Owen Hargreaves
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Liam Miller
Wayne Rooney
Owen Hargreaves
Owen Hargreaves.
Ointment factory
Titus Bramble
Zinedine Zidane
Kieran Richardson
Jessica Alba
Ryan Giggs
To be fair, playing Hargreaves against Milan would have sured up both defences.
Agree about Gattuso and Maldini in the first leg, as soon as they both left the field we got in control of the midfield and there was more space to create, that Gattuso is a mad dog and does his work pretty good.
About the second leg if we have had Hargreaves we could have made less chances for them having a DM and marking Kaka specially but i dont think we could have won the game cause we hardly created attacks, Giggs was useless that game, Gattuso was all over Ronaldo even before he got the ball and Rooney was controlled by Kaladhze and Nesta.
If we are to play that system again it could work with the likes of Nani and Anderson on midfield that have too much movement and speed.
that's racist
Billy Bob Thornton
Whatever about his ability, can we all agree that the man needs a fecking haircut? I'd personally think Andersons hair would look brilliant on him.
His perm does look ridiculous, but who cares.
he can have a ponytail and wear a dress for all i care.. he'll still be harder than anyone he comes up against.
Their manager deserves shooting if that's actually true, needlessly playing two players out of position.
Anyhow, as far as Carrick and Hargreaves are concerned, I can't believe the level of stupidity we have reached in here. Whatever they have or haven't won in the past I don't care. What they might or might not have given us in a game they never played will never settle an argument.
They are both intelligent and talented players willing to run their legs into the ground for us. They have different relative strengths, therefore who should play depends on who we are facing and the nature of the job at hand.
They give us options and strength in depth. We are better off with both than with just one of them and I sure as hell trust Sir Alex to pick the right one for the occasion.
I dont quite know how this thread has gone on for so long but im assuming its a long argument based on whether we actually need hargreaves and the over extortionate price we paid for him.
At the end of the day he was bought to complete a set of midfielders which have a perfect balance of everything, he wont start every game and will be vital when called upon in european games and games where his style is needed. Its all about variety and having the right players for the system in place. The price was a lot more than it should have been for a number of reasons such as Bayern not willing to sell, he signed a new contract, when its us the price always goes up and so on... But we were willing to pay the price as he is what what was missing from our side to compete on the biggest stage, we now have to wait for hargo to prove fergie was correct in chasing him
The fact is we are doing really well this season and still in with a chance in all 3 competitions, with hargreaves in there we have just giving ourselves a better chance at tactically beating sides whilst also increasing the number of quality players to handle fatigue and injuries.
Hargreaves is a gentleman and hasnt dissapointed when called upon.
At the end of the day he was bought to complete a set of midfielders which have a perfect balance of everything, he wont start every game and will be vital when called upon in european games and games where his style is needed. Its all about variety and having the right players for the system in place. The price was a lot more than it should have been for a number of reasons such as Bayern not willing to sell, he signed a new contract, when its us the price always goes up and so on... But we were willing to pay the price as he is what what was missing from our side to compete on the biggest stage, we now have to wait for hargo to prove fergie was correct in chasing him
The fact is we are doing really well this season and still in with a chance in all 3 competitions, with hargreaves in there we have just giving ourselves a better chance at tactically beating sides whilst also increasing the number of quality players to handle fatigue and injuries.
Hargreaves is a gentleman and hasnt dissapointed when called upon.
Let's take this example first - the way I read the chief's posts made his points reasonably coherent - it's only your way of presenting them here that makes them seem like an inherent contradiction.
Adding my gloss to make his case clearer, he suggested:
1 That for most of the game (say 70-75 mins) OH marked Kaka out of the game (and neutralised the impact of Gattuso if I remember).
2 After that, since Kaka had been so ineffective and was probably a bit 'down' and Bayern needed to attack more OH was able to stop marking him and free himself to aid the attack more freely.
It's only your portrayal of OH simultaneously marking Kaka out of the game and not bothering marking him (which is not anything the chief actually advanced) that makes it seem a major inconsistency. That inconsistency is something entirely manufactured by yourself rather than your opponent yet you use it as an excuse not to address what he actually says.
Actually, your judgement of the chief going so 'OTT' in his praise for Hargreaves is based on as little actual evidence as the previous remark -what you are reacting to here is what the chief's opponents are suggesting he has said, not what he actually said. You're then treating these misrepresentations as typical of his remarks and reacting accordingly - and you are contributing to those misrepresentations yourself.noodlehair said:
This occurs not only in your misrepresentation of his remarks about the bayern game, but also in the way in which you initially claimed he HAD made a remark comparing Keane and OH and only when challenged have downgraded that to the fact that he 'may as well just claim Hargreaves is even better [than Keane]' with that remark being based on a misrepresentation of the chief's remarks.
Once again, intellectual honesty is severely lacking in some of the chief's opponents and I'm sure many of us can easily recognise a number of culprits. The worst the chief does is commit occasional inaccuracies, go a little OTT sometimes, and get a bit carried away with the personal insults - all pretty bad offences but probably honest, committed ones.
I´ve always thought he should shave his head, would make him look tougher.
In your dreams Noodle. My stance on Hargreaves has been the same since before he was signed. You have a better chance of sleeping with Angelina Jolie than finding me changing my stance on that topic
So? We haven't lost by 3 clear goals in a game that meant something, IN EUROPE since Barcelona whipped us at the Nou camp. That Milan loss could have been prevented if we had the right midfield protecting the defence. Or performance nose dived only because our midfield was useless at containing Milan's midfield. Not for any other reason.
Never. Domination is doing what Bayern did to us in the Champions League final that they lost or what we did to Arsenal in the FA Cup in 2005 and this year. Humiliation is losing the way we did to Milan, losing to a much weaker side than us like when we lost to Celtic, despite having all the ball and chances or sides like Norwich in the League some years back or struggling and eventually being lucky to steal 3 points against a poor side like Lille.
Thanks for this spot on post, mate.
You are the one who is incredibly stupid if you think us having injuries and a long had season, with them resting players and being at fulls strength where not still factors when we beat Milan at OT. You even worse off if you don't realise the only reason our attack was so toothless, and people like Giggs, Rooney and Roanldo were poor was and our defence as so exposed was because our midfield was none existent and totally overwhelmed by Gattuso. Thus our supply lines to the attack where severed while our make shif defence as exposed to constant pressure because they couldn't keep the ball. Even if Saha and our first choice defence were present we would still have lost miserably. Because our midfield couldn't cope. It's not too hard a concept to grasp.
But having him in the game would have neutralsied Gattuso, the one who ensured our midfield couldn't function to supply our attack and would have kept Kaka largely quite. With people like Carrick and Scholes free to use the ball as a result, to supply out attack, I'd back them to have over come Milan' defence. Ensuring we would have got enough our of that game to reach the final.
Let's hope Harry will put on a good display tonight, and peace will prevail again in Redcafe.
But everyone seems to forget they were useless mainly because they were not getting supplied with the ball and when they were, they had no support from midfield, yet they were often double and triple teamed. I watched hat game again, and it became clear that because our midfield was not functioning due to Gattuso's work, Giggs, Rooney and Ronaldo were basically cut off, hemmed in between Ambrosini and Gattuso in midfield and the entire Milan back four. Only Maradona's skills would have got any sort of performance out of them in such cricumstances.
Spot on
I am actually. We were capable of beating them. We did at OT when Gattuso wasn't available to them. What we lacked was a something to neutralise him to have any hope in the second leg.
OH having a good game would result in some predictable outcomes:
1 The Hargreaves bashers would fail to notice he played well.
2 They would complain that Lyon had chances (apparently having a good DM means the opposition will never have a chance on goal.)
3 They would point out that there were not enough defense-splitting passes made by OH.
4 They will maintain that Carrick/Anderson would have given us a much greater attacking threat and the result would be more in our favour had they played. (They don't acknowledge the fact that having a better DM to play with can help free up others for a more attacking role and help win the ball for them.)
5 They will maintain that Fletcher/Anderson/Carrick would have done the job at least as well if not better.
6 They will criticise OH for covering too much ground by labelling him a 'headless chicken' - this bunch seem to prefer their DMs fairly static.
Feel free to add more.
38 pages. Have we reached a conclusion yet?
.. well he`s not Roy Keane
Your post blatantly falls victim to it's own logic.
and I don't have a problem with the Chief, aside from thinking he's a complete maniac.
- Status