welcome to page 47
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
If he envisaged a Fabregas/Carrick midfield, how is Carrick a Vieira replacement? He is the Gilberto replacement then.
By 'replacement' he just meant the midfield player being added to the squad instead of Vieira. He later bought it Diaby (the new next Vieira) as a squad replacement and promoted Fabregas as a starter.
Whatever his plans were, he wanted to buy Carrick, as Viera's replacement, but didn't because Viera stayed.
Meaning that your two statements are wrong, go on just admit it. You were wrong...
page 47
feck sake!
abra cadabra
"Anyone fancy a pint?"
Hargreaves is not the next Roy Keane............
no one is
I am
feck. He's typing out some form of reply. I'm going to bugger off before he posts it.
How d'you know ?
Just watch
arent you gonna bugger off then ?
Balls I'm afraid
You're not the only one I've 'accused' of misrepresenting the chief's posts and corrected - I've also stated that a number of people are doing this and posted summaries of his arguments to help clarify things.
The only reasons that your post became such a focus of attention were that you gave an 'explanation' that only dealt with one point and didn't look either plausible or accurate, and then Plech-Gerrard made it the focus of a sequence of poorly argued attempts to persuade me you were just joking.
I join threads when I log on and notice something worth commenting upon. That does not oblige me to trawl through every post on the cafe looking to make the same points.
I felt the chief's actual arguments were getting swamped by the frequency with which posters were using misrepresentations of his position as if they were what he actually said. To some extent you are right that you were unfortunate that it was a particularly problematic post that I came across at exactly the appropriate time - but I fairly regularly criticise anyone and everyone who is guilty of intellectual dishonesty in any thread in any forum.
Being physically unable to do it for every such post and believing that it would spam the fora unnecessarily does not make me intellectually dishonest (that's deliberately or carelessly using a false portrayal of something) nor does it make me a hypocrite.
So cut out the insults please.
Are you gonna admit you were wrong IK ?
Admin and mod perks.
Balls I'm afraid
You're not the only one I've 'accused' of misrepresenting the chief's posts and corrected - I've also stated that a number of people are doing this and posted summaries of his arguments to help clarify things.
The only reasons that your post became such a focus of attention were that you gave an 'explanation' that only dealt with one point and didn't look either plausible or accurate, and then Plech-Gerrard made it the focus of a sequence of poorly argued attempts to persuade me you were just joking.
I join threads when I log on and notice something worth commenting upon. That does not oblige me to trawl through every post on the cafe looking to make the same points.
I felt the chief's actual arguments were getting swamped by the frequency with which posters were using misrepresentations of his position as if they were what he actually said. To some extent you are right that you were unfortunate that it was a particularly problematic post that I came across at exactly the appropriate time - but I fairly regularly criticise anyone and everyone who is guilty of intellectual dishonesty in any thread in any forum.
Being physically unable to do it for every such post and believing that it would spam the fora unnecessarily does not make me intellectually dishonest (that's deliberately or carelessly using a false portrayal of something) nor does it make me a hypocrite.
So cut out the insults please.
ah feck off will ya, ya cnut.
When people start behaving like civilised beings, and I get a retraction from Noods, I'm happy to go back to normal topics.
(This does mean that your tactics are counterproductive btw.)
Ok..I was wrong about Carrick being considered as a squad replacement for Edu.
Per Wenger's statement, he was considered a replacement for Vieira to the squad with Edu/Fabregas being promoted as a starter.
Has there been another player that has polarised the caf so much?
and now this thread hsa two arguments going through it.
I'd love to see hargraeves do well, I really do. However, currently, I am struggling to see the point of having him.
Fletch has done admirably well and is upping his game to another level from last season. This despite being in and out of the team. This despite having a bad injury at the start of the season.
Carrick too started his Old trafford career with a bad ankle knock that halted his pre season preparations.
OH has had a stop start due to his own fitness concerns and constant injuries but I still would have expected him to have shown alittle more than he has.
and now this thread hsa two arguments going through it.
I'd love to see hargraeves do well, I really do. However, currently, I am struggling to see the point of having him.
Fletch has done admirably well and is upping his game to another level from last season. This despite being in and out of the team. This despite having a bad injury at the start of the season.
Carrick too started his Old trafford career with a bad ankle knock that halted his pre season preparations.
OH has had a stop start due to his own fitness concerns and constant injuries but I still would have expected him to have shown alittle more than he has.
Well, at least you admit you were wrong about Wenger wanting to sign him.
I'll leave it at that.
I think there are 2 issues there:
1 the stop-start nature of the season has made it difficult for OH to really gel with his team-mates in a match environment and for him to adjust to the Premiership itself.
2 I think he has actually done much better than his detractors would have us believe - they criticise him for not reaching unrealistic expectations, they don't notice what he does do well, they ignore the good passes he does make, they criticise him for occasional mistakes (in possession for example) whilst pretending that other players are not doing the same or worse. (Remember Carrick's poor spell earlier guys - real horrorshow at times).
I was just showing you what an insult is.
You've yet to be insulted by Noodlehair
Which probably means reporting him for unjustified accusations of hypocrisy would be pointless.
Actuially - he called me a hypocrite and intellectually dishonest - those are insults - just a different type and usually demanding a proof that is lacking (because they are untrue).
wah wah. grow up.
Actually, these are the kinds of insults/accusations for which it is common to demand a retraction if they are unjustified (as these are). They are potentially slanderous assertions about the honesty of another person.
That's not something you do when someone attempts to suggest someone should call someone a 'cockbiscuit' or similar - they carry no moral overtones.
The fact you cannot distinguish between the 2 is perhaps not surprising.
But Noodle and Plech may not directly insult him though.
They'd try to belittle him, they'll falsely claim that he said something. When he says he didn't, they'd accuse him of back tracking and call him a hypocrite. When he asks for some proof, they'd ignore that and find something else to falsely accuse him. They'd talk more about him than what he has posted.
Both of them could even teach Hillary's campaign managers a thing or two about negative posturing without actually making a reasonable argument on the topic.
yeah.
I'm drowning in a sea of shite by the way.
I'm drowning in a sea of shite by the way.
Our losing 3 -0 in Milan had next to nothing to do with the first leg. Besides, the 3-0 score line kicked us out. Not away goals.
So what? We chased Essien for a season and didn't sign him because his price was prohibitive and mostly because we didn't desperately need him either. Hargreaves price was prohibitive but after the Milan games and also the distinct lack of depth our run in showed our squad had, buying a player like Hargreaves became an apparent need. Its not debatable.
If we hadn't crumbled against Milan I highly doubt Hargreaves would have been bought, once the price tag of 18 million was slapped on him. We bought him for the same reason we bought Carrick. The need was definite, apparent and immediate. Existing interest from us or plus interest/no interest from other clubs would have had no bearing on such an out come. If the need for a player like him wasn't abundantly clear
More desperate excuses Anyway, if what you said above is remotely true, where would you put the FC Copenhagen midfielders, who owned Carrick too?I didn't overlook anything. You basically claimed Villa can beat Lyon over two legs. A side that has over 6 years of champions league and trophy winning experience as compared to Villa. You were just plain disrespecting Lyon. Stop pretending that like you were doing anything else. If that wasn't your intention learn to stop bring up these ridiculous 'possible" scenarios of yours. It's incessantly annoying and irrelevant to what is being discussed. What you were saying is the same as someone coming up with the statement "it's not beyond the realms of possibility for Derby County to beat United". It's totally a "So the feck what? statement. Who fecking cares? Especially when the chances are minimal?We can easily know. He performed very well against Milan, a side United also played, over two legs, in a side also decimated by injuries, also having a make shift backline, with wingers playing in defence. The circumstances in our match existed win his. Only he was in a much inferior team. So to pretend we wouldn't know how he would do in a United team, in similar circumstances, is baseless pretense.
Because I'm not speculating baselessly. I'm deducting results from two identical and practical situations that occurred. While you are jumping to conclusions via hypothetical situations. I hope this helps
That's fecking obvious. No has been doing that. What people have been doing however is claiming one player is superior to another, based on what they've done since arriving at a club, when the one who is allegedly "superior, has completed a whole season at the club, and the newer one hasn't. Yet they the want to discount everything done the newer one has done in his career previously. As if you can discount that in an argument on superiority. As if what player like Schevhenko has achieved n his career before arriving in England can ever be irrelevant in a discussion on superiority.
Actually I don't. I'm not the one lying that we didn't have the same aims as Arsenal did when we faced Milan at the San Siro.
Unforced error my arse
. Kaka was allowed to run at them. By the midfield, especially Carrick failing to do their jobs! That can't be an unforced error. Unforced errors are only errors in which no one else has contributed to the situation. Like Roy Carroll's blunder vs Milan and Giggs miss in the FA cup against Arsenal some years back. All the goals we conceded vs Milan came due to our midfield's defensive department not doing enough to protect our back four from men like Kaka running at them to it's incessant failure to relieve the pressure Milan was applying on it at the San Siro. Yes. That is why we were walloped 3-0 now and 1-0 then.
Except that Milan fans generally regard those matches against us as the best they've played for a few years, particularly Kaka. Their version of what we did to Roma, if you like. Just about everything they touched worked perfectly.
Hargreaves would've done better than what Carrick did. Carrick and Scholes in a 4-4-2 against one of the best midfields in the world, while having no real defence behind them and tired attacking players ahead of them while the opposition are fully fit and hungry...it was never going to work. But Hargreaves by himself wouldn't have been able to completely change that. The only two man combo that would've had a chance would've been Hargreaves and Anderson.
It was not a 4-4-2. Fletcher played alongside Carrick and Scholes in a 3 man midfield. Anyway, the reason why we were poor is because of the low workrate and lack of pace from both Carrick and Scholes. The best midfield in the world was dominated by Fabregas and Flamini this week. They out ran (by more than 1.5 km each, based on uefa stats), out played and out passed Milan because of their workrate. Sitting back and spraying passes over a slow/shite Bolton defence would work in the league for us but not against the better teams in Europe.
Did Arsenal whinge about not having their first choice defender Toure or striker RVP ? Is Senderos much better than OShea ? Their midfield played well enough to cover for those players who were missing whereas ours allowed the weak links to be exposed against the best player in the world.
Hehe, it seems that Milan game has scarred some people for life. Chief, how many times have you watched the Milan game?
Anyway Milan played so much better against us than they did against Arsenal.
Anyway Milan played so much better against us than they did against Arsenal.
- Status