly telling me Carrick is crap doesn't change anything - you are shooting my argument but you're not making any holes.
Actually I'm not saying Carrick is crap, I'm saying he's good at United but has made **** all difference everytime he's played for England. I think the perfomances England put out when he plays is a very large hole in your argument.
He hasn't been given a genuine chance.
Yes he has, any more chances and it'd be like the equivalent of Richardson being played from the start for United for two entire seasons, it's not reasonable given the amount of international games.
I am not saying I want him to replace Gerrard or Lampard - I am saying I want him to replace Lampard cos Lampard is a bloody liability. He is not a good team player - he plays well when the team is built around him and his limited skills. Its common football knowledge that sometimes having all players who are great individuals often messes up the team. if you then suggest Hargreaves is the man to stitch it all together its like saying Gattusso is the brains behind Milan and Italy and is just blatantly not true.
I think Lampard is a team player and I'm not suggesting Hargreaves stitches things together...I'm suggesting it
has been largely stitched together in the last couple of games and when Carrick has played it's looked no more stitched together than when he hasn't.
Gerrard and Lampard do NOT play the same role as Scholes and do not do it in similar fashion even if they did. If you believe this then its clear that your football knowledge is based on nothing but videogames or media reports.
I hate most sports videogames, I haven't played a football one in years. And I think I've made it pretty damn clear I don't listen to media reports.
They do play the same role. They all help out their midfield when they need to defend, they all like to shoot from distance, they all like to burst intot he box, they all like to pick up the ball around the box and play clever/long passes...Scholes is just better at it. Same role though.
There is a reason why Scholes is suddenly playing really REALLY well - Carrick allows him to! The interplay between the two is the best in England and possibly Europe with the possible exception of Barca or Arsenal's midfield. I'm not on crack, Carrick's presence allows those around him to play and move and pass with confidence - which is imo what England lack. If you couldn't see that in the Man Utd-Blackburn game then you need to start watching football properly.
Sorry, you do. It's United's movement, from Giggs, Scholes, Rooney, Ronaldo and Park which allows Carrick to play those balls. Quieroz said the same thing after the game, their movement tears teams apart. Good passes don't create good movement, good movement creates good opportunities to pass. I'm not saying anyone can do it, but Carrick isn't some saviour who could change things alone, as he's shown multiple times for England. He was pretty good for Spurs but he didn't pull teams apart with his passes, because he wasn't surrounded byt the right players making the right movemenets. And he isn't at England either.
You say Carrick doesn't play in Gerrard/Lampard's role, he plays in Hargreaves?
A hell of a lot more in Hargreaves that the other two.
So why then do Lampard and Gerrard play together in the same team all the time?
Because the selectors don't have the balls to drop one of them. What does Lampard and Gerrard not being able to play with each other have to do with whether Carrick is closer to the Hargreaves role or Gerrard/Lampard role?
Hargreaves is a box to box midfielder, his function is different from Carrick's and the effect on the game is different.
Hargreaves is more box to box for his club, he has to hold more for England. Of course the play differently, they're different people, but at the heart of it they both play the holding role.
Here's how I see it - England are crap, they are consistently crap and occasionally cover up the mess with flashes of individual brilliance cos hey - these guys are awesome individual players. England have one of the best squads in the world, they simply have a crappy team. However YOU are saying England are ok and nothing needs to be done - except well....er...Rooney plays well.
No, I'm saying the last two perfomances have been good except the finishing and mocement of the forwards. Rooney, Johnson, Defoe (but less Defoe, who did better when he came on)...they're the main guys who are meant to finish all those chances, and they haven't been. Previous games have been crap.
I also say we need to get some of our first teamers back, because up front and on the left wing we're severely lacking if our main guys aren't there. In other words, Owen and Joe Cole...perhaps even Crouch, as he has a knack for putting the ball int he back of hte net despite his all round play.
Finally I say that, even when both Gerrard and Lampard are fit, only one of them should be playing and that one should be playing in central midfield, not on the wing.
And from that, you concluded that I said England are ok and that nothing needs to be done except Rooney needs to play better. That's some good reading comprehension.
I think England need a drastic change if they are to win anything, you dont.
I never said that. To win something...well, I don't think we're good enough. Whoever we play, in whatever formation. I think we consistently get to about our standards, quarter-finals, in other words top 8 teams. I think we're one of about 10 teams who
could win, unlike say...Costa Rica who might have made the WC but there's no way they're winning it, but it's always still an outside chance.
Besides, putting Carrick in for Lampard is about as drastic as...something not very drastic.
you're happy with mediocrity, I'm not. Thats where we differ.
No, you're seeing mediocrity, I'm not. That's where we differ.
Has pretty much never played with a full strength team and is almost always shoe-horned in alongside the Lampard-Gerrard axis which consistently fails to produce. England will not play well while the manager is afraid to drop those two. You can put anyone in the team but if those two are together it will be tough to really produce a cohesive unit. They need to get back to basics, stop trying to find a way to get those two in the same team (and messing up the other players in the process) and just play a basic 4-4-2 where everyone knows their job - OR adopt a genuinely useful system which suits our players.
I kind of answered some of this above so I won't go over that again, but England will start playing well when they drop Gerrard and Lampard and play Carrick? Hah, god that;s deluded. Yeha, one player will make the difference. Carrkc will play and suddenly Rooney will move better and finish his chances, Johnson will finish his chances, Downing and Lennon will put in better crosses and out forwards will mvoe to the front post for them, Robinson will move his feet better to get to balls and stop messing up on crosses, we'll defend set pieces better, take them better...all the weaknesses England have shown will be rectified all because Carrick is playing, even though almost none of them have anything to do with hwo our midfielders are passing the ball.
I CAN see past Utd cos first and foremost I'm a football fan. Everytime I watch a game I learn a lesson and after watching so much international and club football over the past couple of seasons I am astounded why England are such a shambles.
And, coincidentally enough, it's
not any United players fault(despite his poor form) and it
is a United player who can save England (despite never making an ounce of difference to the way they've played when he's been there).
Yeah, you're the epitome of unbias when it comes to United players for England. Not even just England, remember how Cantona's thing wasn't nearly as bad as Chelsea's thing? That's a clear, objective view we're dealing with.
Mama you're part of the problem with this whole Gerrard-Lampard are untouchable crap and being happy with zero progress over the years.
I don't think Gerrard and Lampard are untouchable. If you'd read my posts properly you'd know that. Hell, I've said if Scholes was still available they'd be in the team instead of him. I just don't think Carrick is going to make a differnece...well, I think he'll hurt us slightly in palce of one of those two, but not a positive difference anyway.
are you talking about the upcoming winner of the champions league?
