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

[Nucks]

I really disagree with this. I'm not going to debate it all out and waste half an hour, but i'd like it on record that this post is complete bullshit.

About me being harsh on Carrick or about athleticism. Yes I was harsh on Carrick. No am I not wrong about athleticism. There is a reason why you won't debate it. You can't.

Take any team sport in the world where players directly interact. Any. Name any single one. Defensive superstars are defensive superstars because. 1) They can't shoot. 2) They can't catch. 3) They can't dribble. The list goes on and on. It is because they have a technical deficiency to their game. If they didn't they would be FARR too valuable as an offensive threat.

However what can they do? Well, you can take this athletic freak and put them on their best player and he can do a better job than anyone else at shutting him down. You don't need to make nice passes to run fast. You don't need to read the game well to chase their play maker around and just blanket him because you are faster and stronger and quicker.

 

[ralphie88]

However what can they do? Well, you can take this athletic freak and put them on their best player and he can do a better job than anyone else at shutting him down. You don't need to make nice passes to run fast. You don't need to read the game well to chase their play maker around and just blanket him because you are faster and stronger and quicker.

Yes, that's what we did with Phil Neville a few times. Most notably against Zola in '99. Didn't cost us £20m

 

[Wes]

About me being harsh on Carrick or about athleticism. Yes I was harsh on Carrick. No am I not wrong about athleticism. There is a reason why you won't debate it. You can't.

Take any team sport in the world where players directly interact. Any. Name any single one. Defensive superstars are defensive superstars because. 1) They can't shoot. 2) They can't catch. 3) They can't dribble. The list goes on and on. It is because they have a technical deficiency to their game. If they didn't they would be FARR too valuable as an offensive threat.

However what can they do? Well, you can take this athletic freak and put them on their best player and he can do a better job than anyone else at shutting him down. You don't need to make nice passes to run fast. You don't need to read the game well to chase their play maker around and just blanket him because you are faster and stronger and quicker.

I'll put it to you this way. We look more likely to conceed with Hargreaves in the side rather than Carrick. You suggesting he's lazy or whatever is silly, and he can't be arsed defending is really really silly. He's better defensively than Hargreaves, for a start.

 

[Sam]

Take any team sport in the world where players directly interact. Any. Name any single one. Defensive superstars are defensive superstars because. 1) They can't shoot. 2) They can't catch. 3) They can't dribble. The list goes on and on. It is because they have a technical deficiency to their game. If they didn't they would be FARR too valuable as an offensive threat.

*cough* Rio, Alves, Evra, Cole, Gallas, Lahm, Cafu *cough*

 

[Instant Karma]

Yes, that's what we did with Phil Neville a few times. Most notably against Zola in '99. Didn't cost us £20m

Both Zola and Neville are a class below Kaka and Hargreaves.

 

[Nucks]

But Carrick does not poses the agility, balance, body control, pace, acceleration and stamina that Hargreaves does, to be able to tackle.

Is Carrick faster? Does he turn as well? Does he accelerate as well? Does he run as fast as Hargreaves for as long?

You don't really have to answer.

Isn't tackling more of a technical skill? Aren't you sort of making a straw argument there?

Then there is the whole "stats" mean nothing argument. I wonder where those guys are. They are quick to shout it from the roof tops when someone posts a stat suggesting Hargreaves has one of the highest pass completion %'s!

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

No I'm not, I'm just stating the facts. Vidic wasn't fit. We didn't have a right back on the pitch. That defenseive unit had not played together before.

Which doesn't mean much. It only means in both legs the defence was clearly weak. Meaning the protection from midfield in Milan should have been far greater. It infact was woeful

We would still have lost.

No way. Milan with a neutralised Gattuso, could be easily dominated and just needed killing off. Bayern showed this over two legs. Liverpool through out the Champions League final. We second half at OT killed them off when they had no Gattuso to wreck havoc.

That is true. But the Everton game took a lot out of us, more that the Pompey match.

Maybe. I personally doubt it.

feck the redcafe website sensoring system

He isn't.

Gattuso is amazing at what he does, and arguably the best in the world. Hargreaves isn't.

Hargreaves is amazing at what he does. It's you who can't see this. Besides, Hargreaves has also played him at least 4 times over the years and has matched him pound for pound on every occasion. Claiming he isn't fractionally as good as Gattuso shows how ignorant you really are.

 

[LizardKing]

Chief, you keep talking about neutralising Gattuso.

Why the feck would we deploy a defensive midfielder to neutralise the oppositions defensive midfielder

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

The Carrick/Scholes partnership was the difference between us finishing a distant second (as we'd done the season before) and us winning the League. Few people would dispute that.

Yes. But they'd be wrong Scholes return from long term injury plus he and Giggs return to top form was the major difference. Followed by Ronaldo's emergence into what he is now

 

[Sam]

Is Carrick faster? Does he turn as well? Does he accelerate as well? Does he run as fast as Hargreaves for as long?

You don't really have to answer.

Isn't tackling more of a technical skill? Aren't you sort of making a straw argument there?

Then there is the whole "stats" mean nothing argument. I wonder where those guys are. They are quick to shout it from the roof tops when someone posts a stat suggesting Hargreaves has one of the highest pass completion %'s!

No, he's not as fast and he doesn't accelerate aswell.

But most of the time he doesn't need to as he is positionally, far superior. Carrick is a little like Rio in the sense that half the time, they read the game before it has happened, and position themselves in the right place, so they don't have to chase after people or going in with slide tackles.

On the other hand, Hargreaves is more like Terry. Their reading of the game isn't to good, so therefore, they react to what's happened, rather than read it before it does. Because of this, they make far more slide challenges and blocks, which as a result, to people that don't really understand football to well, they look better and get all the headlines. When actually, it's players like Rio and Carrick who go around doing their job, quietly and effectively, who should get the praise.

 

[noodlehair]

Nobody hates Hargreaves. They just have serious doubts over whether he was worth spending 20 million on, over whether he's good enough to be playing in a midfield of United's standards, and over whether he's the type of player who should be playing for United.

I don't think he's done enough to show he's anything close to any of those things yet, and worryingly, I don't think he's shown it for his entire career. That's why I didn't want us to sign him in the first place. A few cretins on an internet forum, with a track record of being clueless, saying otherwise, isn't going to change my mind. Hargreaves actually doing the business on the pitch for once, might.

What's annoying is when idiots like the Chief start lauding him as something equal to a giant, robotic Roy Keane, and then slag off Carrick, and make stuff up in order to justify themselves.

Apparently Bayern Munich losing 2-0 at home to AC Milan proves that we need Hargreaves, so that we can beat AC Milan. World's thinnest argument. Ever

 

[Scholesy]

Does the chief know what football is

 

[Sam]

Hargreaves is amazing at what he does. It's you who can't see this. Besides, Hargreaves has also played him at least 4 times over the years and has matched him pound for pound on every occasion. Claing he isn't fractionally as good as Gatusso shows how ignorant you really are.

Funniest thing I've read all day.

 

[Sam]

Nobody hates Hargreaves. They just have serious doubts over whether he was worth spending 20 million on, over whether he's good enough to be playing in a midfield of United's standards, and over whether he's the type of player who should be playing for United.

I don't think he's done enough to show he's anything close to any of those things yet, and worryingly, I don't think he's shown it for his entire career. That's why I didn't want us to sign him in the first place. A few cretins on an internet forum, with a track record of being clueless, saying otherwise, isn't going to change my mind. Hargreaves actually doing the business on the pitch for once, might.

What's annoying is when idiots like the Chief start lauding him as something equal to a giant, robotic Roy Keane, and then slag off Carrick, and make stuff up in order to justify themselves.

Apparently Bayern Munich losing 2-0 at home to AC Milan proves that we need Hargreaves, so that we can beat AC Milan. World's thinnest argument. Ever

Once again, spot on.

Especially with the first two paragraphs.

 

[Nucks]

*cough* Rio, Alves, Evra, Cole, Gallas, Lahm, Cafu *cough*

The list isn't inclusive. It doesn't mean they all can't shoot and dribble.

Wing backs and fullbacks are also very attacking positions where technical skill is highly important if you use them in that method.

If Rio didn't have a gaping hole in his game somewhere he wouldn't have switched from a forward to a CB, or maybe he just wasn't good enough to be a forward.

Likewise with Hargreaves. He used to be a forward.

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here as it really has nothing to do with what I stated.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

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

So according to you neutralising Gattuso and stopping Kaka form playing is so exceptional it warrants a man of the match tag, when it is supposed to be his job to do so?

 

[reddevilcanada]

Chief, you keep talking about neutralising Gattuso.

Why the feck would we deploy a defensive midfielder to neutralise the oppositions defensive midfielder

No way. Milan with a neutralised Gattuso, could be easily dominated and just needed killing off. Bayern showed this over two legs.

Bayern lost because they conceded twice at home against Milan DESPITE having Hargreaves, in fact all they needed was a 0-0 or a 1-1 and they would've been through to the semi's...

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Chief, you keep talking about neutralising Gattuso.

Why the feck would we deploy a defensive midfielder to neutralise the oppositions defensive midfielder

Gattuso won the physical battle in midfield against us. Bayern who had some one to stop him from winning that battle, didn't. They were kicked out due to poor finishing. Not being sat on and beaten like theives caught by an angry mob. Against Milan if you can counter Gattuso's physicality and keep Kaka quiet, the rest of your team, if it as good as ours, can overwhelm them.

 

[Nucks]

Nobody hates Hargreaves.

Really?

Do you really believe this?

Interesting.

 

[Sam]

So according to you neutralising Gattuso and stopping Kaka form playing is so exceptional it warrants a man of the match tag, when it is supposed to be his job to do so?

If you had just put it like that in the first place, then fine, but you didn't.

Anyway, I didn't see the match, so there is no point in debating it with me. Go and find someone that did.

 

[lem8sh]

Hargreaves is amazing at what he does. It's you who can't see this. Besides, Hargreaves has also played him at least 4 times over the years and has matched him pound for pound on every occasion. Claiming he isn't fractionally as good as Gattuso shows how ignorant you really are.

This thread has hit a new low,this is up there with your 'hargreaves is better than makalele' theory

 

[Nucks]

Chief, you keep talking about neutralising Gattuso.

Why the feck would we deploy a defensive midfielder to neutralise the oppositions defensive midfielder

I think what he means is someone who can play physically with Gattuso. However it is hard to be in two places at once ;p

 

[Sam]

This thread has hit a new low,this is up there with your 'hargreaves is better than makalele' theory

Whats this ?

Did he really say that ?

Link please ?

 

[Instant Karma]

No, he's not as fast and he doesn't accelerate aswell.

But most of the time he doesn't need to as he is positionally, far superior. Carrick is a little like Rio in the sense that half the time, they read the game before it has happened, and position themselves in the right place, so they don't have to chase after people or going in with slide tackles.

On the other hand, Hargreaves is more like Terry. Their reading of the game isn't to good, so therefore, they react to what's happened, rather than read it before it does. Because of this, they make far more slide challenges and blocks, which as a result, to people that don't really understand football to well, they look better and get all the headlines. When actually, it's players like Rio and Carrick who go around doing their job, quietly and effectively, who should get the praise.

Thats the biggest load of crap ever posted.

Every defensive partnership works best with two kinds of players - one making the challenge and winning the ball, the other sweeping up. If both central defenders keep backing off every time and position themselves to intercept, we'd be fecked.

Secondly its ridiculous to compare central defenders with defensive midfielders. Ronaldo/Giggs hardly track back and with Scholes not being defensively great, Hargreaves needs to run around more to cover our defense when the full backs are caught 1 against 2.

 

[Wes]

Thats the biggest load of crap ever posted.

Every defensive partnership works best with two kinds of players - one making the challenge and winning the ball, the other sweeping up. If both central defenders keep backing off every time and position themselves to intercept, we'd be fecked.

Secondly its ridiculous to compare central defenders with defensive midfielders. Ronaldo/Giggs hardly track back and with Scholes not being defensively great, Hargreaves needs to run around more to cover our defense when the full backs are caught 1 against 2.

You're the biggest load of crap ever posted. There.

 

[Sam]

Thats the biggest load of crap ever posted.

Every defensive partnership works best with two kinds of players - one making the challenge and winning the ball, the other sweeping up. If both central defenders keep backing off every time and position themselves to intercept, we'd be fecked.

Secondly its ridiculous to compare central defenders with defensive midfielders. Ronaldo/Giggs hardly track back and with Scholes not being defensively great, Hargreaves needs to run around more to cover our defense when the full backs are caught 1 against 2.

You've totally missed the point.

Oh well, what did I expect ? After all, you think Rooney is the 'White Heskey'.

 

[noodlehair]

Owen Hargreaves

 

[Feedingseagulls]

I agree. I don't see people supporting Hargreaves saying "Carrick is shit, if you like football and you like Carrick you have a hole in your soul" "Carrick is anti football" "Carrick is no good".

Yet the Hargreaves bashers are. They despise Hargreaves.

What I see are people defending Hargreaves as being useful. Useful for MANY MANY reasons.

We have a guy who is athletically gifted enough to take on truly world class players.

We have a guy who is good enough to get games for us and not hurt us.

We have a guy who is good enough to get games for us and thus spread the workload of an entire season out more so that when we go to the San Siro our midfield isn't totally fecking knackered because we are in a title race and Milan isn't.

We have a guy who is very good at taking free kicks.

We have a guy who is hard working, loyal, intelligent and dedicated.

We have a guy who doesn't give up and will play to win even when we are a man down.

I think there are probably hundreds of professional teams out there that would absolutely love to have someone with those characteristics.

Instead we have a bunch of short sighted feckwits, and I am being polite here, who will rail on him. Insult him. Bash him. When he does something that they can't possibly belittle, they prop him up with one hand while they yank the chair away with the other by saying shit like "Oh he takes good free kicks I guess but they aren't really all that threatening!" One in four is pretty fecking threatening.

Nice summary.

For the information of people like Lem8sh(?) the highlighted quote is pretty much a verbatim quote from someone's location - the other remarks are pretty much representative of some of the posts made against Hargreaves.

From memory I remember someone suggesting OH is not a footballer, his being 'anti-football' also rings a bell, when describing him as 'pointless' this remark was made (by Plech?) in a way that looked like this related to his existence as a footballer rather than whether MUFC needed him.

NONE of this is just saying that he was expensive and hasn't been seen by those posters as having performed well enough to justify that.

I'm a fairly regular match-goer nowadays - I hope to see much more of OH and expect continued improvement - his past record shows he's a good player and he's shown an amount of that with us already - pity his tendonitis etc. have limited his further integration into the side so far.

 

[lem8sh]

Whats this ?

Did he really say that ?

Link please ?

https://www.redcafe.net/f6/hargreaves-one-signing-too-many-178931/index5.html#post3968476
I could be doing chief a disservice but I'm pretty sure kemo was him

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

True to an extent but the majority of the pro carrick posters still support hargreaves. There is haters everywhere.As for 'they will blame him for everything that happens' look no further than chief's views on carrick

Coming for the man always abusing Hargreaves and calling him shit. Have you ever seen me call Carrick shit? Or say he hasn't played well when he has? Or blamed him for us losing game like the Portsmouth one way, last season, when he was subbed of while he was our best midfielder on pitch that day? I only blame Carrick for his mistakes, criticise him when he has bad form and point out his weakness as a player. While not expecting or wanting him to do what he can't on a consistent basis. People like you do nothing like this when it comes to Hargreaves

 

[Sam]

You telling me hargreaves is a better defensive mildfielder than makelele?

Hands down! Makelele is not a true midfielder. And is a very limited player. He is a third center back. Who can't tackle or pass a ball at all. All he does is sit in between or just infront of his center backs breaking up play. The chief mascott of anti-football. If there ever was one needed. For some one to call Hargreaves a limited player when Makelele exists is strange and hilarious.

I don't think the Chief was Kemo though. I could be wrong, mind.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Exactly.
.............

Please provide concrete proof that I hate Carrick and slate him after every match.

 

[Sam]

Coming for the man always abusing Hargreaves and calling him shit. Have you ever seen me call Carrick shit? Or say he hasn't played well when he has? Or blamed him for us losing game like the Portsmouth one way, last season, when he was subbed of while he was our best midfielder on pitch that day? I only blame Carrick for his mistakes, criticise him when he has bad form and point out his weakness as a player. While not expecting or wanting him to do what eh can't on a consistent basis. People like you do nothing like this when it comes to Hargreaves

Errrm, that's exactly what I've been doing with Hargreaves.

Double standards eh ?

 

[Sam]

Please provide concrete proof that I hate Carrick and slate him after every match.

I never said that you did.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

https://www.redcafe.net/f6/hargreaves-one-signing-too-many-178931/index5.html#post3968476
I could be doing chief a disservice but I'm pretty sure kemo was him

You are doing me a diss service.

 

[Instant Karma]

Nice summary.

For the information of people like Lem8sh(?) the highlighted quote is pretty much a verbatim quote from someone's location - the other remarks are pretty much representative of some of the posts made against Hargreaves.

From memory I remember someone suggesting OH is not a footballer, his being 'anti-football' also rings a bell, when describing him as 'pointless' this remark was made (by Plech?) in a way that looked like this related to his existence as a footballer rather than whether MUFC needed him.

NONE of this is just saying that he was expensive and hasn't been seen by those posters as having performed well enough to justify that.

I'm a fairly regular match-goer nowadays - I hope to see much more of OH and expect continued improvement - his past record shows he's a good player and he's shown an amount of that with us already - pity his tendonitis etc. have limited his further integration into the side so far.

Top post

 

[FortBoyard]

Look this argument is going nowhere, Hargreaves is always going to be the Marmite of the team as long as he is here. Lets just put faith in SAF as I'm sure he knows better than us, when and how to use Hargreaves.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I never said that you did.

I have never. You said Exactly to lem8sh. Meaning you believe I hate Carrick and blame him for everything under the sun. So I'm in my rights to demand your proof

 

[Bape]

Nobody hates Hargreaves.

That's not true at all. The hatred from some members on here are beyond belief. Judging by how much abuse he has, you'd have thought Hargreaves scored an og in the dying seconds of a champions league final and probably on purpose.

While I think some members like Chief go way overboard on their defending of Hargreaves, same can be said with those that always manage to find every little thing to criticise Hargreaves about.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Top post

Agreed