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

[VP]

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.

Stats again . Do you even watch football? You do realize that a weak shot on target from 55 yards counts the same as a shot on target from 2 yards that produces a brilliant save in these stats.

Anybody sensible watching the game against Celtic would tell you we dominated them from start to finish.

 

[Instant Karma]

Mods Delete The Thread... Please!

Its some of the mods who come on here to slate Hargreaves when he doesnt even play against Newcastle or even when he has a good game against Fulham.

 

[Instant Karma]

Stats again . Do you even watch football? You do realize that a weak shot on target from 55 yards counts the same as a shot on target from 2 yards that produces a brilliant save in these stats.

Anybody sensible watching the game against Celtic would tell you we dominated them from start to finish.

I never claimed that Celtic dominated us. In fact in one of the earlier posts I said that only if strikers are clinical, we have a chance in the CL. The comparison was just to highlight the hatred noods has for Hargreaves.

Anyone sensible watching the game between Bayern and Milan would tell you that Bayern were the better team for most of the game except for about 5 minutes. Oddo and Nesta made goal line clearances after Dida was beaten. Podolski hit the post and Makaay scuffed a sitter. They had several chances but couldnt convert even though they dominated the game. Milan sat deeper and deeper with Bayern attacking in waves, Gattusso made several last ditch tackles in the penalty box, one of which should have been given as a penalty. Milan just scored against the run of play and held on.

There is one rule for Carrick and another for Hargreaves.

 

[2cantona]

It's a big claim people have that Hargreaves will change the game at San Siro. He even let Fullham dominate us in the second half until the third goal kill them off. Look at Fergie face before that. Yes he had a good game in term of goal scored and the last ten minutes period. But the first 80 minutes he's almost invisible. This is crazy thread.

 

[Instant Karma]

It's a big claim people have that Hargreaves will change the game at San Siro.

No one claimed that. Just that he would have made it a lot more tougher for Milan.

The likes of Gattusso/Makelele/Mascherano are not game winners. They make it difficult for the opposition.

He even let Fullham dominate us in the second half until the third goal kill them off. Look at Fergie face before that. Yes he had a good game in term of goal scored and the last ten minutes period. But the first 80 minutes he's almost invisible. This is crazy thread.

As opposed to Scholes-Carrick allowing Fulham to dominate us last season and then depending on a piece of Ronaldo magic to win us points?

If you didnt watch the game, the presence of Hargreaves allowed Scholes the freedom to play as a proper attacking midfielder and he was brilliant. With Carrick alongside, he has to sit in front of defence, receive 5 yard square passes and create something.

 

[Sam]

No one claimed that. Just that he would have made it a lot more tougher for Milan.

The likes of Gattusso/Makelele/Mascherano are not game winners. They make it difficult for the opposition.



As opposed to Scholes-Carrick allowing Fulham to dominate us last season and then depending on a piece of Ronaldo magic to win us points?

If you didnt watch the game, the presence of Hargreaves allowed Scholes the freedom to play as a proper attacking midfielder and he was brilliant. With Carrick alongside, he has to sit in front of defence, receive 5 yard square passes and create something.

Your right, it just doesn't work. It's not like that combination won us the Premier League for the first time in 4 years, got us to the FA Cup final and got us to a Champions League Semi Final.

 

[2cantona]

As opposed to Scholes-Carrick allowing Fulham to dominate us last season and then depending on a piece of Ronaldo magic to win us points?

By this logic we wouldn't need Hargreaves then 'cause last year we won at Anfield 1-0 with ten men. The logic used is silly. You have to judge him by his own performance not the result of the team. The team can win even when a few players didn't perform well.

If you didnt watch the game, the presence of Hargreaves allowed Scholes the freedom to play as a proper attacking midfielder and he was brilliant. With Carrick alongside, he has to sit in front of defence, receive 5 yard square passes and create something.

That's actually the best thing he did yesterday 'cause Scholes was so stellar. But when the times has come for him to step up, the time when Fullham put pressures, he barely showed up. So let cut this ping-pong discussion and admit that he might be a quality player, but his performance for us so far, apart from one free-kick, there's nothing to write home about. I say let bring back this thread at the end of the season when we will have much clearer picture about him might be better.

 

[Instant Karma]

Your right, it just doesn't work. It's not like that combination won us the Premier League for the first time in 4 years, got us to the FA Cup final and got us to a Champions League Semi Final.

When you have one of the best players in the world, a top quality attack and a great defence, the midfield can be carried. We went on a great run with Giggs-OShea in midfield a couple of seasons ago - around 42 points in second half of the season, that was also with Fletch on one wing, Silvestre as centre half and Vidic/Evra yet to settle down.

One premiership doesn't mean a player is great. Chelsea can possibly win the title with Obi Mikel and Arsenal with Eboue on the wing. Even Blackburn won the title with an average midfield and great strike force. There is always a player or two carried by a title winning side.

When a player is a regular starter for his team and has won multiple titles, then he is proved to be crucial for winning trophies.

 

[Sam]

When you have one of the best players in the world, a top quality attack and a great defence, the midfield can be carried. We went on a great run with Giggs-OShea in midfield a couple of seasons ago - around 42 points in second half of the season, that was also with Fletch on one wing, Silvestre as centre half and Vidic/Evra yet to settle down.

One premiership doesn't mean a player is great. Chelsea can possibly win the title with Obi Mikel and Arsenal with Eboue on the wing. Even Blackburn won the title with an average midfield and great strike force. There is always a player or two carried by a title winning side.

Oh my god, did he really just say that the midfield was 'carried' last season ?!?!?!

I am actually speechless.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

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 ?

1. Rio Ferdinand, Neville, Evra and Saha are not 7 regulars.

2. We beat Milan with that same side minus Vidic at OT. Still as knackered from a heard season. Thus our lack of players and knackeredness can't be an excuse

3. The one thing that tied the first let to the second leg, was Gattuso! Which is where what Hargreaves would have done for us comes in!

When "The General" went off we dominated Milan and won at OT. When he finished the game at the San Siro, they sat on us and beat us like we were thieves caught by an angry mob. Meaning the tie was actually won and lost in midfield. Not at the back or upfront. A department in which Carrick was utter rubbish in as long as Gattuso was on pitch. Leaving our defence horrendously exposed, protected by the in experienced Fletcher alone, as Carrick stood around marking space, in a game that required mano-a-mano midfield combat. Failing to pass the ball fast enough to Scholes or our other attacking players in a game where speed of passing and energy was required most, due to his reverting to usual languid style. Had he played like he did vs Roma, when he as a far more physical and quick with all he did, maybe we could have faired far better. But may be not. Roma after all didn't have anyone as physical as Gattuso.

Bayern, who did however never, got dominated the way we did. Home or away. And he was surrouned by a vastly inferior group to what Carrick was surrounded by. So its pretty much safe to say If Hargreaves had been alongside Carrick, to neutralise Gattuso's rampaging, we would have beaten Milan to that final. After all, we did beat them at OT, with Gattuso's rampaging absent. Didn't we?

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I suppose if we had a player who could play in eleven positions at once we'd have done ok.

Wrong. If we had someone who could neutralise Gattuso like Bayern did we would have one easily. Milan with out Gattuso's rampaging were easily subdued, in the second half at OT. If Hargreaves or a a plyer like him had partnered Carrick, the same would have happend in Milan, guaranteed. People seem to miss the fact that Gattuso made our team look so poor from back to front because he cut our team into 3 parts. Leaving our defence horribly exposed to attack, since he had hijacked the midfield, totally isolating our forwards from any supply, while denying them space to touch the and keep ball upfront, in tandem with their defence.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

..........
The Chief has still failed to explain his Hargreaves marking Kaka without bothering to mark him theory, btw.






















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

Largely packed with the usual match day forum logic that thread was. We all know how reliable that logic is.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Your right, it just doesn't work. It's not like that combination won us the Premier League for the first time in 4 years, got us to the FA Cup final and got us to a Champions League Semi Final.

Really? The return to outstanding form of Scholes and Giggs, the return to fitness of Scholes and Solksjaer, the settling in of Evra and Vidic, the great partnership Rio and Vidic formed, plus Ronaldo's coming of age were not much greater factors? Is that what your suggesting?

 

[Sam]

1. Rio Ferdinand, Neville, Evra and Saha are not 7 regulars.

OK, thats 4. Add in Vidic who should never had played as he was clearly not fit, makes 5.

I guess you could throw in Park, but he's by no means a first team regular.

But we had injury problems and were unable to play our best team, they didn't and were.

2. We beat Milan with that same side minus Vidic at OT. Still as knackered from a heard season. Thus our lack of players and knackeredness can't be an excuse

The match before we played Milan, we had to come from 2-0 down to beat Everton, Milan, on the other hand had the luxury of resting their whole team. We had also been fighting for a title all season, Milan hadn't.

Fergie even said that the Everton match took to much out of us. But I guess he is lying ?

3. The one thing that tied the first let to the second leg, was Gattuso! Which is where what Hargreaves would have done for us comes in!

Your missing one quite important fact here......Hargreaves isn't fractionally as good as Gattuso

 

[Instant Karma]

1. Rio Ferdinand, Neville, Evra and Saha are not 7 regulars

Saha is not even a regular unless you are talking about the medical room.

Heinze--Brown--Vidic--OShea is still a good defence. Laying all the blame on them when they had no protection from the midfield is ridiculous.

 

[Sam]

Really? The return to outstanding form of Scholes and Giggs, the return to fitness of Scholes and Solksjaer, the settling in of Evra and Vidic, the great partnership Rio and Vidic formed, plus Ronaldo's coming of age were not much greater factors? Is that what your suggesting?

They are all massive factors.

Just like Carrick and Scholes forming such a great partnership was. There partnership was every bit as good as Rio's and Vida's.

 

[Sam]

Saha is not even a regular unless you are talking about the medical room.

Heinze--Brown--Vidic--OShea is still a good defence. Laying all the blame on them when they had no protection from the midfield is ridiculous.

Are you just ignoring the fact that we had no right back in that line up and that Vidic was clearly not fit ? Add to that the fact that these 4 had never played together as a back 4, and were up against one of the best teams in Europe, they never really stood a chance.

The whole team was shit that night, but you continue to ignore that and just blame Carrick. It is rather pathetic.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I.........Something I wouldn't had done if Chief hasn't made it sound like he put in a MOTM performance. .....

Which simply a figment of your own imagination. Neutralising Gattuso and making Kaka quiet is not a man of the match performance. It's called doing your job. A thing Carrick failed to do, yet surrounded by superior team mates.

Meanwhile a man of the match performance however is what Seedorf did that night.

 

[Instant Karma]

Your missing one quite important fact here......Hargreaves isn't fractionally as good as Gattuso

There is no point comparing him with the best player in the world for that position. VDS isn't as good as Buffon or Casillas, Scholes isnt the greatest attacking midfielder around and Rooney isn't the best striker on the planet either.

Even in the past - Scholes wasnt as good as Zidane, Beckham wasnt as good as Figo, Yorke and Cole werent as good as fat Ronaldo or Raul...at the end of the day they still won titles with us as they worked together as a team.

 

[Sam]

Which simply a figment of your won imagination. Neutralising Gattuso and making Kaka quiet is not a man of the match performance. It's called doing your job. A thing Carrick failed to do, yet surrounded by superior team mates.

Meanwhile a man of the match performance however is what Seedorf did that night.

I didn't see the match, so I can't comment on his performance. But from what you have said, he was outstanding and didn't put a foot wrong. Something which resembles a MOTM performance.

I did however see the goals, and he didn't look to great while Seedorf and Inzaghi were putting it into the back of the net to knock Bayern out.

 

[Sam]

There is no point comparing him with the best player in the world for that position. VDS isn't as good as Buffon or Casillas, Scholes isnt the greatest attacking midfielder around and Rooney isn't the best striker on the planet either.

Even in the past - Scholes wasnt as good as Zidane, Beckham wasnt as good as Figo, Yorke and Cole werent as good as fat Ronaldo or Raul...at the end of the day they still won titles with us as they worked together as a team.

I didn't. The Chief did.

 

[Rowem]

Can someone please summise this entire thread for me? What exactly are we debating here?

Questions.

1. Everyone can agree that both Hargreaves and Carrick are great players, amirite?
2. And everyone can agree that they both have different qualities, amirite?
3. And everyone can agree that neither is Roy Keane, amirite?
4. And everyone can agree that having both in our squad is fantastic, amirite?


So, ladies, what are we all arguing for? Why argue about last seasons semi-final? It might have been different if we'd had Hargreaves, it might not. It might have been different if wed had Tevez too, but it might not. Its a pointless argument, and has no relevance to whether or not we should have bought him.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

OK, thats 4. Add in Vidic who should never had played as he was clearly not fit, makes 5.

I guess you could throw in Park, but he's by no means a first team regular.

But we had injury problems and were unable to play our best team, they didn't and were.

Yet we beat them at OT with a weaker side than what faced them in Milan?

The match before we played Milan, we had to come from 2-0 down to beat Everton, Milan, on the other hand had the luxury of resting their whole team. We had also been fighting for a title all season, Milan hadn't.

That was the case before we faced them at OT an beat them. The only thing the OT and San Siro game had in common was Milan were on top of us and Kaka was flying, as long as Gattuso was on pitch. Meaning some one had to have been failing in the job of neutralising him, while restricting Kaka.

Fergie even said that the Everton match took to much out of us. But I guess he is lying ?

Why should he? It obviously took much out of us. He didn't however put if forward as the major/main reason for our humiliation like some of you have been doing since that fateful day.

Your missing one quite important fact here......Hargreaves isn't fractionally as good as Gattuso

Bullshit. He neutralised Gattuso, when he wasn't even at full fitness. Twice!

 

[Nucks]

You keep coming back to the Celtic and Copenhagen games as a way of showing that Carrick is shit. But you seem to conveniently ignore that there were 10 other players on the pitch those nights, who also failed to turn up.

To lay the blame solely on Carrick's door is, to say the least, stupid and ignorant.

The irony is so thick here you can literally cut it with a knife.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

They are all massive factors.

Just like Carrick and Scholes forming such a great partnership was. There partnership was every bit as good as Rio's and Vida's.

But it's pedaled around on here daily how that partnership "Won us the premiership. Like without it we couldn't have won it at all. Which clearly isn't true.

 

[Sam]

Yet we beat them at OT with a weaker side than what faced them in Milan?

Playing Milan Away, with a defence that has never been tried before, and one unfit defender, is never going to work.

Yes we beat them at home and that was bloody marvelous, but playing Milan away is going to be far harder than playing them at home.

That was the case before we faced them at OT an beat them.

No, we played Everton before we played Milan away, not home.

Why should he? It obviously took much out of us. He didn't however put if forward as the major/main reason for our humiliation like some of you have been doing since that fateful day.

He said something along the lines of 'We left something at Goodison Park'. That sounds like a reason for us losing to me.

Bullshit. He neutralised Gattuso, when he wasn't even at full fitness. Twice!

Gattuso is better than Hargreaves.

That's not even a debate.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I didn't. The Chief did.

No. I never did. I said Hargreaves can match him. Doesn't mean he is equally as good. You said however that Hargreaves isn't even a fraction as good as Gattuso. Which is bollocks.

 

[Sam]

But it's pedaled around on here daily how that partnership "Won us the premiership. Like without it we couldn't have won it at all. Which clearly isn't true.

Without it, the chances of us winning it would be significantly reduced.

It would be the same if you take out any of the other factors that you mentioned.

 

[noodlehair]

Largely packed with the usual match day forum logic that thread was. We all know how reliable that logic is.

Not really. The matchday forum is full of people getting over exited and frustrated about the team they support.

This was a game between Bayern Munich and AC Milan. You and IK seem to be the only two people on the planet who saw the game in the rather strange way you did,

and if we're talking about reliable logic with you two...one of you thinks Wayne Rooney is the "white Heskey", and the other thinks Kieran Richardson is as talented as Ryan Giggs.

Both of you keep twisting things to try and justify yourselves. Why bother? If you can't make a point without having to lie, or miss out certain facts, then who are you actually trying to convince?

Your views on Carrick and Hargreaves are at best, warped, and at worst, utterly retarded.

 

[Sam]

No. I never did. I said Hargreaves can match him. Doesn't mean he is equally as good. You said however that Hargreaves isn't even a fraction as good as Gattuso. Which is bollocks.

You've kind of contradicted yourself there, no ?

 

[Instant Karma]

Without it, the chances of us winning it would be significantly reduced.

Would not playing Eboue on the wing reduce Arsenal's chance of winning the title? Would Chelsea's chances be affected significantly if say Diarra had stayed with them instead of Obi Mikel ?

Who was the least influential player in our regular starting XI last season ? It was Carrick by quite a distance.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I didn't see the match, so I can't comment on his performance. But from what you have said, he was outstanding and didn't put a foot wrong. Something which resembles a MOTM performance.

In your world maybe. In the real world it's called doing your job. For example, Liverpool lost to Milan, while Mascherano had an excellent game. Would you dare to say he was the man of the match?

I did however see the goals, and he didn't look to great while Seedorf and Inzaghi were putting it into the back of the net to knock Bayern out.

 

[Sam]

In your world maybe. In the real world it's called doing your job. For example, Liverpool lost to Milan, while Mascherano had an excellent game. Would you dare to say he was the man of the match?

Trust me, you've made it sound like he was truly exceptional in that game, not that he just 'did his job'.

 

[Sultan]

one of you thinks Wayne Rooney is the "white Heskey", and the other thinks Kieran Richardson is as talented as Ryan Giggs.

IK or the Chief?

 

[mu77]

Sam give it up they're prepared to give hargreaves oral!

Great thread

Chief and IK in knots...

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Playing Milan Away, with a defence that has never been tried before, and one unfit defender, is never going to work.

O'shea, Brown and Heinze had all played together enough times before. You are acting as if Vidic presence was why all the goals were conceded. when it wasn't. Heinze and Brown cost us two goals just like at OT.

Yes we beat them at home and that was bloody marvelous, but playing Milan away is going to be far harder than playing them at home.

Precisely. It's being harder meant we needed some people up for the task in midfield, that is: to shield our weak defence from pressure, neutralising Milan's attacking capabilities while supplying our front line. Which wasn't the case that night.

No, we played Everton before we played Milan away, not home.

We also lost to Pompey prior to facing Milan, if I'm not mistaken. A game we also chased, and which must have been even more demoralising since we failed to even catch up and win.

He said something along the lines of 'We left something at Goodison Park'. That sounds like a reason for us losing to me.

To you plus all the other folk who want to hide the fact that that say was the chief reason why we chased Hargreaves so badly this last summer.

Gattuso is better than Hargreaves.
.
That's not even a debate.

Yes. But that that is not what I'm debating. It isn't what you said either is it?
You said Hargreaves isn't fractionally as good as Gattuso.

Do you not know what that means?

 

[Wes]

Even I think that this has gotten a little silly now.

 

[Sam]

feck Sake, now I've got to multi quote you back!

Give me a few minutes....

 

[Instant Karma]

hargreaves can't even get into the first 11 now on a regular basis. he's not that fecking good! end of.

Scholes, Carrick and Anderson arent regular starters either. If its the final of the CL and all our midfielders are fit, Hargreaves is a certain starter but then again most of you are better judges of players than SAF.

Sam give it up they're prepared to give hargreaves oral!

And you have pulled down your trousers and bent over for Carrick?

Is there a point in commenting about the poster? If you have anything sensible to say about football on the thread topic, do so or feck off.

 

[Nucks]

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....

Let's not carried away Sam. Chief may get carried away in his conclusions but his facts are correct.

It's very clever of you to ignore the arguments of other people who are less hasty in their conclusions isn't it.

Nobody can really know if Hargreaves would have made a difference. What we do know, and what Chief has pointed out is this.

Hargreaves CAN take these players out of a game.

Carrick has had ample time to do it and he never has.

Hargreaves has proven his worth against the best players in the world. He kept Kaka quiet. He put a lock and key on our Ronaldo.

Carrick may be better at unlocking defenses. He isn't even in the same zipcode when it comes to neutralizing a world class footballer.

I don't know how much experience you have with actually playing sports. So I will explain this to you and I will try not to be totally condescending. In a team based sport when you want to neutralize a truly gifted player. You put your best athlete on that person. You man mark them and you deny them them the ball entirely or you deny them time and space.

Hargreaves is one of our best athletes. He is in another class next to Carrick. Athleticism has absolutely nothing to do with how well you play a first time pass. Athleticism is about agility, balance, body control, pace, acceleration, stamina. Things like that. Hargreaves is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than Carrick in all of these areas.

Now what this means is that when Carrick is trying to defend against say Ronaldo internationally, or Kaka at a club level he does not have the physical tools to have any impact on that guys game what so ever. He becomes isolated on an island as superior players run past him and pass past him.

Hargreaves on the other hand. Well I've seen him singlehandedly keep England alive against Portugal and take them to penalties. England was a man down too weren't they? How did Hargreaves do this? He bullied Ronaldo. He took him off his game. He took him out of the game until the penalties when Ronaldo didn't have to worry about a certain guy blanketing him like white on rice.

I've seen Hargreaves keep Kaka quiet for almost an entire game.

The problem here is that Chief makes it very easy for himself to be proven wrong. Hargreaves isn't superman. It is almost impossible for ANYONE to keep a truly world class player quiet for an entire game. Chief is a little over zealous. The problem is that you are going to dwell on this and use this as your ammunition against Hargreaves.

Let's say we make it to the CL final and we have Milan. Lets assume we lose it 1-0 and Kaka scores. I guess it is Hargreaves fault right? Lets assume that Kaka was quiet all night aside from that one moment of brilliance. He had one chance in a dangerous area and he put it away. That is why he is world class. However it is Hargreaves fault.

When Carrick plays and we suck there are 11 other guys out there.

When Hargreaves plays and we suck it is stifling our attacking football and he is responsible.

Amirite?

Seriously, drive through.