No. You are dishonest because of this:Because I believe Hargreaves is no upto the task, I'm dishonest?
Milne>Hargreaves. Milne was fecking shit.
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Milne>Hargreaves. Milne was fecking shit.
Hargreaves is ok,hopefully he can bring more out of his locker if he still has it.The problem we allways had with the two man centre midfield area was having two different but unique players in scholes,one who was superb at all areas but tackling and another who was superb at tackling and had great energy but was also no mug with the ball.so basically it was great when we had the ball but maybe we were a man light in the centre when we didn't.Keane did his best and mostly won alot of battles but couldn't allways be superman allthough some would argue different.Now with hargreaves in the midfield we somehow have to incorporate a 3 man midfield not including the wings as his passing game is not anywere near good to be perfectly honest and we need two other players in scholes/carrick and anderson to provide the fluency in passing and attacking threat.To me when anderson develops more and he is very close ,he would be perfectly suited next to carrick as this would provide us with a solid passing and attacking unit but also one that can defend to a decent extent.
i could see a long term carrick-anderson partnership working with hargreaves and fletcher as back up... assuming we play 442..
Spot on
i'm not convinced by Hargreaves. never have been. i feel Carrick is the superior reader of the game, and is obviously better on the ball. last night against Lyon, i expected us to lose the ball practically every time he had possession and was under some pressure.
i hope he proves me wrong, but i fear he won't.
i hope he proves me wrong, but i fear he won't.
he wont
he must have been joking , milne was septic
I admitted I was over stating our away form post 99, though I never said we didn't beat Deportivo home and away. We also lost home and away to the same opposition. Shame you seem unable to do the same with your own mistakes. You were about to tell us why we romped the groups though so continue.
you could just substitute carricks name for hargreaves in the above and it would also be valid
Interesting that you admit a defence without Ferdinand is shit even with Keane shielding it yet constantly harp on about Carrick being the reason we lost to Milan and not the players we were missing at the back. Remind me, what was the score when we won at the Mestalla?
At the time you made that mistake you were trying to point out that Hargeraves had improved our European form when he had played just 15 minutes. That is what makes your endless arguements about Hargreaves hard to take becasue you clearly have no idea who is actually on the pitch and you will use any statistic to prove your theory that Hargreaves is a better player than Carrick, even those that clearly have no basis in reality. As it goes I blame us only getting a draw last night on Sir Alex Ferguson not starting with Tevez. I believe playing a front two of him and Rooney would've won us the regardless of who was in midfield. Anyway, you were about to tell us what the score was when we won at Parkhead.
That's the thing Red Indian. I make my points based on my opinions without feeling the need to accuse you off being wrong. You have every right to blame Carrick all you want, I was merely pointing out why I believe differently.
As far as the last bit goes you seem to forget what the score was when Hargreaves left the pitch.
That's because people like yourself and Red Indian were constantly telling us he would be the player that would make the difference.
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. Clearly
That'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.
We created the square sum of feck all when playing this 4-3-2-1 system last night. We only really looked scoring when we changed the shape of our team. If you can't see that then you weren't watching the game. Maybe you were watching a video of our famous victory over Valencia at the Mestalla.
As far as the whole Spurs thing goes. Had they still had Carrick last season coupled with the signing of a top class striker in Berbatov they may well have taken the 4th Champions League spot.
really... where/when did i say that? but he could make the difference.. it's obviously too early to tell since it's only the 1st knockout stage.
1-1 away to Lyon is not shameful, Hargreaves is a decent player to have in the squad.
yes and...? did i ever say it wouldn't? i never blamed carrick for us losing to milan.. kaka and seedorf and gattuso were just too much class. having the "option" of hargreaves is useful for players we need to stop and nullify which we did not have for several seasons, and could have been useful last season.
I believe you did in the Hargreaves....one signing too many thread. If you didn't then accept my apologies. You seem to have changed tack somewhat since then.
it'll change again next game and the Hargreaves supports'll be back on their high horses
How? That's a really harsh description of his performance and did nothing to warrant that type.
dear god, threads about Hargreaves are a fantastic success, you can expect 20 pages at least. When people get tired of too many pages soon after there is another one named Owen Hargreaves or Carrick is better than...
This is getting stupid now.
This is getting stupid now.
it'll change again next game and the Hargreaves supports'll be back on their high horses
and the haters will jump on the "sell hargreaves immediately" bandwagon if he has a poor game. if he does well, he'll get praise.. if carrick does well he'll get praise.. don't know where this high horse nonsense is coming from.
nope, i'm always right.
You could substitute any player in that sentence and it would still be valid... Park is a decent player to have in the squad... Fletcher is a decent player, O'Shea is a decent player etc.
Hargreaves really hasn't justified his 17m price tag just yet, i know i said i wouldnt be bringing that in but even though it's an inflated value, a player's price tag is usually relevant to his squad status. 3m Park is a backup squad player for example, 17m Hargreaves should be a key player, like 17m Mascherano for example (indispensable). He's a big lad but has yet to really impose himself, he seems more like Rio than a Keane or a Gattuso tbh. For a DM I'm not sure if that's good or bad.
And will he work in a 4-4-2? Well until he starts changing his game to be more aggressive and dominating, I wouldn't put money on it. I do think he should be given a chance against Newcastle though, they are bound to get stuck in and try to unsettle us, good opportunity for him to show his stuff.
Yeah but all those players mentioned besides Hargreaves did not play in the match, so who knows what would have happened if they did, had Rooney taken his early chance United probably would have won, that said 1-1 is a very very good result against any team away from home, especially one that we will batter at home, like Lyon
I wouldn't compare him to Rio. Makelele and Mascherano are like the defensive midfield version of Rio because their game is more about intelligent positioning and getting in the right place at the right time. Hargreaves runs around a lot, but seems to be caught out of position quite often (more when we are in possession of the ball though) and doesn't play it intelligently.
I admited my mistake about Hargreaves and our champions league run several threads ago. But you've been throwing it in my face since the start of this thread. So don't give me this hypotrictial stance that I shouldn't throw your admitted mistakes in your face and that I dont admit any mistake I make
Because it isn't rocket science. Our midfield provided no sheild for our back 4 in vs Milan. Any one who watched the games could see that clearly. People love to claim our defence as an excuse vs Milan nd the system. But we used the same system and a weaker defence than what faced Milan at the San siro, at Old Trafford and beat them. Meaning the battle was lost else where of course. One look at how we faired with Gatusso with on pitch at OT, off it and then his finishing the game at the San Siro said it all. We lost the physical battle in mdfield and teh war.
Meanwhile in Keane's day, the season Suspended the defence was just to o poor. Worse than what faced Milan. Without him their fate would obviously have been far worse. But because you believe Carrick can do no wrong these concepts seem alien to you.
You first prove how we've never won or got points in Spain against any oppostion like you initailly stated. Plus how shit our record has been sicne 99 way from hom in europe.
I like Carrick but lets be honest here. There are many, many CM's I would rather have than Carrick. Maybe many isn't strong enough. There are tons.
Carrick gets far too much credit on this site. The arrival of Ronaldo as a top player last year has WAY more to do with us winning the Prem than the purchase of Carrick.
I would argue vehemently we would have won it without Carrick using Fletcher or O'Shea.
Let's REALLY break down what Carrick brings to the table.
He is a lazy player. He does not get around the pitch, he rarely does more than jog. He sits on passing lanes and picks out the occasional sloppy pass. Some people declare this brilliant positional sense. It is intelligent play to hide his deficiencies which are mobility and energy.
He plays long high risk balls very frequently and his rate of conversion is terribly low. Once a month one of his balls is converted into a goal by a brilliant individual effort to control it and some people here will call him a maestro. The truth is that our best play is when we build up and play the ball through our skill players. Carrick gives the ball away at least 9 times out of 10 when he makes one of these long passes and this hurts out possession game.
Perhaps this isn't fair to Carrick in that we have short strikers who are virtually incapable of challenging and controlling these kinds of passes when they are literally playings amongst the trees. That said that is a knock on Carrick for repeatedly playing these extremely low % balls forward when we are not in desperation mode. Carrick is playing hoof ball without big target man type strikers. It's totally baffling.
This is simple statistics. Carrick is a brilliant passer it is easily his best quality, it however does not change the fact that he gives the ball away I would suggest more than anyone else on the team.
So what we have are an average defensive player ( I would say this is generous) with good passing. He is completely incapable of taking the game by the scruff of the neck. He will never beat someone with his pace or his technical skill. He is one dimensional. He receives the ball, he will look to pass it. This is a bigger flaw in our game than Hargreaves who is actually capable of beating people when he has to. With Carrick sitting back ALWAYS looking to pass, if you cut off the outlets what is Carrick going to do? He is going to force it and we will lose possession that is what will happen and this is what has happened repeatedly this season. Carrick isn't going to take off with the ball unless we are playing a 10 man side that has completely abandoned the midfield and any aspirations to win and are simply pilling everyone behind the ball.
Now, I am sure people will disagree with me. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Nobody said opinions had to be right ;p
Year it's not based in reality that whilw Carrick was plying his trade at a small club like West Ham Hargreaves was helping Bayern, a European giant and world giant, win the champios league. It's not based in reality that while Carrick was in the championship, Hagreaves was still playing at Bayern. It's not based in based in reality that even in the England pecking order Hargreaves has been clealry ahead of Carrick for ages. Despite injury problems. It not based in reality that Hargreaves returned from long term injury last season, helped rescue Bayern's season getting them European football while also helping them get past Real Madrid, and bowing out hounarbly o Milan, with a make shift squad with out being humilliated the way Manchester United was with a fully fit squad. It's not baed in reality that Hargreaves and Carrick both went to the world cup with England, yet Hagrevaes out shown him. It's not based in reality that we faired better at the Emirates, with Hargreaves in the side, than we did with an on fire Carrick last time. It's no based in reality that even though we beat Liverpool by the same score like last season we we controlled the game from start to finish this time, deserving our win. No one would described it as smash and grab. Thus my statments that Carick is clearly not superior to Hargreaves are based in not reality at all.
Heck, I clearly have no idea who is on pitch that's how I know, we faced Milan away with the same formation and a weaker back 4 than what faced Milan at OT and were handed our most hummiliating defeat in Europe since Barca hit us 4-0. Meaning the source for our defeat doesn't not lie in our formation or ou back four. I must have also have got it from the air that our fortunes impoved vs Milan with the absence of Gattuso. I couldn't possibly have seen him on picth. I just dreamt it all!
also, I dont know people who are on pitch that's why I know we lost to West Ham home and away with Carrick present. That's why I know he was ever present in our poor showings in defeats to Celtic, Copenhagen and Milan. Plus our very lucky wins vs Lille and Benfica.
Yep. I really have baseless arguments for stating Hargreaves is not inferior to Carrick. Plus I dot knwo who plays on pitch
No. You were supposed to first be proving how we've never won in Spain Plus how our away record in Europe has been shit since 99.
Hargreaves is supposed to play the ball simple to someone who is more attack minded than him. That is not suppsoed to be something that requires intelligent passing. His not there to create things but to let others create.
In addtion people who he passes it to have no business passing it back to hiim. Their job is to take the ball foward. Not to ping it back and forth in central midfield with a ball winner. Who is there to disrupt the opponents when they have the ball, and physically when they don't. When they do that, that's how possesion gets lost. It has little to do with the ball wining defenive midfielder being out of position.
Excellent post. Summarises my thoughts totally. I will add though that for us to triumphy in Europe both must play together. Their games are totally complimentary.
Here's the deal. Some of the senior members of the cafe don't like Hargreaves, because we were spoiled with the presence of Roy Keane pulling the strings from a deep lying central midfield role. He won't be the next Keane, but we have to make due with out him and carry-on. The newer and more easily influenced members go along with the bandwagon, in hopes of 'fitting in' to their newly promoted senior forum. Thus resulting in a landslide of hatred towards Owen Hargreaves by the majority of the forum.
Spot on call.
Yep. That is why you keep asking about Hargreaves and his champions league record at OT. You don't want to accuse me of being wrong at all. I'm just paranoid...
No. you've been trying your hardest through out this thread to "show me the folly of my ways" because I don't have your over the top Carrick love. Nr your desire to have hin and ultimately us embarassed by wasting him as a holding midfielder. | actually view him in a far more realistic light than you. Not wanting him to play a role for our team that doesn't suit his abilities best. But I constantly get slagged for that. By folks like you
I never did. I just know we dominated the game and didn't deserve to be behind. Rightly brought on attacking subs to improve our chances of equalising and did. To claim that Hargreaves never did his job because of the score line is beyond stupid.
Which is true. Against sides like Milan he will and away from home he will help us dominate/compete with sides and be less likely to be humiliated. Since away form was our bane last year not home form. If our away form is impeccable and the Carrick's take care of home form our chances of winning this season would obviously have increased! I don't see why this is so hard for people to swallow.
It's not like we have been saying having Hargreaves will DEFINITELY win us the trophy!
it seems ppl cannot differentiate the function of carrick and harry
the former is to win while the latter is not to lose
it is meaningless to say which one is better
we should focus on we should play which one in which game
otherwise, we dont need a squard
anyway, i think carrick is just like becks in the past though the former plays more in the middle.
his main strength is his pass, eps long passes
similar to becks, i think carrick does not fully fit our system with roon, tevez and ronnie because they play more on the ground
carrick will match with saha more as we can use long pass with his speed in counter attacks
the former is to win while the latter is not to lose
it is meaningless to say which one is better
we should focus on we should play which one in which game
otherwise, we dont need a squard
anyway, i think carrick is just like becks in the past though the former plays more in the middle.
his main strength is his pass, eps long passes
similar to becks, i think carrick does not fully fit our system with roon, tevez and ronnie because they play more on the ground
carrick will match with saha more as we can use long pass with his speed in counter attacks
That's BS.. the other Hargreaves thread, the one about 4-4-2 and Europe is started by a newly promoted member who only joined this month IIRC.
This thread wasn't meant to have a bash at him, the first post is the way it is because it was right after the Lyon match, and anything i said would've sounded fickle. It sparked 12 pages of debate which i'm happy to see, because obviously if the opinion is so divided then Hargreaves still has some way to go before being justified as a successful signing.
I don't think there is a landslide of people who hate him, more like dissatisfied and impatient. I also HUGELY disagree with that long rant about Carrick, it is great injustice to his contribution last season which is a hell of a lot more than just 'sitting in the passing lanes' and waiting for a sloppy pass. Infact, I feel more inclined to saying that there are tons of DM's/CM's I would have over Hargreaves, Lassana Diarra being one of them. But what's done is done, and I will accept Hargreaves but him being a United player won't stop me from criticizing or questioning him.
I don't think there are any Hargreaves haters. If people don't think he's up to the job then they have a right to put across their views.
I quite like the guy, he has a great attitude but I don't think he's up to the task. To be honest though he's been disrupted by injuries whilst trying to settle into a faster paced league, it's going to take him a bit of time.
Don't like him in a two man midfield though, it's a waste of a midfield place and he invites too much pressure onto us because he's always chasing the fecking game!
I quite like the guy, he has a great attitude but I don't think he's up to the task. To be honest though he's been disrupted by injuries whilst trying to settle into a faster paced league, it's going to take him a bit of time.
Don't like him in a two man midfield though, it's a waste of a midfield place and he invites too much pressure onto us because he's always chasing the fecking game!
- Status