It sure helps when they haven't got a makeshift defence against Milan, hargreaves or not
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
It sure helps when they haven't got a makeshift defence against Milan, hargreaves or not
No, no, NO!!! 
If we HAD HARGREAVES instead of Carrick WE WOULD HAVE WON!
If we HAD HARGREAVES instead of Carrick WE WOULD HAVE WON!
No Milan weren't as good as the scoreline suggested that night. We were simply awful, as awful as we were against Citeh a few weeks ago.
Ronaldo tried to show everyone that he could do the stepovers, got pressed by Gattuso and co and surrendered like a little girl. The rest of the team was just immobile, scared, comical and gave up.
feckin hell is this thread going to go over 2000 posts?
"You're not the only one I've 'accused' of misrepresenting the chief's posts and corrected"
Right, so it's taken you less than one sentence to show that my point has completely floated over your head then. Apparently the Chief is immune from your tiresome rants, and in fact you're purposely defending him, by accusing other people of something he is just as guilty of.
No, nothing hypocritical or dishonest about that is there, you daft twat.
Yes, because I certainly wasn't joking, or being in any way not entirely serious, when I made reference to a giant robotic Roy Keane. You're right
Except if you're going to start getting all serious, and accusing people of stupid things, such as being a hypocrite, and intellectually dishonest, you'd better make sure doing so doesn't land you in the exact same position.
But I thought you just said "That does not oblige me to trawl through every post on the cafe looking to make the same points"?
Make up your mind
So cut out the insults please.
Er...
Another day, another post in the Hargreaves sub forum...
They never owned Carrick, they just got a lucky goal and we failed to score. But [/B, if you claim that they owned Carrick, you'd also have to say they owned the the likes of Ronaldo, Rooney, Scholes, Rio etc, so does that make them shit too ?
They never owned Carrick, they just got a lucky goal and we failed to score. But [/B, if you claim that they owned Carrick, you'd also have to say they owned the the likes of Ronaldo, Rooney, Scholes, Rio etc, so does that make them shit too ?
Fairly typical retreat there!
Noods Keano remark wasn't the only bit of his post though was it? We had the obligatory insult (hail) to the chief plus the 'thinnest argument' line which was my lead item in my reply. It happened to be the most obvious one of a sequence of misrepresentations that I noticed at a time when I turned to this thread. As I said above, I don't have any issues with Noods.
All these lies about what the chief was saying stopped most people from being able to work out whether he had a decent point unless they were willing to go back and check his originals.
I don't really think that examining the argument that someone advances for their position and criticising it where it is faulty is really that condescending (especially when people are being intellectully dishonest) - you obviously do - sorry.
The point is that the thread's fifty-odd pages long, plus the Chief and others have posted on this subject many times before this thread, all of which contribute to other posters' understanding of their opinions. That means it's not amenable to the kind of legalistic, forensic analysis you're doing, unless we really want to trawl through hundreds and hundreds of very similar posts, which we don't. I'm fairly sure you're wrong about what the Chief does and doesn't think about Carrick and the Milan match, but even I, who have wasted five years on this site, am not about to traipse through reams of threads to prove it. If that sounds weak, or like I'm backtracking, so be it, I really don't think it's important.
Notice I say, "I'm fairly sure you're wrong" - not "you're lying". When people mangle or caricature each other's arguments on the Caf, only someone radically misunderstanding the nature of this kind of conversation would call it lying. That's just hysterical.
It's probably been done before but as someone who's not read this thread can I get a quick summary?
RICTR things Hargreaves is the dogs bollocks and Carrick can't defend and the Milan games prove this even though both their teams got knocked out by them
Instant Karma continues to hate everything United that was raised in England, he loves Hargreaves, hates everyone else.
The rest is the normal from Hargreaves is shite (me), to Hargreaves is good but not done it yet for United, to Hargreaves is exactly what we need and he's been great this season.
Instant Karma continues to hate everything United that was raised in England, he loves Hargreaves, hates everyone else.
The rest is the normal from Hargreaves is shite (me), to Hargreaves is good but not done it yet for United, to Hargreaves is exactly what we need and he's been great this season.
Welcome to the Hargreaves sub forum....
The Chief and IK basically think that Hargreaves is great and has not been poor this season. They also think that had Hargreaves played against Milan last season, we would have won. The Chief doesn't hate Carrick, while IK does, claiming that he played no part in last seasons title win, and that we would have won it with Djemba x2 playing
Oh yeah, he also thinks that Rooney is the white Heskey! I am a Carrick fan, but in no way hate Hargreaves. I think he's been average this season, and very much doubt he'll get better or turn into a good signing, and I've simply pointed that out. But apparently this constitutes as despising Hargreaves.
Wes, Noodle, Plech, Lizard and a few others hate Hargreaves because, to put it simply, they think he is shit.
Instant Karma sounds like the chief's even more mental older brother, well thanks for the summaries, I'm going to go read his posts.
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.
I wasn't disrespecting Lyon. They're a good side, easily the best side we could've drawn in the second round. They are also not the team they have been in years gone by as the big clubs have cherry picked there best players. We don't know if Villa could beat Lyon as they haven't met, just like we don't know whether Lyon are a better team currently than Villa for that very same reason. I was stating that I believe they could beat them over two legs.
You are spectating baselessly on the Hargreaves v Milan issue as it is not an identical situation. No two games are identical. Regardless of whether the same team is involved. Hargreaves could've had an inspired game against Milan and we may have won. He could just as easily have a shit game and the result may have remained the same.
Oh and you have plenty of previos for the make believe
Hargreaves was instrumental in the group stage.
We beat Valencia away from home.
We beat Celtic away form home.
Bordeaux won the UEFA cup.
I see you're still avoiding the question I asked you about Hargreaves.
It's a refutation of Heraclitus: "You cannot step into the same river twice".
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.
Er, the only person I can see who's accused anyone else of 'back-tracking' and being a hypocrite is Feedingseagulls.
Aside from Wes, who called me a hypocrite at one point due to not realising I was doing a little parody of FS.
Shit, does that make me a hypocrite for saying that you hadn't called anyone a hypocrite?
This could be bigger than anyone imagined...
This could be bigger than anyone imagined...
Worse, it could mean you've been intellectually dishonest
We might have to close down the caf
We might have to close down the caf
In fairness, that would be a mercy
Funny thread. I side with the Chief, IK and other damned ones.
Too right. Everyone else is a lying hypocrite using Machiavellian ruses to dupe the innocent public.
Vote Carrick
this thread has gone mad can there really be that much to say about hargreaves
Vote Obama
Vote Nader
there, i said it.
Let them believe that. The reality is different though.
1. Hargreaves would have done better than Carrick individually. But alongside a Fletcher our midfield would have still been dead. Carrick and Hargreaves as a combo would have been ideal that night.,
2. We didn't play 4-42. We played 4-3-3 that night.
3. I agree the best possible combo would be a Hargreaves-Anderson if your going 4-4-2. But in a 4-3-3, I believe Milan would never have succeeded against us if they had to get through a shield of Carrick and Hargreaves. which would have ensured Scholes would never have got isolated, on top of ensuring our midfield was closer to our 3 forwards.
I reckon they'd have fecked us over with Carrick and Hargreaves in midfield, simply because it's not a very good combination.
yeah, Giggs/Anderson/Tevez just ahead of it would be alright, though.
Talking about the Milan games, its hard to forget how bad Giggs was that night, he was the worst player on the field, feckin shocking. That had an impact too y'know.
Because Arsenal made them look bad. Because they had the right players to. We didn't.
I'm glad you realise how stupid that statement was. Having Carrick alone would have been just as bad as having Hargreaves alone. We' have had better cover for the defence but no balance in midfield with only one creative central player. Bottom line. Carrick-Hargreaves as a combo behind Scholes would have saved us that day.No, no, NO!!!
If we HAD HARGREAVES instead of Carrick WE WOULD HAVE WON!
Mods please close this feckin thread
Milan were much better last season, especially Kaka, and Seedorf who was out, the tie would have been a lot different if Rio and Vidic would have been healthy for it
No. Because being owned by some one doesn't make you shit. Which you clearly think is the case. That is why you brought up your Convey myth again.
I don't think it's the case at all, I was asking if you do.
And my Convey myth isn't a myth. He's been shit all season, apart from that match, where he was pretty good, just ask any Reading fan.
Yes it does, moron. You weren't even 5 years old when Hargreaves was making a name for himself at Bayern. So where do you get off saying "I doubt he can get much better or turn into a good signing".Welcome to the Hargreaves sub forum....
The Chief and IK basically think that Hargreaves is great and has not been poor this season. They also think that had Hargreaves played against Milan last season, we would have won. The Chief doesn't hate Carrick, while IK does, claiming that he played no part in last seasons title win, and that we would have won it with Djemba x2 playing
I am a Carrick fan, but in no way hate Hargreaves. I think he's been average this season, and very much doubt he'll get better or turn into a good signing, and I've simply pointed that out. But apparently this constitutes as despising Hargreaves.
Your basing that opinion on what?Yes it does, moron. You weren't even 5 years old when Hargreaves was making a name for himself at Bayern. So where do you get off saying "I doubt he can get much better or turn into a good signing".
Errrm, on what I've seen of him.
To say I despise him is a fecking stupid comment to make, as I don't. If I did, I wouldn't be saying that I hope he succeeds.
Rio and Vidic don't play in midfield. the department in which we were over run. A fate Arsenal didn't share with us. The only thing Milan missed this time was Seedorf's steadying influence. But they were basically the same side that shitted all over us last time. . Only difference being Arsenal owned them like we couldn't. .I don't give a shit if he was good. Your claim he owned Hargreaves is the myth. He never did. He as good but Hargreaves was better.
- Status