Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic

Status
Not open for further replies.
Instant Karma said:
Thats like saying Rooney and Tevez place all the burden of scoring goals on one player. If that player has an off day the team's fecked. Maybe Rooney and Tevez arent good enough for United either :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
They can both do everything so that doesn't really work as an argument does it?

There will be a better attacker and a better defender in midfield, no two players are exactly alike, but there is a minimum standard you'd demand, Hargreaves passing does not meet the minimum standard.
 
Godfather said:
I second that one. Still hargreaves isnt worth that amount of money...NEVER!
Click to expand...

Of course, but we can't deny the fact that the English market has over inflated prices.
 
AttackingFlair said:
It's not Hargreaves' job to be creative, end of story. Scholes didn't do his job. Even then, blame should be put on our forwards (and ref) rather than the midfield.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me what his job actually is in a two man midfield then? I'm a bit lost

WesBrownIsAGod said:
His passing isn't as bad as all that.
Click to expand...

He usually finds a team mate, but then so could I if I fecked about with the ball and then turned around and passed it to my defence every single time.

He can't pass, and even if he can, his touch isn't good enough to allow him the opportunity.
 
I think we need to accept we do not seem to have a top class central midfielder no matter who we pick. They are all poor for various reasons. It is a sad fact to contemplate given the money we have spent but Darren Fletcher is probably our most in-form, hungriest and effective option for the next game.
 
Mozza said:
Hargreaves puts the burden of passing solely on one player, and if that player has an off day that's the team fecked, it's not his fault that his team mate was rubbish, it is his fault that he can' pass, he shouldn't be here.
Click to expand...

You have a point there. That's why I've said all along that Hargreaves is best suited to a three man midfield where he plays the anchor role to very good effect. Don't expect him to produce any incisive passes though - it simply is not in his fairly limited repertoire. It was quite reasonable for Fergie to have selected a two man central midfield for this game but Carrick would have been the better choice alongside Scholes.
 
Julian Denny said:
You have a point there. That's why I've said all along that Hargreaves is best suited to a three man midfield where he plays the anchor role to very good effect. Don't expect him to produce any incisive passes though - it simply is not in his fairly limited repertoire. It was quite reasonable for Fergie to have selected a two man central midfield for this game but Carrick would have been the better choice alongside Scholes.
Click to expand...

I think a 4-3-3 with Anderson-Carrcick-Hargreaves in in the future
 
Mozza said:
They can both do everything so that doesn't really work as an argument does it?
Click to expand...

Does everything mean everything other than score goals regularly ?
Our main striker has 13 goals to his name after most of the season has gone. Thats an embarrassing return no matter how you spin it. Its not just the goal return but missing chances game after game. At some point Ronaldo wasnt going to score and Rooney's wastefulness was going to cost us. It was today.
 
Julian Denny said:
You have a point there. That's why I've said all along that Hargreaves is best suited to a three man midfield where he plays the anchor role to very good effect. Don't expect him to produce any incisive passes though - it simply is not in his fairly limited repertoire. It was quite reasonable for Fergie to have selected a two man central midfield for this game but Carrick would have been the better choice alongside Scholes.
Click to expand...

He can't play the anchor role, his positioning is crap, let him run about and he's half useful
 
Liverpool play with two strikers, one of them apparently a 'defensive striker' (Kuyt). Does that mean he's playing well when he's not scoring or setting up any goals, as long as he chases after the ball a lot? If Hargreaves plays in midfield and offers nothing going forward, can we still say he plays well because "it's not his job"?
 
djemba's arse said:
Err.. no. That's not even remotely the same thing. Rooney and Tevez both can score goals, hence both players must have an off day for the team to be completely fecked. Hargreaves offers nothing going forward, hence his midfield partner must bear this burden alone.
Click to expand...
What burden? Today Scholes was shit. Hargreaves run the midfield alone and yet we were all over Pompey.
 
noodlehair said:
Can you tell me what his job actually is in a two man midfield then? I'm a bit lost
Click to expand...

Asking Hargreaves to attack is something he isn't good at, so why would we force a player to play at his weakness. Is this not the manager's fault? I'm all for a Carrick/Anderson midfield in this game but to slate Hargreaves for this I think is unjustified.

Agree or not?
 
Instant Karma said:
Does everything mean everything other than score goals regularly ?
Our main striker has 13 goals to his name after most of the season has gone. Thats an embarrassing return no matter how you spin it. Its not just the goal return but missing chances game after game. At some point Ronaldo wasnt going to score and Rooney's wastefulness was going to cost us. It was today.
Click to expand...
It's not a great return but he still scores goals, he's not putting pressure on anyone
 
Mozza said:
It's not a great return but he still scores goals, he's not putting pressure on anyone
Click to expand...

If Ronaldo's goal return were as mediocre as Scholes' form has been this season, then Rooney's poor finishing would have put even more pressure on us. Ronaldo is more than covering up for Rooney's poor scoring. Scholes isnt even fecking doing his job well. To blame Hargreaves when Scholes has been missing all game is ludicrous.
 
Instant Karma said:
Does everything mean everything other than score goals regularly ?
Our main striker has 13 goals to his name after most of the season has gone. Thats an embarrassing return no matter how you spin it. Its not just the goal return but missing chances game after game. At some point Ronaldo wasnt going to score and Rooney's wastefulness was going to cost us. It was today.
Click to expand...

Rooney's not a front man. I agree with you there. He's not clinical enough and it wastes his talent somewhat. The problem is we have no one else. Him and Tevez have to play nearly every game together, despite it not being ideal, because we have no other strikers.

On the other hand, we had Anderson and Carrick on the bench today, and Fletcher not even in the squad.
 
noodlehair said:
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
Click to expand...

Carrick on Scholes off would been better,
 
2cantona said:
Hargreaves had a good game today.
Click to expand...
If that's him having a good game I'd hate to see him have a bad one.

I'm not one for singling out players usually but I really fail to see the point of Hargreaves when we're playing Pompey at home and their game plan is to stay in their own half and see if they get lucky on the break. Hargreaves may have his uses but this sort of game isn't one of them. He's got no one to mark. The defence can cope perfectly well with one up front without him. He's not going to score unless it's from a free kick and he doesn't seem to do that too often. He is never ever on current evidence ever going to make a positive pass that actually goes to a United player. His favourite passes are sideways to Scholes or backwards to Rio. There was one passage of play today where he ran along the half way line, played a hospital pass to Evra who somehow managed to retain possession and play it back to him. He then gave it to Rio. The crowd applauded. God knows why. If he'd given it to Rio in the first place like he usually does it would have wasted less time. His first touch today wouldn't have looked out of place on Emile Heskey. Today he couldn't even tackle, he had average players going past him like he's suffering from some kind of illness that requires him to use a zimmer frame for maximum mobility.

Had a good game? He was shite.
 
Julian Denny said:
..... It was quite reasonable for Fergie to have selected a two man central midfield for this game but Carrick would have been the better choice alongside Scholes.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the case to day was it? We still got hit on the counter with those two together and them together didn't improve our attacking by any considerable margin or create extra chances. .
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
Damning? When Carrick also started all our defeats to City and Bolton. And was the one brought on when we conceded the Equaliser at The Emirates and today, the goal that actually kicked us out today?
Click to expand...

2 vs 5 or so?

Read the part where the first 2 or 3 could have been written off. And its about who starts the matches and what the results are. Of course our best players are going to be substituted on when we're losing :wenger:
 
AttackingFlair said:
Asking Hargreaves to attack is something he isn't good at, so why would we force a player to play at his weakness. Is this not the manager's fault? I'm all for a Carrick/Anderson midfield in this game but to slate Hargreaves for this I think is unjustified.

Agree or not?
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.

Thing is, he's not a holding player either. People keep pretending he is, but he isn't. His positioning isn't good enough, and even if it was, you can't play a holding player in a two man midfield.

What is it he actually does? He's been about nearly ten years and other than run about, I still haven't figured it out
 
Ekeke said:
2 vs 5 or so?

Read the part where the first 2 or 3 could have been written off. And its about who starts the matches and what the results are.
Click to expand...
Trust an idiot like you to say that. Carrick started those matches we lost too. West ham away is the only game we've lost with Hargreaves playing in mdfield without Carrick there. So your talking out your arse.

Ekeke said:
2Of course our best players are going to be substituted on when we're losing :wenger:
Click to expand...
So according to you were losing when Hargreaves went off today for Carrick?
 
noodlehair said:
Yes, I agree.

Thing is, he's not a holding player either. People keep pretending he is, but he isn't. His positioning isn't good enough, and even if it was, you can't play a holding player in a two man midfield.

What is it he actually does? He's been about nearly ten years and other than run about, I still haven't figured it out
Click to expand...

Hargreaves started most of our attacks in the first half and played a fantastic long ball to Rooney which was mis controlled. Scholes was missing most of the game. Dont see your point in blaming Hargreaves when we dominated the match as long as he was on the pitch and conceded when he went off.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
That wasn't the case to day was it? We still got hit on the counter with those two together and them together didn't improve our attacking by any considerable margin or create extra chances. .
Click to expand...
The four minutes they played together in a full strength side, we could (should?) have scored three goals: Carrick, Evra and Ronaldo (the last one cleared off the line by Campbell, which led to the corner). It was neither Carrick nor Scholes fault that we conceded (nor Hargreaves for that matter). We shouldn't be playing a striker and our smallest midfielder as our only defenders, even when we're having a corner.
 
Instant Karma said:
Hargreaves started most of our attacks in the first half and played a fantastic long ball to Rooney which was mis controlled. Scholes was missing most of the game. Dont see your point in blaming Hargreaves when we dominated the match as long as he was on the pitch and conceded when he went off.
Click to expand...

He didn't fecking dominate the match. Mostly, he got the ball, faffed about a bit, then gave it to one of the defenders.

When he went off, we suddenly looked like scoring. I honestly thought Pompey had no chance of holding out. Then we had a spastic episode...very similar to the one Hargreaves himself had with Baros, just before he was subbed off.
 
After Hargreaves went off Portsmouths passing got better. He was continually hassling and hurrying the midfielders into making passes they didnt want to. He made them misplace there passes but after he went off they had more time and space to pick passes.
 
kf said:
........... Today he couldn't even tackle, he had average players going past him like he's suffering from some kind of illness that requires him to use a zimmer frame for maximum mobility.

Had a good game? He was shite.
Click to expand...
Feck off You a fecking idiot. We dominated the match so completely that Pompey where defending as 11 men. Yet you want to convince us he had players getting past Hargreaves with ease! feck off............
 
London_Red said:
After Hargreaves went off Portsmouths passing got better. He was continually hassling and hurrying the midfielders into making passes they didnt want to. He made them misplace there passes but after he went off they had more time and space to pick passes.
Click to expand...

They had more time and space because we were playing with ten men. Before that, we were murdering them.
 
Hargreaves was great today, but one can understand why he was taken off. Pompey never looked like scoring.
 
noodlehair said:
He didn't fecking dominate the match. Mostly, he got the ball, faffed about a bit, then gave it to one of the defenders.

When he went off, we suddenly looked like scoring. I honestly thought Pompey had no chance of holding out. Then we had a spastic episode...very similar to the one Hargreaves himself had with Baros, just before he was subbed off.
Click to expand...

We looked like scoring? There was one chance created by Ronnie's brilliance and his back heel put Carrick through.

Against a team with the second best away record in the league after Chelsea, who counter attack with great pace and close down the midfield, Scholes should have never started. He doesnt have the pace or the ability to create anything in such games. Anderson should have started. That was the bigger mistake. Hargreaves-Anderson have proved that they work well together earlier in the season.

Starting Carrick ahead of Hargreaves along with Scholes wouldnt have made much difference. He would have played long ball after long ball and Campbell/Distin would have won every one of those.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
Feck off You a fecking idiot. We dominated the match so completely that Pompey where defending as 11 men. Yet you want to convince us he had players getting past Hargreaves with ease! feck off............
Click to expand...

I was at the ground. he spent most of the game standing about. He was shite. So feck off yourself
 
Oh christ

It's going to be about two years before any of you lot realise what's going on again, isn't it?

Just like with Heinze, except he was at least half decent
 
Instant Karma said:
We looked like scoring? There was one chance created by Ronnie's brilliance and his back heel put Carrick through.
Click to expand...

Evra hit the post and had another great chance, Tevez blocked a goalbound header for some reason, Ronaldo scuffed a decent chance, and came close with another, Campbell made a brilliant clearnce from Nani's cross.

All in the same 10-15 minute spell. We suddenly went from being slow and laboured to looking fecking great

Prior to that, we'd created nothing, other than the penalty shout. The only other chance was when Pompey had their own spastic episode in the first half. If Hargreaves was still on the pitch, I doubt he'd have stopped the goal. He was already guilty of clowning around and letting Baros run clean through. If the ref wasn't such a clown, that could easily have replaced the penalty as our self destruction moment
 
lotta hatred.

I agree that he's fairly pointless, but he just needs to play with Carrick, and let him run around for a while, winning the ball. TBH, there's gotta be some reason that Ferguson's gone out on a limb and signed this player, thats the bottom line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.