Their best defender Ledley King has been injured for the last 2 seasons. We conceded more goals when Rio was suspended with Keane in the midfield than with OShea in the middle and Rio playing. Does that mean OShea >>> Keane ?
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Their best defender Ledley King has been injured for the last 2 seasons. We conceded more goals when Rio was suspended with Keane in the midfield than with OShea in the middle and Rio playing. Does that mean OShea >>> Keane ?
For sure. It's a mere coincidence. Since 99 we haven't won any way game in Europe in a very comfortable fashion. We've either lost continously or scapped through results like the Lille one of last year
Yep. We never beat Deportivo away in 2002 and after, playing 4--2-3-1. Never beat Juventus 3-0 at the Del Alpi. Never drew with REAL at the Bernabeu in 2000. Have never drawn with Bayern Munich away during that period. Have never beaten sides like Valencia in Spain or Olympiakos in Greece. Celtic and Rangers in Scotland. Infact, We've not won one single European away game since 99 till Carrick arrived.
No. It means a defence without Rio is shit, even with a Keane shielding it. Yey people like acnumber9 are meanwhile trying to claim our defensive improvment was down to Carrick's presnence. Which is plain stupid. especially when even with O'shea infront of it, we still weren't coneeding goals like water but were steadily improving.
King played 26 league games in 05/06 as opposed to 21 in 06/07. Not sure exactly but I'm guessing Spurs didn't concede 16 goals in those five games of a difference. Besides it wasn't me who said that Spurs had improved dramatically since Carrick's departure. Merely stating that the league table says otherwise. As far as the Keane O'Shea comparison goes no it does not mean that. Though Keane was pay past his best by that time anyway. If he had been at his best he would obviosly have made a huge difference.
Yes, you are a shameless idiot, Gus.
idiot
I perhaps went overboard in my initial appraisal that we've been terrible away from home in Europe. However there have been some pretty dodgy results also. You casually forget to mention we had already lost away to Deportivo that very same season playing that very same system you laud. Also in the past we have lost games at the likes of Anderlecht, PSV Eindhoven, Macabbi Haifa et al.
That Juventus game you mention we played 4-4-2 and you're right we haven't beaten Valencia, infact I believe we have stiil yet to beat any Spanish team on their own soil, or Celtic away from home and a win away to Rangers is no more impressive than a win away to Lille or Benfica. Still just keep making 'facts' up. It seems to be what you're best at. So you were about to tell us again how Hargreaves was the reason we won our group so comfortably.
If anyone is it will be De Rossi. Remember, Keane didn't become the player we know him to have been until the late 90s, around 98/99 to be exact.
We'd also never drawn away to Lyon until Owen Hargreaves arrived at the club. Oh wait....
My point was that Spurs never fell apart when Carrick, having overall far better results and a far better season without him shielding their defence or their midfield. Thinsg you claimed by the way. On top your lie that ouf defence got better cause of Carrick's arrival We only beat a 10 man Chlesea in the league. We havne't beatn Arsenal in teh league yet.
That's just dumb. I never said we lost to Bolton at all. You must think West Ham is pooucned Bolton. Besides we actually lost to Bolton, this season, with Carrick very present and rather poor
I insist. You first tell us how Carrick is the reason our defence was brilliant this season and last, and how our away from in Europe has besn shit since. Then you will earn the right to ask me such questions.
Your posts are just getting more dumb by the minute. We struggle to win a Lille away from home, after being dominated, but I'm wrong to blame Carrick, while we are ublucky to draw, with a well organsied Lyon side, away, a game we dominated and Hargreaves played well in but you're it's his fault we drew
We beat Deportivo comfortbaly away from home in 2002. Same as at OT. Later that season with the formation you are abusing. Once or twice again in the following years. So much for me making facts up....
No I didn't merely pointed out the difference in how both teams have fared with and without Carrick. It's up to the individual's opinion whether Carrcik was a big influence or otherwise. Spurs never had a far better season. They finished the league season with 11 points fewer than they did the season before with Carrick instrumental. A team's performance in cup competitions is not a true barometer of success as they are dependant upon draws etc. The league is, simple as that. Spurs are not as good as they were when Carrick was playing for them.
We only beat a 10 man Chlesea in the league. We havne't beatn Arsenal in teh league yet.
We beat both teams with Carrick being instrumental both. Fact.
That's just dumb. I never said we lost to Bolton at all. You must think West Ham is pooucned Bolton. Besides we actually lost to Bolton, this season, with Carrick very present and rather poor
You did mention Bolton. You may remember Hargreaves was equall poor against Bolton
I insist. You first tell us how Carrick is the reason our defence was brilliant this season and last, and how our away from in Europe has besn shit since. Then you will earn the right to ask me such questions.
You really are rather pompous aren't you? I didn't say he was the reason our defence improved though I do believe he contributed to it. And as I have already stated our away form has imrpoved in comparison to the two seasons proceeding it. Keep ducking the questions though. /QUOTE]
We also lost 2-0 away to Deportivo. the game at OT is irrelevant as we're discussing away form. You made up us supposedly beating Valencia away from home along with beating Celtic. You also fathomed up in a thread a while back that Hargreaves was the reason we romped our group despite only having played fifteen minutes in it. Explain that to me again.
You're memory isn't quite as good as you like to think. Perhaps your memory of the Milan game you constantly reference isn't quite as clear as you like to think either. Remind us again what was the score when we beat Valencia and Celtic away from home?
Your posts are just getting more dumb by the minute. We struggle to win a Lille away from home, after being dominated, but I'm wrong to blame Carrick, while we are ublucky to draw, witha well organsied Lyon side, away, a game we dominaed and Hagrevaes plyed well in but you're it's his fault we drew
I never said you were wrong to blame Carrick. I also never blamed Hargreaves for drawing last night. It's your opinon Hargreaves played well. That could be down to your famous memory again. In mine he did very little. I was just stating I didn't see the improvement in our performance that you and other's were telling me we would see away from home with Hargreaves in the team. Had the team that ended the match started it I believe we would've won comfortably.
Hargreaves Haters/Carrick Lovers <-------------------------------------------- Sensible People --------------------------------------------> Carrick Haters/Hargreaves Lovers
The Chief...sorry, Dogg has spoken
The Chief...sorry, Dogg has spoken
Aesthetically speaking, hargreaves didn't have a "good" game, however, his game was probably by far the most effective in the United midfield out of himself, Anderson and Scholes. That is, until Carricks introduction and Anderson picking up his tempo in the second half.
If one looks at the game from a coaching and tactical standpoint, Hargreaves played a huge part in Lyon not increasing their lead at times. Had it not been for Owen quitely doing his business the way he did, Benzema would have had more possession throughout the game, Govou would have torn us to shreds and Lyon would have probably dominated far longer than the first 20 minutes from which they did.
Those who fail to see his unassuming and hardworking nature and overall contribution to the team, really are the first ones to claim that he didn't have a good game in the first place, whilst missing some vital things that contributed towards the end result.
I'm not saying that Hargreaves has been superb by any standards. I'm just saying that when he has played, taking into account his lack of playing time for United, he has quietly gone about a job that has been given to him and he has done it well, if unspectacularly.
If one looks at the game from a coaching and tactical standpoint, Hargreaves played a huge part in Lyon not increasing their lead at times. Had it not been for Owen quitely doing his business the way he did, Benzema would have had more possession throughout the game, Govou would have torn us to shreds and Lyon would have probably dominated far longer than the first 20 minutes from which they did.
Those who fail to see his unassuming and hardworking nature and overall contribution to the team, really are the first ones to claim that he didn't have a good game in the first place, whilst missing some vital things that contributed towards the end result.
I'm not saying that Hargreaves has been superb by any standards. I'm just saying that when he has played, taking into account his lack of playing time for United, he has quietly gone about a job that has been given to him and he has done it well, if unspectacularly.
Carrick is not a defensive midfielder.
Both Carrick and Hargreaves should start in Europe.
Anybody who tries to blame Rooney for our poor performance yesterday with no mention of Ronaldo's or giggs' performances is an idiot.
Anybody who hates a united player is a fecking wanker.
Both Carrick and Hargreaves should start in Europe.
Anybody who tries to blame Rooney for our poor performance yesterday with no mention of Ronaldo's or giggs' performances is an idiot.
Anybody who hates a united player is a fecking wanker.
Yes, Hargreaves should focus on winning the ball and he should play with more intensity (like Fletcher does once or twice every season). He should win the ball, then sidefoot it to someone who can dictate play and pick out a pass, ala Carrick or Scholes. I hate it when he looks around and dawdles on the ball, inviting pressure then doing the fancy dragbacks etc. End up passing back to VDS.
And when he does give a little pass to Carrick and Scholes, it is vital he gets himself in a position to recieve a simple pass back if they need him. That, more than anything else, annoys me about Hargreaves. So many times when he does the right thing and gives a simple pass to a more dominant player, he then just sits there or he runs forward to nowhere (perhaps he thinks he's getting into position to recieve the ball in a more dangerous position, but we don't need him to do that - he should be the one giving the ball player the simple option if needed).
Or, alternatively, had Carrick started we could have ended up winning 3-1.
That's pure crap. Cups also counts in a season. Spurs finished 5th just like when Carrick was there. But without him they faired better in all cup competitions. It's obvious that they had a far better season the season he left.
We haven't beaten both teams in the league. We also beat a 10 man team when we played Chelsea. Hardly something to call special.
Bullshit. I mentioned Bolton this season. You claimed I was talking about last season. Furthermore Hargreaves played well against them this term. Carrick was utter rubbish vs Bolton.
Why? Because I don't want to answer you pathetic cheap shot question about Hagreaves?
You said this about Carrick arrival:
Of course I will. You keep hankering own about that mistake I made talking about Hargreaves and oru champions league our this year. In order to hide the truth that you've been talking crap about Hargreaves and even more crap about Carrick.
Chief stop being a cnut. Constantly telling people that they are talking shit or being idiots.
It's funny how your opinion is a minority one...
It's funny how your opinion is a minority one...
Rather I've just proved Carrick faired ratehr worse.
4-2-3-1 is not alien to our players. We played it yesterday and dominated Lyon unlucky to get a draw. But you wnat to claim it was Hargreaves fault.
Yet vs Lille with Carrick was a holding player vs Lille, we played the same system, with 2 strikers even, fecking struggled and stole a win agaisnt Lille off Giggs magic. This against a much weaker side than Lyon. But you want to claim it was a system problem.
You just don't' know when to stop making fool of yourself. ClearlyThat's just shows your ignorance. Their midfield and attack was bulunted because our entire midfield did it's job. Including Hargreaves. Our going 1-0 down was down to a special stiker from Benzama and little else. Besides, we were still 1-0 down by the time Hargreaves was subbed, because Giggs had a knock, Scholes was clearly tired out and Lyon ahd given up attacking when they realised we were superior in midfield, trying to protect their one goal lead. But don't let such simple truths get in the way of your anti Hargreaves bullshit
People like you claim he was their key player and they fell apart without him. Yet with him they had a whole season to concentrate on the league alone and couldn't even hold on to 4th place after holding it for so long. Not to mention getting kicked out of cups by lower league sides.
Whne he left though Spurs finished 5th still, went further in the FA and Carling Cup, managed to get to a European semi final and managed to beat Chelsea. All things they couldn't do with Carrick there. A player used to British football. Yet the achieved far more with new player unused to the league like Zokora in his place. After a shakey start to that season. If that isn't dramatic improvement, under the circumatances, nothing else is.
I agree with all you say in the post except the fact you think we were poor yesterday
Who cares, bitch?Hargreaves Haters/Carrick Lovers <-------------------------------------------- Sensible People --------------------------------------------> Carrick Haters/Hargreaves Lovers
The Chief...sorry, Dogg has spoken
So I should say that a person claiming I said something I neve said is telling the truth and not talking shit eh?
Rather it's sad. It shows how there are few sensible people in these forums.
lol, let's see how many pages this can go on
Who said this then:
The above post tackes no blame to Hargreaves for our draw last night. None what soever
We dominate a match away from home, from start to finish, a team of Lyon's quality, when we struggled against crap like Lille and F.C Copenhagen and you see no improvement. Yet you want to be taken seriously
I suppose yours is better that tells you we never beat Deportivo home and away more than once between 2002 and 2004 in the champions league right? On top of us having a shit away record in Europe since 99
Hargreaves was played as a RB by Sven most of the time as a fill in for Neville. He rarely (if ever?) was brought on as a CM until the world cup. So the kid was being played out of position as a bandaid and he got lambasted by the fans and the press.
Finally when Sven got his head out of his ass and stopped playing Gerrard and Lampard together and gave Hargreaves a shot in CM the result was his form at WC06.
This is why I am skeptical of the people suggesting we should play him at RB. He wasn't anything special for England then at RB and that is where much of the hate for him Pre WC came from.
We beat that same side, that season at the Riazor 2-0. Yet his still escapes you
i think it's dangerous to buy in to the "he WILL 'improve' us in europe and we WILL win the CL with hargreaves now" hype that the media and many caftards are claiming. i am a hargreaves fan, but i feel that putting our CL hopes on his shoulders is a bit much as it's a team game.. i mean, rooney, ronaldo, and our back 4 must also play well.. it is a team game you know. i have a feeling that if we don't win the CL, all the hargreaves haters on here will call for his head.
he simply gives us another option of having a DM that may be useful in certain games, something we did not have for the past few seasons. it HELPS having one in the pursuit of CL glory, but it seems like most people here are expecting him alone to be the reason we win or don't win the CL.
he simply gives us another option of having a DM that may be useful in certain games, something we did not have for the past few seasons. it HELPS having one in the pursuit of CL glory, but it seems like most people here are expecting him alone to be the reason we win or don't win the CL.
I don't
good
- Status