50 Pages!
Get In There!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get In There!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
50 Pages!
Get In There!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well at least he's managed some kind of accolade this season.
So you can read my posts? Am I to assume then that you have simply chosen to ignore my question regarding Owen Hargreaves?
more of this,
there's no point in debating with the likes of RICTR, he's his mind made up, don't listen to any of his shite Sam, he's stupid or a very long-term WUM.
there's no point in debating with the likes of RICTR, he's his mind made up, don't listen to any of his shite Sam, he's stupid or a very long-term WUM.
I couldn't care less what he thinks. That's why I've given up even attempting to be civil towards him.
Seems to me he's been sidestepping you for a while since you've been systematically asking him hard questions that he can't really answer. Then you had to blow your cred over Jessica.
You're going to have to go through all fifty pages of this thread, commenting on ANY post which you find to be intellectualy dishonest.After you've done that, I'll have grounds to retract my entirely serious personal attack on your character.
and no, it's not that important to me, but it is to you, it seems
I seriously don't remember dodging a single question of yours on Hargreaves. If you insist I did. Ask it again and I'll give you your answer right now.
I have not side stepped a single thing in this thread. But I've had to put up with the likes of you inventing out of thine air things I've said or done constantly.
Damn it. I knew I should've went for someone else.
When you pointed out that playing Hargreaves against Lyon would be pointless as we needed more attack minded players at home I asked does that mean that Hargreaves limits our attacking options? And if so, why did you get so defensive when all many people have has done is point that very thing out?
No. It only means we have better attacking options available. So we should use them instead.
To emphasize this point more, for example, if you had Zidane and Scholes as options to play alongside Keane in midfield. If you left out Scholes, would it be because he limits your attacking options? OR simply because Zidane is simply the better attacking option?
is he so, the worst midfielder attack-wise that we have, except for John O'Shea?
So he does limit our attacking options in comparison to what we have available. Why did you get so defensive when people said that then?
If Zidane is better attacking than Paul Scholes then yes it would limit our attacking options, although obviously not as much as if those weren't the two players used. That's a terrible example to give by the way.
Because people don't say he reduces our options going forward in comparison to others. They repeatedly say instead that he offers us absolutely nothing going forward in comparison to others. Which is what limiting is.
I don't agree. You'd still attack well with him there instead of Zidane.. Claiming he would be limiting means he would hinder you. Which is a false notion
It isn't. It emphasizes my point. Which is just because someone doesn't offer as much as another, doesn't mean he would hinder you. You are just choosing the better option available for the task at hand.
On another note do you believe Fletcher adds more to our attacking game than Hargreaves?
It practically is. I can restrict you by being in your away or delaying your progress.
Agreed.
I do. Fletcher plays for Scotland as their play maker. Hargreaves doesn't possess such capabilities. In actually fact as a player Fletcher is a cross between Carrick and Hargreaves.
Well, a bit of truth at last.
Here, I like Hargreaves, he gives us great energy all over the pitch, and is that extra aggression that we lack at times. His speed is, as well, feckin superb, he just hasn't done GREAT in his first season, and hasn't really done any better than any of our other players. Maybe a preseason with us, and a settling in period is all he needs, but he certainly does have to pick it up a bit for me to really want him in the side on a regular basis.
As i've said before, him, Carrick and Anderson would be a great midfield, with literally everything, and i really hope to see that one tested out soon, I also think he'll be at his best alongside Carrick, in the long run, though that particular partnership hasn't blossomed as yet.
I look forward to seeing the lad play better, as he surely can, and will continue to rate his performances.
Here, I like Hargreaves, he gives us great energy all over the pitch, and is that extra aggression that we lack at times. His speed is, as well, feckin superb, he just hasn't done GREAT in his first season, and hasn't really done any better than any of our other players. Maybe a preseason with us, and a settling in period is all he needs, but he certainly does have to pick it up a bit for me to really want him in the side on a regular basis.
As i've said before, him, Carrick and Anderson would be a great midfield, with literally everything, and i really hope to see that one tested out soon, I also think he'll be at his best alongside Carrick, in the long run, though that particular partnership hasn't blossomed as yet.
I look forward to seeing the lad play better, as he surely can, and will continue to rate his performances.
He is far better at getting forward, Hargreaves has a good shot and delivers the ball pretty well on freekicks but tends to stay so deep that he offers little going forward especially considering his long range passing is less than superb
A waste of space (again) today
Nah, you're being hindered by your dislike for him.
He's playing a useful role. Our defensive unit has been very good and he has got ball out regularly and quickly each time.
Problem is movement in midfield. Scholes attacking game out of sorts. If anything I would replace Scholes with Carrick or Anderson.
You clearly haven't been watching the match. Or you lack a brain.
He isnt needed today.
Against a side that are going to sit back and hit us on the counter? I'd say a holding, taclking MF is exactly whats needed....
At last, someone who actually understands the tactical nuances of football!! Its not hard to understand!
most likely the latter
He has been good in all facets of the game, except for his passing but it really shows when we are used to having someone like Carrick in their who can hit anybody anywhere on the field, Scholes does seem to be able to play farther forward with him in the lineup though
If you actually look at it Hargreaves had started all our attacks. I reckon he has been decent. He has mopped everything up 40 yards from goal and plays the ball to Nani, Ronaldo and Scholes. He has played well.
Hargreaves looks good today
he wasn't fecking needed today should of started anderson/carrick over him.
Another Hargreaves start another defeat. He wasn't too bad today most of the time, but still had his spastic moments letting players run past him with ease. ie Diarra. Yes Hargreaves was okay on the ball today, but when the competition is Carrick and Anderson you have to say he was nowhere near their level and never has been coming forwards.
What is it, all but 1 of our defeats Hargreaves has started? That would be a pretty damning stat.
What is it, all but 1 of our defeats Hargreaves has started? That would be a pretty damning stat.
He was decent enough today, good aggression, he was up for the battle.
Scholes was feckin Miller-esq today though, barely touched the feckin thing.
Scholes was feckin Miller-esq today though, barely touched the feckin thing.
eh... hadnt he been taken off by the time we conceeded? How the feck is that his fault?
Not scoring at home is shite but Hargreaves can hardly be blamed when we had Scholes, Rooney, Tevez, Nani & Ronaldo on the pitch ffs!
Not scoring at home is shite but Hargreaves can hardly be blamed when we had Scholes, Rooney, Tevez, Nani & Ronaldo on the pitch ffs!
Once again Scholes goes missing against a midfield that closes down quickly and has pace. He was far worse than Hargreaves was and did feck all.
Our main striker cant finish sitters to save his life.
We had all the possession in the first half and dominated Pompey. We concede the kind of goal on the counter that someone like Hargreaves would have actually prevented. Yet it was Hargreaves fault that we lost
Our main striker cant finish sitters to save his life.
We had all the possession in the first half and dominated Pompey. We concede the kind of goal on the counter that someone like Hargreaves would have actually prevented. Yet it was Hargreaves fault that we lost
It was Hargreaves fault Anderson didn't deal with James' long ball.
- Status