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

Status
Not open for further replies.
noodlehair said:
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
Click to expand...

Noods - if you are going to comment on an argument and call it 'thin' then you should really state the argument your opponent actually advanced rather than the 'straw man' version you and others habitually peddle. You are just being intellectually dishonest - summaries have been made by posters other than the chief if you can't bear to accurately read what he posts.

I haven't noticed the chief really liken OH to Keano either. His criticism of Carrick is surely that he is deficient defensively (not that he's shit overall) and that his weaknesses, mistakes and poor performances are ignored or denied by people who will pick at any possible negative aspects to OH's play.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
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
Click to expand...

I've just read lem8sh's post again.

I was agreeing with the first part, not this bit about you hating Carrick.
 
Instant Karma said:
:lol:

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.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
:lol: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
Click to expand...

Are you fecking serious? When the man plays well I have no problem singing his praises,check up he liverpool matchtread for proof,I'd like to see one post where I called hargreaves shit,maybe overpriced,unneeded but not shit
 
Bape said:
.........
While I think some members like Chief are going way overboard on their defending of Hargreaves,....
Click to expand...
I wonder why people think this. I haven't said any where for example, that he had a man of the match performance, when Bayern played Milan. Just that he did his job. Which was to keep Kaka and Gattuso quite. Kaka apart his goal in the first leg wasn't dangerous in the second. Gattuso wasn't rampant in either. Meaning if we had had him alongside Carrick that night at the San Siro, we most probably would have won the tie! But I keep getting this accusation left right and center that I'm making him out to be superman! How?:confused:
 
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?
Click to expand...

Sam#1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you'd paid attention that's pretty much exactly what he has been saying all along. You seem to be misinterpreting, as if it was his, what the chief's opponents have misrepresented his position as being. (Sorry - clumsy construction but I don't have time to rewrite.)
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
I wonder why people think this. I haven't said any where for example, that he had a man of the match performance, when Bayern played Milan. Just that he did his job. Which was to keep Kaka and Gattuso quite. Kaka apart his goal in each leg once wasn't that dangerous. Gattuso wasn't rampant. Meaning if we had had him alongside Carrick that night at the San Siro, we most probably would have won the tie! But I keep getting this accusation left right and center that I'm making him out to be superman! How?:confused:
Click to expand...

See my previous.
 
lem8sh said:
Are you fecking serious? When the man plays well I have no problem singing his praises,check up he liverpool matchtread for proof,I'd like to see one post where I called hargreaves shit,maybe overpriced,unneeded but not shit
Click to expand...
I have read many. I can't be bothered to dig them up though. I have better things to do.
 
noodlehair said:
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.
Click to expand...
You hate Hargreaves as badly as Mozza does. What's more your track record of lies and cluelessness at times surpasses all else! The recent match day threads when we faced Arsenal and even when we faced Fulham this weekend are a huge testament to this. Heck even this thread has many fo your "gems". So you should be the last person to dare call people clueless.

noodlehair said:
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
Click to expand...
:lol:I've not said any such things any where.:lol: Must you always lie in a bid to look clever?
 
peterstorey said:
Like looking for a needle in a haystack
Click to expand...

Well, all they actually need to do is read what someone actually posts and use the old brain cells. However, if you're trying to 'score points' it's easier to go for an easy target and that's what the misrepresentations of the chief's arguments are - much easier targets to ridicule than what he actually said. So perhaps they don't feel motivated to indulge in any intellectual honesty.
 
He's probably posted 356 times in this thread - abuse, sense, contadictions, non sequiturs, garbage, irrelevances. After all that you have to reduce it to "Hargo is God"
 
Feedingseagulls said:
Noods - if you are going to comment on an argument and call it 'thin' then you should really state the argument your opponent actually advanced rather than the 'straw man' version you and others habitually peddle. You are just being intellectually dishonest - summaries have been made by posters other than the chief if you can't bear to accurately read what he posts.

I haven't noticed the chief really liken OH to Keano either. His criticism of Carrick is surely that he is deficient defensively (not that he's shit overall) and that his weaknesses, mistakes and poor performances are ignored or denied by people who will pick at any possible negative aspects to OH's play.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm not going to find a starting basis to argue with someone who's already contradicted himself about 500 times in this thread, and who's only answer to a decent point is to either trot out some pointless one line insult, or just ignore it. It's a waste of time, not to mention impossible.

An example. Probably about three pages back in this thread, the Chief claimed that Hargreaves proved his worth by marking Kaka out of the game, then, no more than a few posts later, he claimed that kaka was so ineffective, Hargreaves in the end, didn't even bother marking him. When I pointed out this contradiction, his explanation was something like "yes, in your imagination"

I mean, what the feck is that? What's the point in trying to be reasoned with someone who can't even reason with their own opinions?

The point wasn't that he likened Hargreaves to Roy Keane, it's that he's going so over the top, he may as well just claim Hargreaved is even better.

and now he's even got his Rooney hating mate backing him up, telling everyone how disgusted he is that United fans can "hate" Owen Hargreaves. this, after he spent the whole of last season on a personal crusade of hate against Wayne Rooney, for no reason.

It's thin, because they make it impossible to see as anything other than, and to keep harping back to one game, which I watched, and which just didn't happen as they claim it did. That's also thin
 
Sultan said:
Chief was posting as Kemo

He's second ID is now banned.
Click to expand...

lem8sh said:
You telling me hargreaves is a better defensive mildfielder than makelele?
Click to expand...

kemo said:
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.
Click to expand...

..
 
kemo said:
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.
Click to expand...

:lol:

One more classic from the Chief
 
reddevilcanada said:
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...
Click to expand...
They would have got a draw if they were more clinical in front of goal. Milan were. That is how they got 2-0 up against the run of play. What you have consistently failed to see is that Milan never dominated them at any one point in the tie, for a sustained period. Due to Hargreaves presence in midfield. Yet being the superior team it would have been a serious shock or them to go through, to such a weak Bayern side. We vs Milan however had a far superior side and wear over whelming favorites to advance, after besting Roma badly, a team that had already bested Milan 2 times in the Serie A already. We were however dominated due to the lack of a Hargreaves type player in our midfield.

There for please try to get your head around the concept that if we had had a Hargreaves presence in midfield, alongside Carrick that night Milan would never have got to the champions league final. Instead of pedaling around the silly notion that people are saying if Hargreaves is in an team you have you cant lose to Milan. Or others. Which is clearly ridiculous and isn't what is being said
 
Sultan said:
:lol:

One more classic from the Chief
Click to expand...
What classic. What Kemo said is mostly true. Makalele is a very basic player. If you claim he passes the ball superbly you are simply a liar. If you claim he does not have limited talent with a ball at his feet you are a liar. If you claim Hargreaves, is more limited than him talent wise you are simply deluded. As deluded as Mozza who calls him Chelsea's playmaker. Makelele is simply efficient at what he does. Which is to sit in front of a back four, or in between his two center half's and intercept balls all game, with his outstanding game reading. While passing the ball 5 yards in any direction to someone who can use it better. He is not a tackler, neither is he quick or a player who uses boundless energy. He is the modern equivalent of an old school sweeper. A third center back. A defender in midfield. Not a true midfielder. A lot of team's like to have midfielders of that style. Teams like United don;'t.
 
noodlehair said:
Look, I'm not going to find a starting basis to argue with someone who's already contradicted himself about 500 times in this thread, and who's only answer to a decent point is to either trot out some pointless one line insult, or just ignore it. It's a waste of time, not to mention impossible.

An example. Probably about three pages back in this thread, the Chief claimed that Hargreaves proved his worth by marking Kaka out of the game, then, no more than a few posts later, he claimed that kaka was so ineffective, Hargreaves in the end, didn't even bother marking him. When I pointed out this contradiction, his explanation was something like "yes, in your imagination"

I mean, what the feck is that? What's the point in trying to be reasoned with someone who can't even reason with their own opinions?
Click to expand...
:wenger:You really are a joke Noodle. I said Kaka was totally kept out of the game by Hargreaves to the extent Kaka gave up trying to make an impact. Resulting in Hargreaves ending up as an attacking midfielder late in that game. It isn't a stretch or a contradiction therefore to say Hargreaves' work, kept Kaka out of the game through out.

noodlehair said:
The point wasn't that he likened Hargreaves to Roy Keane, it's that he's going so over the top, he may as well just claim Hargreaves is even better.
Click to expand...
Typical of your stupid logic that. I will never ever say anywhere some thing as over the top as Hargreaves is as good as Keane or a. But people like you like to claim Carrick can do no wrong. While lying about everything I say. On top of posting over the top rubbish about Hargreaves' ability as a player day in and out.

noodlehair said:
and now he's even got his Rooney hating mate backing him up, telling everyone how disgusted he is that United fans can "hate" Owen Hargreaves. this, after he spent the whole of last season on a personal crusade of hate against Wayne Rooney, for no reason.
Click to expand...
So now because I've been getting support from someone like Instant Karma who "allegedly" hates Rooney it can't be valid? :lol:

noodlehair said:
It's thin, because they make it impossible to see as anything other than, and to keep harping back to one game, which I watched, and which just didn't happen as they claim it did. That's also thin
Click to expand...
What is thin rather is your constant denial of what happened in those games and several others while inventing things that didn't occur, like lying that Milan dominated Bayern Munich at the Alianz Arena. Simply because it doesn't tally in with your bullshit assessments of Hargreaves in his career up till now. Or your constant claim that Carrick can do no wrong.
 
lem8sh said:
:lol:This thread has hit a new low,this is up there with your 'hargreaves is better than makalele' theory
Click to expand...
It isn't, because I have no such theory. I stated Makelele is a much more limited player than Hargreaves. That has little to do with Hargreaves being better than him. Makelele is the best of his crop of defensive midfielders. The ones who dont' play the game the way a Gattuso, or a Hargreaves do. So I can never say Hargreaves is better than Makelele. Because he isn't. He however has more talent then Claude has ever had.
 
djemba's arse said:
I'm actually amazed at people belittling our midfield of last season just to try to score some points in a Hargreaves vs Carrick debate. We produced the best football this club has seen in many years (which is saying something considering the players we have had at our disposal), and the midfield played a huge role in that.

In fact, this debate has nothing to do with Hargreaves or Carrick any more, it's turned into a discussion about the importance of (so-called) defensive midfielders. It seems to me that Karma and the Chief have decided that defensive midfielders are needed to succeed in europe (fair enough), and since Hargreaves is the closest we have to fitting that bill he is automatically labeled as important for the success of the team. The truth is that he has yet to prove himself (at united!), and that he must improve before he can be labeled as necessary.

Going back to the Milan game and using that as an example of how a defensive midfielder (Hargreaves) is needed is silly, simply because we did not play our strongest team and we were in the middle of a bad period. We've lost several games this season with Hargreaves on the pitch, and to opponents of far lesser quality than the eventual champions league winners.
Click to expand...

This is spot on!
 
Sam#1 said:
Errrm, that's exactly what I've been doing with Hargreaves.

Double standards eh ?
Click to expand...
Double standards?? When you are amongst the chief advocates of the group that says Hargreaves didn't play well vs Arsenal at the Emirates, on of his best performances all season? No to mention openly supporting a fellow who claims Hargreaves has never shown in his career he is player of the quality of United's midfield. When you were obviously where to young to even know how good or bad player Hargreaves really was at Bayern through out his stay?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.