That is why he was humilliated in Milan, Copenhagen and at Lille. Which is a fact which you call "nonsensical"
You really are a moron.
I, along with the vast majority of United fans, must have missed this humiliation that you talk about.
We were overan in center midfield that day. Center midfield doesn't have 10 other players. Just two. Carrick being a very poor sheild for our defence and anchor for our midfield that night. But don't let such fact get in the way of your bollocks
We were never overran in midfield against Copenhagen. We had most of the play and were toothless up front. We monopolised the play against Celtic and were punished for not creating much. That and Saha squandering two guilt edged chances.
That is not an excuse. The freekick Vidic conceeded was because he was tracking a player Carrick should have been covering.
Yes. Failing to track a player. Sam has just shown that Hargreaves is capable of a balls up in this department as well.
You really are too stupid for words. We were ran totally over ran by Lille. We defended desprately through out. Only Giggs' brilliance spared our blushes and got us the win. Yet you say "it doesn't count" But amongst those to blame Hargreaves for us lacking the ball during or our victory over Liverpool at Anfield? A match in which the opponents had all the ball, but didn't put us on the ropes like Lille did? feck off
Overran? Bollocks. I remember the game and it was dire, but quite even.
If that's the case why the feck have you veen yapping on about Hagreave's performance against Lyon. A game he played well in, we paleyd well and din't deerve a draw. Unlike Carrick vs Lille. A game he was shit, a game we fluekd due to only Giggs brilliance? in amongst others? Care to explain?
He was okay, nothing special. That's all I said. We paid £18 million for an "okay, nothing special" player. And don't say that price shouldn't be bought into it. For that, we could have bought a tasty striker in.
More bollocks
. We beat Milan at OT, with these same injuries, plus a weaker defence. We met them at the San Siro, with an even stronger defence and lost. The big difference in both matches was Gattuso started & finished the second leg and we lost badly. Gattuso only played till just after half time at OT and we won. Through out the time he was on pitch Carrick in both legs was rank shit. Meaning obviously the battle was one and lost in midfield! Evidenced by the imapct of Gattuso's presence and Kaka's goals. Extenuating circumstances had nothing to do with Carrick being shit against Milan, a poor shield for our defence and a pathetic excuse for a ball winner against them. With a pathetic display of defensive skills. A player like Scholes was just as tried as he. Yet he shone in both legs. But don't let that get in the way of you talking shit and making up excuses in Carrick's favour
Or how about the fact that even up against it we can beat anyone at OT but the San Siro is a different proposition. How about the fact that Rio and Vidic were no fully match fit? How about the fact we had just played an absorbing match against Everton a few days earlier?
Against Porstmourth the pace of our game was so fecking slow even with Carrick and Scholes together. Even though they were creating a lot. Mainly due to Pompey being rank shit at the back that day. We were also slow at home to Reading, away to Birmingham, Bolton and Everton. All due to Carrick's languid pace of play. Our strikers suffered as a result of this in all thsoe games. You are a poor liar
Absurd. All of those are games where the opposition packs the midfield out and are very competitive. Those are exceptions, not rules.
That's your opinion. Fair enough. My opinion is it's utter bollocks.
Yep. That's what the Brazilians thought after 1970. It didn't though, win them another world cup again until they revised their ways in 1994.
