Persuasive analysis there. I'm convinced.
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Persuasive analysis there. I'm convinced.
Carrick plays two positions in center midfield, DM in which he is merely a stop gap, Attacking midfield which he is ace at. Hargreaves plays only as a DM. There are not really in straight competition for the
same role. Carrick has better positions to compete for. The Arsenal and Newcastle games have clearly shown this. It isn't too hard to understand......
Besides that, now the other matter, One look at their careers of Hargreaves and Carrick up to now can tell you Carrick clearly is not superior. Hargreaves was at a big club at a younger age. Broke into that big side at a younger age. Peformed against teams like REAL at a younger age. When Carrick was at a side like West Ham and at one time in the Championship. Has played more champions league games than Carrick. Has consistently performed better than Carrick in tough away matches in Europe in that period. Has never gone missing in big games like the one at the San Siro that Carrick often does. Has never been shown up in Europe vs teams like Copenhagen. IS picked consitently ahead of Carrick for England. IS a playr whose reputation is solid in the champios sleague. He is the superior tackler. The superior defender and shield for the back four. The superior ball winner. In short, posseses all the tools a topflight defensive midfielder should have. It's pretty obvious to all except the blinkered or plain stupid. Carrick is not the superior player. These are facts about Hargreaves and Carrik's careers. I don't need to convince you. You convince yourself or stay foolish. It's your business
No they're not, both were brought by Ferguson for a reason and can easily play with each other in a given run of games.
Spot on. He was trying to recreate a type like the Pirlo-Gatusso central axis that won Italy the world cup and that has been so succesful for Milan in Europe. IMO in those two he can get it. The perfect platform for Tevez, Ronaldo, Rooney and Anderson to use as a spring board to shine. With Fletch in reserve and Anderson capable of playing in Carrick's current attacking role our future will be bright
this is probaly our best 11 just at the minute:
-----------VDS-----------
Brown----Rio--Vida----Evra
----------Carrick----------
---Hargreaves--Anderson--
Ronaldo-------Tevez------
---------Rooney----------
-----------VDS-----------
Brown----Rio--Vida----Evra
----------Carrick----------
---Hargreaves--Anderson--
Ronaldo-------Tevez------
---------Rooney----------
Carrick an attacking midfielder? Nonsense. He is a deep lying player. An attacking midfielder is the sort whose main play comes in and around the penalty area. Carrick is often the most deep lying of all the midfielders, whichever players are on the field.
I'm not doubting Hargreaves' past pedigree but Carrick is the better football player and is better suited to United.
I'm not doubting Hargreaves' past pedigree but Carrick is the better football player and is better suited to United.
At the minute, Fletcher is playing better than Hargreaves. So swap those two and thats our best 11 based on form.
Why would Carrick play behind Hargreaves? If anything it would be like this
Hargreaves-Carrick
---Anderson----
Cause thats Carricks natural game, to sit. Hargreaves is too headless to be trusted to sit. Besides, he's alright at going forward, let Carrick hold the middle and Hargreaves to hussle.
Spot on
You are so uneducated in footballing terms.
The "defensive midfielder" does not have to be the deep lying one. Hargreaves most likely would line up further forward than Carrick and press all over the field. Carrick excels from a deep position where he gets another 10 yards space to pick passes.
Really, writing...:
---Hargreaves---
Carrick---Scholes
... on the Caf is redundant exercise, because players do not stick rigidly.
agreed
In that case Scholes is no longer an attacking midfielder. Because last year he hardly approached the box. Attacking midfielders are usually the cenrtal playmaker of a 2 man midfield or the one who pushshes forward the most into the box. Carrick already fits in the earlier category.
Carrick is not better suited to United for a holding role. It's not debatable. Carrick suits us best in the Scholes role. the Roma games, the Milan game at OT last season and this season's Arsenal and Newcastle games have shown this clearly. No more evidence is needed. He doesn't perform as well as a holding midfielder. Carrick's future lies alonsgide Hargreaves or Fletcher. But not in Hargreaves' role. EVER!
You are right. Scholes is no longer an attacking midfielder. Most of his play is in the central third of the pitch where he orchestrates our play. He doesn't get goals anymore as his bursts into the box are far, far less frequent. Not surprising really - he is 33 now.
The Milan myth continues... It was not down to Carrick.
Wake up
I never said any where that the defensive midfielder has to be the deep lying one. That's just a lie. Besides, Carrick vs Roma clearly showed he can get foward too. So this myth he operates best from deep is just that. A myth.Further more claiming writting this, for example:
Hagreaves------Carrick
--------Anderson----
is "redundant "because players do not stick rigidly" is naive and reeks of ignorance.
The basic shape of our team never changes. Just because one sits and the other goes forward, or they rotate or whatever, doesn't mean the shape has changed. Or their positions are not "rigid" ( as in set), because players don't switch their primary roles around. They stay the same through out a game unless instructions from the bench to change them have been issued
You should get an education about football. Rather than diss others because of your on ignorance.
He is still an attacking midfielder. People just have this inane idea that attacking midfielders must always break into the box. When it is infact not neccesary and is just a bonus.
You need help really.
You now want to tell me Carrick didn't excel against Milan, at OT, in the first leg, IN the second half, when he was given the attacking role in central midfield, alongside Fletcher like he did yesterday vs Arsenal, and Scholes was pushed further forward to change our 4-3-3 to a 4-2-3-1? According to you it's just a myth? Eh? WE never improved in the second half and won the game with him in such a role? (Even though Gattuso's departure helped matters some what)
Carrick does all right in the home games when opposition teams defend with 10 men, hoof the ball up to a lone striker and surrender possession back to us immediately. But in away games even against weak sides, his performance has been mediocre to invisible except the odd game against Bolton or Wigan.
From last season -
1-1 draw at Reading (Ronnie)
1-2 win at Watford (Silvestre, Giggs)
0-1 win at Blackburn (Saha)
1-2 win at Sheffield (Rooney*2)
1-2 win at Boro (Saha, Fletch)
1-0 loss at Westham
2-2 draw at Newcastle (Scholes*2)
2-1 win at Fulham (Giggs, Ronnie)
2-1 loss at Pompey (OShea)
0-1 win at City (Ronnie)
1-0 loss at Celtic
1-0 loss at Copenhagen
0-1 win at Lille with a contentious Giggs goal in the last few mins ?
Ignoring the likes of Chelsea/Arsenal/Liverpool/Milan, aren't the the above teams those that Carrick supposedly destroys with his brilliant passing range? The fact is that it never really happened except in the imagination of many Carrick lovers - 13 games, 4 losses, 2 draws, 14 goals scored, 13 conceded - all against mediocre sides that Carrick rips apart with his precision passing and allows for good defensive cover
In most of those games, the likes of Ronnie, Scholes or Giggs had to get us the points with a brilliant piece of skill or magic in the last few minutes.
FACT: Carrick has been good in the home games when we have possession and a waste of space in the away games even against shite sides.
Carrick does all right in the home games when opposition teams defend with 10 men, hoof the ball up to a lone striker and surrender possession back to us immediately. But in away games even against weak sides, his performance has been mediocre to invisible except the odd game against Bolton or Wigan.
From last season -
1-1 draw at Reading (Ronnie)
1-2 win at Watford (Silvestre, Giggs)
0-1 win at Blackburn (Saha)
1-2 win at Sheffield (Rooney*2)
1-2 win at Boro (Saha, Fletch)
1-0 loss at Westham
2-2 draw at Newcastle (Scholes*2)
2-1 win at Fulham (Giggs, Ronnie)
2-1 loss at Pompey (OShea)
0-1 win at City (Ronnie)
1-0 loss at Celtic
1-0 loss at Copenhagen
0-1 win at Lille with a contentious Giggs goal in the last few mins ?
Ignoring the likes of Chelsea/Arsenal/Liverpool/Milan, aren't the the above teams those that Carrick supposedly destroys with his brilliant passing range? The fact is that it never really happened except in the imagination of many Carrick lovers - 13 games, 4 losses, 2 draws, 14 goals scored, 13 conceded - all against mediocre sides that Carrick rips apart with his precision passing and allows for good defensive cover
In most of those games, the likes of Ronnie, Scholes or Giggs had to get us the points with a brilliant piece of skill or magic in the last few minutes.
FACT: Carrick has been good in the home games when we have possession and a waste of space in the away games even against shite sides.
Instat Karma at it again. It should be pretty obvious watching Carrick in our last few games that's he better than Hargreaves.
TBH atm i really dont know wheter I would rather see Hargreaves starting a game or Fletcher.
It should be pretty obvious that Hargreaves is better from the fact that Capello, SAF, Sven put Hargreaves in the team ahead of Carrick in every big game. After all what do great managers know compared to caftards
But then again, a shite Newcastle defence and a weakened Arsenal side is the toughest test that we are going to face as a team this season
It should be pretty obvious that Hargreaves is better from the fact that Capello, SAF, Sven put Hargreaves in the team ahead of Carrick in every big game. After all what do great managers know compared to caftards
But then again, a shite Newcastle defence and a weakened Arsenal side is the toughest test that we are going to face as a team this season
Stop being so dismissive. Carrick was part of the team that won the premiership last year, got to FA final and Champs league semi-final. Carrick and Hargreaves are completely different types of players so why are you comparing them.
I'm sure when Capello goes looking to choose a defensive midfielder, he doesn't even consider Carrick. eh, why would he?
It should be pretty obvious that Hargreaves is better from the fact that Capello, SAF, Sven put Hargreaves in the team ahead of Carrick in every big game. After all what do great managers know compared to caftards
But then again, a shite Newcastle defence and a weakened Arsenal side is the toughest test that we are going to face as a team this season
Even great managers make mistakes.
I agree with this. Just one correction though. Carrick missed the Newcastle way game last season.
Carrick does all right in the home games when opposition teams defend with 10 men, hoof the ball up to a lone striker and surrender possession back to us immediately. But in away games even against weak sides, his performance has been mediocre to invisible except the odd game against Bolton or Wigan.
From last season -
1-1 draw at Reading (Ronnie)
1-2 win at Watford (Silvestre, Giggs)
0-1 win at Blackburn (Saha)
1-2 win at Sheffield (Rooney*2)
1-2 win at Boro (Saha, Fletch)
1-0 loss at Westham
2-2 draw at Newcastle (Scholes*2)
2-1 win at Fulham (Giggs, Ronnie)
2-1 loss at Pompey (OShea)
0-1 win at City (Ronnie)
1-0 loss at Celtic
1-0 loss at Copenhagen
0-1 win at Lille with a contentious Giggs goal in the last few mins ?
Ignoring the likes of Chelsea/Arsenal/Liverpool/Milan, aren't the the above teams those that Carrick supposedly destroys with his brilliant passing range? The fact is that it never really happened except in the imagination of many Carrick lovers - 13 games, 4 losses, 2 draws, 14 goals scored, 13 conceded - all against mediocre sides that Carrick rips apart with his precision passing and allows for good defensive cover
In most of those games, the likes of Ronnie, Scholes or Giggs had to get us the points with a brilliant piece of skill or magic in the last few minutes.
FACT: Carrick has been good in the home games when we have possession and a waste of space in the away games even against shite sides.
It could be Mikel or Belleti this season for Chelsea. If Arsenal win the Premiership, would it make Eboue a world class winger ?
Every title winning team has passengers in the starting XI and Carrick was the least influential player in our starting XI last season.
So all the great managers who have all chosen him ahead, signed him and used him for England ahead of Carrick, have made a mistake and you, the great caftard Carrick loving brigade, couldn't possibly have made one yourselves?
It should be pretty obvious watching Carrick in our last few games that's he better than Hargreaves.
Hargreaves has proved he is better in their entire careers up to now. A few games wont make a dent on that.It should be pretty obvious that Hargreaves is better from the fact that Capello, SAF, Sven put Hargreaves in the team ahead of Carrick in every big game. After all what do great managers know compared to caftards
But then again, a shite Newcastle defence and a weakened Arsenal side is the toughest test that we are going to face as a team this season
I'm sick of hearing this!
Carrick was up against Fabregas and Gilberto; that is hardly weakened! Where as Flamini has been quite the unsung hero this year as far as neutrals are concerned, Gilberto is hardly an inadequate replacement. Carrick and Anderson were magnificent against them.
The amount of people that have told me our win was due to a weakened Arsenal team is absolutely staggering.
This clearly explains why you have to go back to the 93/94 season to find one where we picked up more points away from home than we did last year.
The actual fact is that Carrick was one of the reasons we improved immensely last season, propelling us to a title winning side and getting us further in the champions league than we had gone in years - only losing out to the eventual winners mostly due to us not fielding our strongest side.
It was quite easy to see the improvement Carrick brought to our side. It's not as easy to see how Hargreaves has improved us, other than giving us some options. People say he was bought for the champions league, but so far he hasn't really made that big of an impact there has he? Or has he been bought just to "shield the back four" against Kaka?
This is completely irrelevant. Carrick has been better for Utd. Veron was rated as the second coming of Christ by more or less everyone, but he was slightly shit for us.
He's only played for 2 clubs. So not many managers have signed him. And only Sven picked him for England.
True, Carrick came of age much later than Hargreaves. But now that he has, he's a better player.
So is Carrick now >>> Keane ???
Controlling the midfield against the French champions, stifling their playmaker Juninho but conceding a brilliant solo goal >>>>>> being run over and humiliated by Copenhagen and Celtic. If it wasnt for Saha's wonder goal against Benfica away, we would have not qualified past the group stage for the second successive season.
Of course you haven't. You should be a politician.
You can't find them because I didn't say them. Keep ducking.
Look everyone, both hargreaves and carrick are good players. They're both different though so stop comparing them. Let's be honest though
For a start hargreaves can hardly make a 10 yard pass. And he is completely 1 footed. His only value is in breaking up play.
If you want to say that hargreaves should play instead of carrick then fine, that's what you think. But some of the rubbish you are spouting about carrick is absolute nonsense. If you can't see his ability then there is something wrong with you.
For a start hargreaves can hardly make a 10 yard pass. And he is completely 1 footed. His only value is in breaking up play.
If you want to say that hargreaves should play instead of carrick then fine, that's what you think. But some of the rubbish you are spouting about carrick is absolute nonsense. If you can't see his ability then there is something wrong with you.
If beating a weak Arsenal side in the cup is the criteria, then Jenas >>> any premiership midfielder. He was influential in beating Arsenal 5-1 and also Chelsea 2-1 today.
Chief... I really do not know what to say. I prefer Carrick. You prefer Hargreaves.
Oh. I remembered what to say. Carrick is better.
You base your opinions on Hargreaves on what exactly? An injury plagued season for us? The bloke is incapable of stringing 2 games together. When he does play, we lack coherence in the midfield area.
Oh. I remembered what to say. Carrick is better.
You base your opinions on Hargreaves on what exactly? An injury plagued season for us? The bloke is incapable of stringing 2 games together. When he does play, we lack coherence in the midfield area.
So is Carrick now >>> Keane ???
No. It just means that you're wrong, again.
It should be pretty obvious that Hargreaves is better from the fact that Capello, SAF, Sven put Hargreaves in the team ahead of Carrick in every big game. After all what do great managers know compared to caftards
But then again, a shite Newcastle defence and a weakened Arsenal side is the toughest test that we are going to face as a team this season
Not really. Capello picked Garteh Barry and Jermaine Jenas in midfield ahead of both. Hargreaves only started one big game under Sven, against Portugal. The rest of the time he was merely a squad player, same as Carrick.
- Status