So we can assume the mass debate is over Hargreaves was not needed (that point I actually agree with) and that Ferguson made an error of catastrophic proportion by spending £18 million on a player of average quality.
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Two things:
One. The cocksucking cliques on the Caf are at almost epidemical levels now.
Two. There appears to be no middle-ground here. Plech came the closest in his "hilarious" piss-take post, but everyone seems to of the opinion that either (a) Carrick is brilliant and Hargreaves is a talentless waste of space, or (b) that Hargreaves is an outstanding player and Carrick is a lazy player who cannot dominate a game.
Frankly both views are ridiculous since each player offers something different. They are not competing for the same spot (we either need a defensive general or a passing machine, not both in the same spot), and until Anderson exploded onto the scene so effectively I'm fairly sure that SAF felt our future lay in a Hargreaves/Carrick pairing. His own Pirlo/Gattuso.
Most of all, though, is that what all of you think is, frankly, entirely irrelevant and doesn't matter one iota in the scheme of Manchester United.
Oh, and just to address those saying Feed Me won the debate: he didn't. To win a debate you need a neutral observer who can, after consideration, side with the point of view that has the most effective, well-structured argument. There were no neutral observers here; everyone had made up their mind long before this post and those saying he had won always felt that Carrick was better. And those of the opposing viewpoints won't agree with his post at all anyway.
Debating is pointless when people are as dead-set and bloody minded as you people are.
One. The cocksucking cliques on the Caf are at almost epidemical levels now.
Two. There appears to be no middle-ground here. Plech came the closest in his "hilarious" piss-take post, but everyone seems to of the opinion that either (a) Carrick is brilliant and Hargreaves is a talentless waste of space, or (b) that Hargreaves is an outstanding player and Carrick is a lazy player who cannot dominate a game.
Frankly both views are ridiculous since each player offers something different. They are not competing for the same spot (we either need a defensive general or a passing machine, not both in the same spot), and until Anderson exploded onto the scene so effectively I'm fairly sure that SAF felt our future lay in a Hargreaves/Carrick pairing. His own Pirlo/Gattuso.
Most of all, though, is that what all of you think is, frankly, entirely irrelevant and doesn't matter one iota in the scheme of Manchester United.
Oh, and just to address those saying Feed Me won the debate: he didn't. To win a debate you need a neutral observer who can, after consideration, side with the point of view that has the most effective, well-structured argument. There were no neutral observers here; everyone had made up their mind long before this post and those saying he had won always felt that Carrick was better. And those of the opposing viewpoints won't agree with his post at all anyway.
Debating is pointless when people are as dead-set and bloody minded as you people are.
Think you have it spot on. People seem to have no middle ground and assume everyone is either a Carrick fan or a Hargreaves fan. I mean what the feck?
Is this fecking thread still going. Holy shit.
I believe it was "offense is the best form of defense"
and wasn't it a yank who first said that? In WW2 or some other.wow.. shutup
Absolutely superb.
We now have 2 brilliant arguments for and against Carrick/Hargreaves in the space of 2 pages.
From my point of view, I do see it as a competition between Carrick and Hargreaves in the sense that Carrick's number of games this season has been reduced by the addition of two new midfielders over the summer. Whilst I can have no complaints about Anderson coming into the side on a regular basis, I cannot say the same thing about Hargreaves.
They are competing for the same spot in the team, who plays alongside Anderson or Scholes, those two have there own competition for spot in the side.
Theres nothing to stop a footballer from being both a defensive general and a passing machine, each skills set is used pretty much separately depending on whether the team has or does not have the ball, Carrick can do both superbly.
What's the point of a forum then? Might as well shut it down.
Zidane won the UEFA cup at Bordeux. Literally carrying them with Duggary's help to the trophy. whiel helping them do well in the league and earning a move to thee club of the time, Juventus! What did Carrick win at West Ham? What trophy or heights did he take or help lead them to? Eh? Even while at Spurs?
For the last time I'm not comparing Zidane and Carrick. Just proving what a pleyr has won and who they played for at a certaion age does not prove they are a better footballer. Zidane being a perfect example of that.
Carrick won exactly the same number of trophies at West Ham that Zidane did. None. Bordeaux lost that final 3-1 to your beloved Bayern Munich. That'll be your famous memory again. Keep ducking and making things up.
3 times? Claiming Hargreaves had anything more than a bit part role in that game is ridiculous. Rooney won us that game with his brilliance.
That is why who ever talks about Carrick's flaws is abused he?
And you think that is you and your cronies
You and your 'cronies' would never resort to that would you?
There's another point where he has a go at Carrick for costing us two points with his rubbish performance at the Emirates this season. Someone should probably point out to him that Hargreaves was the one playing in that game.
Just nobody mention Titus Bramble, especially not now Zidane has been pointlessly brought into the equation
Just nobody mention Titus Bramble, especially not now Zidane has been pointlessly brought into the equation
Apart from when it's the results of football matches.
I hope that nobody is going to have an opinion about the relative quality of players unless they play in the same position or The Chief will be lashing out the smilies.
For example nobody should ever try to say that George Best was a better player than David May. or that Zidane was better than Titus Bramble, just to pluck an example out of thin air.
You have been warned.
For example nobody should ever try to say that George Best was a better player than David May. or that Zidane was better than Titus Bramble, just to pluck an example out of thin air.
You have been warned.
Zinedine Zidane is not better than Titus Bramble, he is however better than Michael Carrick, which proves that Carrick is rubbish.
I think I can see the Cheif's logic there, in a sort of spastic triangle theory kind of way
I think I can see the Cheif's logic there, in a sort of spastic triangle theory kind of way
Of course it doesn't but what's the point in a football forum if not to discuss these things.
I said that to avoid going in circles with your stupidity. It's beyond clear in the video that Fabrgas was let go by Brown, resulting in the goal we conceded. A thing you are obviously still too stupid to pick out and too blinkered and stbborn to accept. Because it doesn't fit in with your Hargreaves hatred or your Brown is god stance.
You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face.
What about Adebayor being let go by Hargreaves in the first place? Brown is hardly blameless, ball wathcing like that, but it doesn't atone for the fact that Hargreaves might aswell not be there if he doesn't track runners. You're being extremely silly.
Believe what you want. I frankly don't have time to keep going around in circles with fellows like you. Carrick was our playmaker against Newcastle. While Fletcher kept hunting down, the ball and closing down space. Like a DM and ball winner does. Joining the attack when we didn't have the ball, as Carrick spread it around. That is all
You can also add Hargreaves being nowhere near Fabregas when he first recived the ball on the half way line, why was he hanging around 5 yards in front off the defence when the balls nowhere near?
A good number agree with me. People with sense like Karma. Don't think for one second I crave agreement from the likes of you.
Hargreavs stuck with Adebayor all the way. He nev let him go. Van Des Sar panicked, came out stupidly and spilled the ball into on coming traffic
Your being stupid as usual. Hargreaves didn't contribute a single thing to us conceeding in that goal. The video shows this clealry. Van der Sar's poor goolkeeping at that instant, and Brown's ball watching cost us. But you are too fecking blinkered to accept the truth. So just feck off.
Tell me Hargreaves doesn't let Adebayor run past him in this video.
About 50 seconds in.
If Hargreaves stays goalside of Adebayor, he clears it and we defend a corner, simple as. He also doesn't tackle Fabregas, and is well behind the play.
Wonderfully written post, and generally correct.
However, I will defend Chief somewhat. He goes horribly overboard and twists things to fit what he wants (I don't think he deliberatly does it to fool others; rather he sub-consciously does it and fools himself). Hmmm, it doesn't sound like I'm defending him, does it?
But his point has generally been not that Carrick isn't good enough as a player, but more that Carrick isn't good enough as the defensive midfielder. Unfortunately he seems to have got caught up in the debate and it has morphed into a 'Carrick isn't good enough', but his original point is fair enough. Carrick isn't good enough as the defensive midfielder against the top teams.Against the stronger teams, Carrick should be played next to someone who shares the defensive workload. Someone who has plenty of energy and who will harry the opposition all day, allowing Carrick to move forward a little more. Not too much, he'll still play his natural game which is a deep-lying playmaker. But like we saw against Roma, Arsenal and Newcastle, he does come forward a bit more when partnered by the correct player. That player not only needs to have boundless energy and good defensive technique, he also needs to be comfortable enough on the ball to help Carrick a little, and positioning good enough to allow Carrick to move forward when he wants.
That's where Hargreaves problem is - he not only doesn't combine well with Carrick, but when we have the ball in the middle of the field Hargreaves' goes forward too much himself. Rather than taking it in turns, it seems to always be Owen going forward leaving Carrick or Scholes (who needs exactly the same partner as Carrick) no choice but to stay back and cover that space. In saying that, Owen is in his first season, has been in and out with injury and has only played a few games with Carrick and Scholes, so hopefully with a bit more time he'll fit in better. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but Hargreaves should model his game on Fletcher. Fletch has played that role to perfection the three or so times he's had the opportunity.
You are trying to use Zidane as an example and it isn't working Carrick has done nothing of note any where prior to coming to United. That fact remains. So your basis for calling him superior to Hargreaves is none existence. Judging them on their careers so far. It's that simple.
Furthermore, you can't use Zidane as an example. When he managed to do wonderful things at a smaller club like Bordeaux. Which Carrick didn't do. Hargreaves has proven himself at big stages and at the top level of football. Time and again. Carrick hasn't. It's that simple. There is no excuse you can use to down play what Hargreaves achieved at Bayern. It wasn't plain luck. It was talent. Carrick has never achieved as much because he isn't as good as you think. It's that simple
Just watch, Hargreaves clearly doesn't keep track with Adebayor. He should be goal side, which he isn't, had he been, he would have won the ball first. Also, watch how Hargreaves doesn't realise Adebayor is there, until he is past him.
That is your logic, yours alone. In line with all the usual bollocks you speak about Fergie and Hargreaves
Are you blind?
Fine i made a mistake about Zidane winng that trophy. But he did win the Inter Toto cup with them. But I haven't ducked squat. What has Carrick done for West Ham and Spurs? What finals has he reached? What did he achieved as a player for them? Zidane's achievements for Bordeaux were clear. Answer the question. Instead of consistently avoiding it.
Tell me Hargreaves doesn't let Adebayor run past him in this video.
About 50 seconds in.
If Hargreaves stays goalside of Adebayor, he clears it and we defend a corner, simple as. He also doesn't tackle Fabregas, and is well behind the play
You've some neck, accusing someone else of ducking questions, by the way.
About 50 seconds in.
If Hargreaves stays goalside of Adebayor, he clears it and we defend a corner, simple as. He also doesn't tackle Fabregas, and is well behind the play
You've some neck, accusing someone else of ducking questions, by the way.
He touched it more than thrice. Besides, Our subs won us that game. Rooney's role was obviously more prominent. Sicne, he scored one and set up one. But to deny the impact of our subs is foolhardy. When our game clearly imporved when both came on pitch. Carrick for example was nothing creatively until Hargreaves stepped on pitch alongside him. Even though he was playing well as our anchor man No one wins the Intertoto, they meekly accept it in exchange for European football!
This is what I'm talking about when I say you go overboard. It simply gets people angry and they stop taking you seriously. Devilish and GusHiddink are two great examples of people who sometimes make very good points, but because they go overboard the good points get lost in the rubbish. You're going down the same route.
Watching that video it's blindingly obvious that Hargreaves does well to get back and pressure Fabregas then pick Adebayor as his man, allowing Vidic to help Evra on the left. That's good work from Hargreaves. However, it's equally obviously that Hargreaves then gets ball-side of Adebayor and focused too much on the ball itself, and Adebayor uses this lapse of concentration to get a few steps ahead of Owen. A few steps which ultimately make the difference. If he'd stayed goal-side he'd have been able to stay with Adebayor, and VDS shouldn't have had to come out.
Yes Brown had a very big part to play. But so did Hargreaves.
It's like how much you focus on Carrick as being the reason we failed against Milan last season. Yes, he was dissapointing. But there were so many other, probably bigger, reasons as well.
This Carrick/Zidane thing - nobody is seriously comparing the two of them. But you and Karma were just putting so much emphasis on how much Hargreaves had won compared to Carrick. So people showed you that much better players than Hargreaves had also won nothing at that age, and much worse players had won just as much. Nothing more than that, and it's a very good point.
This is the point Hargreaves realises that Adebayor is coming past him...
This is when it is to late...
But of course, 'Hargreavs stuck with Adebayor all the way. He nev let him go'...
David May is better than Rio Ferdinand. His medal collection proves it.
This is the point Hargreaves realises that Adebayor is coming past him...
This is when it is to late...
But of course, 'Hargreavs stuck with Adebayor all the way. He nev let him go'...
that's class, mate.All that spastics trying to be clever.
But still, he is a class player, but what really worries me, is the question, if we really need him...(so desperetaly that we spent 18 million on him)
- Status