Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Shhhhhhh. Carrick is flawless. Didn't you get the redcafe memo?
No, the space for a defensive midfielder in the squad was there (provided it was someone who did a better job at protecting the back four than Fletcher) - but we were already chasing Hargreaves so I dont see how a match almost a year in the future set SAF's sights on Hargreaves. We already wanted him, we were most likely already going to sign him since we had chased him so long and no other clubs were interested.
It's bit like Hargreaves getting pwned by the likes of Jenas and Convey, 2 players who are certainly a step down from the likes of Makoun or Bodmer
It's a two legged game. Had we not made the errors in defence that we did, for example Evra and Heinze running into each other, we may not have conceded the away golas that so often prove crucial.
You're defending the chief against misrepresentation of his argument. Where?
His argument has been shown many times to be terribly flawed (e.g. saying Carrick was by far our worst player against Milan despite himself rating at least 2 players worse straight after the game, e.g. saying Hargreaves is the first player since Ruud (later edited to Ruud and Park - still totally wrong) to settle well from a foreign culture and league in his first season, arguing that Hargreaves bossed the Milan midfield when by every single other account he had a poor game, etc. etc.). Why defend it? Apart from anything else, he'll never stop defending it and hardly needs your help.
You have a bone to pick with Plech because he's much cleverer than you will ever be, despite your academic credentials.
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.
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.
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
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.
A good example of selective memory, clearly overlooking the sentence where I state that those results don't mean that Villa would beat Lyon but that they suggest there's no reason they couldn't as they have shown they can get positive results against teams who are better than Lyon. Of course we'll never know until they play each other. Just like we'll never know how Hargreaves would perform for United in a game against Milan lacking our best defenders until it happens. Yet you've been more than happy to tell us what would've happened. Just like anyone who knows football knows that what you achieve at one club in one country has no bearing on what you do at another club. Shevchenko being a prime example.
As for the make believe. You'd know all about it.
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?
Evra and Heinze's collision was an unforced error, claiming otherwise is absolute folly and it matters not how much time we had to plan for Ferdinand's absence as our defence has proved time and again it is a shadow of what it is with him regardless of the time we had to prepare.
We were every bit as outplayed by Milan three season ago as we were last. I would actually argue even more so.
One final question for the chief as he's seems to pretty much have ignored it so far. Does Owen Hargreaves limit our attacking options? And if so why did you get so defensive when people stated that he did?
Sorry that was two questions.
I'm going to peacefully retire from this thread now by making it clear that I believe that Hargreaves is and will hopefully prove himself to be a good addition to the squad. He has a lot to prove but hopefully with time and full fitness he will do so. If he can consistently find the form that he showed for England at the World Cup and in the few months after coupled with the kind of performances that the Chief beleives he put in against Milan (I watched the match but have no real recollection of it) he'll undoubtedly be a good signing. We will need every player we have to achieve what we hope to this season.Oh and neither of them are as good as Roy Keane. Nobody in the world is.
Sorry that was two questions.
I'm going to peacefully retire from this thread now by making it clear that I believe that Hargreaves is and will hopefully prove himself to be a good addition to the squad. He has a lot to prove but hopefully with time and full fitness he will do so. If he can consistently find the form that he showed for England at the World Cup and in the few months after coupled with the kind of performances that the Chief beleives he put in against Milan (I watched the match but have no real recollection of it) he'll undoubtedly be a good signing. We will need every player we have to achieve what we hope to this season.Oh and neither of them are as good as Roy Keane. Nobody in the world is.
here's a question
if we signed hargraeves instead of carrick last season
would we have won the league?
if we signed hargraeves instead of carrick last season
would we have won the league?
How would we answer that?
We would have won the league last season even with Djemba Djemba playing alongside Scholes. Ever since Ronaldo hit great form, we have brushed aside all the mediocre/shite sides in the league. We went on a brilliant run after Christmas even with Giggs-OShea in midfield and Silvestre at centre back the season before last.
The form of our other regular starters carried a player like Carrick to the league title. He was the least influential of our regular starters.
The form of our other regular starters carried a player like Carrick to the league title. He was the least influential of our regular starters.
That's so wrong I might have to invent a word for it.
Carrick wont start a game at any other top club at the moment - Chelsea/Liverpool/Arsenal/Barca....he's probably in the same class as someone like Finnan - decent premiership player.
Nice try
The thing is, he actually believes it himself.
Along with,
Heskey >>>>>>>> Rooney
Neither would Hargreaves or Anderson.
Actually, it was interesting to note that I was looking through an Arsenal forum a couple of weeks ago, and there was a thread about which English players they would have liked to have seen at the club, a lot of people said Carrick.
Alot of my Arsenal mates rate Carrick very highly.
Spurs fans were ringing 606 last night, also praising his ability.
That's because, as much as it pains me to say this, the majority of Arsenal fans appreciate good footballers. Same goes for Spurs fans.
Another five pages since I last looked. Good form
What's this?
If you want me to admit that you're much more cleverer than me, you could just ask
What's this?
If you want me to admit that you're much more cleverer than me, you could just ask
well certainly not that way...
the thing of it is I don't think we would have. Hargraeves' positional play would have had scholes play probably even deeper than he was last year.
His favourite player is Rooney, at least that's what he says on his profile. I think he's just playing devil's advocate. Don't really see the point of it.
Look, there are 44 pages in this thread, and even I'm not enough of a gimp to trawl through it trying to find stuff to back up my point. I can't even remember what Rubberman and noods are and aren't meant to have said. If you want to use that fact in your argument, go ahead. None of it matters.
The point is, that it's a football forum. This is what you repeatedly fail to grasp - or rather, deliberately ignore. The way things are argued on here is that people who disagree - like in any conversation down the pub - tend to caricature each other's argument. The normal response to this is to say, "No, I didn't say that cockface," and then carry on. What you choose to do - because you want to show off, and you think we're a poor ignorant flock that needs educating in the gospel of academic argumentation - is to treat these pages and pages of absurd, knockabout banter about Owen Hargreaves as if they're a legal or acedemic dispute. So you go round collecting evidence, identifying logical errors etc., and then present it in a highly moralistic and irritatingly convoluted style, presuming we'll all stop bantering and instead worship at your altar of verbiage. Whereas what actually happens is we all just think you're a dickhead, and carry on.
No-one's picking on the Chief. We all love the Chief, and he's big enough to take care of himself, using his natural gifts of charm, good humour mixed with sudden Tourettes-like bursts of vitriol, and unbelievable persistence... as well as an army of committed smilies ever mobilised for his next assault.
noodle, meanwhile, has never picked on anyone in his life, unless you count the mice. He's an amusing, affable chap who wanders round the Caf saying silly things and talking occasional sense about Owen Hargreaves. There is no grand injustice here to be righted... just some daft twats talking football.
So in summary... why not just stop doing what you're doing?
I may have 'flaunted' once or twice, especially when getting narked with the King in the CE forum. But despite sincher's kind comments, I don't really think I've got that much to flaunt. I meet many people every single day much cleverer and better educated than myself. Who cares? It's essentially a Man United message-board.
As to my supposed obsession with your style - your style is a very clear window into your amazingly pompous and conceited world-view, which the above post is ample demonstration of and needs no further comment from me.
Arsenal fans ?
Wenger normally buys good talent if its at a bargain price but didn't think Carrick was even worth the 1 million or something that he cost Spurs.
I think you meant cockbiscuit.
Arsenal fans ?
Wenger normally buys good talent if its at a bargain price but didn't think Carrick was even worth the 1 million or something that he cost Spurs.
We didn't think Henry was worth a few million.
Make him shit does it ?
That was for Plech.
Ffs!
he had him lined up for replace viera if viera left
however viera did not
at least that's what happened for memory
however viera did not
at least that's what happened for memory
Arsenal fans ?
Wenger normally buys good talent if its at a bargain price but didn't think Carrick was even worth the 1 million or something that he cost Spurs.
Actually Wenger came out with some very high praise for Carrick last season. I'm not going to bother finding the article but I remember it very clearly.
Let's do this in stages -
I've clarified many of the misrepresentations made by people when they argue against the chief, in detail, earlier - as you would know if you could be bothered to read my posts properly.
Generally speaking it is not the chief's actual statements that have been shown 'many times' to be wrong - what have been picked apart and 'disproved' are the straw men, misquotes and misrepresentations that his opponents peddle as if they were his. People haven't been engaging with what the chief has actually said - they've been exploiting the fact that the misrepresentations of his views are much easier targets and arguing against them. (Plenty of evidence in my posts over the last day or so). Plech-Gerrard did exactly the same thing when trying to defend Noods from being shown up for doing it by claiming it was all a joke.
I have no particular interest in how 'clever' or not Plech-Gerrard is. I do think it's a pity that someone you believe to be clever has shown himself to be a hypocrite (flaunting, belittling etc.), unable to accurately portray another poster's arguments when attempting to engage with them, and obsessed with commenting about another poster's style rather than addressing their arguments.
I have had the respect of a peer group whose opinion means far more to me than that of an internet forum. I don't know why you think I have a particular issue with Plech-Gerrard, though I do have one regarding his concentration on the style rather than the substance of posts - rather I think you'll find that it is Plech-Gerrard who seems to have an issue with me.
(He doesn't like my style, finding it {and therefore it appears me} pompous and humourless - I don't like many posts on this forum, I don't like their style, I certainly don't like intellectual dishonesty - I don't feel obliged to be humourous every time I post either.)
He would start for pool without doubt. If you look at the season last year he was one of the most influential players we had and i don't believe that we would have won the league without him.
Fabregas had always been lined up to take over from Vieira. Carrick doesn't have the drive or the creativity to be an attacking midfielder.
Wenger considered him as a squad replacement for Edu but didnt think he was worth the 1 million or something.
Arsenal fans ?
Wenger normally buys good talent if its at a bargain price but didn't think Carrick was even worth the 1 million or something that he cost Spurs.
Instant Karma said:
Oh right, I see
His brain's gone mad with power, and taken him over
His brain's gone mad with power, and taken him over
Transfer gossip from the Sun ?
Has Ronaldo signed for Real Madrid yet ?
Has Ronaldo signed for Real Madrid yet ?
Another five pages since I last looked. Good form
What's this?
If you want me to admit that you're much more cleverer than me, you could just ask
Not the point at issue Noods...
I haven't got any issue with you - I just want you to stop misrepresenting what the chief is saying (and I was struggling to work out what the hell you were trying to say because it looked like criticism but i found it unintelligible.)
- Status