Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Rather I doubt very much you have ever played football or understand it. That is all too clear from your post. Because if you did:
1. In football primary roles on a pitch never ever change unless express instruction from the bench have been given. In short you are never EVER supposed to do another player's job for him. i.e a defensive midfielder marking a striker, a striker tracking a defensive midfielder, a center back marking an attacking midfielder in midfield e.t.c...It's a basic law.
Occasionally you help out. That's it. Nothing more nothing less and only when they are in deep trouble. The Arsenal case doesn't not constitute deep trouble, because we were playing a high line in order or the midfield to push into the opponents half. It's thus up to the defence to do it's job. Thus If Vidic wasn't God knows were, Adebayor would have been easily stopped or would have been offside.
Thus for a defender or anyone else to blame a defensive midfielder for not tracking a striker. Simply because his marker was sleeping and out of position, in a high defensive line is a serious lack of realism when it comes to football.
Furthermore to still lay the blame at Hargreaves' feet, for a goal casued by Wes Brown standing and watching Fabregas get to a ball he can clear is even more stupifying.
2. When you are in midfield, as two decent defensive players, facing a player of Kaka's caliber, with a weak defence behind you, you must double team at all times. Failure to do so is criminal. Because that would mean he gets to run at your weak defence, who are at the time ill equipped and can't be trusted to deal with such a threat, with out significant help. Which 9 out of 10 times will result in out right panic for them and unforced school boy errors. This Carrick did though out vs Milan. All the goals we conceded bore that resemblance. Kaka or Seedorf running at our defence, then panic and errors
3. You can't be arsed to argue Kaka was a second striker simply because it's utter bullshit. Especially, when Milan clearly play a wingless, one striker 4-3-2-1 formation. With 3 deep defensive midfielders, lined up as two hard men on either side of a deep lying playmaker, With 2 attacking midfielders directly infront of them, hovering around a lone striker, with fullbacks providing the width.
The chief has spoken
Spot the bloke who didn't get it.
i did, but i still find your hypocracy funny. There no excuse for banging on like that really, you should know better
It wasn't hypocrisy, it was parody, you didn't get it
A bit like Feedingseagulls
Rather I doubt very much you have ever played football or understand it. That is all too clear from your post. Because if you did:
1. In football primary roles on a pitch never ever change unless express instruction from the bench have been given. In short you are never EVER supposed to do another player's job for him. i.e a defensive midfielder marking a striker, a striker tracking a defensive midfielder, a center back marking an attacking midfielder in midfield e.t.c...It's a basic law.
Occasionally you help out. That's it. Nothing more nothing less and only when they are in deep trouble. The Arsenal case doesn't not constitute deep trouble, because we were playing a high line in order or the midfield to push into the opponents half. It's thus up to the defence to do it's job. Thus If Vidic wasn't God knows were, Adebayor would have been easily stopped or would have been offside.
Thus for a defender or anyone else to blame a defensive midfielder for not tracking a striker. Simply because his marker was sleeping and out of position, in a high defensive line is a serious lack of realism when it comes to football.
Furthermore to still lay the blame at Hargreaves' feet, for a goal casued by Wes Brown standing and watching Fabregas get to a ball he can clear is even more stupifying.
2. When you are in midfield, as two decent defensive players, facing a player of Kaka's caliber, with a weak defence behind you, you must double team at all times. Failure to do so is criminal. Because that would mean he gets to run at your weak defence, who are at the time ill equipped and can't be trusted to deal with such a threat, with out significant help. Which 9 out of 10 times will result in out right panic for them and unforced school boy errors. This Carrick did though out vs Milan. All the goals we conceded bore that resemblance. Kaka or Seedorf running at our defence, then panic and errors
3. You can't be arsed to argue Kaka was a second striker simply because it's utter bullshit. Especially, when Milan clearly play a wingless, one striker 4-3-2-1 formation. With 3 deep defensive midfielders, lined up as two hard men on either side of a deep lying playmaker, With 2 attacking midfielders directly infront of them, hovering around a lone striker, with fullbacks providing the width.
The chief has spoken
How the feck is this thread up to 44 pages? Can somebody fill me in on pages 2 to 43?
1.
Carrick was by far our worst central midfielder that night. Scholes our best. Just check the match ratings thread. Plus comments in a thread with thoughts on the Milan game. By people who were with you in Milan and those who watched the game on live TV, like me. Your lame attempts to shift blame on Fletcher, Fergie's tactics, the two goals we conceded in the first leg, missing players and exhaustion, in order to deflect attention from the obvious short comings of our midfield that night, plus in both ties and in particular, Carrick's poor performance in both legs is a disgrace. 2. The Lyon and Arsenal game proves nothing in Carrick's favour. The Lyon goal in the away leg was a wonder strike. In a match we controlled and dominated from start to finish. Which Benzema didn't repeat at OT, even though Carrick and co were struggling at times to contain his team mates, who even hit the post. Ina game we didn't dominate from start to finish, just controlled. While in the Arsenal game, we conceded the frist goal due to Brown's ball watching and the equaliser not long after Carrick was brought on. But we still didn't lose. Yet last season at the Emirates, with Carrick at his best, on his own, infront of our defence, Arsenal came from behind to beat us 2-1 with an even weaker side than they have now. So much for you inane theory we look stronger and less likely to concede with Carrick infront of our defence.
Well I assumed the 'giant' and 'robotic' were poking fun at the notion (rightly it seems) but you still don't give any convincing argument that the remark as a whole was to be taken as a joke and not really referring to the arguments the cjief had been advancing.
The rest of that post and his earlier ones don't read like some kind of 'running joke' - they read like someone actually arguing against his opponent but consistently misrepresenting or misunderstanding what they are saying. (Like the 'thinnest argument ever' he attributes to him.)
Noods reckons that what the chief has posted amounts to him 'going so over the top, he may as well just claim Hargreaves is even better than Keane'. This is inaccurate in itself - but he chooses to make the point by using the words:
The chief has done no such thing - either by direct comparison or in the extent of his praise for OH. That idea, like Bayern losing 2-0 being 'proof', has been made-up - something of which Noods seems to disapprove according to his own words - or was that just a joke as well?
Another failed comedian
Chief, what are you banging on about equipment? Don't think what boots Arsenal are wearing really matter.
Try to pay attention to what is being said rather than WUMing like a brainless individual.This rather takes the biscuit!
Let's see - in this thread we have a sequence of posters 'belittling and patronising' the chief by the intellectually dishonest tactics of misquoting him, misrepresenting his arguments, using 'straw men' and insulting him.
I point out exactly how they have done this, explain the chief's argument briefly to help stop it happening again, and criticise the posters (mildly) for their behaviour.
Yet according to you I am belittling them rather than them belittling the chief! Why? because I actually bother to explain and point out what they are doing and to maintain it's wrong?
I know that actually spelling out what errors are being committed is not the common way of conducting 'debate' here - more usually we get a spiral of insults. It probably does sound 'schoolmasterly' because what I'm doing is what good educators would hope to instill in their charges - the ability to look at an argument and see how accurate and valid it is and to then convey that to others. It's not 'flaunting' an education, it's using it - that's what it's for.
As I've said before Plech, if you don't like it 'tough' - don't read it!
EDIT - by the way, whilst your attempted style parody (too OTT btw) would avoid the charge of hypocrisy, your Gerrard-like attitude to who is, or is not, 'belittling whom here is a nailed-on certainty - there is also the issue of the way in which you yourself attempt to flaunt your education.
I have a new name for you: 'Gerrard' hypocrite supreme.
You can't beat self-parody.
This from the man who (if I remember correctly) was so worked up about the intellectual vandalism being done by editing a Wiki-page.
Against Milan Carricks performance was particularly bad. It was a performance of grand ineptitude. He was at fault, as were Hienze and Evra. But Carrick stood out the most for me because he offered nothing in any capacity during that match.
home or away leg?
FFS said:Well I assumed the 'giant' and 'robotic' were poking fun at the notion (rightly it seems) but you still don't give any convincing argument that the remark as a whole was to be taken as a joke and not really referring to the arguments the cjief had been advancing.
The rest of that post and his earlier ones don't read like some kind of 'running joke' - they read like someone actually arguing against his opponent but consistently misrepresenting or misunderstanding what they are saying. (Like the 'thinnest argument ever' he attributes to him.)
Noods reckons that what the chief has posted amounts to him 'going so over the top, he may as well just claim Hargreaves is even better than Keane'. This is inaccurate in itself - but he chooses to make the point by using the words:
The chief has done no such thing - either by direct comparison or in the extent of his praise for OH. That idea, like Bayern losing 2-0 being 'proof', has been made-up - something of which Noods seems to disapprove according to his own words - or was that just a joke as well?
The Chief - much as I love the man, he's a legend - tends to read a hell of a lot into individual games, especially the Milan game last season, which he's quite obsessed with. He bases a lot of his views on the respective merits of Carrick and Hargreaves on the notion that our defeat to Milan - when we had a second-string defence and the whole team played awfully - was due to Gattuso and Kaka 'humiliating' Carrick. That's the sort of thing noodle was taking the Mick out of, before you came along with your exemplary forensic analysis of football banter.
FFS said:
I wasn't specifically referring to this thread, but to your general posting style.
FFS said:
Ooh, look out, internet caveman
FFS said:
It was OTT because it was a parody, using exaggeration. A bit like noodle's robot comment. You seem to be having some trouble with this concept.
I probably have been guilty of a bit of flaunting from time to time over the years, but it's your standard MO.
Typically thrilling wit with the Gerrard line
Chief, will there ever, ever come a time when you'll say "Ah... feck it. I can't be fecked with this anymore"?
Maybe. God alone knows. My persistence well hasn't ran dry yet.
Which is amazing since I have never said that. What I've said all along is the Milan games showed up Carrick's weaknesses clearly. Along with those of Fletcher. Without that game, Hargreaves would never have been pursued so vehemently last summer and signed for the fee we signed him. It cemented the need for Hargreaves in SAF's mind. Of that I'm certain. Carrick's alleged humiliation on came up when people like Mozza were hailing him as a flawless defensive midfielder while calling Hargreaves a nothing a footballer and a mindless, needless purchase.
1.
When someone pointed about the posts on the caf about Hargreaves from his game with Bayern against Milan and how everyone said that he was by far the worst player on the pitch you brushed it aside as the usual caf rubbish. Now you're trying to present the same as proof against Carrick.
Your stance a few days back was that Hargreaves is a good player but it seems to have slowly shifted to trying to prove that Carrick is rubbish. Well that's bullshit, we've all seen how good Carrick has been for us. Maybe you should try sticking to showing that Hargreaves can be good for us because your Carrick arguments are baseless.
This thread should go into Classics just to preserve the sheer cringe-worthiness of it.
noodle said:
1.
You've convinced me.
Chief, you know I don't often interject but from this post it seems you think of players as static individuals, much as they would be in a computer game. That is not to say you are some sort of FM wunderkind but rather you do not seem to leave room for the player to improve over time or to have a bad game here and there. I suppose this post is rather meaningless considering your point is that the Milan loss cemented the need for OH in SAFs mind, but I wanted to say it anyway.
Because it was. I watched that game live. I'd know when someone was rubbish in that game and when they were not. I have no reason to lie about it. Especially not for a flimsy reason like liking a player
I'm not trying. It's solid proof. Bayern with Hargreaves were never dominated by Milan, the way we were with Carrick playing alongside Fletcher. It's not even debatable. If Hargreaves had partnered Carrick that night, we would currently be European Champions.
Rather what is rubbish is you bringing up the notion I'm saying Carrick is rubbish, believe Carrick is rubbish or have implied in anyway that he is rubbish. You should learn to actually read what people post rather than dreaming up what you think they have been saying. None of my statements about Carrick have been remotely baseless. Like yours on Hargreaves always are. Which is why you find it so easy to invent new directions for what I've been saying in this thread
I think you are way off track here. Nothing I have said indicates that I think of players as static individuals. I've just been in a constant quarrel with people swearing to the highest heavens we never needed to buy Hargreaves, he is a nothing player despite what he did at Bayern. Plus how Carrick is some how a superior player to Hargreaves , despite their career paths, far better than Hargreaves in his natural role. When there is evidence that blatantly proves this to be falsehoods.
I'd like you to tell me where in the above you get the idea that this means I view players as static, who don't improve from & who should never have bad games ever.
I don't have to convince you. You prefer to believe what you imagine to be the truth. The way you are currently trying to pedal around the stupid lie that I'm calling or think Carrick a rubbish player. While trying to equate the contents of a match day thread to a match ratings thread. When every one knows how ridiculous and out of touch with reality the majority of views in match day threads really are.Except that's not actually what Noods said is it? He did a version of what you yourself have done here:
You don't notice that the chief acknowledges the other factors - or at least you choose not to mention the fact - Noods caricatured his argument as 'Bayern losing 2-0 showing we need OH' (I paraphrase). Neither of you bother to consider the actual points he's made - nor the argument as a whole. Both of you are habitually misrepresenting what is being said by your opponents.
I don't believe all the chief's points are sound but his argument does hang together and has elements of truth.
The problem, Plech, is that just about all you do in replying to me is make comments about my style of posting. You tend to have little of substance or insight to say about the actual points I make.Gerrard said:
Occasionally you do try - you tried to claim that Noods was just joking, but, since that is obviously stretching the truth, when challenged, you revert to complaints about style to try to advance your case.
If you paid attention I criticised you for being too OTT not for being OTT at all - it's a judgement call where I reckon a slightly less ludicrous approach would have worked better (as per usual you can't be bothered to accurately interpret someone else's comments).Gerrard said:
You flaunt like crazy Plech! You try to use some wit and lots of carefully formulated insulting remarks to belittle various posters quite frequently - and you complain of me belittling others - when I name you hypocrite I'm right on the money.
My standard MO isn't deliberately flaunting anything - it's using the skills I've developed - it's debating the way I've been taught: where intellectual honesty and refraining from insult are standard, and arguments are meant to properly presented and accurately examined. Being unjust to an opponent in a debate is something I dislike - I dislike the way it has been done to the chief here - and I don't want everyone thinking he's actually peddling the tripe his opponents are saying he does.
So, as I think I've said before: if you have something worthwhile to say about the points I make then do so - if all you want to do is comment on my style you can f**k off.
It seems that Plech-Gerrard is incapable of noticing that he can't portray the arguments of other posters accurately.
He still seems to think we should listen to what he says though - can't imagine why.
I may be off track, hell it's 1750 posts into this thread and I'm just coming into it.
on Hargreaves, feck him, the traitor. He's right up there with Greg Rusedski in my books. He may be a decent defensive midfielder who can put some nicely placed free kicks in but he fecked off my country so he and his Brett Hitman Hart wanna-be hairdo can feck right off. It's not as if England have a realistic chance of winning, let alone reaching the World Cup finals during his career. the cnut.
We were persuing Hargreaves the year before...
Hargreaves was rubbish against Milan at home. I am not sure how anyone else is trying to argue otherwise.
Except the odd game, Carrick gets repeatedly pwned by average midfielders like Makoun/Bodmer away from OT.
So? I remember us famously pursuing Senna and not signing him. We also chased Essien but where put off by the price. Amongst other things. If the need for a Hargreaves like player, with that level of experience was not so blatantly obvious, he would never have been signed, the same way we didn't bother for Essien. We would have just gone for an Anderson like youngster or someone cheaper with some potential like a Reo-Coeker.
The mysteries of the cafe never seize, mateIt seems that Plech-Gerrard is incapable of noticing that he can't portray the arguments of other posters accurately.
He still seems to think we should listen to what he says though - can't imagine why.
- Status