Originally posted by Alpha CentauriSenderos is not a shit defender, he's an unreliable one. He has moments of brilliance and moments of match-costing idiocy.
How long has Park had to work at his ability so he reaches the level of "a little bit" worse than Rosicky (Giving him a lot of credit)? Ages. That's my point. He's simply not good enough to get the games he'd need to improve either.
I disagree that Fletcher is good, and Anderson is clearly much better than Carrick, who is a £18 million waste. That is simply not acceptable for the kind of player you can get for less, like Anderson. Then you have to factor in, what potential have they got to get better? Anderson? Lots, I think. Carrick? Not much, he's not going to get much better. Neither is Park, neither is Pique. Hargreaves might.
How many of those last four have made a mockery of some of the world's best defenders at barely legal age? Sergio Ramos might as well not have been there when Osasuna played Real Madrid, Gibbs is tough midfielder for a kid, and he really is a kid. He stops people in their tracks, men.
Bendtner plays how Arsenal like to play, and with development he'll be brilliant if he doesn't leave. My argument was based around who has a more promising squad, a more effective squad. The answer is Arsenal.
Yes, but my point is; Man Utd with a few players missing isn't as devestating as it is for Arsenal. Whilst Arsenal have the more promising squad, they only work in certain combinations. Man Utd's benchwarmers are former first-teamers who can come on and fit right in. Arsenal can only do that with a few of the more experienced bench players. You couldn't really bring on Gibbs, but you could bring on Silvestre.
Man Utd do not play adventurously enough, or skillfully enough, that one WRONG change could throw it all out of whack. If Fergie plays Carrick, not Anderson, you're not going to start spazzing on the floor and get whooped. Why? Cos Man Utd play simple, unadventurous football, and they players are the same when playing for them. So the bench players, who aren't ex-first teamers, come on and fit in. So you could argue they're more safe, not necessarily better.
If Wenger takes a gamble and makes a mistake, Arsenal play far too openly and fluently for that to be just a hiccup. If he kept Almunia in goal instead of Fabianski, I think the Tottenham result wouldn't have been half as bad.
-AC [/B]
really? you dont like carrick? i think hes great, hes exactly what i want from someone in his position. i dont really see why you like rosicky so much, he fits in with what arsenal do okay but hes not all that great a player. hows the arsenal sqaud more effective if it only works if certain players play with each other? more promising i can see maybe but effective i disagree.