Average, the word I used was AVERAGE
Now, if in your book, that constitutes shit/bad/poor, then fine, but it doesn't in mine.
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Average, the word I used was AVERAGE
Now, if in your book, that constitutes shit/bad/poor, then fine, but it doesn't in mine.
Only you have been saying it. While accusing others of doing soYour reply to Scholesy's statement and you inane idea that people have said signing Hargreaves will win us the European Cup, guaranteed, suggest otherwise.
You totally missed the point of his post.
LOL
You totally missed the point of that.
He wasn't bought for home games vs the likes of Lyon. That is not remotely true.
You totally missed the point of his post.
I never did. I know Mozza all too well and what he was suggesting. You clearly don't.
I've not once said that I think Hargreaves will win us the European club, simply because I don't think he will.
Guaranteed ?
No, I don't remember saying that.
Exactly. And when he doesnt start, its because hes been 'average' - ridiculous thing to say really.
He was bought for European matches, today was a European Round of 16 match, had he played well this season and been injured less, he would have played today, to be honest, it's the same with situation with Scholes.
I think this may be the most boring thread known to man.
Yes you have. Because no one else believes or has said this below:
which you keep attributing to "others", except you Sam#1
This below:
Pretty much implies it blatantly. Other wise you wouldn't be using such a statement as a tool to mock other posters.
are you SAF? how do you know exactly why he was bought? fergie probably didn't feel he needed to play hargreaves today because we needed to attack and get a goal.. however in the 2nd half, it was clear that we needed hargreaves to come on.. lyon were looking dangerous and we were giving the ball away.
No. He was bought for tough away games and to face tough sides like the now departed Milan. Lyon don't fall into such a category at OT.
Not with the squad we have. Paying him tonight would have been largely pointless. Lyon are not worthy of that attention.
In terms of how their season has gone yes. But not why they missed out tonight. They missed out tonight because of the strength of our squad. Plus the fact three of our most overwhelming results in recent weeks have been got with those 3 playing. My money though is on Hargreaves and Scholes to feature vs Pompey this weekend along with Giggs, Park, Saha and Tevez.
I didn't say that, I'm trying to figure the logic that says Hargreaves is here for the away games when conceding goals at home is very much worse.
We have 5 good CM's now. We have insane depth. To suggest that Hargreaves or Scholes would have been likely to start on Saturday and again on Tuesday is silly.
Hargreaves was bought for tight/tough away games against tough opposition. Everyone apparently knows this but you.
What do you consider the opposite of "well" by the way.
No I haven't. You can go through all of my 6000 + posts, you will find that I have never said that he will win us the European cup. I have however seen other people saying things about him being the last piece in the jigsaw, being the player to win us the European cup etc etc.
So, to sum up, we've paid £18 million for a player that's there for, in your book, tight tough away games, which constitutes to what, 10 matches a season ?
Kinell, that's a lot of money for very little.
You're so crafty Mozza. You could almost write for the Colbert report.
I half expected Hargreaves to start today, that however was tempered by two things so I wasn't shocked when I saw he was a substitute.
1) He played on Saturday.
2) We were at home.
I guess you could say there are two schools of thought at work here.
Go for broke away from home, you've got nothing to lose and play tight at home because conceding is bad
The other would be, play them tight and try steal a goal away from home, and use your advantage at home with crowd support and your familiarity with the conditions to take a decisive victory.
Most people subscribe to the later.
Well, they drew 1-1 with us, and lost narrowly 1-0, having hit the post. They could have quite conceivably taken us to extra time today. If that doesn't constitute as worthy, then I don't know what does. They have some very good attacking players, Benzema, Ben Arfa, Govou, Juninhio etc. To be honest, I think we could have really done with Hargreaves tonight, but, Carrick/Anderson and Fletcher have done enough this season to warrant a starting place, Hargreaves hasn't, and that's why he didn't play.
I never said that. No matter how many times you try to lie about it.
You are. Not me. I said if his injury problems persist and he keeps getting injured and missing large chinks of the season, we should get rid of him in the summer. Even on a free. Because by then he won't have value any longer. I haven't changed my mind about that
Rather, I applaud your successful attempts at showing the world how out of touch with reality you really are. Only you could think up such garbage.
More stupidity. I never said he was a write off in January. Or now either. But don't let that get in the way of your baseless lies.
There is more where that came from.....................
They are all the same type of player. All drift wide and are best behind another striker. What I did say is that Torres is better leading the line than the other two.
So what do you have gripes with young man?
You deny that Torres likes to drift wide, come short or run at defences?
Oh and you said we should get rid of Saha on a free. Even if you meant in the summer, if there are clubs offering £7 million it would be a bizarre thing to do.
Come on, it's pretty fecking obvious that Hargreaves was bought for Europe.
I agree.
But why didn't he come on ? Surely if he'd played well all season, he would have done ?
We already won the premiership last year with Scholes and Carrick with Fletcher as a third man. That means we already have recipe for success in the Prem. What we didn't do is win the CL. Fergie has felt that we needed that kind of player on the team to get us over the hump. Hargreaves is one of the best (few) that play that role well. Thus we over paid for him.
Is he ONLY going to play 10 games a season? Of course not. He was brought in specifically for a few games per season but he is good enough to be a regular starter. It just means we have more depth and we overpaid for two of those players.
Today was one of those games, he didn't play.
Hits the spot.
This is the worst circular reasoning I've seen in ages.
Hargreaves didn't start because Fergie didn't think we would need him. We SHOULDN'T have needed him. Maybe in the last half hour or so to close it out once we were up by a couple goals.
As it turned out we were poorly and the game ended up being too close for comfort.
Judging by the game, was a fresh Carrick not adequate in that DM position? I think so.
Carrick and Anderson have been our best midfielders this season. If we end up winning the league, they've played a huge part in that and have certainly justified their price tags. Carrick has done much of that already last season in fact.
I agree we overpaid for Hargreaves though and with your logic about signing a defensive midfield player. Though of course I disagree that Hargreaves is the man for the job in question. In fact I'd venture to say he was little improvement on Fletcher at the best of times (which these clearly arent). We definately could have done with signing a quality defensive midfield specialist, even if its only for a few games per season.
Hopefully next season Hargreaves stays fit and gives a good account of himself, regardless.
Why shouldn't we have needed him ? Lyon are a very good team, as they've shown us over the two legs. Overall they lost 2-1, that's it, by ONE goal, and they could very much have got a draw today, it seems to me as if you are really underestimating Lyon.
Carrick isn't a DM. He is a deep lying play maker. He can play DM, if needed, but it would make more sense to play someone who specialises in that position, and had Hargreaves been playing well, he would have played, but he hasn't, he's been average. While Anderson, Flecther and Carrick have been very good, and therefore earnt a place ahead of Hargreaves.
Which is what my point is, Hargreaves has been average this season, any rational United fan can see this, apart from the Chief, and that's why I've continued with this thread. It's not because I hate Hargreaves or want him to fail, I don't, I'd love him to succeed, and I really hope he does, it's simply because I'm not going to sit back and see a player, who has played average, be hyped up as it he's been great. I don't care what he's done in the past, I care about how he's played for United.
He was perfect for tonight though.
No it wasn't. Today was a home game against a lesser European side. He's been bought for away games and finals, and sometimes home games against equivalent sides (the Milans, Madrids, Arsenals and Barcas of the world).
Also, Scholes and Tevez didn't play. Holy shit they must be average and a waste of talent and space.
So he plays against Tottenham, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Fulham, Birmingham, and Portsmouth (All at Home), but not against Lyon, who are a very good team. No, they're not a Madrid or a Barca, but they are good, don't forget we only beat them 2-1 over two legs!
Where is the sense in that ?
Since when have footballers been incapable of playing 2 games a week?
All teams plays tighter away and freer at home, there are no two schools
In either case it makes no sense not to play your best (others think that, not me) defensive midfielder at home where you're more vulnerable to counter attack
Oh, I am sure he could have.
However that hasn't really been Fergies practice this season.
Unless someone has been injured generally if you played midweek you don't play on sat or vice versa.
I am not disagreeing with the idea that Hargreaves should have played. I think he probably should have. It seems most people think so as well. My sticking point is people drawing conclusions about his form because he wasn't picked.
I think the logical choice would have been Carrick+Scholes against Fulham and Hargreaves + Scholes or Anderson vs Lyon.
The end result was fine in both cases. We battered Fulham and we edged Lyon.
At the end of the day if Carrick and Fletcher aren't good enough to get it done against Lyon at home, why are we having this discussion about the quality of Hargreaves.
Sam, to suggest Hargreaves has been disappointing is rather disingenuous. He has been fine. He has done well all things considered. Is he in the form that he was in 2006 when he was Englands best player at the WC? Obviously not. However one must not look any further than how much competitive football he has played since then.
He broke his leg in late September 2006 was it? He hurried back way too soon and I think the transfer speculation had plenty to do with that. He ended up with lingering problems from the break. He didn't get a proper pre-season because of these issues.
With all that I think he has been fine. Technically he hasn't be as sharp as he can be. However he has done well. He has gotten praise in many matches by a good chunk of the fans here. He hasn't ever been "poor". He has been average to good with maybe one or two great appearances.
I don't really want to compare that with Carrick but Carrick had a SHOCKING run of games around Christmas time. He was in terrible form and put in truly poor performances. He has since recovered but it is funny how quickly people are to forget how bad Carrick was for that stretch and to lay it on thick and heavy about how Hargreaves has been average to poor all season when he hasn't been even remotely close to poor.
I have gripes with your lies, kid. You said Rooney and Torres where the same type of player. Stating Torres isn't good as lead the line striker like Rooney. On top of your inane claim Rooney and Tevez were physically stronger than him. Which was obvious bollocks then. Which has since been proved to still be obvious bollocks
existing.
What is bizzare is you continuously claiming I wanted to get rid of him regardless of 7 million pounds offers for him. Which I never did or said. Which is all a creation of your mind. As you tried to look clever at my expense. Next time you want to look clever at some one's expense, try using the truth. Not made up stuff
Yes you don't. That is why you were amongst those who slammed Hargreaves role in our away draw with them. Yet even at home, with a lot of the ball we still didn't fair much better.
True. But like Fergie I expected a midfield of Carrick and Fletcher with Anderson ahead of them to be too much for them. More suited to having attack a side like them at home than using Hargreaves. If Ronaldo hadn't been so selfish and Anderson hadn't been off colour/Tevez had started instead of him. We would have won comfortably. We still won anyway. A match we largely controlled. That's what counts most.
No. Hargreaves didn't start simply because he didn't need to. We needed a more attacking, but defensively solid unit in Scholes absence. Hargreaves wouldn't provide that at home. Especially against a semi tough side like Lyon. Hence, what we put on pitch, in midfield, was more than good enough to put Lyon to the sword. You saw what they did to Arsenal didn't you?
Spot on man
sam, what he said^
Ties are usually won and lost based on away performances. One look at our home form can tell you unless the opposition is extremely tough, using a player like Hargreaves is pointless. When the onus is on us to be extremely attack minded. Most teams anyway usually come to play with a lone striker with a rather defensive shape in midfield. Which would render it unnecessary to employ a player, who strength lies mainly in disruption and ball winning, when we need open up a team.That is the very reason why late on in Lyon, Hargreaves was withdrawn. Since Lyon had retreated into shell. So Hargreaves had nothing to disrupt, while we need more creativity going forward. Last night we really didn't need Hargreaves. Because starting him would have meant playing him with Carrick, who simply had to play last night, with whom he is still developing an understanding with, when this stage of the competition is not the time to experiment.
- Status