Yes because of that, and because he was never picked ahead of Terry and Ferdinand, for center Back.
Yes because of that, and because he was never picked ahead of Terry and Ferdinand, for center Back.
Becuase the CB's at the time were fantastic - hence why they did so well '98 and '02. Can't remember '00 for the life of me.
Fact is. 34 caps in 8 years - Jamie Carragher.
Fact is. 17 caps in 8 years - Michael Carrick.
What's your point?
Wasn't the fact that he wasn't good enough, it was the fact that the players ahead of him were even more exceptional.
Bullard and Huddlestone get chosen ahead of Carrick.
Terry and Ferdinand get chosen ahead of Carragher.
Do you see the problem with your argument, Pleke?
He can't argue against that, TBH.
Pure facts.
So you're saying Bullard and Huddlestone are better than Carrick because they play Internationals?
That's not what I'm saying. That's not what this argument is about. We were on the subject of Carragher not being picked.
FGS stop backpedaling. You're wrong, for once. Admit it.
He wasn't saying it to be honest, Fabio Capello chooses the team, he knows more about this than us...
But the argument started about Xavi being better than Carrick because Xavi plays internationals and Carrick doesn't. So by your logic Huddlestone and Bullard are better than Carrick because they play for England, even thought Carrick plays more games for England than them two. So YOU are wrong.That's exactly what I'm saying - and I'm not even being sarcastic.
Carrick can't get into an England team that can't qualify for an international tournament but Xavi can get into the team and won the competition that England failed to to qualify for with a team of players better than Xavi.
I think non-deluded Manure fans would agree that Xavi is a better player than Carrick by a million.
Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!