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

[acnumber9]

Arsenal won by having the right equipment, which allowed them to play their natural game.
Which was never the case for us.

No. Because it's a fecking lame excuse. Flamini just got the better of him. So did Fabregas. Pure and simple.

So the only time Gattusso and his chums play badly is when the opposition play a certain way? So then are we to beleive that when Celtic beat Milan it was because their midfield was adequately equipped to deal with Gattuss et al and not just beacuse they didn't perform on the night. Would this be the same Celtic midfield you ridiculed when talking about our European away form with Carrick in the team?

Arsenal won because they went out to win the game and didn't change the way they play to suit Milan. We did the opposite.

 

[acnumber9]

what a lame reason. We we're dominating the match, our defenders we're also on top of Benzema. He just pulled a rabbit out of the heart

I'm aware it's a lame reason. That's why I said it sarcastically. It is you who fathomed that excuse for the comedy defending of Evra and Heinze and yet you expect to be taken seriously.

 

[sincher]

what a lame reason. We we're dominating the match, our defenders we're also on top of Benzema. He just pulled a rabbit out of the heart

He pulled a rabbit out of the heart?

Now that is fecking magic. Have that Paul Daniels.

 

[acnumber9]

Dumb question. We have more attack minded players who can contribute more to he attacking football we must play as a home side. That's shouldn't be a question worth asking about. Cause it's freaking obvious

Which is the exact same thing many people have been stating on this thread and others and yet when they do you jump down their throat and tell us Hargreaves does not limit our attacking options. Why would playing him against Lyon have been pointless when Darren Fletcher was selected?

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I'm aware it's a lame reason. That's why I said it sarcastically. It is you who fathomed that excuse for the comedy defending of Evra and Heinze and yet you expect to be taken seriously.

It wasn't an excuse. They panicked because Kaka was one on one with them. and they themselves knew they weren't that capable of handling him. Hence the comedic collision. That's a fact. Not an excuses. Kaka was one one one with them because Kaka let him go, and left Fletcher alone to deal with him. Another fact. Not an excuse. You meanwhile are just cooking up one lame
excuse after another. First for our demise, now for why Milan fell to Arsenal.

 

[acnumber9]

I didn't need to. It was pretty obvious. If you had been paying attention you'd have realised I had been talking about European football before you posted I wasn't about to start including domestic football in such a discussion. So it's your fault you missed that. No one else's

It's you who was debating that. I wasn't. That is why I said "So?". You were stating the obvious, which has never been basis for debate.

So? We still beat Milan with that shambles at the back at OT. Only because Gattuso didn't finish the match. If someone capable of dealing with him, had been there in the second leg. Milan would not have kicked us out. I insist

Not by a long shot. In both legs pressure was invited on to our weak defence by our midfield that constantly failed to deal with the threat of Kaka or the physical prowess of Gattuso. It no surprise our makes shift defence crumbled under even the slightest pressure exerted by the likes of Kaka and Seedorf.

Vs Milan in 2005 however Roy Caroll's error was his alone. No one else was to blame. On top of it being impossible for us to legislate for Giggs untimely injury, at time when he had even hit the post and was about to put us back in that tie in the second leg. A blow we never recovered from. Since he had been giving Scholes and Keane the space to operate in.

So a terrible error costing us a goal in the home leg coupled with an injury to a key player for the second leg is an acceptable excuse in 2005, fast forward two years and it's not. Mmmmm....

 

[Wes]

So a terrible error costing us a goal in the home leg coupled with an injury to a key player for the second leg is an acceptable excuse in 2005, fast forward two years and it's not. Mmmmm....

you have him there

 

[acnumber9]

It wasn't an excuse. They panicked because Kaka was one on one with them. and they themselves knew they weren't that capable of handling him. Hence the comedic collision. That's a fact. Not an excuses. Kaka was one one one with them because Kaka let him go, and left Fletcher alone to deal with him. Another fact. Not an excuse. You meanwhile are just cooking up one lame
excuse after another. First for our demise, now for why Milan fell to Arsenal.

If two defenders representing Manchester United are incapable of dealing with one player to the extent they run into each other then that is reason enough for our defeat in that tie. You cannot seriously sit there and believe that was down to anything other than a lack of communication. Something our defence suffers terribly from when Neville and Ferdinand are absent as the rest of them are not 'talkers'. Surely in a midfield consisting of Fletcher, Carrick and Scholes, Fletcher would be the one with the most defensive responsibilities. You are the one who keeps telling us Carrick is not a defensive midfielder.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

So the only time Gattusso and his chums play badly is when the opposition play a certain way?

According to you certainly. After all you believe when Arsenal defeat Milan it's only because Milan and people like Gattuso have played badly.

So then are we to beleive that when Celtic beat Milan it was because their midfield was adequately equipped to deal with Gattuss et al and not just beacuse they didn't perform on the night.

Obviously. At home Celtic are a more confident team. They also had all the right equipment. Even PSV before them also gave them Milan such hell because they too had all the right equipment. Even though Milan's superior class and exprience shone through in the end on both occasions.

Yes. Would this be the same Celtic midfield you ridiculed when talking about our European away form with Carrick in the team?

Yes. Because we have all the right equipment to whip them. Unlike Milan. That shouldn't be hard to fathom.

Arsenal won because they went out to win the game and didn't change the way they play to suit Milan. We did the opposite.

Rubbish. Arsenal won because they had the right equipment. Which let them play their game. For just like us they wanted to win. No team plays at that stage of the competition and aims for anything else. We didn't have the right equipment, even though we wanted to win. That is why we never played anything resembling football vs Milan. Getting our butts kicked. Stop cooking up lame excuses

 

[Wes]

all the right equipment

 

[acnumber9]

According to you certainly. After all you believe when Arsenal defeat Milan it's only because Milan and people like Gattuso have played badly.

Obviously. At home Celtic are a more confident team. They also had all the right equipment. Even PSV before them also gave them Milan such hell because they too had all the right equipment. Even though Milan's superior class and exprience shone through in the end on both occasions.
Yes. Because we have all the right equipment to whip them. Unlike Milan. That shouldn't be hard to fathom.

Rubbish. Arsenal won because they had the right equipment. Which let them play their game. For just like us they wanted to win. No team plays at that stage of the competition and aims for anything else. We didn't have the right equipment, even though we wanted to win. That is why we never played anything resembling football vs Milan. Getting our butts kicked. Stop cooking up lame excuses

Why then get so worked up by us losing there? Any opportunity to have a go at Carrick I think.

I don't really see how Milan do not have the tools to win at Celtic Park. They were the European Champions after all.

I never said it was the only reason. Just pointing out it is possible for a player/team to play badly regardless of what the opposition do.

We set up at the San Siro knowing a 0-0 draw would see us through. Arsenal did not.

 

[ralphie88]

I can't believe Chef is still trying to blame the Milan defeat on Carrick.

We had three of our first choice defenders missing for both legs ffs.

That is why we lost, simple as that.

 

[Feed Me]

The Redcafe Sweepstake.

I can't believe Chef is still trying to blame the Milan defeat on Carrick.

We had three of our first choice defenders missing for both legs ffs.

That is why we lost, simple as that.

I can't believe this fecking thread is still alive. It has no end in sight. It just rewinds itself and starts all over again.

I say we do a sweepstake. What page will this god forsaken thread finally run out of steam?

I say on page 55, people will have worn themselves out.

 

[ralphie88]

I can't believe this fecking thread is still alive. It has no end in sight. It just rewinds itself and starts all over again.

I say we do a sweepstake. What page will this god forsaken thread finally run out of steam?

I say on page 55, people will have worn themselves out.

That won't work. If I had 56 I'd just keep BTTTing it.

It'd be like letting Harry Redknapp bet on the outcome of a Portsmouth match.

 

[VP]

The Milan game again.


Chief, what are you banging on about equipment? Don't think what boots Arsenal are wearing really matter.

 

[Wes]

let the f@pping begin

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

If two defenders representing Manchester United are incapable of dealing with one player to the extent they run into each other then that is reason enough for our defeat in that tie.

Bullshit. We beat Milan at OT even with those errors. You are just bringing up worse excuses by the minute.

You cannot seriously sit there and believe that was down to anything other than a lack of communication. Something our defence suffers terribly from when Neville and Ferdinand are absent as the rest of them are not 'talkers'.

Yes I can. When the midfield knows it's defence isn't that strong it has to make an extra effort to protect it. Which in Carrick's case in particular, was sorely lacking. He left all such dties to the inexperienced Fletcher. Which agaisnt Milan was a for more danegrous thing than a lack of first choice defenders.

Surely in a midfield consisting of Fletcher, Carrick and Scholes, Fletcher would be the one with the most defensive responsibilities. You are the one who keeps telling us Carrick is not a defensive midfielder.

That's silly. We didn't play 4-1-2-3. We played 4-2-3-1 .With two midfielder of decent defensive ability. Meaning they had to share defensive duties.

Besides, Carrick, even if it's not his natural role, had played all season in a defensive midfield role for us. Same as at Spurs, all his time there! So in that role, he was more experienced than Fletcher, so should have been taking a greater responsibility in dealing with Kaka. Since we were playing a system with 2 deep midfielders with decent defensive ability. Hence, due to Fletcher's inexperience and Carrick's lack of mobility and bite in the tackle, they had used double teaming tactics to handle Totti and Roma's midfield. To combine their strengths in order to maximise effectiveness as a partnership, while minimising their individual weaknesses. It worked wonders. Protecting our make shift backline superbly in both legs. Even when we had 10 men.

Against Milan though, for some inexplicable reason Carrick refused to do what he had done vs Roma. Which was to help Fletcher double team a player like Totti. Who's role in the Milan game was occupied by Kaka. He left all the duties of tracking Kaka to Fletch. On top of offering him no help to deal with Gattuso or to harry Milan's other midfielders. All he did was mark empty space, hoping to intercept way ward passes, which were never made. This allowed Gattuso to physically dominate midfield, winning the ball mainly in our own half, also allowed Kaka the freedom to go where he pleased. Seedorf too. As Pirlo stayed deep, unmolested. The second goal was solid proof of this. A long ball was punted upfield and Fletcher was left all alone to deal with Kaka as Carrick just looked on.and boom, Kaka was so easily, one on one with our weak back line. it isn't a surprise they panicked. All these were hallmarks of lack of the right equipment to deal with Milan, in midfield. Which exposed our already weakened defence to needless amounts of extra pressure i.e one on ones with Seedorf and Kaka. Which proved costly in the end, overall.

Furthermore if you are pointing out Carrick not being a natural defensive midfielder, as a reason for how he played vs Milan, failing to help out with Kaka. Why are you still refusing that we lacked the equipment to deal with Milan in midfield, that is why, ultimately, we lost the tie?

 

[Ekeke]

I believe what the Chief is trying to say is, its Carrick's fault we lost the match because he didnt agree with the Chief on the idea of letting Saha go for free in the summer.

 

[ralphie88]

Bullshit. We beat Milan at OT even with those errors. You are just bringing up worse excuses by the minute.

Yes I can. When the midfield knows it's defence isn't that strong it has to make an extra effort to protect it. Which in Carrick's case in particular, was sorely lacking. He left all such dties to the inexperienced Fletcher. Which agaisnt Milan was a for more danegrous thing than a lack of first choice defenders.

That's silly. We didn't play 4-1-2-3. We played 4-2-3-1 .With two midfielder of decent defensive ability. Meaning they had to share defensive duties.

Besides, Carrick, even if it's not his natural role, had played all season in a defensive midfield role for us. Same as at Spurs, all his time there! So in that role, he was more experienced than Fletcher, so should have been taking a greater responsibility in dealing with Kaka. Since we were playing a system with 2 deep midfielders with decent defensive ability. Hence, due to Fletcher's inexperience and Carrick's lack of mobility and bite in the tackle, they had used double teaming tactics to handle Totti and Roma's midfield. To combine their strengths in order to maximise effectiveness as a partnership, while minimising their individual weaknesses. It worked wonders. Protecting our make shift backline superbly in both legs. Even when we had 10 men.

Against Milan though, for some inexplicable reason Carrick refused to do what he had done vs Roma. Which was to help Fletcher double team a player like Totti. Who's role in the Milan game was occupied by Kaka. He left all the duties of tracking Kaka to Fletch. On top of offering him no help to deal with Gattuso or to harry Milan's other midfielders. All he did was mark empty space, hoping to intercept way ward passes, which were never made. This allowed Gattuso to physically dominate midfield, winning the ball mainly in our own half, also allowed Kaka the freedom to go where he pleased. Seedorf too. As Pirlo stayed deep, unmolested. The second goal was solid proof of this. A long ball was punted upfield and Fletcher was left all alone to deal with Kaka as Carrick just looked on.and boom, Kaka was so easily, one on one with our weak back line. it isn't a surprise they panicked. All these were hallmarks of lack of the right equipment to deal with Milan, in midfield. Which exposed our already weakened defence to needless amounts of extra pressure i.e one on ones with Seedorf and Kaka. Which proved costly in the end, overall.

Furthermore if you are pointing out Carrick not being a natural defensive midfielder, as a reason for how he played vs Milan, failing to help out with Kaka. Why are you still refusing that we lacked the equipment to deal with Milan in midfield, that is why, ultimately, we lost the tie?

 

[Wes]

so basically, when Carrick doesn't track Kaka from midfield, and defenders run into one another, its Carricks fault, but when Hargreaves fails to track Adebayor in the Arsenal game, the goal is Wes Brown's fault. Right..

 

[peterstorey]

Besides, Carrick, even if it's not his natural role, had played all season in a defensive midfield role for us. Same as at Spurs, all his time there!

And all his time at West Ham. Quack.

 

[Eto'odinho]

Rubberduckie and Acne need to stop this bickering.It's getting tedious now, no new evidence just a repetition of everything on earlier pages.This disturbs me

 

[ralphie88]

so basically, when Carrick doesn't track Kaka from midfield, and defenders run into one another, its Carricks fault, but when Hargreaves fails to track Adebayor in the Arsenal game, the goal is Wes Brown's fault. Right..

That's right.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Why then get so worked up by us losing there? Any opportunity to have a go at Carrick I think.

Worked up? I only stated we lost that game because of our midfield. Mainly due to Carrick's inept display. Yet I got attacked with Venom. I find it hilarious that you think that I'm the one who got worked up.

I don't really see how Milan do not have the tools to win at Celtic Park. They were the European Champions after all.

That isn't surprising. After all you think a Villa would have a chance against a Lyon just because they did decently in the league vs Arsenal and Chelsea. If you really understood football. You'd know things don't work that way. That is why we have bested Roma 4 times and can't make a dent vs Milan. Yet Milan for at least 2 seasons now, regularly get bested by Roma.

I never said it was the only reason. Just pointing out it is possible for a player/team to play badly regardless of what the opposition do.

Which is a stupid thing to point out. Especially, on a day when Arsenal out played them. It just smacks of bitterness and bias. Not an attempt in promoting realism. Seriously

We set up at the San Siro knowing a 0-0 draw would see us through. Arsenal did not.

We set up against Milan at the San Siro, with the same formation we started with at OT, a game in which we attacked Milan and won. What separated the first leg from the second was only the fact that Gattuso finished the game in Italy. And just like at OT in the first half, Milan finished firmly on top.

Stop with the make belief already. We had the self same desires an ambition Arsenal had before kick off at the San Siro. They, however had the equipment (i.e the right players) to pull it through while we didn't. I fail to see why it's so hard to accept.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

So a terrible error costing us a goal in the home leg coupled with an injury to a key player for the second leg is an acceptable excuse in 2005, fast forward two years and it's not. Mmmmm....

I'm beginning to believe you are either inherently daft or simply a WUM. You want to seriously tell me, that an unforced mistake by a keeper, and a loss of a key player in the middle of a game is equivalent to an error by a defence caused by it being exposed by poor midfield play, and losing key players before a tie even begins, something that could thus be planned for in advance? Eh?

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I can't believe Chef is still trying to blame the Milan defeat on Carrick.

I never have. I said we lost that game mainly because we lost the midfield battle. Due to not having the right players. A management fault. Amongst other factors. Which isn't blaming Carrick solely.

All I have said from day 1 was his weaknesses and performance vs Milan had a big role in use losing the midfield battle, which precipitated our signing of Hargreaves. When it was claimed, Hargreaves was never needed and shouldn't be signed, since Carrick never had any serious role in our demise vs Milan. But only tactics and our missing defenders did.

We had three of our first choice defenders missing for both legs ffs.

That is why we lost, simple as that.

That is wrong. They were other factors too, more important than that. Like the fact our midfield wasn't strong enough to deal with Milan and the fact we never took our numerous chances in the first leg.

 

[Plechazunga]

Why should we treat remarks that misrepresent another poster's views (that's maintaining that they said something different to what they actually did btw.) as if they were 'right'? More usual descriptions would be 'lying' or 'dishonesty'.

Here's an example:

What's annoying is when idiots like the Chief start lauding him as something equal to a giant, robotic Roy Keane...

...and the context here is that the chief never said any such thing - something Noods only admitted when challenged.

I think I might have figured out the problem here

What noodle wrote is called a 'joke'. 'Jokes' frequently exaggerate the truth for another phenomenon called 'comic effect'. This isn't the same thing as (isn't ontologically identical to) 'lying'.

In order to dissociate the two, it's necessary to have a third thing called a 'sense of humour'. This is a mental faculty enabling the individual to experience phenomena as amusing, and as a bi-product not be dull, self-righteous, pompous, pedantic, humourless dickheads.

 

[Wes]

example, Plechazunga is really funny and witty.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

so basically, when Carrick doesn't track Kaka from midfield, and defenders run into one another, its Carricks fault, but when Hargreaves fails to track Adebayor in the Arsenal game, the goal is Wes Brown's fault. Right..

Oho! I see it now. It's Hargreaves' job to track and mark a striker, Adebayor, which isn't what he is there to do. Failure to do so is such a crime, once it leads to a goal..Which occurs due to a certain defender ball watching

But it's not Carrick's job or fault when he fails to help track an attacking midfielder like Kaka. OR to contain a Gattuso. When he fails, it's only because 3 first choice defenders were missing. So it is not an offence at all. Even when it leads to conceding more than one goal in two straight games.

 

[Feedingseagulls]

I can't believe Chef is still trying to blame the Milan defeat on Carrick.

We had three of our first choice defenders missing for both legs ffs.

That is why we lost, simple as that.

I think your problem with the chief's point lies with the fact that you are seeing/portraying him as saying that the away defeat was solely down to Carrick - which isn't quite what he's been saying.

The chief hasn't denied that were other factors which made it difficult for our team (eg injuries, exhaustion etc.).

What the chief has fairly consistently pointed out is that Milan outplayed us when Gattuso was on the pitch in both games. He thinks that a midfield involving Carrick and not containing anyone capable of decreasing Gattuso's effectiveness and also being unable to deal with Kaka was a major (possibly the deciding) factor in our inability to win the 2-legged tie.

He reckons that Hargreaves would have been able to do this as he is the right type of player - he reckons that whilst Carrick can perform some defensive duties and add to the attack himself, he cannot do the job which was required in those games - Carrick's inability to do the job required 'cost us'. This is particularly relevant to the 'Hargreaves debate' because certain posters have maintained we don't need OH because of the defensive abilities of Carrick - the chief is pointing out that there are times when that is just not sufficient.

The chief uses the Bayern game v. Milan to provide evidence that OH can do this to Milan when surrounded by a side probably not as good as Utd. OH helped his team dominate, but he could not ensure that they scored enough - nor could he stop every Italian attack (no one player can do this).

The chief reckons that with OH available we could have won the tie, despite our personnel problems at the back, with Carrick we had a much worse chance.

All in all, a pretty simple thesis.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I believe what the Chief is trying to say is, its Carrick's fault we lost the match because he didnt agree with the Chief on the idea of letting Saha go for free in the summer.

That is why you are tagged Mr. Mcfeckwit

 

[Wes]

OH i see it now. It's Hargreaves' job to track and mark a striker, Adebayor, which isn't what he is there to do. Failure to do so is such a crime, once it leads to a goal..

But it's not Carrick's job or fault when he fails to help track an attacking midfielder like Kaka. When he fails, it's only because 3 first choice defenders were missing. So it is not an offence at all.

sorry, mate but you don't understand football, thats what comes shining through from your posts. Its never that rigid, imagine a footballer saying to himself, well i'm a midfielder, so i only mark midfielders, do you actuall think that could possibly go through any players mind??

Carrick was at fault for Kaka's first goal at OT, but what the feck is he supposed to do for the second, Kaka was allowed through three united players, Fletch, Evra and Heinze.

You could also argue that Kaka wasn't playing in midfield too much, more of a second striker, but i can't be arsed with any of that shite.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I think your problem with the chief's point lies with the fact that you are seeing/portraying him as saying that the away defeat was solely done to Carrick - which isn't quite what he's been saying.

The chief hasn't denied that were other factors which made it difficult for our team (eg injuries, exhaustion etc.).

What the chief has fairly consistently pointed out is that Milan outplayed us when Gattuso was on the pitch in both games. He thinks that a midfield involving Carrick and not containing anyone capable of decreasing Gattuso's effectiveness and also being unable to deal with Kaka was a major (possibly the deciding) factor in our inability to win the 2-leeged tie.

He reckons that Hargreaves would have been able to do this as he is the right type of player - he reckons that whilst Carrick can perform some defensive duties and add to the attack himself, he cannot do the job which was required in those games - Carrick's inability to do the job required 'cost us'. This is particularly relevant to the 'Hargreaves debate' because certain posters have maintained we don't need OH because of the defensive abilities of Carrick - the chief is pointing out that there are times when that is just not sufficient.

The chief uses the Bayern game v. Milan to provide evidence that OH can do this to Milan when surrounded by a side probably not as good as Utd. OH helped his team dominate, but he could not ensure that they scored enough - nor could he stop every Italian attack (no one player can do this).

All in all, a pretty simple thesis.

Perfectly summarised I must add

 

[ralphie88]

But it's not Carrick's job or fault when he fails to help track an attacking midfielder like Kaka. When he fails, it's only because 3 first choice defenders were missing. So it is not an offence at all.

Chef, I was there in Milan mate, I could see the whole pitch for the whole 90 mins. We had no defence, no formation, no out-and-out striker and were absolutely exhausted. The moment Milan scored their first it was game over thanks to our defence in the first leg at OT. They hammered us. Carrick played a hell of a lot better than many of our players that evening (Fletcher in particular was shocking). Hargreaves would have made no difference whatsoever to the outcome of that match.

You have argued from the start that Hargeaves protects our defence. But he doesn't. The Lyon and Arsenal games demonstrate that our defence is no less likely to conceded goals with him parked in front of the back four than with Carrick there.

 

[RedDevilCanuck]

Jesus Christ people we lost to AC last year cuz we were missing our best defenders and going to San Siro for an away draw. It was tactics and bad defending. Carrick had a bad game along with pretty much everyone else. The team looked scared from the get go because the negative tactics with a make shift defence ripped the confidence out of all the players. There is no need to look for individual performances or any shit like that, it is pointless.

 

[Feedingseagulls]

I think I might have figured out the problem here

What noodle wrote is called a 'joke'. 'Jokes' frequently exaggerate the truth for another phenomenon called 'comic effect'. This isn't the same thing as (isn't ontologically identical to) 'lying'.

In order to dissociate the two, it's necessary to have a third thing called a 'sense of humour'. This is a mental faculty enabling the individual to experience phenomena as amusing, and as a bi-product not be dull, self-righteous, pompous, pedantic, humourless dickheads.

Actually Plech - Noods remark looked very much like the rest of his posts on this topic - an attempt to ridicule his opponent the chief, and state that his opinions were tosh. He happened to do so by stating that the chief had made an unsupportable claim when he had done no such thing.

Neither is it accurate that the chief's praise of OH amounts to the same thing as likening him to Keane - which was Noods own explanation for the remark.

You choose to interpret both misrepresentations as examples of his 'humour' - there might be a slight case for the first remark - but not for his explanation.

In the same post Noods writes:

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

As I pointed out earlier, the chief does not claim that bayern losing proves his case - to do so would be 'thin' - yet Noods is suggesting this is exactly the argument his opponent advances in order to ridicule him and the points he makes.

Noods also presumably includes the chief in the posters who are 'cretins... with a track record of being clueless' earlier in the same post.

Not exactly the context for his remarks to be just a joke is it now.

Noods, like many here, was being dishonest by misrepresenting what the chief has been saying and ridiculing him for things he never said - I happen not to consider that process particularly funny - it's also unnecessary because he will say enough funny stuff himself given time.

If you happen to think that asking posters to be fair to their debating opponents and criticising them when they are not makes people 'dull, self-righteous, pompous, pedantic, humourless dickheads' that probably says more about you than anyone else.

Now go back to your witty rhymes and stop being an apologist for intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Plechazunga]

Noodle doesn't actually think the Chief thinks Hargreaves is like a giant robotic Roy Keane, FS.

I hope this helps

 

[Feedingseagulls]

I believe what the Chief is trying to say is, its Carrick's fault we lost the match because he didnt agree with the Chief on the idea of letting Saha go for free in the summer.

One of those 'oh so hard to spot' jokes - pity it's not actually very funny.

 

[Feedingseagulls]

Perfectly summarised I must add

Imperfectly typed by myself though!

I've corrected 'done' to 'down' - there may be others.

 

[Plechazunga]

I happen not to consider that process particularly funny

One of those 'oh so hard to spot' jokes - pity it's not actually very funny.

I hate to break this to you mate, but you're not actually a great authority on what is and isn't funny. It's not your area of expertise.

Don't worry though, if we need someone to judge whether a post is a good example of flaunting one's education in a schoolmasterly manner in order to belittle and patronise people engaging in banter on a football forum, it's you we'll turn to.