** Official ** Summer 2010 Transfer Thread - Signings, Sightings and Rumor's in Here

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doubt Fergie will loan Gibson, Fulham had a bid rejected at the start of last season, when Gibson said he would be interested in first team football, then Fergie started to pick him. I think he's a good squad player for Utd, will always get the odd goal, just needs to work on his overall game. He's 22, btw.
 
I fear he's a one trick pony though, his passing is shocking at times and his positional sense when defending is terrible.

When he was at Wolves he was pinging the ball all over the place but that was in a division where he had more time on the ball to dictate play, you just don't get that in the Prem.

I like him but if he's thinking of loaning him out again just get rid and let him have first team football somewhere.
 
Yeah, although he can always pick up his passing game, it's his short passing which I think is his weak point, his long passes are generally OK (sort of). Few more games every so often will benefit both teams I reckon.
 
G|mp said:
Gibson has had plenty of opportunities on loan, if he is thinking about loaning him out he might as well just sell him, he's what 24 now?
Click to expand...

well he is pretty good and scores a good few too.

i mean, if we didnt have scholes to fall back on when things go wrong he would probably be lining up with carrick or fletcher.

i mean you could argue that carrick has had enough opportunities but has looked sub scholes in almost every performance he has put in since he joined the club.

and he's what 29 now so hardly likely to gain those quick feet he needs to become a great central midfielder, so why not just sell him too?

at least gibson is remotely mobile and seems keen as mustard when he does play.

and i bet he doesnt cost us half the wages that carrick costs either. so im not really understanding why you'd want to get rid of him.

its like fletcher. true he will never be paul scholes. but because he isnt that well paid and would cost what 10-15 million for someone markedly better, then why sell?

Anderson is about to come back from injury, maybe fergie was waiting for that before deciding to loan gibson out?
 
syke said:
Yeah, although he can always pick up his passing game, it's his short passing which I think is his weak point, his long passes are generally OK (sort of). Few more games every so often will benefit both teams I reckon.
Click to expand...

How long does he want to perfect his short game though? He's had a good 3 years around the first team now, he should be at a level where we can drop him in and not have to worry. He only gets used now when our forwards are knackered and we need a goal form MF.
 
I'd personally prefer to play Gibson over Carrick, both offer equally as much in defence (not much :p), but Gibson offers more goal threat wise. But a team like Utd need all the extra options.

G|mp said:
How long does he want to perfect his short game though? He's had a good 3 years around the first team now, he should be at a level where we can drop him in and not have to worry. He only gets used now when our forwards are knackered and we need a goal form MF.
Click to expand...

I guess, but he's still young considering.
 
im with syke and its not a personal vendetta vs carrick.

but seriously how you can advocate to continue with him @ 29 on relatively high wages and sell gibson off instead i have no idea/
 
Nickg said:
well he is pretty good and scores a good few too.

i mean, if we didnt have scholes to fall back on when things go wrong he would probably be lining up with carrick or fletcher.

i mean you could argue that carrick has had enough opportunities but has looked sub scholes in almost every performance he has put in since he joined the club.

and he's what 29 now so hardly likely to gain those quick feet he needs to become a great central midfielder, so why not just sell him too?

at least gibson is remotely mobile and seems keen as mustard when he does play.

and i bet he doesnt cost us half the wages that carrick costs either. so im not really understanding why you'd want to get rid of him.

its like fletcher. true he will never be paul scholes. but because he isnt that well paid and would cost what 10-15 million for someone markedly better, then why sell?

Anderson is about to come back from injury, maybe fergie was waiting for that before deciding to loan gibson out?
Click to expand...

I see your reading skills have failed you again Nicholas.

I said why loan him out again, we may as well sell him so he can join a team and be first choice, he's never going to be first choice in our midfield.

We know you don't like Carrick which is what this all boils down to really, Carrick can at least spray the ball about short and long range, Gibson can't never has been able to at Prem level.

Gibson? Mobile? are you taking the ****? and regarding him being keen, I would be keen playing for MU, doesn't mean I'm any good ;)
 
Nickg said:
well he is pretty good and scores a good few too.

i mean, if we didnt have scholes to fall back on when things go wrong he would probably be lining up with carrick or fletcher.

i mean you could argue that carrick has had enough opportunities but has looked sub scholes in almost every performance he has put in since he joined the club.

and he's what 29 now so hardly likely to gain those quick feet he needs to become a great central midfielder, so why not just sell him too?

at least gibson is remotely mobile and seems keen as mustard when he does play.

and i bet he doesnt cost us half the wages that carrick costs either. so im not really understanding why you'd want to get rid of him.

its like fletcher. true he will never be paul scholes. but because he isnt that well paid and would cost what 10-15 million for someone markedly better, then why sell?

Anderson is about to come back from injury, maybe fergie was waiting for that before deciding to loan gibson out?
Click to expand...


Got paragraphs?
 
Nickg said:
im with syke and its not a personal vendetta vs carrick.

but seriously how you can advocate to continue with him @ 29 on relatively high wages and sell gibson off instead i have no idea/
Click to expand...

Seriously read the post, I said why loan him out again which will no doubt **** him off any way seeing as he was sent on loan over 2 years ago to gain experience.

Carrick has been shocking in some games I don't disagree but if I had to pick between the 2 it would be Carrick all day.

I can hoof a ball pretty well, doesn't mean I should be in the MF.
 
I said why loan him out again, we may as well sell him so he can join a team and be first choice, he's never going to be first choice in our midfield.
Click to expand...

so you'd sell off a low cost player who does a good job for us, who we would get peanuts for? instead of loaning him out and giving him more experience?

not sure i follow that logic. its like i said with fletcher, we wouldnt get much for him, but if we were to try and buy new/better it would cost us double figure millions im sure. that doesnt make economic sense.

We know you don't like Carrick which is what this all boils down to really, Carrick can at least spray the ball about short and long range, Gibson can't never has been able to at Prem level.
Click to expand...

carrick is like 7 years older, only going to get worse and even more lethargic than he looks now in midfield. we could get some money for him at least - so to me, it would make more sense to actually dump him off than it would to dump gibson off.

but either way you'd be looking at 10-15mill for a replacement for either player:/

Gibson? Mobile? are you taking the ****? and regarding him being keen
Click to expand...

compared to carrick he looks like linford christie.

Got paragraphs?
Click to expand...

got life? if your going to read the post, and then make a comment like that i think you need to re-assess what your doing in the football transfer forum!
 
Last edited:
In their role though neither have to be that quick, look at Scholes. Most of the midfield have their weaknesses anyway, Gibson with short passing and Scholes can't tackle for **** :p
 
well thats because scholes is an exceptional passer, but like Xavi can turn in an area around the size of a tenpence piece -

Carrick on the other hand has the turning circle of a loaded oil tanker. thus he gets caught out on the ball and has to pass it back more often than scholes, ending our attacks before they cross the half way line - rendering his range of passing useless at times because he gets pressured out of the game.

im not saying that gibson is better than either - but he is the cheapest, has the most potential and would recoup us the least if we sold him. therefore we should continue to track his progress, maybe loan him out but there is no need to sell him.
 
Nickg said:
well thats because scholes is an exceptional passer, but like Xavi can turn in an area around the size of a tenpence piece -

Carrick on the other hand has the turning circle of a loaded oil tanker. thus he gets caught out on the ball and has to pass it back more often than scholes, ending our attacks before they cross the half way line - rendering his range of passing useless at times because he gets pressured out of the game.

im not saying that gibson is better than either - but he is the cheapest, has the most potential and would recoup us the least if we sold him. therefore we should continue to track his progress, maybe loan him out but there is no need to sell him.
Click to expand...

totally forgetting that Carrick has been in the CORE of the side that won 3 consecutive titles (including one where he was the only new player - ie making him the difference between winning /not winning)

He had a terrible season last year undoubtedly, but he is infinitely better than Gibson (even if we lose the ODD goal that Gibson does score)


edit -
SAF KNOWS for sure Carrick has the ability to contribute to winning the title - he doesnt know that about Gibson, and is still a huge questionmark whether Gibson will ever be good enough

Its only your opinion that Carrick will get worse, absolutely no foundation /fact to that in the slightest

Im sure you were also one of the people saying Giggs and Scholes couldnt play a part two seasons ago and we should force them to retire, yet they are still absolutely crucial for the right reasons to the squad....
 
Last edited:
well, he was in the team that had a core build around rooney and ronaldo using super counter attacking speed to win us games.

carrick was playing a part dont get me wrong. but you could have replaced carrick with any good midfielder, even to go as low i guess as someone like S. Parker.

it wasnt that carrick brought something that say, an Essien, or lampard, or gerrard couldnt have brought us. he was just the best we had at the time and therefore he played. note how since ronaldo left and carrick was still in the team, we lose the premierleague and drop woefully out of the Champions league (carrick!!! why not just stand up to that bayern striker instead of falling on your behind?).. tells me that we won and also lost because of ronaldo NOTHING to do with carrick im afraid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom