Chief and IK are correct about Mascherano in the final.
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Atleast someone is sensible enough.
Milan had just 2 shots on goal got 80 min when Mascherano was on the pitch. They had a total for 4 shots on goal, the entire match.
I've not said it was Hargreaves fault they lost that match (I didn't even see it ffs!).
I didn't say it was Mascherano's fault that Liverpool lost that match.
I said it's not solely Carrick's fault. Of course he played a part in an inept team performance, but to lay all the blame on his door for those defeats is just stupid. The whole team played poorly against Celtic, especially Saha, who missed a one on one and a penalty, but I guess that's Carricks fault also ? Or when Ronaldo ran through but messed up, was that Carricks fault to? It was also probably even Carrick's fault that the ref gave them the free kick in which they scored the winner from, even though it was never a foul.
Let's say for arguments sake, Hargreaves was a United player at the time and played that match instead of Carrick, and played out of his skin, we would have still have lost the match.
I can't be arsed with this anymore Chief. None of your arguments make any sense. Yet you persist with them, no matter how thin they become.
- Under strength Bayern get owned by Milan - everyone elses fault except Hargreaves
- Under strength United get owned by Milan - It's because Hargreaves wasn't playing
Why don't you just take that one last step further and claim that Hargreaves was secretly playing for Milan the whole time?
- Hargreaves was so good at marking Kaka, that in the end, he didn't even bother marking him
what? This one definitely needs some more explaining, I'm afraid
Good luck with that...I'm going out now
- Under strength Bayern get owned by Milan - everyone elses fault except Hargreaves
- Under strength United get owned by Milan - It's because Hargreaves wasn't playing
Why don't you just take that one last step further and claim that Hargreaves was secretly playing for Milan the whole time?
- Hargreaves was so good at marking Kaka, that in the end, he didn't even bother marking him
what? This one definitely needs some more explaining, I'm afraid
Good luck with that...I'm going out now
How do you predict that ? If you assume every event is just going to play out the same way, thats riduculous. Even having Keane would not have made a difference then.
Hargreaves could have pressured someone into giving the ball away before their goal or he could won the tackle. He could have scored from a freekick. There are a million things which could have happened differently.
Yes, because Liverpool would have charged back to win had he not been subbed off, definitely.
It's a bit like you and Chief being so sure that had Mascherano not been subbed, Milan would not have scored a second.
Its your argument that is senseless. Bayern had 58% of the ball and 16 shots on goal compared to 7 against. How is that being owned by Milan? Milan were just clinical in front of goal but were dominated all match by Bayern.
feck sake
They were owned. It wasn't even debatable. They just got swept aside without so much as a wimper. Pretending otherwise isn't going to alter anything, except for in your little Rooney/Carrick hating mind
Why not just lie and claim they won? it'd be easier that way
They were owned. It wasn't even debatable. They just got swept aside without so much as a wimper. Pretending otherwise isn't going to alter anything, except for in your little Rooney/Carrick hating mind
Why not just lie and claim they won? it'd be easier that way
Its not even a bit like that. His argument highlighted 2 things - 1) Kaka hardly touched the ball when Mascherano was on the pitch. Liverpool just conceded a freak goal and Milan hardly had a shot on goal. 2) Kaka had time and space to setup a goal when Mascherano was subbed off.
Both those are facts whereas Hargreaves playing for United against Celtic is your imagination.
Its your Hargreaves hating mind that lies about Bayern being dominated. It was Milan who were dominated but scored against the run of play. You have nothing to back up your argument except your own imagination.
Why do you keep passing off your own fecking stupid arguments as mine?
1. Bayern where never owned by Milan. Even severely under strength. They in fact out played Milan! They lost because they never took their chances. Which had little to do with Hargreaves. Since he never had a single chance on goal in the match
2. We got owned by Milan with an even stronger side than what beat them at OT. Far stronger than what Bayern had to face Milan. So under strength is a fecking pathetic excuse to use for our humiliation that day. Especially when folks like you love to claim Carrick is so much superior than Hargreaves. He should have helped to win us that game with superior players surrounding him! If that was the truth
Hands down.
Is my user name Noodle hair? I can't write your post for you. Especially when I haven't thought up such drivel.
To a simpleton like you maybe.
I wont need luck. Those with brains will figure it out on their own.
Good riddance
Both things are predicting what could have happened.
The fact is, I am 99.9 % sure that had Hargreaves played that night we would have still lost. I'm pretty sure most people would agree with me on this. To blame Carrick, and only Carrick, for that defeat, is moronic.
It will never be. Mascherano kept Kaka quiet through out the time he was on pitch. Ensuring Kaka hardly touched the ball if at all! With out him on pitch Kaka passed the ball to Inzaghi to kill off the game.
Agreed
Its your Hargreaves hating mind that lies about Bayern being dominated. It was Milan who were dominated but scored against the run of play. You have nothing to back up your argument except your own imagination.
Why can't we close this god-forsaken thread. It is no coincidence that there has been no decent debate on these forums since this thread fecking engulfed everything else. We really are treading and retreading the same ground every day...
Chief and IK say that Carrick hasn't got the balls away from home and cannot play the holding role against the marquee players. They say Hargreaves hasn't been given a proper chance and given a run will do the business.
The rest say that Hargreaves is limited and Carrick possesses more talent.
Need we continue discussing the same shit every day? We are one of the biggest clubs in the world. Does no one have any other engaging issues relating to the club that they wish to debate?
Chief and IK say that Carrick hasn't got the balls away from home and cannot play the holding role against the marquee players. They say Hargreaves hasn't been given a proper chance and given a run will do the business.
The rest say that Hargreaves is limited and Carrick possesses more talent.
Need we continue discussing the same shit every day? We are one of the biggest clubs in the world. Does no one have any other engaging issues relating to the club that they wish to debate?
And the remaining 0.1% consists of people who know actually about football like SAF who actually went ahead and bought Hargreaves because we being dominated by shite teams away in Europe.
Fergie would agree with me on this one. Hargreaves in the team that night would not have changed the fact that we, as a team, played poorly. It would also not have made Saha score the one on one or the penalty.
Everybody was fecking shit against Milan at the San Siro, Hargreaves wouldn't have changed that.
Name any player in world football and they wouldn't have changed that.
Name any player in world football and they wouldn't have changed that.
Exactly, same for Celtic and Copenhagen. But IK and the Chief fail to see this.
Because it's moronic to think that we lost the Milan game solely in midfield, where we were unable to keep the ball or stop them from playing to relieve our already weak defence from the effects of severe pressure, right?
Bullshit. On both counts
Kaka was also through one on one with the Keeper but was wrongly ruled offside
It was a tight game between two defensive sides, don't see why you think it significant that that there were so few shots in the game
The reason we lost in Milan is because the team was missing about 7 regulars and was knackered from a hard season trying to win the League, and had to play the Everton game days beforehand. Milan on the other hand, had no injuries, had not been involved in a title battle, and were able to rest their WHOLE team the match before they played us.
Would Hargreaves managed to have changed all this ?
Just because we got Harrygreaves, dont mean we are never going to lose again in Europe and if we do, I can guarantee hell get the balme
I suppose if we had a player who could play in eleven positions at once we'd have done ok.
Just because we got Harrygreaves, dont mean we are never going to lose again in Europe and if we do, I can guarantee hell get the balme
I don't like blaming individuals for results but the chief is making Hargreaves out to be some kind of superman who can win games on his own.
Its your Hargreaves hating mind that lies about Bayern being dominated. It was Milan who were dominated but scored against the run of play. You have nothing to back up your argument except your own imagination.
Well, I do have the result of the game to back me up, as well as the fairly obvious superiority Milan's team should have over Bayern.
Where as you and the Chief have the convincing argument, of...erm...each other.
The Chief has still failed to explain his Hargreaves marking Kaka without bothering to mark him theory, btw.
Also, I've just read through the Bayern vs Milan thread;
Hargreaves
That's every quote in the thread that makes reference to Owen Hargreaves. There was also some Italian football nerd banging on about how it was Milan's best performace of the season.
Doesn't exactly back up your rather warped view of the match, unfortunately.
Carry on though. If you keep believing long enough, fairies might make it come true
Hmmm, as I say, I didn't see the game, but I've just looked at the goals, and Hargreaves doesn't seem to do much when they score their first, does he ?
And for the second, well, the ball is played directly through the centre, surely this is where Hargreaves should be ?
Ok, the defense was asleep, but shouldn't the great Hargreaves have stopped the ball before it came through to either Seedorf or Inzaghi ?
And for the second, well, the ball is played directly through the centre, surely this is where Hargreaves should be ?
Ok, the defense was asleep, but shouldn't the great Hargreaves have stopped the ball before it came through to either Seedorf or Inzaghi ?
Having little possession (42%) and twice as less shots (7 for Milan vs 16 for Bayern) on goal is not obvious superiority.
Yes...caftards who also felt the likes of Drogba, Torres and Essien were shite when watching them play for their previous clubs is a great endorsement
The opinion of caftards against the footballing knowledge of SAF, Hitzfied, Sven..hmm i know who are probably better judges of footballing talent.
Having little possession (42%) and twice as less shots (7 for Milan vs 16 for Bayern) on goal is not obvious superiority.
Yes...caftards who also felt the likes of Drogba, Torres and Essien were shite when watching them play for their previous clubs is a great endorsement
The opinion of caftards against the footballing knowledge of SAF, Hitzfied, Sven..hmm i know who are probably better judges of footballing talent.
Sven never fecking picked Hargreaves until his last bloody game! He was always bit part before that.
If we are playing this game, then even Roy Keane can be made to look shite defensively.
Milan are a quality side and losing to them is still better than being humiliated by Copenhagen and Celtic.
He can. But then again, I doubt we would claim he was awesome in games that he evidently wasn't .
Yep, Van der Sar, Neville, Brown, Silvestre, Heinze, Ferdinand, Vidic, Carrick, Scholes, Fletcher, Giggs, Ronaldo, Solskjaer and Rooney were all humiliated those two nights.
Eh? So it's ok for Hargreaves to lose to Milan but not Carrick.
Anyway do you even watch us play? We were never humiliated by either of Copenhagen or Celtic. We dominated Celtic for the whole match, they scored from a free kick after we missed several chances.
Ssshh, Carrick was shit in both matches, so we lost. Had Hargreaves played we would have won both, quite comfortably. Just like with the Milan match, as Hargreaves has shown, if he plays against Milan, his team wins......oh no, wait a minute....
So its Hargreaves fault (your earlier post with youtube clips) when Bayern lose but its not Carrick's fault when he gives away the freekick leading to a goal against us and we lose?
We had 53% possession against Celtic, had 10 shots on goal compared to 8 against yet we dominated them ?
Bayern had 58% possession against Milan, had 16 shots on goal compared to 7 against yet were owned by Milan?
Its one rule for Hargreaves and another for Carrick.
I didn't say it was his fault that they lost that match, I didn't even see it. I do however question his part played in the first goal and I pose the question about where he was for the second. Something I wouldn't had done if Chief hasn't made it sound like he put in a MOTM performance.
By the way, it was Vidic who conceded the free kick against Celtic, not Carrick.
FFS this thread is going nowhere. About time its thrashed
Mods Delete The Thread... Please!
- Status