Carrick coming back?!

[don1]

i would have carrick back but it will not happen

 

[tony0379]

bring him bk now

 

[joey55]

There are many good alternatives in central midfield, but why did we not sign Lassana Diarra from Chelsea??

I'm sure there were many reasons, but the key would have been that Arsenal obviously wanted him. Whilst the deal went through at the last minute, I'm sure Diarra was aware of Wengers interest for a long time.

 

[N10toN17]

I thought at the time 18 mil for Carrick was a great bit of business for us and still do, just another overated local. Give Ramos 18 mil for a centre midfielder and I'm confident he'd find a player that will leave mickey boy looking decidedly average.

 

[Yid-ol]

i would take him back in a second, bu find it really ahrd to belive that it could happen

 

[Bus-Conductor]

But we played better without Davids, or at least and most importantly we won more points. From Davids 1st game to his last he played just over half the matches. Yet we earned 0.5 pts per game more without him. At the time I was in favour of Davids, but there were alot (perhaps a majority) who saw him as a liability. At the end of the day, opinion is worth jack shit next to results, so to be fair, those who were critical of Davids were right. Also from the moment he left the club, to the end of the season, we won the 3rd highest points total in the Prem and went on a run from the bottom half to 5th.

This is such an over simplification of statistical evidence in order to support a theory. PPG for individual palyers is a pretty vague statistic at the best of times because a single players stats will be influenced by 10 other players a week plus the opposition 11 it has no relevence in terms of actual performance of . Because a player is on the pitch when a team plays badly does not mean the he is soley responsible for the point average. Our point average with Gardner in the side last year was 2.3 or something equally fantastic. Was Tony Gardner the most influencial player at the club. Should he be playing every week ?

Was Davids always played in his favoured CM position where he could hve influenced the game more and perhaps improved everybody's PPG average including his own. And he barely figured for any full match for a good couple of months before January when he left.

Does that stat differenciate between full appearances and subs or being subbed, does it differenciate between the difficult opponents and the easy, home and away ??.

Davids was instrimental in our best ever PL season. He was also instrimental in Carrick having his best season ever. If Jol would have had the brains to stick him in CM next to Jenas or Zokora we might not have had such a dreadful start to last year and such poor away form.

If you were one of the people in favour of Davids then you were right to be. If you changed your mind because of that stupid stat, then you will no doubt be pushing for TG as our new skipper.

 

[joey55]

This is such an over simplification of statistical evidence in order to support a theory. PPG for individual palyers is a pretty vague statistic at the best of times because a single players stats will be influenced by 10 other players a week plus the opposition 11 it has no relevence in terms of actual performance of . Because a player is on the pitch when a team plays badly does not mean the he is soley responsible for the point average. Our point average with Gardner in the side last year was 2.3 or something equally fantastic. Was Tony Gardner the most influencial player at the club. Should he be playing every week ?

Was Davids always played in his favoured CM position where he could hve influenced the game more and perhaps improved everybody's PPG average including his own. And he barely figured for any full match for a good couple of months before January when he left.

Does that stat differenciate between full appearances and subs or being subbed, does it differenciate between the difficult opponents and the easy, home and away ??.

Davids was instrimental in our best ever PL season. He was also instrimental in Carrick having his best season ever. If Jol would have had the brains to stick him in CM next to Jenas or Zokora we might not have had such a dreadful start to last year and such poor away form.

If you were one of the people in favour of Davids then you were right to be. If you changed your mind because of that stupid stat, then you will no doubt be pushing for TG as our new skipper.

Gardner only played 5 games last season. Davids made 34 starts between his first and last games. The suggestion was that our form suffered as a result of his departure, yet results show that our form actually picked up following Davids departure. A closer look at PPG when he played compared to the results after his final game, again show an improvement in form. No argument or theory is without flaws, but in a simple comparison of form with and without a player, I think results are by far the best guideline.
It's pretty difficult to claim he is the reason for a drop in form that didn't happen!

From his first game against Boro, to his last against Blackburn he made 34 starts and we averaged 1.6 ppg. After that and until the end of the season, we average 1.7 ppg. I don't see how this is a slump in form.

 

[theburtonshelf]

i stuck my 2 cents on the front page thread so here ill simply say

ray:ray:ray:ray:

and reiterate my opinion that selling him was the single biggest step backwards it was possible to make at the time.

 

[joey55]

i stuck my 2 cents on the front page thread so here ill simply say

ray:ray:ray:ray:

and reiterate my opinion that selling him was the single biggest step backwards it was possible to make at the time.

We finished 2 pts behind Arsenal. They had a £50 million offer for Henry and turned it down. We sold Carrick. Yet we started the following season with fans expecting us to close the gap!

 

[orkneyspur]

FFS, so you think he will leave a club that actually wins stuff and challenges for the Champions League every year, to come back to us.
Get real. :duh:

 

[SpurSince57]

This is so clearly a response to Carrick's 'plea' to Berbatov. Either a Spurs 'insider' has told the Hate-Mail we're interested, or one of their 'journalists' has made it up. Whichever, it's bollocks.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Gardner only played 5 games last season. Davids made 34 starts between his first and last games. The suggestion was that our form suffered as a result of his departure, yet results show that our form actually picked up following Davids departure. A closer look at PPG when he played compared to the results after his final game, again show an improvement in form. No argument or theory is without flaws, but in a simple comparison of form with and without a player, I think results are by far the best guideline.
It's pretty difficult to claim he is the reason for a drop in form that didn't happen!

From his first game against Boro, to his last against Blackburn he made 34 starts and we averaged 1.6 ppg. After that and until the end of the season, we average 1.7 ppg. I don't see how this is a slump in form.

Fuck me, we really went stratospheric when Davids left didn't we. 0.1 ppg. What a ****. So it actually took 10 games for the difference in with davids to without Davids to add an extra point to our total. Wow, great fucking stat.

Or could it be that players like Berbatov, Zokora settling in and ****'s like Ghaly, Murphy etc playing less. Or some slightly easier fixtures. Either way a thousand things could explain an improvement of 0.1 ppg.

 

[joey55]

Fuck me, we really went stratospheric when Davids left didn't we. 0.1 ppg. What a ****. So it actually took 10 games for the difference in with davids to without Davids to add an extra point to our total. Wow, great fucking stat.

Or could it be that players like Berbatov, Zokora settling in and ****'s like Ghaly, Murphy etc playing less. Or some slightly easier fixtures. Either way a thousand things could explain an improvement of 0.1 ppg.

The point isn't to show an improvement. The point is to show there wasn't a slump in form. It doesn't need to be explained, just demonstrated, which it has been. It wasn't a comparison between all the games Davids played and those he didn't, as that wasn't the point. To do that would show a more significant difference. It was a comparison of form post Davids, against form with Davids.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

The point isn't to show an improvement. The point is to show there wasn't a slump in form. It doesn't need to be explained, just demonstrated, which it has been. It wasn't a comparison between all the games Davids played and those he didn't, as that wasn't the point. To do that would show a more significant difference. It was a comparison of form post Davids, against form with Davids.

I'm just pointing out that PPG is a fucking stupid stat at the best of times, but with regards to Davids it was an even stupider application.

A really interesting stat would be how goals per game we conceded with Davids and without. As that was an area he definately influenced.

 

[joey55]

I'm just pointing out that PPG is a fucking stupid stat at the best of times, but with regards to Davids it was an even stupider application.

A really interesting stat would be how goals per game we conceded with Davids and without. As that was an area he definately influenced.

I don't agree that it's a stupid stat. Any stat can be stupid if used poorly, but the same stat can be equally helpful if used suitably. I can't think of a better stat than PPG to illustrate a teams form. So if the suggestion is form suffered after a particular player leaves a club, it is certainly useful to see how many points ppg the team was earning when the player was in the team and compare that with results in the period of "poor form". Stats might not be perfect and have many flaws, but certainly no more so than human opinion. Stats, if used correctly can and should play a massive role in judging players/teams/coaches etc.

Anyway Davids was on the pitch when we conceded 32 of our 38 goals in the 2005/6 season. Until his last game at Blackburn he was on the pitch for 9 of the 13 goals we conceded up to that point. So on a basis of games started (I can't be bothered to work it out in minutes as it would take ages), in his first season we conceded 1.1 goal per game with him and 0.6 per game without him. Last season we conceded 1.5 per game with him and 0.5 goals per game without him. After his last game we conceded a further 41, meaning an average of 1.6 per game. Overall that season it was 1.4 conceded without Davids and 1.5 with him. Basically we conceded less when Davids wasn't playing.

We play a top 4 side every 4.75 games. Davids played one every 4.8 games, so he played a balanced amount. He also played 19 home games and 15 away. So he had home advantage more often than away. As for the Opta stats I can't be bothered to post them, but Steed Malbranque (who essentially replaced him) kicked his ass, most noticeably on tackles.

As for how substitutions effected his stats etc. He either came off or came on 16 times. Most of these saw no change in the score, as naturally they were usually happening late on in games. However, there were 5 occasions in which the score did change. After he was taken off at Blackburn we scored to win the game. After he was taken off at Sunderland they equliaised. Again against Blackburn we were losing, the he was taken off and we then scored. At Villa we were winning 1-0, then he was brought on and they equilised. Against liverpool we were drawing 0-0, then he came on and we lost. So of the 5 changes he had a negative influence 4 times and positive once.

 

[double0]

All this Carrick talk really makes me laugh... it was the best bit of business this club had done in years selling M Carrick for 18.6M. People still think it was about Carrick at Spurs when truly it was a collective combination of players like Edger Davids who fails to get any recognition and Jenas goals.

Carrick can't even get into the United team. His been over hyped by Spurs supporters.

 

[Mullers]

There is no way he is coming back here, this is a non story.

 

[KentuckyYid]

18 million was a great price to sell him for but I'm not convinced a great price to pay for him...

For that money there has to be someone better than Carrick who could be a complete midfielder general for us. 18 million is top shelf money and Carrick isn't top shelf. You have to wonder why Fergie spent huge money on Hargreaves & Anderson after having a good look at Carrick?

If anything THFC should offer 10 million tops, who else is going to pay that for him? Certainly no other teams would consider 18 million.

 

[SpurSince57]

You'd have thought he'd have had a good look at Carrick before spending the tick end of £19m. And Hargreaves currently appears to be upping the United physios' overtime earnings.

 

[The Apprentice]

I don't get why people think Carrick is not wanted by United. He's been injured and they're easing him back in. Scholes and Giggs will be retiring within a few years, Fletcher isn't up to scratch and Hargreaves is always crock. Fair enough they've got Anderson but they don't want to be playing him every week. I still reckon Fergie rates Mickey C pretty highly.

Why the fuck am I worrying about United anyway. Stupid Da stupid DA.

Ain't going to happen by the way.