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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sam#1 said:
Eh ?

I'm laughing at the list of Hargreaves threads because it is funny, I'm not saying anyone is sad, FFS, I've been a part of a lot of them!
Click to expand...



I was laughing with you not at you, and it is bloody sad when you have nought better to do than argue with that Chief guy on a sunday evening
 
This debate is pissing me off big-time, but I want to definitively win it once and for all. We are essentially looking at two central midfield players. Carrick is younger and less injury prone than Hargreaves - though these are minor points.

Carrick, in my opinion, operates best in the area in front of the back four. His positional sense is excellent and although his game lacks the blood and thunder approach of previous United midfielders (Keane and Robson) he does a good job protecting the backfour through his good reading of the game. Carrick brings game intelligence to the table - the problem is a lot of fans have the perception that unless you are running around like a headless chicken or spending half the game on your arse, committing to a tackle, then you are not a proper central midfield player. Carrick has no such need to do these things because his excellent positioning is a more than adequate method of playing the role. At this stage, we get the likes of Instant Karma and the Chief coming in with their nonsensical utterances. "But he was terrible away in Copenhagen, Celtic and Lille. He was outplayed by Kaka in the semi-final." We shouldn't be surprised that these posters produce such ignorant drivel, but hey, this is the Caf! Lets start with the Copenhagen defeat. Granted it was a very poor result but the apportion all of the blame on Carrick is idiocy in the extreme when he was flanked by 10 other players. The Celtic game was always going to be a tricky one. Their crowd and players relish such Parkhead occasions and we are not the first giants that have fallen to defeat against them. The Lille game shouldn't even be used a case-in-point because we won the game. Rio Ferdinand in all his finite wisdom recently said (and I paraphrase) that the level of performance is secondary to the result in European away games, and so to level abuse at Carrick for being under par against the French team last season is harsh considering United came away with the victory. Harsher still when we consider than none of the United players played particularly well that day. Further to this, the "Milan-myth" (as it will be from here-on-in known) is one of the most irritating arguments on this site. There were so many other circumastances surrounding the game. Our team's general exhaustion at chasing a Treble vs Milan's serene progress through their domestic season; resting players at will before big games. Our injuries galore which left us in a position of real weakness - especially defensively. Now I know excuses can only stretch so far, but to blame Carrick for the team's short fall in the Milan fixture is perverse.

From his deep lying role, Carrick is afforded the space to utilise his extensive passing repertoire. Given the extra 10 yards that a player gets if they are stationed in front of the back four, Carrick is ideal to play in that position. His assist for Ronaldo on Sunday was just a snippet of what he is capable of producing. He saw a gap and threaded the ball with the perfect weight and Ronaldo barely had to break stride. One thing that was noticeable about Carrick's role in the goal was the speed at which the move occured. Carrick fought off the attentions of Barton, before cleverly turning and driving from his deep position into the heart of the midfield. He then took aim and played the perfect ball to put United into a 2-0 lead. The whole move must have taken 10 seconds. Here is where my critique of Hargreaves really begins. I don't think it is too great an exaggeration to say that in 10 seconds of play, it is quite conceivable that Hargreaves will often hold on to the ball before turning on it, and turning on it again before making a square pass of no conviction. He slows the play down and he adds an extra pass in the midfield that makes our play more congested. Carrick meanwhile, displays a dynamism and speed of play that makes United a much more fluid opposition. I can only imagine the frustration a Rooney, Tevez or Saha must feel when they dart in beyond the opposition backline only to find that the Hargreaves pass has been cut out, or worse still he never attempted it. The forwards know though that there will be a consistent supply of incisive service from Carrick throughout a game.

I think I'll end my rant on a more elaborate point so you guys can have a think about this one (Chief and Karma - don't strain any brain cells). With Carrick in the United midfield alongside Scholes last season, United swept aside the competition and won the title after a long (relatively) drought. It is my opinion that United were so good and so dominant in the vast number of games because the quality of the central midfield duo was such that we did not have to worry about defensive midfield players. Put another way, we knew that we would enjoy that vast chunk of possession in a game and thus why bother employing an anchor when the opponents will be penned back by the quality of our central pairing anyway. It seems to me that you only ever have to concertedly defend in a game when you go with the mindset to defend. Or put another way, you are effectively inviting pressure onto yourselves and there is a simple way to alliviate this pressure - ditch the archetypal, talentless anchoring player, bought in for an extortionate fee from the Bundesliga (not mentioning any names like). Who was it that said, "attack is the best form of defence?" Bloody clever bloke.
 
Feed Me said:
This debate is pissing me off big-time, but I want to definitively win it once and for all. We are essentially looking at two central midfield players. Carrick is younger and less injury prone than Hargreaves - though these are minor points.

Carrick, in my opinion, operates best in the area in front of the back four. His positional sense is excellent and although his game lacks the blood and thunder approach of previous United midfielders (Keane and Robson) he does a good job protecting the backfour through his good reading of the game. Carrick brings game intelligence to the table - the problem is a lot of fans have the perception that unless you are running around like a headless chicken or spending half the game on your arse, committing to a tackle, then you are not a proper central midfield player. Carrick has no such need to do these things because his excellent positioning is a more than adequate method of playing the role. At this stage, we get the likes of Instant Karma and the Chief coming in with their nonsensical utterances. "But he was terrible away in Copenhagen, Celtic and Lille. He was outplayed by Kaka in the semi-final." We shouldn't be surprised that these posters produce such ignorant drivel, but hey, this is the Caf! Lets start with the Copenhagen defeat. Granted it was a very poor result but the apportion all of the blame on Carrick is idiocy in the extreme when he was flanked by 10 other players. The Celtic game was always going to be a tricky one. Their crowd and players relish such Parkhead occasions and we are not the first giants that have fallen to defeat against them. The Lille game shouldn't even be used a case-in-point because we won the game. Rio Ferdinand in all his finite wisdom recently said (and I paraphrase) that the level of performance is secondary to the result in European away games, and so to level abuse at Carrick for being under par against the French team last season is harsh considering United came away with the victory. Harsher still when we consider than none of the United players played particularly well that day. Further to this, the "Milan-myth" (as it will be from here-on-in known) is one of the most irritating arguments on this site. There were so many other circumastances surrounding the game. Our team's general exhaustion at chasing a Treble vs Milan's serene progress through their domestic season; resting players at will before big games. Our injuries galore which left us in a position of real weakness - especially defensively. Now I know excuses can only stretch so far, but to blame Carrick for the team's short fall in the Milan fixture is perverse.

From his deep lying role, Carrick is afforded the space to utilise his extensive passing repertoire. Given the extra 10 yards that a player gets if they are stationed in front of the back four, Carrick is ideal to play in that position. His assist for Ronaldo on Sunday was just a snippet of what he is capable of producing. He saw a gap and threaded the ball with the perfect weight and Ronaldo barely had to break stride. One thing that was noticeable about Carrick's role in the goal was the speed at which the move occured. Carrick fought off the attentions of Barton, before cleverly turning and driving from his deep position into the heart of the midfield. He then took aim and played the perfect ball to put United into a 2-0 lead. The whole move must have taken 10 seconds. Here is where my critique of Hargreaves really begins. I don't think it is too great an exaggeration to say that in 10 seconds of play, it is quite conceivable that Hargreaves will often hold on to the ball before turning on it, and turning on it again before making a square pass of no conviction. He slows the play down and he adds an extra pass in the midfield that makes our play more congested. Carrick meanwhile, displays a dynamism and speed of play that makes United a much more fluid opposition. I can only imagine the frustration a Rooney, Tevez or Saha must feel when they dart in beyond the opposition backline only to find that the Hargreaves pass has been cut out, or worse still he never attempted it. The forwards know though that there will be a consistent supply of incisive service from Carrick throughout a game.

I think I'll end my rant on a more elaborate point so you guys can have a think about this one (Chief and Karma - don't strain any brain cells). With Carrick in the United midfield alongside Scholes last season, United swept aside the competition and won the title after a long (relatively) drought. It is my opinion that United were so good and so dominant in the vast number of games because the quality of the central midfield duo was such that we did not have to worry about defensive midfield players. Put another way, we knew that we would enjoy that vast chunk of possession in a game and thus why bother employing an anchor when the opponents will be penned back by the quality of our central pairing anyway. It seems to me that you only ever have to concertedly defend in a game when you go with the mindset to defend. Or put another way, you are effectively inviting pressure onto yourselves and there is a simple way to alliviate this pressure - ditch the archetypal, talentless anchoring player, bought in for an extortionate fee from the Bundesliga (not mentioning any names like). Who was it that said, "attack is the best form of defence?" Bloody clever bloke.
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
Again, that doesn't answer my question convincingly. And that is so far, the only reasoning any Hargreaves fans have been able to come up with as to why he is better then Carrick. Because he has played for a bigger club and played in some big matches in the past, oh....and he can tackle a bit harder.

Sorry, but that's not good enough.

As of yet, not one person has been able to convincingly tell me why, in terms of attributes and ability, why Hargreaves is better then Carrick.
 
I will also have a stab at winning this debate

Carrick is very talented, but a bit feeble when the chips are down

Hargreaves is average, but has a bit about him

Having both is a big improvement from having about 25 terrible centre midfielders like we used to. Especially as we've bought Anderson, who's miles better than both of them

35 million quid is a silly amount to have spent on them. If we'd spent, say, 12 mil on Carrick and 8 mil on Hargreaves, I'd be happier, but I'm still fairly happy.
 
Feed Me said:
This debate is pissing me off big-time, but I want to definitively win it once and for all. We are essentially looking at two central midfield players. Carrick is younger and less injury prone than Hargreaves - though these are minor points.

Carrick, in my opinion, operates best in the area in front of the back four. His positional sense is excellent and although his game lacks the blood and thunder approach of previous United midfielders (Keane and Robson) he does a good job protecting the backfour through his good reading of the game. Carrick brings game intelligence to the table - the problem is a lot of fans have the perception that unless you are running around like a headless chicken or spending half the game on your arse, committing to a tackle, then you are not a proper central midfield player. Carrick has no such need to do these things because his excellent positioning is a more than adequate method of playing the role. At this stage, we get the likes of Instant Karma and the Chief coming in with their nonsensical utterances. "But he was terrible away in Copenhagen, Celtic and Lille. He was outplayed by Kaka in the semi-final." We shouldn't be surprised that these posters produce such ignorant drivel, but hey, this is the Caf! Lets start with the Copenhagen defeat. Granted it was a very poor result but the apportion all of the blame on Carrick is idiocy in the extreme when he was flanked by 10 other players. The Celtic game was always going to be a tricky one. Their crowd and players relish such Parkhead occasions and we are not the first giants that have fallen to defeat against them. The Lille game shouldn't even be used a case-in-point because we won the game. Rio Ferdinand in all his finite wisdom recently said (and I paraphrase) that the level of performance is secondary to the result in European away games, and so to level abuse at Carrick for being under par against the French team last season is harsh considering United came away with the victory. Harsher still when we consider than none of the United players played particularly well that day. Further to this, the "Milan-myth" (as it will be from here-on-in known) is one of the most irritating arguments on this site. There were so many other circumastances surrounding the game. Our team's general exhaustion at chasing a Treble vs Milan's serene progress through their domestic season; resting players at will before big games. Our injuries galore which left us in a position of real weakness - especially defensively. Now I know excuses can only stretch so far, but to blame Carrick for the team's short fall in the Milan fixture is perverse.

From his deep lying role, Carrick is afforded the space to utilise his extensive passing repertoire. Given the extra 10 yards that a player gets if they are stationed in front of the back four, Carrick is ideal to play in that position. His assist for Ronaldo on Sunday was just a snippet of what he is capable of producing. He saw a gap and threaded the ball with the perfect weight and Ronaldo barely had to break stride. One thing that was noticeable about Carrick's role in the goal was the speed at which the move occured. Carrick fought off the attentions of Barton, before cleverly turning and driving from his deep position into the heart of the midfield. He then took aim and played the perfect ball to put United into a 2-0 lead. The whole move must have taken 10 seconds. Here is where my critique of Hargreaves really begins. I don't think it is too great an exaggeration to say that in 10 seconds of play, it is quite conceivable that Hargreaves will often hold on to the ball before turning on it, and turning on it again before making a square pass of no conviction. He slows the play down and he adds an extra pass in the midfield that makes our play more congested. Carrick meanwhile, displays a dynamism and speed of play that makes United a much more fluid opposition. I can only imagine the frustration a Rooney, Tevez or Saha must feel when they dart in beyond the opposition backline only to find that the Hargreaves pass has been cut out, or worse still he never attempted it. The forwards know though that there will be a consistent supply of incisive service from Carrick throughout a game.

I think I'll end my rant on a more elaborate point so you guys can have a think about this one (Chief and Karma - don't strain any brain cells). With Carrick in the United midfield alongside Scholes last season, United swept aside the competition and won the title after a long (relatively) drought. It is my opinion that United were so good and so dominant in the vast number of games because the quality of the central midfield duo was such that we did not have to worry about defensive midfield players. Put another way, we knew that we would enjoy that vast chunk of possession in a game and thus why bother employing an anchor when the opponents will be penned back by the quality of our central pairing anyway. It seems to me that you only ever have to concertedly defend in a game when you go with the mindset to defend. Or put another way, you are effectively inviting pressure onto yourselves and there is a simple way to alliviate this pressure - ditch the archetypal, talentless anchoring player, bought in for an extortionate fee from the Bundesliga (not mentioning any names like). Who was it that said, "attack is the best form of defence?" Bloody clever bloke.
Click to expand...



Good post but I think you might be stretching their ability to think a little to much
 
Feed Me said:
This debate is pissing me off big-time, but I want to definitively win it once and for all. We are essentially looking at two central midfield players. Carrick is younger and less injury prone than Hargreaves - though these are minor points.

Carrick, in my opinion, operates best in the area in front of the back four. His positional sense is excellent and although his game lacks the blood and thunder approach of previous United midfielders (Keane and Robson) he does a good job protecting the backfour through his good reading of the game. Carrick brings game intelligence to the table - the problem is a lot of fans have the perception that unless you are running around like a headless chicken or spending half the game on your arse, committing to a tackle, then you are not a proper central midfield player. Carrick has no such need to do these things because his excellent positioning is a more than adequate method of playing the role. At this stage, we get the likes of Instant Karma and the Chief coming in with their nonsensical utterances. "But he was terrible away in Copenhagen, Celtic and Lille. He was outplayed by Kaka in the semi-final." We shouldn't be surprised that these posters produce such ignorant drivel, but hey, this is the Caf! Lets start with the Copenhagen defeat. Granted it was a very poor result but the apportion all of the blame on Carrick is idiocy in the extreme when he was flanked by 10 other players. The Celtic game was always going to be a tricky one. Their crowd and players relish such Parkhead occasions and we are not the first giants that have fallen to defeat against them. The Lille game shouldn't even be used a case-in-point because we won the game. Rio Ferdinand in all his finite wisdom recently said (and I paraphrase) that the level of performance is secondary to the result in European away games, and so to level abuse at Carrick for being under par against the French team last season is harsh considering United came away with the victory. Harsher still when we consider than none of the United players played particularly well that day. Further to this, the "Milan-myth" (as it will be from here-on-in known) is one of the most irritating arguments on this site. There were so many other circumastances surrounding the game. Our team's general exhaustion at chasing a Treble vs Milan's serene progress through their domestic season; resting players at will before big games. Our injuries galore which left us in a position of real weakness - especially defensively. Now I know excuses can only stretch so far, but to blame Carrick for the team's short fall in the Milan fixture is perverse.

From his deep lying role, Carrick is afforded the space to utilise his extensive passing repertoire. Given the extra 10 yards that a player gets if they are stationed in front of the back four, Carrick is ideal to play in that position. His assist for Ronaldo on Sunday was just a snippet of what he is capable of producing. He saw a gap and threaded the ball with the perfect weight and Ronaldo barely had to break stride. One thing that was noticeable about Carrick's role in the goal was the speed at which the move occured. Carrick fought off the attentions of Barton, before cleverly turning and driving from his deep position into the heart of the midfield. He then took aim and played the perfect ball to put United into a 2-0 lead. The whole move must have taken 10 seconds. Here is where my critique of Hargreaves really begins. I don't think it is too great an exaggeration to say that in 10 seconds of play, it is quite conceivable that Hargreaves will often hold on to the ball before turning on it, and turning on it again before making a square pass of no conviction. He slows the play down and he adds an extra pass in the midfield that makes our play more congested. Carrick meanwhile, displays a dynamism and speed of play that makes United a much more fluid opposition. I can only imagine the frustration a Rooney, Tevez or Saha must feel when they dart in beyond the opposition backline only to find that the Hargreaves pass has been cut out, or worse still he never attempted it. The forwards know though that there will be a consistent supply of incisive service from Carrick throughout a game.

I think I'll end my rant on a more elaborate point so you guys can have a think about this one (Chief and Karma - don't strain any brain cells). With Carrick in the United midfield alongside Scholes last season, United swept aside the competition and won the title after a long (relatively) drought. It is my opinion that United were so good and so dominant in the vast number of games because the quality of the central midfield duo was such that we did not have to worry about defensive midfield players. Put another way, we knew that we would enjoy that vast chunk of possession in a game and thus why bother employing an anchor when the opponents will be penned back by the quality of our central pairing anyway. It seems to me that you only ever have to concertedly defend in a game when you go with the mindset to defend. Or put another way, you are effectively inviting pressure onto yourselves and there is a simple way to alliviate this pressure - ditch the archetypal, talentless anchoring player, bought in for an extortionate fee from the Bundesliga (not mentioning any names like). Who was it that said, "attack is the best form of defence?" Bloody clever bloke.
Click to expand...

Bloody hell, that has to be post of the year or something.

fecking brilliant and spot on in every department.

I salute you!
 
Sam#1 said:
Again, that doesn't answer my question convincingly. And that is so far, the only reasoning any Hargreaves fans have been able to come up with as to why he is better then Carrick. Because he has played for a bigger club and played in some big matches in the past, oh....and he can tackle a bit harder.

Sorry, but that's not good enough.

As of yet, not one person has been able to convincingly tell me why, in terms of attributes and ability, why Hargreaves is better then Carrick.
Click to expand...

Read my post Sam. It doesn't tell you why Hargreaves is better than Carrick. BUT, it does tell you why Carrick is better than Hargreaves!
 
Feed Me said:
:D

Now let us await the wrath of the spackers!
Click to expand...

Red Indian Chief will multi-quote you about 20 times with utter drivel about Hargreaves winning the under 9's junior football tournament with Bayern, and hence making him better then Carrick...
 
Feed Me said:
This debate is pissing me off big-time, but I want to definitively win it once and for all. We are essentially looking at two central midfield players. Carrick is younger and less injury prone than Hargreaves - though these are minor points.

Carrick, in my opinion, operates best in the area in front of the back four. His positional sense is excellent and although his game lacks the blood and thunder approach of previous United midfielders (Keane and Robson) he does a good job protecting the backfour through his good reading of the game. Carrick brings game intelligence to the table - the problem is a lot of fans have the perception that unless you are running around like a headless chicken or spending half the game on your arse, committing to a tackle, then you are not a proper central midfield player. Carrick has no such need to do these things because his excellent positioning is a more than adequate method of playing the role. At this stage, we get the likes of Instant Karma and the Chief coming in with their nonsensical utterances. "But he was terrible away in Copenhagen, Celtic and Lille. He was outplayed by Kaka in the semi-final." We shouldn't be surprised that these posters produce such ignorant drivel, but hey, this is the Caf! Lets start with the Copenhagen defeat. Granted it was a very poor result but the apportion all of the blame on Carrick is idiocy in the extreme when he was flanked by 10 other players. The Celtic game was always going to be a tricky one. Their crowd and players relish such Parkhead occasions and we are not the first giants that have fallen to defeat against them. The Lille game shouldn't even be used a case-in-point because we won the game. Rio Ferdinand in all his finite wisdom recently said (and I paraphrase) that the level of performance is secondary to the result in European away games, and so to level abuse at Carrick for being under par against the French team last season is harsh considering United came away with the victory. Harsher still when we consider than none of the United players played particularly well that day. Further to this, the "Milan-myth" (as it will be from here-on-in known) is one of the most irritating arguments on this site. There were so many other circumastances surrounding the game. Our team's general exhaustion at chasing a Treble vs Milan's serene progress through their domestic season; resting players at will before big games. Our injuries galore which left us in a position of real weakness - especially defensively. Now I know excuses can only stretch so far, but to blame Carrick for the team's short fall in the Milan fixture is perverse.

From his deep lying role, Carrick is afforded the space to utilise his extensive passing repertoire. Given the extra 10 yards that a player gets if they are stationed in front of the back four, Carrick is ideal to play in that position. His assist for Ronaldo on Sunday was just a snippet of what he is capable of producing. He saw a gap and threaded the ball with the perfect weight and Ronaldo barely had to break stride. One thing that was noticeable about Carrick's role in the goal was the speed at which the move occured. Carrick fought off the attentions of Barton, before cleverly turning and driving from his deep position into the heart of the midfield. He then took aim and played the perfect ball to put United into a 2-0 lead. The whole move must have taken 10 seconds. Here is where my critique of Hargreaves really begins. I don't think it is too great an exaggeration to say that in 10 seconds of play, it is quite conceivable that Hargreaves will often hold on to the ball before turning on it, and turning on it again before making a square pass of no conviction. He slows the play down and he adds an extra pass in the midfield that makes our play more congested. Carrick meanwhile, displays a dynamism and speed of play that makes United a much more fluid opposition. I can only imagine the frustration a Rooney, Tevez or Saha must feel when they dart in beyond the opposition backline only to find that the Hargreaves pass has been cut out, or worse still he never attempted it. The forwards know though that there will be a consistent supply of incisive service from Carrick throughout a game.

I think I'll end my rant on a more elaborate point so you guys can have a think about this one (Chief and Karma - don't strain any brain cells). With Carrick in the United midfield alongside Scholes last season, United swept aside the competition and won the title after a long (relatively) drought. It is my opinion that United were so good and so dominant in the vast number of games because the quality of the central midfield duo was such that we did not have to worry about defensive midfield players. Put another way, we knew that we would enjoy that vast chunk of possession in a game and thus why bother employing an anchor when the opponents will be penned back by the quality of our central pairing anyway. It seems to me that you only ever have to concertedly defend in a game when you go with the mindset to defend. Or put another way, you are effectively inviting pressure onto yourselves and there is a simple way to alliviate this pressure - ditch the archetypal, talentless anchoring player, bought in for an extortionate fee from the Bundesliga (not mentioning any names like). Who was it that said, "attack is the best form of defence?" Bloody clever bloke.
Click to expand...

Good god, thats perfect
 
Feed Me, that's a good post. But I don't think the opponents (IK and Chief) deserve such a long response. You can expect a lot of :lol: s and :rolleyes: from them.
 
Why are people bothered who's better than who?

Some of this shit about Carrick & Hargreaves is play-ground stuff, you need to grow up. At the end of the day you lot have no say in what team SAF picks... so fecking lump it and back the boys in the shirts.
 
Feed Me said:
This debate is pissing me off big-time, but I want to definitively win it once and for all. We are essentially looking at two central midfield players. Carrick is younger and less injury prone than Hargreaves - though these are minor points.

Carrick, in my opinion, operates best in the area in front of the back four. His positional sense is excellent and although his game lacks the blood and thunder approach of previous United midfielders (Keane and Robson) he does a good job protecting the backfour through his good reading of the game. Carrick brings game intelligence to the table - the problem is a lot of fans have the perception that unless you are running around like a headless chicken or spending half the game on your arse, committing to a tackle, then you are not a proper central midfield player. Carrick has no such need to do these things because his excellent positioning is a more than adequate method of playing the role. At this stage, we get the likes of Instant Karma and the Chief coming in with their nonsensical utterances. "But he was terrible away in Copenhagen, Celtic and Lille. He was outplayed by Kaka in the semi-final." We shouldn't be surprised that these posters produce such ignorant drivel, but hey, this is the Caf! Lets start with the Copenhagen defeat. Granted it was a very poor result but the apportion all of the blame on Carrick is idiocy in the extreme when he was flanked by 10 other players. The Celtic game was always going to be a tricky one. Their crowd and players relish such Parkhead occasions and we are not the first giants that have fallen to defeat against them. The Lille game shouldn't even be used a case-in-point because we won the game. Rio Ferdinand in all his finite wisdom recently said (and I paraphrase) that the level of performance is secondary to the result in European away games, and so to level abuse at Carrick for being under par against the French team last season is harsh considering United came away with the victory. Harsher still when we consider than none of the United players played particularly well that day. Further to this, the "Milan-myth" (as it will be from here-on-in known) is one of the most irritating arguments on this site. There were so many other circumastances surrounding the game. Our team's general exhaustion at chasing a Treble vs Milan's serene progress through their domestic season; resting players at will before big games. Our injuries galore which left us in a position of real weakness - especially defensively. Now I know excuses can only stretch so far, but to blame Carrick for the team's short fall in the Milan fixture is perverse.

From his deep lying role, Carrick is afforded the space to utilise his extensive passing repertoire. Given the extra 10 yards that a player gets if they are stationed in front of the back four, Carrick is ideal to play in that position. His assist for Ronaldo on Sunday was just a snippet of what he is capable of producing. He saw a gap and threaded the ball with the perfect weight and Ronaldo barely had to break stride. One thing that was noticeable about Carrick's role in the goal was the speed at which the move occured. Carrick fought off the attentions of Barton, before cleverly turning and driving from his deep position into the heart of the midfield. He then took aim and played the perfect ball to put United into a 2-0 lead. The whole move must have taken 10 seconds. Here is where my critique of Hargreaves really begins. I don't think it is too great an exaggeration to say that in 10 seconds of play, it is quite conceivable that Hargreaves will often hold on to the ball before turning on it, and turning on it again before making a square pass of no conviction. He slows the play down and he adds an extra pass in the midfield that makes our play more congested. Carrick meanwhile, displays a dynamism and speed of play that makes United a much more fluid opposition. I can only imagine the frustration a Rooney, Tevez or Saha must feel when they dart in beyond the opposition backline only to find that the Hargreaves pass has been cut out, or worse still he never attempted it. The forwards know though that there will be a consistent supply of incisive service from Carrick throughout a game.

I think I'll end my rant on a more elaborate point so you guys can have a think about this one (Chief and Karma - don't strain any brain cells). With Carrick in the United midfield alongside Scholes last season, United swept aside the competition and won the title after a long (relatively) drought. It is my opinion that United were so good and so dominant in the vast number of games because the quality of the central midfield duo was such that we did not have to worry about defensive midfield players. Put another way, we knew that we would enjoy that vast chunk of possession in a game and thus why bother employing an anchor when the opponents will be penned back by the quality of our central pairing anyway. It seems to me that you only ever have to concertedly defend in a game when you go with the mindset to defend. Or put another way, you are effectively inviting pressure onto yourselves and there is a simple way to alliviate this pressure - ditch the archetypal, talentless anchoring player, bought in for an extortionate fee from the Bundesliga (not mentioning any names like). Who was it that said, "attack is the best form of defence?" Bloody clever bloke.
Click to expand...

100%.

the last paragraph is the main thing. Well done.
 
Sam#1 said:
Red Indian Chief will multi-quote you about 20 times with utter drivel about Hargreaves winning the under 9's junior football tournament with Bayern, and hence making him better then Carrick...
Click to expand...




an Instant Karma will do the same with endless posts telling us Hargreaves must be better because he has played in Germany and all German teams play to a much higher standard and anyway all the worlds top coaches rate him higher than Carrick etc etc etc
 
redender said:
Why are people bothered who's better than who?

Some of this shit about Carrick & Hargreaves is play-ground stuff, you need to grow up. At the end of the day you lot have no say in what team SAF picks... so fecking lump it and back the boys in the shirts.
Click to expand...



leave us alone we enjoying ourselves ... a little
 
My last thoughts on this debate*.

The Chief and IK keep bringing up games where we've lost and blame it on Carrick forgetting that there were other midfielders playing as well and other reasons we lost. Similarly games which we dominate, it's all because of Hargreaves.

Carrick is an excellent player. Brings more to our team and seems to be improving. He can also pass which is a bonus.

Hargreaves on the other hand has been average so far. Runs around a lot but can't pass. Yes, he played for Bayern. But again it was in a great team. I won't write him off yet. Right now he doesn't deserve to come close to our team. Even Fletcher is the better option.

So Carrick> Hargreaves.



*Unless the Chief posts something spastic again and I'm compelled to respond, which is almost certain.
 
Mozza said:
He's useless, Fergie goes mental once in a while with an idea and Owen Hargreaves was one, he'll end up at right back or out of the club within a couple of seasons.
Click to expand...

Yes

It's not even the fact he's the wrong type of player that gets me, it's the fact that he's simply nowhere near good enough, either at playing football, or stopping the other team from doing so.

He's quite literally a completely pointless player. Playing him in a two man midfield means we can't compete, and are either pushed back or left far too open through the middle.

Playing him in a three man midfield means we play terrible. It's like taking one of the worlds fastest cars, and sticking another wheel underneath, which points sideways.
 
Psmith said:
My last thoughts on this debate*.

The Chief and IK keep bringing up games where we've lost and blame it on Carrick forgetting that there were other midfielders playing as well and other reasons we lost. Similarly games which we dominate, it's all because of Hargreaves.

Carrick is an excellent player. Brings more to our team and seems to be improving. He can also pass which is a bonus.

Hargreaves on the other hand has been average so far. Runs around a lot but can't pass. Yes, he played for Bayern. But again it was in a great team. I won't write him off yet. Right now he doesn't deserve to come close to our team. Even Fletcher is the better option.

So Carrick> Hargreaves.



*Unless the Chief posts something spastic again and I'm compelled to respond, which is almost certain.
Click to expand...

Yes, in IK/Chief world, one centre midfield is always responsible for a team's performance. Defeats with Carrick playing are Carrick's doing, Bayern's successes are Hargreaves' doing.

noodlehair said:
It's like taking one of the worlds fastest cars, and sticking another wheel underneath, which points sideways.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
wow atleast 100 pages in multiple threads have been wasted in the Carrick-Hargo spazfest this season. And I thought Rooney v Ronaldo threads were bad.
 
It appears that the Chief and IK have mysteriously disappeared, anyone know why that could be ?
 
Sam#1 said:
It appears that the Chief and IK have mysteriously disappeared, anyone know why that could be ?
Click to expand...

Rimming one another?

On a trivial note - atleast we are no longer debating the superior footballing pedigree of Messrs Kleberson and Djemba-Djemba.

Horrid times.
 
Feed Me said:
Rimming one another?

On a trivial note - atleast we are no longer debating the superior footballing pedigree of Messrs Kleberson and Djemba-Djemba.

Horrid times.
Click to expand...
Jimmy Pakistan as babel fish translated Djemba-Djemba from Chinese, he was fecking useless
 
Lizard King said:
I reckon the chief is still about, preparing a 4-page epic post.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine he is frantically searching the web, trying to find out what trophies and accolades Hargreaves won from the ages 5-15, to then then compare that to the the ones which Carrick won in the same time period. Because we all know, it doesn't matter what technical ability or skill you have, it's what trophies you've won in the past that really count towards making one player better then another.
 
Feed Me said:
This debate is pissing me off big-time, but I want to definitively win it once and for all. We are essentially looking at two central midfield players. Carrick is younger and less injury prone than Hargreaves - though these are minor points.

Carrick, in my opinion, operates best in the area in front of the back four. His positional sense is excellent and although his game lacks the blood and thunder approach of previous United midfielders (Keane and Robson) he does a good job protecting the backfour through his good reading of the game. Carrick brings game intelligence to the table - the problem is a lot of fans have the perception that unless you are running around like a headless chicken or spending half the game on your arse, committing to a tackle, then you are not a proper central midfield player. Carrick has no such need to do these things because his excellent positioning is a more than adequate method of playing the role. At this stage, we get the likes of Instant Karma and the Chief coming in with their nonsensical utterances. "But he was terrible away in Copenhagen, Celtic and Lille. He was outplayed by Kaka in the semi-final." We shouldn't be surprised that these posters produce such ignorant drivel, but hey, this is the Caf! Lets start with the Copenhagen defeat. Granted it was a very poor result but the apportion all of the blame on Carrick is idiocy in the extreme when he was flanked by 10 other players. The Celtic game was always going to be a tricky one. Their crowd and players relish such Parkhead occasions and we are not the first giants that have fallen to defeat against them. The Lille game shouldn't even be used a case-in-point because we won the game. Rio Ferdinand in all his finite wisdom recently said (and I paraphrase) that the level of performance is secondary to the result in European away games, and so to level abuse at Carrick for being under par against the French team last season is harsh considering United came away with the victory. Harsher still when we consider than none of the United players played particularly well that day. Further to this, the "Milan-myth" (as it will be from here-on-in known) is one of the most irritating arguments on this site. There were so many other circumastances surrounding the game. Our team's general exhaustion at chasing a Treble vs Milan's serene progress through their domestic season; resting players at will before big games. Our injuries galore which left us in a position of real weakness - especially defensively. Now I know excuses can only stretch so far, but to blame Carrick for the team's short fall in the Milan fixture is perverse.

From his deep lying role, Carrick is afforded the space to utilise his extensive passing repertoire. Given the extra 10 yards that a player gets if they are stationed in front of the back four, Carrick is ideal to play in that position. His assist for Ronaldo on Sunday was just a snippet of what he is capable of producing. He saw a gap and threaded the ball with the perfect weight and Ronaldo barely had to break stride. One thing that was noticeable about Carrick's role in the goal was the speed at which the move occured. Carrick fought off the attentions of Barton, before cleverly turning and driving from his deep position into the heart of the midfield. He then took aim and played the perfect ball to put United into a 2-0 lead. The whole move must have taken 10 seconds. Here is where my critique of Hargreaves really begins. I don't think it is too great an exaggeration to say that in 10 seconds of play, it is quite conceivable that Hargreaves will often hold on to the ball before turning on it, and turning on it again before making a square pass of no conviction. He slows the play down and he adds an extra pass in the midfield that makes our play more congested. Carrick meanwhile, displays a dynamism and speed of play that makes United a much more fluid opposition. I can only imagine the frustration a Rooney, Tevez or Saha must feel when they dart in beyond the opposition backline only to find that the Hargreaves pass has been cut out, or worse still he never attempted it. The forwards know though that there will be a consistent supply of incisive service from Carrick throughout a game.

I think I'll end my rant on a more elaborate point so you guys can have a think about this one (Chief and Karma - don't strain any brain cells). With Carrick in the United midfield alongside Scholes last season, United swept aside the competition and won the title after a long (relatively) drought. It is my opinion that United were so good and so dominant in the vast number of games because the quality of the central midfield duo was such that we did not have to worry about defensive midfield players. Put another way, we knew that we would enjoy that vast chunk of possession in a game and thus why bother employing an anchor when the opponents will be penned back by the quality of our central pairing anyway. It seems to me that you only ever have to concertedly defend in a game when you go with the mindset to defend. Or put another way, you are effectively inviting pressure onto yourselves and there is a simple way to alliviate this pressure - ditch the archetypal, talentless anchoring player, bought in for an extortionate fee from the Bundesliga (not mentioning any names like). Who was it that said, "attack is the best form of defence?" Bloody clever bloke.
Click to expand...

Absolutely superb.
 
Feed Me said:
This debate is pissing me off big-time, but I want to definitively win it once and for all. We are essentially looking at two central midfield players. Carrick is younger and less injury prone than Hargreaves - though these are minor points.

Carrick, in my opinion, operates best in the area in front of the back four. His positional sense is excellent and although his game lacks the blood and thunder approach of previous United midfielders (Keane and Robson) he does a good job protecting the backfour through his good reading of the game. Carrick brings game intelligence to the table - the problem is a lot of fans have the perception that unless you are running around like a headless chicken or spending half the game on your arse, committing to a tackle, then you are not a proper central midfield player. Carrick has no such need to do these things because his excellent positioning is a more than adequate method of playing the role. At this stage, we get the likes of Instant Karma and the Chief coming in with their nonsensical utterances. "But he was terrible away in Copenhagen, Celtic and Lille. He was outplayed by Kaka in the semi-final." We shouldn't be surprised that these posters produce such ignorant drivel, but hey, this is the Caf! Lets start with the Copenhagen defeat. Granted it was a very poor result but the apportion all of the blame on Carrick is idiocy in the extreme when he was flanked by 10 other players. The Celtic game was always going to be a tricky one. Their crowd and players relish such Parkhead occasions and we are not the first giants that have fallen to defeat against them. The Lille game shouldn't even be used a case-in-point because we won the game. Rio Ferdinand in all his finite wisdom recently said (and I paraphrase) that the level of performance is secondary to the result in European away games, and so to level abuse at Carrick for being under par against the French team last season is harsh considering United came away with the victory. Harsher still when we consider than none of the United players played particularly well that day. Further to this, the "Milan-myth" (as it will be from here-on-in known) is one of the most irritating arguments on this site. There were so many other circumastances surrounding the game. Our team's general exhaustion at chasing a Treble vs Milan's serene progress through their domestic season; resting players at will before big games. Our injuries galore which left us in a position of real weakness - especially defensively. Now I know excuses can only stretch so far, but to blame Carrick for the team's short fall in the Milan fixture is perverse.

From his deep lying role, Carrick is afforded the space to utilise his extensive passing repertoire. Given the extra 10 yards that a player gets if they are stationed in front of the back four, Carrick is ideal to play in that position. His assist for Ronaldo on Sunday was just a snippet of what he is capable of producing. He saw a gap and threaded the ball with the perfect weight and Ronaldo barely had to break stride. One thing that was noticeable about Carrick's role in the goal was the speed at which the move occured. Carrick fought off the attentions of Barton, before cleverly turning and driving from his deep position into the heart of the midfield. He then took aim and played the perfect ball to put United into a 2-0 lead. The whole move must have taken 10 seconds. Here is where my critique of Hargreaves really begins. I don't think it is too great an exaggeration to say that in 10 seconds of play, it is quite conceivable that Hargreaves will often hold on to the ball before turning on it, and turning on it again before making a square pass of no conviction. He slows the play down and he adds an extra pass in the midfield that makes our play more congested. Carrick meanwhile, displays a dynamism and speed of play that makes United a much more fluid opposition. I can only imagine the frustration a Rooney, Tevez or Saha must feel when they dart in beyond the opposition backline only to find that the Hargreaves pass has been cut out, or worse still he never attempted it. The forwards know though that there will be a consistent supply of incisive service from Carrick throughout a game.

I think I'll end my rant on a more elaborate point so you guys can have a think about this one (Chief and Karma - don't strain any brain cells). With Carrick in the United midfield alongside Scholes last season, United swept aside the competition and won the title after a long (relatively) drought. It is my opinion that United were so good and so dominant in the vast number of games because the quality of the central midfield duo was such that we did not have to worry about defensive midfield players. Put another way, we knew that we would enjoy that vast chunk of possession in a game and thus why bother employing an anchor when the opponents will be penned back by the quality of our central pairing anyway. It seems to me that you only ever have to concertedly defend in a game when you go with the mindset to defend. Or put another way, you are effectively inviting pressure onto yourselves and there is a simple way to alliviate this pressure - ditch the archetypal, talentless anchoring player, bought in for an extortionate fee from the Bundesliga (not mentioning any names like). Who was it that said, "attack is the best form of defence?" Bloody clever bloke.
Click to expand...

absolutely brilliant post.

Hargraeves may turn out to be a great player but he hasn't shown us much in a united shirt of why he deserves to be ahead of carrick. You can't rely on past glories and reputation. If that were the case Madrid wouldn't have had their own barren slump when they had the trophy winning pedigrees of zidane, figo and co.
 
Feed Me said:
This debate is pissing me off big-time, but I want to definitively win it once and for all. We are essentially looking at two central midfield players. Carrick is younger and less injury prone than Hargreaves - though these are minor points.

Carrick, in my opinion, operates best in the area in front of the back four. His positional sense is excellent and although his game lacks the blood and thunder approach of previous United midfielders (Keane and Robson) he does a good job protecting the backfour through his good reading of the game. Carrick brings game intelligence to the table - the problem is a lot of fans have the perception that unless you are running around like a headless chicken or spending half the game on your arse, committing to a tackle, then you are not a proper central midfield player. Carrick has no such need to do these things because his excellent positioning is a more than adequate method of playing the role. At this stage, we get the likes of Instant Karma and the Chief coming in with their nonsensical utterances. "But he was terrible away in Copenhagen, Celtic and Lille. He was outplayed by Kaka in the semi-final." We shouldn't be surprised that these posters produce such ignorant drivel, but hey, this is the Caf! Lets start with the Copenhagen defeat. Granted it was a very poor result but the apportion all of the blame on Carrick is idiocy in the extreme when he was flanked by 10 other players. The Celtic game was always going to be a tricky one. Their crowd and players relish such Parkhead occasions and we are not the first giants that have fallen to defeat against them. The Lille game shouldn't even be used a case-in-point because we won the game. Rio Ferdinand in all his finite wisdom recently said (and I paraphrase) that the level of performance is secondary to the result in European away games, and so to level abuse at Carrick for being under par against the French team last season is harsh considering United came away with the victory. Harsher still when we consider than none of the United players played particularly well that day. Further to this, the "Milan-myth" (as it will be from here-on-in known) is one of the most irritating arguments on this site. There were so many other circumastances surrounding the game. Our team's general exhaustion at chasing a Treble vs Milan's serene progress through their domestic season; resting players at will before big games. Our injuries galore which left us in a position of real weakness - especially defensively. Now I know excuses can only stretch so far, but to blame Carrick for the team's short fall in the Milan fixture is perverse.

From his deep lying role, Carrick is afforded the space to utilise his extensive passing repertoire. Given the extra 10 yards that a player gets if they are stationed in front of the back four, Carrick is ideal to play in that position. His assist for Ronaldo on Sunday was just a snippet of what he is capable of producing. He saw a gap and threaded the ball with the perfect weight and Ronaldo barely had to break stride. One thing that was noticeable about Carrick's role in the goal was the speed at which the move occured. Carrick fought off the attentions of Barton, before cleverly turning and driving from his deep position into the heart of the midfield. He then took aim and played the perfect ball to put United into a 2-0 lead. The whole move must have taken 10 seconds. Here is where my critique of Hargreaves really begins. I don't think it is too great an exaggeration to say that in 10 seconds of play, it is quite conceivable that Hargreaves will often hold on to the ball before turning on it, and turning on it again before making a square pass of no conviction. He slows the play down and he adds an extra pass in the midfield that makes our play more congested. Carrick meanwhile, displays a dynamism and speed of play that makes United a much more fluid opposition. I can only imagine the frustration a Rooney, Tevez or Saha must feel when they dart in beyond the opposition backline only to find that the Hargreaves pass has been cut out, or worse still he never attempted it. The forwards know though that there will be a consistent supply of incisive service from Carrick throughout a game.

I think I'll end my rant on a more elaborate point so you guys can have a think about this one (Chief and Karma - don't strain any brain cells). With Carrick in the United midfield alongside Scholes last season, United swept aside the competition and won the title after a long (relatively) drought. It is my opinion that United were so good and so dominant in the vast number of games because the quality of the central midfield duo was such that we did not have to worry about defensive midfield players. Put another way, we knew that we would enjoy that vast chunk of possession in a game and thus why bother employing an anchor when the opponents will be penned back by the quality of our central pairing anyway. It seems to me that you only ever have to concertedly defend in a game when you go with the mindset to defend. Or put another way, you are effectively inviting pressure onto yourselves and there is a simple way to alliviate this pressure - ditch the archetypal, talentless anchoring player, bought in for an extortionate fee from the Bundesliga (not mentioning any names like). Who was it that said, "attack is the best form of defence?" Bloody clever bloke.
Click to expand...

mail that to fergie...what was he thinking...18 million for a cart-horse with a perm.
 
Fantastic post FM.

Hope you have time in abundance for Chiefs responses.
 
Feed Me said:
This debate is pissing me off big-time, but I want to definitively win it once and for all. We are essentially looking at two central midfield players. Carrick is younger and less injury prone than Hargreaves - though these are minor points.

Carrick, in my opinion, operates best in the area in front of the back four. His positional sense is excellent and although his game lacks the blood and thunder approach of previous United midfielders (Keane and Robson) he does a good job protecting the backfour through his good reading of the game. Carrick brings game intelligence to the table - the problem is a lot of fans have the perception that unless you are running around like a headless chicken or spending half the game on your arse, committing to a tackle, then you are not a proper central midfield player. Carrick has no such need to do these things because his excellent positioning is a more than adequate method of playing the role. At this stage, we get the likes of Instant Karma and the Chief coming in with their nonsensical utterances. "But he was terrible away in Copenhagen, Celtic and Lille. He was outplayed by Kaka in the semi-final." We shouldn't be surprised that these posters produce such ignorant drivel, but hey, this is the Caf! Lets start with the Copenhagen defeat. Granted it was a very poor result but the apportion all of the blame on Carrick is idiocy in the extreme when he was flanked by 10 other players. The Celtic game was always going to be a tricky one. Their crowd and players relish such Parkhead occasions and we are not the first giants that have fallen to defeat against them. The Lille game shouldn't even be used a case-in-point because we won the game. Rio Ferdinand in all his finite wisdom recently said (and I paraphrase) that the level of performance is secondary to the result in European away games, and so to level abuse at Carrick for being under par against the French team last season is harsh considering United came away with the victory. Harsher still when we consider than none of the United players played particularly well that day. Further to this, the "Milan-myth" (as it will be from here-on-in known) is one of the most irritating arguments on this site. There were so many other circumastances surrounding the game. Our team's general exhaustion at chasing a Treble vs Milan's serene progress through their domestic season; resting players at will before big games. Our injuries galore which left us in a position of real weakness - especially defensively. Now I know excuses can only stretch so far, but to blame Carrick for the team's short fall in the Milan fixture is perverse.

From his deep lying role, Carrick is afforded the space to utilise his extensive passing repertoire. Given the extra 10 yards that a player gets if they are stationed in front of the back four, Carrick is ideal to play in that position. His assist for Ronaldo on Sunday was just a snippet of what he is capable of producing. He saw a gap and threaded the ball with the perfect weight and Ronaldo barely had to break stride. One thing that was noticeable about Carrick's role in the goal was the speed at which the move occured. Carrick fought off the attentions of Barton, before cleverly turning and driving from his deep position into the heart of the midfield. He then took aim and played the perfect ball to put United into a 2-0 lead. The whole move must have taken 10 seconds. Here is where my critique of Hargreaves really begins. I don't think it is too great an exaggeration to say that in 10 seconds of play, it is quite conceivable that Hargreaves will often hold on to the ball before turning on it, and turning on it again before making a square pass of no conviction. He slows the play down and he adds an extra pass in the midfield that makes our play more congested. Carrick meanwhile, displays a dynamism and speed of play that makes United a much more fluid opposition. I can only imagine the frustration a Rooney, Tevez or Saha must feel when they dart in beyond the opposition backline only to find that the Hargreaves pass has been cut out, or worse still he never attempted it. The forwards know though that there will be a consistent supply of incisive service from Carrick throughout a game.

I think I'll end my rant on a more elaborate point so you guys can have a think about this one (Chief and Karma - don't strain any brain cells). With Carrick in the United midfield alongside Scholes last season, United swept aside the competition and won the title after a long (relatively) drought. It is my opinion that United were so good and so dominant in the vast number of games because the quality of the central midfield duo was such that we did not have to worry about defensive midfield players. Put another way, we knew that we would enjoy that vast chunk of possession in a game and thus why bother employing an anchor when the opponents will be penned back by the quality of our central pairing anyway. It seems to me that you only ever have to concertedly defend in a game when you go with the mindset to defend. Or put another way, you are effectively inviting pressure onto yourselves and there is a simple way to alliviate this pressure - ditch the archetypal, talentless anchoring player, bought in for an extortionate fee from the Bundesliga (not mentioning any names like). Who was it that said, "attack is the best form of defence?" Bloody clever bloke.
Click to expand...

That was a wonderful post. I do not agree on every single point, but it is terrific to have such clear explanation of the point of view, and really strong argument. I think you deserve to win the debate, and what I will add is just a comment out of the debate.

Yes we are looking for two central midfielders, and Hargreaves is a traditional Nr. 6 who has been taught a simple rule under the german strict tactical formation (which is quite effective anyway, let's precise it) : intercept the ball, anticipate its move, never tackle or be down on the field but defend standing, relaunch the game properly and simply, since it is critical to not lose the ball here. That's where the difference of culture comes here. It is my opinion that the game can be fast by small touches, as long as it is one touch control, and Hargreaves doesn't need to do long ball "à la" Carrick, as long as he can pass the ball to the other midfielder, but as he is the Nr. 6 in his mind anyway, he thinks he needs to make it sure. And a sure pass is a short pass when you have looked before for the situation on the field. Some teams in the world are really good in occupying the space, so long range passes are not always effective against them, and you need a lot of movement to go from one zone to an other, and progress by short touches. The 6 holds the midfield, and the general positioning of the team, and will cover any of the defender or full back that will go up, unless the winger comes down (but wingers at United come a bit down on the field at best, but are not really covering for the full back when they're overlapping).

Now teams like ours do not have any 10, and anyway, even teams with a true 10 do not rely on this 10 only to make the play: that is modern football. So it's all up to Ferguson now.

Once again, great post, it was very very interesting.
 
Sam#1 said:
I'd imagine he is frantically searching the web, trying to find out what trophies and accolades Hargreaves won from the ages 5-15, to then then compare that to the the ones which Carrick won in the same time period. Because we all know, it doesn't matter what technical ability or skill you have, it's what trophies you've won in the past that really count towards making one player better then another.
Click to expand...

Now that's not exactly a fair assessment on who's a better player or are you telling me that Inzaghi is better than Shearer?
 
the first thing came to my mind when reading Feed Me's great post was "shit, Chief will break this post down line by line and respond to it :nervous:"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.