Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic

Status
Not open for further replies.
acnumber9 said:
I have already admitted that I over stated how poor our European away form was. I can also admit my oversight in forgetting what was a very impressive win at Deportivo. Despite some good results there have also been a number of pretty bad ones that I've already mentioned. The facts still remain that we hadn't won an away game in the 2 seasons preceeding Carrick's signing so our away didn't deteriorate as you have suggested, in fact it improved. Not all down to Carrick obviously but as somebody already said that you shot down in flames it's been due to a general maturing of the side. .
Click to expand...
You have admitted little that matters. You have only been justifying your largely in accurate and over the top statements. Also, You have claimed my views on Carrick and Hargreaves are baseless and not steeped in reality and I don't know what goes on on the pitch. Till you prove that or admit you're wrong I frankly don't regard anything you say as something serious. Because you'd rather justify what you said wrong, and try to get others to admit their wrong, without ever reall adimtting you are wrong youself. On top off a hypocritical desire to come out looking clever while making others look stupid

acnumber9 said:
I can happily admit Carrick has faults. He's not particularly quick, not that strong in the tackle and doesn't dominate games as much as he should. All that apart he has many qualityies I admire. You are the one who can see no fault in your beloved hero, not I..
Click to expand...
I know Hargreaves weaknesses well. I just don't lie about them like people like you do. People like you who claim he can't pass, can't read the game at all, is rubbish positioning wise and just runs around like a headless chicken, doing nothing on pitch while slowing us down and giving away the a ball all the time.. Which is fools talk. All because you want him to pay like Carick, which is role doesn not require in any shape or form! On top of hating his playing ahead of Carrick in a role that is made for his game and not Carrick's.

Furthermore, I don't lie about Carrick either like you and your cronies contanstantly do. Which is why you want him and us to be humilliated by him playing as a holding midfielder for us in Europe, away form home, alongside Scholes. Despite the overwhelming evidence last season that it never worked. That he would be better used alongs side a player like Hargreaves. Playing the role Fergie bought him to fill long term. The current role of Scholes

acnumber9 said:
Have you got any You Teube links of those famous victories away to Valencia and Celtic. I'd love to see the goals.
Click to expand...
As I said, till you prove what you said or admit your wrong I wont answer your question. For you constantly make over the top comments you can't back up. Justify rather then rather actually admit you were inaccurate or over the top, yet love throwing other's mistakes in their faces, especially the type they admitted to in the past, like you are utterly infallable.
 
acnumber9 said:
You're memory isn't quite as good as you like to think. ........
Click to expand...
I clearly said sides like Bolton, meaning mid table sides like Pompey. Plus those further down like West Ham. Which is different from actually saying we lost to Bolton home and way. But let not that stop you, in your quest to get me to joing you to play your favorite game "You told us the sun sets in the morning. Tell us how to confirm you're wrong " game of yours.
 
Nucks said:
You're right, IF he would make more moderate distance passes. That is just a small aspect of his game however. He hoofs it far too much for my liking and this results in a loss of possession. This does not address his defensive ability.

Hargreaves would be the next Roy Keane if...

We're not talking about ifs here, we are talking about what is.

Carrick is not energetic. He is not pacey. He is not aggressive. He plays passively. He also costs us plenty of possession with his long ball play.

Let us talk now frankly about what Carrick offers defensively.

Can we agree that Carrick is not a fast nor an energetic player? When I called him lazy I did not mean he is a fat pie eating piece of shit. I meant that he has a lackadaisical style.

Carrick plays a good positional game but he does not combine the physical abilities with this positional game to really excel at it. He is limited by his movement in what he can do. Baiting a pass is great, it can work. It can work very well when your opposition is trash and will make these poor passes. Carrick thrives on that. He thrives on people forcing the ball into a passing lane he is baiting. Then he merely needs to step in and take the ball away.

That is very rudimentary stuff mind you. The problem with Carrick is that he does not possess the physical traits to cover ground. This means that Carrick will look good against mediocre average and maybe even good teams. He can and will be made to look foolish by teams with great midfielders and forwards.

Players that won't be baited by him, players that can dribble by him, run by him or pass by him easily. We have seen this last year. Perhaps it wasn't entirely his fault he was cut to ribbons in some of these games, perhaps he should have had support from a more athletic partner.

You see, when you match skill versus skill, Carrick will always lose out to the likes of Kaka. Kaka not only possesses a technical game, he has the physical tools to exploit someone like Carrick who does not. This is where a player like Hargreaves will outshine Carrick. Hargreaves may not make pretty or cutting passes, he makes economic passes. What Hargreaves offers however is the physical tools to nullify or at least help control a match winner like Kaka. Hargreaves is very quick. He can run forever. He is aggressive. His game is not about positioning which can be exposed by great passers. He is in essence willing to concede passes in an effort to force them into making bad ones.

Is Carrick a good player? Sure. Is he a great player? No.

The point of that post I made was not to bash Carrick. It was to point out the hypocrisy of certain posters about Carrick and Hargreaves by illustrating what Carrick is poor at and what he does to ruin our flow. Something people like you, the irrational Hargreaves haters will completely white wash while you continue to say rediculous hateful shit about Hargreaves.

I don't know, I guess that was too subtle for someone like yourself to pick up on.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
Eriku said:
Who was MoM against Roma? :confused:

And I fail to see how you can use your arguments to knock down Carrick in favour of Hargreaves, which I take it you are trying to do? Hargreaves gets busy but he hugs the ball after winning it, quite often, and a fair few times he's made it look dangerous as he ran himself into trouble. Carrick on the other hand is good at winning the ball in challenges (he doesn't go in hard, but notice whenever Carrick enters a dual, he usually pulls the long straw), he's good at passing himself and the side out of pressure. The only hang-up I have is the fact that sometimes he needs too much time to get his pass off, but that's it with Carrick. He keeps a very level head and works smart, not hard.

And his running's not as bad as you make it out to be either. I bet he on average manages to beat as many players as bloody Hargreaves does.
Click to expand...

There are always exceptions. Carrick certainly benefited from Roma sucking a giant D that game. It's not that we were so amazing, it was a combination of us playing very well and them playing very poorly.

I think I come at this from a far more measured point of view than the majority of the people slating Hargreaves in this thread. If it appears I am swinging from his nuts it is because I feel like I have to speak up for Hargreaves because some of the people in this thread wouldn't know their ass from a hole in the ground if they fell in it.

I think Carrick is a good player. I am not going to go overboard and blindly proclaim him the second coming of Jesus because he pulls on a United shirt.

I also think Hargreaves is a good player and when people blindly bash him I will defend him. Just like I defended Fletcher in the nub forums from the drooltards and I would have defended Carrick from some of the extra chromosome types too.

I feel like they are solutions to different problems and they excel in different enough areas that hopefully they can be complimentary but if they aren't that is fine too because they can be used in very different situations.

The point again and I guess I will make it brutally simple is this. People bashing Hargreaves here pick out the couple things he is not strong at and insist that this is why he isn't "United quality" and other shit. So I point out what Carrick doesn't do well, like cost us possession with constant long balls or lack of energy to contain top quality players. They will of course completely ignore it or stick their thumbs in their ears and blow raspberries like the highly intelligent folks that they are.

It's ok. I am quickly seeing who is worth debating with and who is a blathering idiot with absolutely no footballing sense.
 
Nucks said:
Carrick is not energetic. He is not pacey. He is not aggressive. He plays passively. He also costs us plenty of possession with his long ball play.
Click to expand...

Since when is spreading the ball across the pitch considered long ball? Since when is switching play to the other flank considered a long ball play?? That's exactly what Scholesy does most of the time. It's not like he hoofs it up to Rooney over and over again, unless the flanks are well marked. Long ball tactics = a pass hoofed up from very deep, usually by the DM or centerback (carragher). This is due to lack of tactical sense, or if there are simply no other options. Hargreaves costs us possession by screwing up a 10 yard pass, but I dont see you harping about that.

Let us talk now frankly about what Carrick offers defensively.

Can we agree that Carrick is not a fast nor an energetic player? When I called him lazy I did not mean he is a fat pie eating piece of shit. I meant that he has a lackadaisical style.

Carrick plays a good positional game but he does not combine the physical abilities with this positional game to really excel at it. He is limited by his movement in what he can do. Baiting a pass is great, it can work. It can work very well when your opposition is trash and will make these poor passes. Carrick thrives on that. He thrives on people forcing the ball into a passing lane he is baiting. Then he merely needs to step in and take the ball away.

That is very rudimentary stuff mind you. The problem with Carrick is that he does not possess the physical traits to cover ground. This means that Carrick will look good against mediocre average and maybe even good teams. He can and will be made to look foolish by teams with great midfielders and forwards.

Players that won't be baited by him, players that can dribble by him, run by him or pass by him easily. We have seen this last year. Perhaps it wasn't entirely his fault he was cut to ribbons in some of these games, perhaps he should have had support from a more athletic partner.

You see, when you match skill versus skill, Carrick will always lose out to the likes of Kaka. Kaka not only possesses a technical game, he has the physical tools to exploit someone like Carrick who does not. This is where a player like Hargreaves will outshine Carrick. Hargreaves may not make pretty or cutting passes, he makes economic passes. What Hargreaves offers however is the physical tools to nullify or at least help control a match winner like Kaka. Hargreaves is very quick. He can run forever. He is aggressive. His game is not about positioning which can be exposed by great passers. He is in essence willing to concede passes in an effort to force them into making bad ones.

Is Carrick a good player? Sure. Is he a great player? No.

The point of that post I made was not to bash Carrick. It was to point out the hypocrisy of certain posters about Carrick and Hargreaves by illustrating what Carrick is poor at and what he does to ruin our flow. Something people like you, the irrational Hargreaves haters will completely white wash while you continue to say rediculous hateful shit about Hargreaves.

I don't know, I guess that was too subtle for someone like yourself to pick up on.
Click to expand...

As someone already pointed out, comparing him with Kaka is ridiculous because he is NOT a defensive player. He's a central midfielder, infact many people were expecting him to take over Scholes last year, before we got Anderson. His positional sense is a bonus, and helps dictate midfield. I have NO doubts that we needed a DM specialist, but whether or not Hargreaves is that man is the question. I still don't understand why you have to drag Carrick into this, and play down his contribution last season in order to make Hargreaves look better. They are different players with different roles, Carrick does his role perfectly, Hargreaves does an "ok" job like most people have said in pages 1-7.
 
Nucks said:
There are always exceptions. Carrick certainly benefited from Roma sucking a giant D that game. It's not that we were so amazing, it was a combination of us playing very well and them playing very poorly.

I think I come at this from a far more measured point of view than the majority of the people slating Hargreaves in this thread. If it appears I am swinging from his nuts it is because I feel like I have to speak up for Hargreaves because some of the people in this thread wouldn't know their ass from a hole in the ground if they fell in it.

I think Carrick is a good player. I am not going to go overboard and blindly proclaim him the second coming of Jesus because he pulls on a United shirt.

I also think Hargreaves is a good player and when people blindly bash him I will defend him. Just like I defended Fletcher in the nub forums from the drooltards and I would have defended Carrick from some of the extra chromosome types too.

I feel like they are solutions to different problems and they excel in different enough areas that hopefully they can be complimentary but if they aren't that is fine too because they can be used in very different situations.

The point again and I guess I will make it brutally simple is this. People bashing Hargreaves here pick out the couple things he is not strong at and insist that this is why he isn't "United quality" and other shit. So I point out what Carrick doesn't do well, like cost us possession with constant long balls or lack of energy to contain top quality players. They will of course completely ignore it or stick their thumbs in their ears and blow raspberries like the highly intelligent folks that they are.

It's ok. I am quickly seeing who is worth debating with and who is a blathering idiot with absolutely no footballing sense.
Click to expand...
Correct
 
Nucks said:
The point again and I guess I will make it brutally simple is this. People bashing Hargreaves here pick out the couple things he is not strong at and insist that this is why he isn't "United quality" and other shit. So I point out what Carrick doesn't do well, like cost us possession with constant long balls or lack of energy to contain top quality players.
Click to expand...
But Carrick is forced to try those long balls more often when partnered with Hargreaves. When his partner plays it smart Carrick can pick and choose his times to make the right pass, whereas if he's been left alone in the middle of the field he has to force the pass resulting in having a much higher turnover rate. Yes, it is somewhat of a weakness of Carrick's that he is reliant on his partner having intelligent positioning. But then again pretty much every midfielder needs the same unless they are a physical beast like Keane, Essien or Anderson.

If Hargreaves works on his positioning when we have the ball, he's the perfect partner for Carrick in a 4-2-3-1. But at this moment in time I'd choose Fletcher ahead of him (although would have to see if he can keep his level of performance consistently).
 
MadDogg said:
But Carrick is forced to try those long balls more often when partnered with Hargreaves. When his partner plays it smart Carrick can pick and choose his times to make the right pass, whereas if he's been left alone in the middle of the field he has to force the pass resulting in having a much higher turnover rate. Yes, it is somewhat of a weakness of Carrick's that he is reliant on his partner having intelligent positioning. But then again pretty much every midfielder needs the same unless they are a physical beast like Keane, Essien or Anderson.
Click to expand...

Exactly

This was pretty much Hargreaves' problem with Scholes against Lyon. He does not have positional nouse to play with Scholes or Carrick. He left both Anderson and Scholes playing out of positions, resulting in a change of tactics midway through the game.
 
He’s been disappointing so far, when you consider he was supposed to fit right in and contribute.
He played as full back most of the games I watched with Bayern and I think we should use him there, when all other CM are fit. We could use him as anchor when we play against some midfielder that needs to be marked out the game, like Kaka.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
You have admitted little that matters. You have only been justifying your largely in accurate and over the top statements. Also, You have claimed my views on Carrick and Hargreaves are baseless and not steeped in reality and I don't know what goes on on the pitch. Till you prove that or admit you're wrong I frankly don't regard anything you say as something serious. Because you'd rather justify what you said wrong, and try to get others to admit their wrong, without ever reall adimtting you are wrong youself. On top off a hypocritical desire to come out looking clever while making others look stupid

I know Hargreaves weaknesses well. I just don't lie about them like people like you do. People like you who claim he can't pass, can't read the game at all, is rubbish positioning wise and just runs around like a headless chicken, doing nothing on pitch while slowing us down and giving away the a ball all the time.. Which is fools talk. All because you want him to pay like Carick, which is role doesn not require in any shape or form! On top of hating his playing ahead of Carrick in a role that is made for his game and not Carrick's.

Furthermore, I don't lie about Carrick either like you and your cronies contanstantly do. Which is why you want him and us to be humilliated by him playing as a holding midfielder for us in Europe, away form home, alongside Scholes. Despite the overwhelming evidence last season that it never worked. That he would be better used alongs side a player like Hargreaves. Playing the role Fergie bought him to fill long term. The current role of Scholes

As I said, till you prove what you said or admit your wrong I wont answer your question. For you constantly make over the top comments you can't back up. Justify rather then rather actually admit you were inaccurate or over the top, yet love throwing other's mistakes in their faces, especially the type they admitted to in the past, like you are utterly infallable.
Click to expand...


You either don't know who was on the pitch in our group games or you lied, simple as that. How have I not admitted I was wrong? Several times I have stated I overlooked the Deportivo game when saying I beileved we hadn't won a tie in Spain. If you want me to admit I'm wrong to believe Hargreaves is better than Carrick I won't, because I don't believe he is. Apart from that I'm not sure what you want me to admit. You have clearly lied to try and prove your point by making up games that didn't exist. I have not.

Why not tell us what you believe his strengths and weaknesses are then since you know them so well. So far you've refused to admit any poor performances by Hargreaves and rather deflected criticism elsewhere.

As it goes I agree that Carrick was signed by Alex Ferguson with plans towards him replacing Scholes and playing with not instead of Hargreaves. The problem comes in that Hargreaves has yet to prove he's good enough. Had we signed Michale Essien for example we wouldn't be having this debate.

What exactly is it you want me to prove before you'll answer my question? Tell me and I'll attempt to answer it. The reason you won't answer the question is because you can't and because you refuse to admit your mistake.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
I know Hargreaves weaknesses well. I just don't lie about them like people like you do. People like you who claim he can't pass, can't read the game at all, is rubbish positioning wise and just runs around like a headless chicken, doing nothing on pitch while slowing us down and giving away the a ball all the time.. Which is fools talk. All because you want him to pay like Carick, which is role doesn not require in any shape or form! On top of hating his playing ahead of Carrick in a role that is made for his game and not Carrick's..
Click to expand...

Point me to a post where I say those things.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
I clearly said sides like Bolton, meaning mid table sides like Pompey. Plus those further down like West Ham. Which is different from actually saying we lost to Bolton home and way. But let not that stop you, in your quest to get me to joing you to play your favorite game "You told us the sun sets in the morning. Tell us how to confirm you're wrong " game of yours.
Click to expand...

When you mean sides like Portsmouth, say it. Don't say sides like Bolton and then claim I lied to say you said something you didn't. Keep ducking.
 
Sultan said:
I don't know if such info is available, though it does seem he covers a lot of distance. Keep a watch on who covers the space left by Evra. Seeing Ronaldo hardly tracks back, It's almost always Carrick covering.
Click to expand...

On SkySports last season after a few matches it would show who covered the MOST distance for the team so obviously there's a comparison - to the rest of the team. Carrick always covered the most distance the times I saw it, this includes European games too.
 
His season has been disturbed a lot by his injuries. Don't think we've seen the best of him so far. Of course he's valuable for us.
 
Can we add this smiley into the forum ----->
emot-jerkit.gif
 
He'll win the CL for us by marking Kaka out of the game in the final.
 
Sultan said:
This quote gave me a chuckle.
Click to expand...

Yea, I mean Roma obviously played their best.

Or do you actually think that Roma was at their best for that game? They stunk the place up and we punished them for it like we should have. Did we play well? Yes we played very well but that victory was an aberration. We could play them 50 times in a row and I doubt we'd pound them like that again.

Yes I am watching Carrick. Where have I ever said he is a bad played. I also did not speak in any absolutes about Carrick. Reread my posts.
 
MUFC_lad said:
Since when is spreading the ball across the pitch considered long ball? Since when is switching play to the other flank considered a long ball play?? That's exactly what Scholesy does most of the time. It's not like he hoofs it up to Rooney over and over again, unless the flanks are well marked. Long ball tactics = a pass hoofed up from very deep, usually by the DM or centerback (carragher). This is due to lack of tactical sense, or if there are simply no other options. Hargreaves costs us possession by screwing up a 10 yard pass, but I dont see you harping about that.



As someone already pointed out, comparing him with Kaka is ridiculous because he is NOT a defensive player. He's a central midfielder, infact many people were expecting him to take over Scholes last year, before we got Anderson. His positional sense is a bonus, and helps dictate midfield. I have NO doubts that we needed a DM specialist, but whether or not Hargreaves is that man is the question. I still don't understand why you have to drag Carrick into this, and play down his contribution last season in order to make Hargreaves look better. They are different players with different roles, Carrick does his role perfectly, Hargreaves does an "ok" job like most people have said in pages 1-7.
Click to expand...

I am not comparing him with Kaka. Where did you ever get that idea. Talking about people that we will likely have to face in the future is not comparing them. Milan and Barcelona are just two teams with dynamic attacking players that Carrick will have to deal with.

Carrick having to deal with Kaka or someone else is not comparing them.
 
Nucks said:
Yea, I mean Roma obviously played their best.

Or do you actually think that Roma was at their best for that game? They stunk the place up and we punished them for it like we should have. Did we play well? Yes we played very well but that victory was an aberration. We could play them 50 times in a row and I doubt we'd pound them like that again.

Yes I am watching Carrick. Where have I ever said he is a bad played. I also did not speak in any absolutes about Carrick. Reread my posts.
Click to expand...

Could they have been made to look bad?

I rather give credit to United for a fantastic performance, than pick holes in the opposition.
 
MadDogg said:
But Carrick is forced to try those long balls more often when partnered with Hargreaves.
Click to expand...
That is inaccurate. Trying ambitious long balls is a permanent future of Carrick's game. It is one of his strength's actually, when he is on from and hence accurate. He just does it less alongside a Scholes or Anderson because he doesn't often take up the leadership role in midfield. He'd rather just sit and pass the ball often to his partner, while sharing attack passsing duties with his partner, rather than take the game by the scruff of it's neck himself. Which he is forced to do alongside Fletcher and Hargreaves. Because alongside them he has to function like a proper, lead the midfield, playmaker. Where IMO his true position lies. Of late he has stared to come to terms with this. Which is to ours and his benefit.

MadDogg said:
When his partner plays it smart Carrick can pick and choose his times to make the right pass, whereas if he's been left alone in the middle of the field he has to force the pass resulting in having a much higher turnover rate. Yes, it is somewhat of a weakness of Carrick's that he is reliant on his partner having intelligent positioning. But then again pretty much every midfielder needs the same unless they are a physical beast like Keane, Essien or Anderson.
Click to expand...
They actually don't. A player like Fabregas is no physical beast. But he controls Arsenal's passings eamlessly. While Flamini, a smalr player to Hargreaves, does the dirty work of harrying opponents and tracking runs. Rarely joining him in controling the passing flow of the ball. Hence tehre is no reaosn whya Carric, who on his day can pass the ball like Fabregas, can't function best alongside Fletcher or Hargreaves. The last two matches are showing that he is begining to reap the advantages of playing with such a type of partner. Rather than with a Scholes or an Anderson. They leave him free to do what he does best which is attack, not defend.

MadDogg said:
If Hargreaves works on his positioning when we have the ball, he's the perfect partner for Carrick in a 4-2-3-1. But at this moment in time I'd choose Fletcher ahead of him (although would have to see if he can keep his level of performance consistently).
Click to expand...
I agree I'd rather have Fletch partner Carrick ATM ahead of Hagrevs but not for the reason's you've stated. Just for the mere fact Flecther and Carrick understand each others game. But long term Hargreaves and Carrick will be a perfect match. Their abilties are mroe complimentary than most realise. Besides, people on here are trying to claim Carrick is disadvantaged when alongside Hargreaves, based on the few times they've played together this season.. But that is untrue. Sicne, people have totaly forgotten that when those two where paired together, Carrick was not even near the form he is in now, He was very off color and they are not used to each others game. Personally I'm sure if we try in the future, with Carrick as he is now, there won't be a single problem. I firmly believe, long term that can end up being our main central patnership.

Thus says the chief:cool:
 
Chief, I have been totally vindicated. Carrick's play for our second goal was pure class. Retaining the ball on the half way line from the attentions of Barton, he ventured forward and played a delicious, perfectly weighted, splitting pass for Ronaldo. Pure class. Hargreaves my arse.
 
People should stop assuming that Hargreaves and Carrick two players who are on two opposing teams and in competition of each other.

Carrick has been quality for the past few games. Does that automatically mean that Hargreaves is a shite player? My arse it doesn't.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
People should stop assuming that Hargreaves and Carrick two players who are on two opposing teams and in competition of each other.

Carrick has been quality for the past few games. Does that automatically mean that Hargreaves is a shite player? My arse it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Good point, Carrick is the superior player atm and probably for the future, that said Hargreaves offers a lot but is different. Probably my biggest gripe with Hargreaves hasnt been his play, which has been so-so, I have a problem with the fact he hasnt been able to stay fit, its hard to judge a player when they are always injured
 
FlawlessThaw said:
People should stop assuming that Hargreaves and Carrick two players who are on two opposing teams and in competition of each other.

Carrick has been quality for the past few games. Does that automatically mean that Hargreaves is a shite player? My arse it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Carrick and Hargreaves are in competition for the same place in the team. Carrick is better.
 
Feed Me said:
Chief, I have been totally vindicated. Carrick's play for our second goal was pure class. Retaining the ball on the half way line from the attentions of Barton, he ventured forward and played a delicious, perfectly weighted, splitting pass for Ronaldo. Pure class. Hargreaves my arse.
Click to expand...
Pure class against a Newcastle:lol:

Let him produce such a pass at Stamford Bridge, Anfield, The Emirates or a ground like the San Siro, or simply in away matches in Europe. Then you can tell me that you've been "vindicated"

Especially when Carick is playing Hargreaves' role. Not the Scholes role he played last night and vs Arsenal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.