Substitutions don't necessarily mean that a player performed poorly. It could've been tactical, since Carrick is more likely to open up defences with his passing. If the score had been 1-0 or 1-1, Hargreaves would have possibly stayed on.
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Substitutions don't necessarily mean that a player performed poorly. It could've been tactical, since Carrick is more likely to open up defences with his passing. If the score had been 1-0 or 1-1, Hargreaves would have possibly stayed on.
Rooney wasn't in that team, was he also the worst player in our starting XI last season ?
I don't constantly bash Hargreaves, after last year against Milan I was crying out for him or his ilk, but I just don't think he's very good at the advertised job.. . and I'm aware of what it is thanks.
because he's worth more than that, in fact, Roma refused an offer of similar amount from Madrid in the summer, also inflation has been a factor, espcially when you see hargraeves' price.
Not at all. Gerrard was just the more fashionable choice. He always is.
If he was the worst, which I don't think is fair, then he was the worst of an outstanding bunch.
Yes. Though I would like to see the compromise set-up mooted on here a few times - start Tevez, with Anderson playing in Giggs' role.
I know, either he just gets collared, or he somehow manages to control it and then has no-one to pass it to and gets collared.
Also, you make out as though the Premier League's Team of the Season award is the objective standard. Just because that says Carrick was not in the best 11 players, it does not make it true.
This I pretty much agree with.
He's not Mascherano or De Rossi. They both have quality on the ball as well as when competing for it and shielding the defense. Mascherano for example can play in a midfield 2 because he has very good passing and De Rossi can pass well and score some great long range efforts too.
Hargreaves is more like Gattuso. But we are nothing like Milan. Even when we play 5 in midfield we're nothing like Milan. So it doesn't work for us having a player a bit like Gattuso because we lack everything else that makes him work.
Again Hargreaves played okay today. He's just not the best of players we could have bought to do his job in the summer.
Hargreaves is more like Gattuso. But we are nothing like Milan. Even when we play 5 in midfield we're nothing like Milan. So it doesn't work for us having a player a bit like Gattuso because we lack everything else that makes him work.
Again Hargreaves played okay today. He's just not the best of players we could have bought to do his job in the summer.
Yes but if Carrick is better at opening teams up and Hargreaves place on the pitch didn't make us as solid as we'd like and we ended up one down then what's your argument exactly? Surely we can't always take him off of we go a goal down?
well, those factors didn't stop Carrick from settling in fast and very nicely in his first season, did they?
Rooney wasnt in the team and he was far more influential in us winning the title than Carrick.
Every title winning side can carry one or two passengers if the others are brilliant. Every other starter on our team was the best in the league for their positions. We would have won the title with Fletch or OShea in midfield beside Scholes. Infact Fletch, OShea and Park's goals won us more points than Carrick did.
agreed
Hargreaves reminds me of Ralph Milne.
Yes Chief, that's have long I've been watching football.
Was Carrick coming off of a broken leg that limited him to just a few appearances the season before?
I honestly don't know the answer so please tell me /nod.
I felt the team we had at the end was the right one to start this match. 4-4-2 with Carrick and Anderson in midfield and Nani on the left. Maybe even play Hargreaves instead of Brown at RB. Lyon's weakness is defending and we should have made the most of it but instead we took a pragmatic approach, which could have really put us in a tough position.
Don't give me generally. Tonight there was nothing wrong with ouf flow or attack. We were simply not clincal enough. When Tevez came on he did what Rooney and co had failed to do. He finished a clear chance.
That matters little. Carrick after the Arsenal peformance should have started ahead of him. That is what people shoud be complaining about rather than about Hargreaves who did his job.
So it never occorued to you that Juninho did nothing BECCAUSE of Hargreaves??!
Like he did last season vs the likes of Bodmer, Makoun, the Celtic CM's and the might Copenhagen central midfield away from home in Europe last season.
hargreaves was poor tonight. he was slow and off the pace - just before benzema scored i was shouting at the tv, because he made little effort to get stuck in and make an effort.
his passing was poor (apart from the 1-2!), and he just didnt seem on his game.
sometimes i wonder during games which is the better of the two evils-carrick or hargreaves. i'd rather have carrick in there to be honest.........
his passing was poor (apart from the 1-2!), and he just didnt seem on his game.
sometimes i wonder during games which is the better of the two evils-carrick or hargreaves. i'd rather have carrick in there to be honest.........
Carrick had the advantage of playing alongside an in-form Scholes from pretty much start to finish. Hargreaves on the other hand hasn't had that continuity. IIRC, Carrick had a few so-so performances before he settled in and was playing at his best.
That said, different players can take a different amount of time to settle in. This is still Hargreaves' first season. In my opinion, it's too early to start saying whether he's good enough for United or not.
You didn't mention the Milan game..Carrick is a better player than Hargreaves, that should be obvious now.
About 3. Due to us being way ward with shooting in dangerous areas. When 2 more clinical fellows came on they forced a great save and two goals. 1 offside and one that counted. Which says it all.
Even if it worked, It still wouldn't have to involve Hargreaves.
I'd like to see us show some guts and take the game to someone, without needing to be a goal down before it happens.
Maybe that's also why I dislike Hargreaves. He's a symbolism of everything I disagree with about how Manchester United should play, but, there's also the fact that he's rubbish at football. If we're going to insist on playing that way, there's better players to use. He's pointless
and I sort of wish we hadn't scored that equalizer. You know what's going to happen in the second leg now...
This is a very weak point, especially when you bring the team of the year into it. This is the team of the year that showed Gerrard to be superior to Essien and Carvalho inferior to Vidic. I must add that i'm not knocking Vidic here, Carvalho was just brilliant.
We were incredible last year, and even the weakest players in our starting eleven were excellent. To put it simply, we would not have won the league without him; he was absolutely integral to our league success. It sounds bizarre but i think you have to be at the games to appreciate what Carrick does. Surely his passing ability and composure is there for all to see, though?
not that I know of, but hargreaves has a habit of being injured quite often for your info.
Bullshit. We play a lot better with Carrick in midfield than O'Shea. Carrick's performed quite well since he's been here, and he is more than just a passenger. Looking only at goals and assists doesn't give you the whole picture.
was ralph the most unglamorous footballer ever or is he just covered in that late 80's cloud of malaise?
I remember him having more than just a few appearances for Spurs. Maybe you're thinking of the season before?
It wouldn't have to involve Hargreaves, no, but if he's so keen to play Hargreaves, I don't really care, as long as we have two strikers and can pass the ball.
9 out of 10 times we play one up front, the players can't find each other and we're predictable and uncreative. We shouldn't play it.
Don't give me generally. Tonight there was nothing wrong with ouf flow or attack. We were simply not clincal enough. When Tevez came on he did what Rooney and co had failed to do. He finished a clear chance.
That matters little. Carrick after the Arsenal peformance should have started ahead of him. That is what people shoud be complaining about rather than about Hargreaves who did his job.
??!
Like he did last season vs the likes of Bodmer, Makoun, the Celtic CM's and the might Copenhagen central midfield away from home in Europe last season.
Why are you being such a condescending tosser? There's no need for the constant stream of
's.Juninho did nothing, because he is not actually that good. Certainly not to the extent that we should deploy a specialist anchor.
Where were all the chances then? Face it, we had the one Rooney chance. Coupet makes a brave stop. There were not that many chances and I certainly would not complain that we were profligate in front of goal.
Copenhagen - did the whole team not play badly?
Celtic - dominated the game. Saha misses two guilt edged chances. Nakamura scores a belter. Carrick's fault.
Lille - we won that game. Sell Carrick.
it's a bit difficult to have continuity with playing with the same partners, when you're generally injured half of the season (his record with Bayern).
That matters little. Carrick after the Arsenal peformance should have started ahead of him. That is what people shoud be complaining about rather than about Hargreaves who did his job.
??!
Like he did last season vs the likes of Bodmer, Makoun, the Celtic CM's and the might Copenhagen central midfield away from home in Europe last season.
torn rubber: you are talkin shit, tevez played great when he came on, but i thought rooney done well on his own up front. tevez wouldnt have done any better alone up front.
we looked better at our favourite 442, when rooney had someone with him up front.
i'm baffled why we continue to play 451 away in europe when we are (9 times out of time) the better team. we need to start playing to our strengths.....
How on fecking earth can you claim that his passing was poor when he only had one or two misplaced passes? So many Hargreaves haters FFS. What's worse is that they don't have a strong reason to bash him.
3 chances in 70 odd minutes, thats appalling
Nail meets head
I can only remember us having one 'clear chance' and that was Rooney's. Scholes had a decent chance (hardly a poor finish though, just a good block). Can't remember much else?
You keep insisting we were very unlucky not to win 2-0 or 3-0. I think a draw was a fair result, neither team creating much in way of chances. I've mentioned ours, they had Benzema's shot that went just over, a good Juninho free kick and Rio's moment of madness.
if his injury prevented him from playing again as well as he's ever had, he'd have retired or Fergie wouldn't have wasted so much money on him
exactly , what sort of world class midfielder has to come off to be replaced by another central midfielder because we go a goal down?
For me, there is a clear distinction. If you prefer Carrick then you prefer good, aesthetically pleasing football. If you prefer Hargreaves then you would probably find the dross served up by Chelsea and Liverpool more pleasing.
He is more composed on the ball and a better passer than Hargreaves. He also does nothing when we dont have the ball, was mostly poor away from OT in the league (except the odd game or two against the likes of Bolton) and was woeful away from OT in Europe.
- Status