Well, for example, he was better than Anderson today, who wasted everything.
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Think you've got it spot on mate. Scholes had a poor game besides a couple of decent touches.
Also I felt Scholes should have been taken off, not Tevez (has the ability to score important goals) or Hargreaves. Didn't feel we needed Carrick. In
He's simply a defender playing in midfield, and he's good at what he does. The question is: does the added defensive bonus weigh up for what we subsequently lack going forward?
If we played 10 defenders, and drew every game 0-0 without a shot on goal at either end, you could argue that every player did well since they only did their 'job' But Manchester united as a team would be far worse off. Hargreaves does his job well, but we still look like a poorer side with him on the pitch. At least so far.
Edit: we clearly deserved to win today, though.
If we played 10 defenders, and drew every game 0-0 without a shot on goal at either end, you could argue that every player did well since they only did their 'job' But Manchester united as a team would be far worse off. Hargreaves does his job well, but we still look like a poorer side with him on the pitch. At least so far.
Edit: we clearly deserved to win today, though.
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
Not sure who's saying its his fault we lost?
Just pointing out what would be a damning fact. And proof that we're more likely to lose with him in the side.
You're entirely correct, Scholes was rubbish again and was invisible for large parts of the game and yes we did have most of the ball. Though that would have been the case with Carrick playing next to Scholes too.
Exactly, I thought Hargreaves did well in the first half, but Pompey played so negative they never even tried to control the midfield. Second half he was bollox, couldn't pass for shit and even got burned a few times.
He limited both the opposition and our OWN attacks. Not his fault but with him on the pitch our attack was not as fluid.
He was alright, I would have kept him on instead of Scholes who was our worst player today.
Passing is to Owen Hargreaves what reading comprehension is to WesBrownIsAGod.
To re-reclarify. Nobody is blaming him. (Im not anyway) But if he's started all but one of our defeats it clearly shows we're more likely to lose with him in the side... Which considering his position and role for the team is counter productive.
I though Hargreaves was shit today. Everytime the ball came anywhere near him he trapped it ten yards. That game was crying out for Carrick early on. Hargreaves can't play the subtle pass that you need to break down defences like that.
I honestly believe he is quite poor, I was frustrated with him on so many occassions today....I have been critical of him since he joined but am trying to give him a chance in my eyes...I don't understand what he offers that another player (i.e. Carrick) does not...
hargreaves was good today. I'm gonna get stick for this but scholes was horrendous today. Scholes should've come off instead of hargreaves for anderson.
Is it also Hargreaves fault that Rooney cant finish a simple one on one against James ? Or that Tevez's final balls were woeful ? He had so many chances to put the likes of Evra, Rooney and Ronaldo through. He either held on to the ball to give away possession or mis hit the through balls.
We had good chances to kill the game off in spite of Scholes being invisible. It was a one man midfield in the first half and yet we dominated Pompey.
But lets continue to blame Hargreaves when our strikers were shite and Scholes was woeful.
Carrick fecking HAS to start
no question at all....he is 10 times the player Hargo is...
Hargreaves isn't as good as Carrick at passing, but he's hardly horrendous.
He was in the top three players today.
He was in the top three players today.
sure he is
Scholes/Hargreaves. In this partnership Hargreaves is the more defensive player and it was Hargreaves who actually did well in this match and did his "job" so to speak. Scholes just seemed like he was just "there" did enough to receive the ball and pass it sidewards without anything really creative at all. Due to Scholes not having the pace and power to cope with a midfield trio closing him down, he was restricted to side wards passing etc. OK, Hargreaves was doing sidewards passing etc too but he was actually battling in the midfield because he had the pace and power to do so and on top did his defensive work well. Scholes couldn't help him out at all in that respect and offered the team nothing creatively going forward. Obviously, maybe we couldn't have seen this before but Anderson would've been certainly more dynamic, able to compete with Portsmouth's midfield and also supply creativity because he can stand people closing him down, simply because he has the pace and power to drive on and counter it.
Despite that, we created chances and were poor in the final third. We should have had a penalty and gone on to win the match but the referee was an absolute joke. We couldn't finish our chances and the referee was shit, now it's not 100% the referee's blame but he fecked up the big decision and that today was the difference.
Despite that, we created chances and were poor in the final third. We should have had a penalty and gone on to win the match but the referee was an absolute joke. We couldn't finish our chances and the referee was shit, now it's not 100% the referee's blame but he fecked up the big decision and that today was the difference.
Anyone else notice how we suddenly got miles better when Hargreaves went off?
We'd probably have been about 4-0 up at that stage if we'd played like that all game.
He shouldn't play. Ever
We'd probably have been about 4-0 up at that stage if we'd played like that all game.
He shouldn't play. Ever
Question is: why does Scholes look so poor when he's playing along side Hargreaves? Last time we met Pompey at home (not that long ago), Scholes partnered Carrick in midfield and both were absolutely outstanding - especially Scholes. We simply ripped them to shreds in that game.
The thing is: Hargreaves can be playing well, but he might still reduce the overall performance of the team. If you define Hargreaves' role as a defending midfielder (which most seem to do), you might say all he needs to do is win the ball back and harass the opposition for him to play well. But I still think we're better off with someone who does a bit more than that in midfield.
Apart from the Carrick chance, your talkin out of you arse.
All valid points.
But again, all but one of our defeats have had Hargreaves start as far as I'm aware. That's a pretty damning stat, wouldn't you say?
When its 2 or 3 matches you can brush it off. But now its quite a few matches - obviously its just not working. Whether its a case of Hargreaves being the worst player on the pitch each time is not always the most important thing. Sometimes types of players just dont fit into the team and when they are played its detrimental to the chances of that team winning a match and so far this season Hargreaves has been a square peg in a round hole.
I thought Anderson played some of his best football this season alongside Hargreaves. Who knows. The only midfielder in our team that can still perform no matter who his partner is, is Carrick.
howwww?
Or the three or four other really good chances we had during the same short spell, after creating next to nothing all game previously
As much as OH has been criticized on here, I have to play the devil's advocate, would there have been a penalty on baros if hargo had been in the game, I doubt it
Hargreaves was no worse than anyone else out there today.
This thread is just people looking for scapegoats.
This thread is just people looking for scapegoats.
Crap. Scholes was twenty times worse than him.
Agree
Though it's also because he just isn't very good.
If Liverpool had signed him, and then persisted with selecting him ahead of people like Alonso, we'd all be having a right laugh
we created numerous chances in the first half when hargreaves was playing.
Hargreaves was okay today nothing more nothing less.
He just isnt needed for this type of games tough,i can accept that he i very useful for away ties in europe and against the top sides in the league but i just can´t see what the fecking point is to play him against pompey at home.
He just isnt needed for this type of games tough,i can accept that he i very useful for away ties in europe and against the top sides in the league but i just can´t see what the fecking point is to play him against pompey at home.
how bout you explain how carrick is ten times better than hargreaves?
We had one chance, and a penalty claim
Numerous, providing that you can't count to two
Without him we'd have been completly overran. Hargreaves competed well, and allowed us to have most of the ball. I'm certainly not on the Hargreaves lovers side of this argument, but i'm not a biased twat neither, he was good today, better than most.
When we have the ball he offer's nothing,however as someone will point out I'm sure his job is to stop the opposition and to be fair he didn't do his job too badly today. The selection of hargreaves wasn't necessary today against weaker oppositon but thats hardly his fault
Because he'd have been in goal?
Hargreaves let other players run past him today with the ball, its simply irrational to say that if Hargreaves had been playing there's no way the attack would have happened.
So without Hargreaves, we wouldn't have had enough of the ball, at home to a Portsmouth side who weren't even competing for it?
Have you watched any of our home games for about the last two and a half years?
We could have played O'Shea and Eagles in the middle and still had most of the ball
Even if Scholes had a horrible game with Carrick next to him you wouldn't miss his passing so much
No because Hargreaves would have been the one who was defending rather than either Anderson or Rooney. As much as you dislike Hargreaves you have to admit he is better defensively than either Rooney or Anderson.
We played without him the last time we played Portsmouth at home, and ripped them to pieces.
- Status