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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tribec said:
Robson ... was one of the best around at the time, and he was United's. Even when he was out injured we had Big Norm to patrol the midfield. ...the arrival of Ince and his subsequent form. Add to that Roy Keane, and for near enough 25 years United had one of the top central midfielders in the world playing for them.

It's time to look at Hargreaves as Hargreaves and not a Keane or Ince or Robson for that matter ... some on here fail to see that and want an all action midfielder in the mould of Keane. Well that's all well and good, but when the next Roy Keane comes along let's buy him, as he isn't around yet.
Click to expand...

Brilliant insightful point. I think you have identified the crux of the problem.

You're so right, its hardwired into the DNA of the post Busby United teams to have a action man midfield dynamo. Without realising it, we are unfairly expecting Hargreaves to fill into slot.

The closest equivalents to the player we want is Gerrard, Gattuso, a mature Obi Mikel or Pirlo perhaps. And until we get one, by definition, all United fans of some vintage will feel lost as our team will not feel right.

Unless of course SAF has decided that the game has evolved and that that sort of player is no loner required.

Very very good point... hence 56 bloody pages!
 
Instant Karma said:
:lol:

We dominated Liverpool at Anfield and won the game this season compared to playing like Pompey and robbing them last season. We got a point at the Emirates whereas we got spanked home and away by Arsenal last time. We dominated Lyon at their ground where they had no clear chance but conceded from a brilliant bit of skill. We were being run over by Lyon at OT in the second half and looked like conceding any minute. It was not his fault that we lost yesterday considering that Scholes went missing and we still dominated Pompey with 1 midfielder. It wasnt his fault that we missed a penalty against Westham and conceded from set pieces.

In the earlier loses against City or Bolton, the whole team was shite, we missed Rooney, Ronaldo or both and the midfield also included Scholes and Carrick who did feck all too. SAF had no choice but to play anyone who was available in the first few games with Rooney injured, Ronaldo suspended and Anderson not fit.

Scholes has had a far worser season than Hargreaves and SAF keeps rotating the midfield pairings and formation which doesnt help anyone. Anderson-Hargreaves has been our best midfield in terms of results.
Click to expand...



I think everyone else has already answered this nonsense
 
sammsky1 said:
Brilliant insightful point. I think you have identified the crux of the problem.

You're so right, its hardwired into the DNA of the post Busby United teams to have a action man midfield dynamo. Without realising it, we are unfairly expecting Hargreaves to fill into slot.

The closest equivalents to the player we want is Gerrard, Gattuso, a mature Obi Mikel or Pirlo perhaps. And until we get one, by definition, all United fans of some vintage will feel lost as our team will not feel right.

Unless of course SAF has decided that the game has evolved and that that sort of player is no loner required.

Very very good point... hence 56 bloody pages!
Click to expand...



We have got great midfield players now, just so far Hargreaves has not been one of them
 
sammsky1 said:
Brilliant insightful point. I think you have identified the crux of the problem.


The closest equivalents to the player we want is Gerrard, Gattuso, a mature Obi Mikel or Pirlo perhaps. And until we get one, by definition, all United fans of some vintage will feel lost as our team will not feel right.
Click to expand...

gerrard is the only "all action" midfielder. the rest aren't. rino is hardly a goal threat from midf or a srong enough passer of the ball. pirlo is carrick and obi wan isn't near the finished article and may never be.
 
Julian Denny said:
The point was we played one midfielder who could pass the ball forward. Scholes was also required to do his fair share of covering. Perhaps he can't do both anymore - at least not consistently throughout a game. If we had played Carrick from the start we may just been able to hit them a bit quicker - always difficult against a massed defence. We were only hit on the break once we were throwing everyone forward in an effort to win the game particularly in the second half.
Click to expand...
Truth is if Carrick had started we would have been better simply because we wouldn't have had a one man central midfield all game. Because Scholes as that awful. The main reason Carrick was caught upfield during the counter attack that kicked us out.
 
Tribec said:
Like some on here I've been watching United for way too long, and like some on here can recall some of dark days of the 1970's. Yes, it was fun being around then, but footballing wise it wasn't the greatest. We ended that decade with Sexton's tedious football, which did earn us 2nd place, but it was tough watching United. Then came Big Ron, a caviller style of play and a attitude.

Whilst I may not be Robson's greatest fan, he was one of the best around at the time, and he was United's. Even when he was out injured we had Big Norm to patrol the midfield. With years and injuries catching up with Robson the fear of who to replace him with was tempered with the arrival of Ince and his subsequent form. Add to that Roy Keane, and for near enough 25 years United had one of the top central midfielders in the world playing for them.

25 years is a long time, and football has changed. However, what right have United of finding another in the mould of Robson, Ince or Keane? Owen Hargreaves is a great player a world class player, but just because he's being asked to follow in the role of the previous 3, and play with the 4th world class midfielder by the name of Scholes, the expectations are a bit unfair. Hargreaves is more a modern defensive midfielder, he patrols in front of the defence whilst prompting those around him to supply the goals. Carrick took some stick for being square and negative in the middle of last year, but now he's seen as our saviour.

It's time to look at Hargreaves as Hargreaves and not a Keane or Ince or Robson for that matter. He is a player who plays differently to those and yesterday he was great. I only recall about 2 bad passes, 1 missed tackle. Defending isn't all about tackling, in fact a good defender shouldn't need to tackle, Harry the opposition into making a bad pass or mistake and win possession back that way. Keep the ball away from your own penalty area and you'll lessen the chance of them scoring, defending can be very easy. Hargreaves does that well, but some on here fail to see that and want an all action midfielder in the mould of Keane. Well that's all well and good, but when the next Roy Keane comes along let's buy him, as he isn't around yet.
Click to expand...
Top, top post
 
Instant Karma said:
:lol:

We dominated Liverpool at Anfield and won the game this season compared to playing like Pompey and robbing them last season. We got a point at the Emirates whereas we got spanked home and away by Arsenal last time. We dominated Lyon at their ground where they had no clear chance but conceded from a brilliant bit of skill. We were being run over by Lyon at OT in the second half and looked like conceding any minute. It was not his fault that we lost yesterday considering that Scholes went missing and we still dominated Pompey with 1 midfielder. It wasnt his fault that we missed a penalty against Westham and conceded from set pieces.

In the earlier loses against City or Bolton, the whole team was shite, we missed Rooney, Ronaldo or both and the midfield also included Scholes and Carrick who did feck all too. SAF had no choice but to play anyone who was available in the first few games with Rooney injured, Ronaldo suspended and Anderson not fit.

Scholes has had a far worser season than Hargreaves and SAF keeps rotating the midfield pairings and formation which doesnt help anyone. Anderson-Hargreaves has been our best midfield in terms of results.
Click to expand...
Correct
 
All I can say is correlation != causation.

Go back to school.
 
Julian Denny said:
The point was we played one midfielder who could pass the ball forward. Scholes was also required to do his fair share of covering. Perhaps he can't do both anymore - at least not consistently throughout a game. If we had played Carrick from the start we may just been able to hit them a bit quicker - always difficult against a massed defence. We were only hit on the break once we were throwing everyone forward in an effort to win the game particularly in the second half.
Click to expand...

This is exactly right. Why do Manchester United need to play a defensive central midfield player against a team whose initial ambition is limited to defending in their own half. Hargreaves isn't equipped to break down massed defenses. He may have his uses in other games but not on Saturday.
 
ralphie88 said:
Course it's debatable. Personally I think they've both been as bad as each other but most people I know would consider that comment to be sacrilege.
Click to expand...
You'd have to say that Scholes v Fulham (even though they were shite) was a class above anything Hargreaves has done or will do.
 
sammsky1 said:
Brilliant insightful point. I think you have identified the crux of the problem.

You're so right, its hardwired into the DNA of the post Busby United teams to have a action man midfield dynamo. Without realising it, we are unfairly expecting Hargreaves to fill into slot.

The closest equivalents to the player we want is Gerrard, Gattuso, a mature Obi Mikel or Pirlo perhaps. And until we get one, by definition, all United fans of some vintage will feel lost as our team will not feel right.

Unless of course SAF has decided that the game has evolved and that that sort of player is no loner required.

Very very good point... hence 56 bloody pages!
Click to expand...
No one's asking Hargreaves to be the next Roy Keane. He hasn't got anything like the ability to do that. I just don't understand what he's doing on the pitch against a team like Pompey. His type of game is just unnecessary. There's no one for him to defend against (and on the occasions he needed to defend on Saturday, their breaking players just strolled past him), no one for him to mark.. all he does is slow the game down and leaves an under par Scholes to do all the creative work against a massed defence. More or less Carrick's first contribution yesterday was to break into the box and almost score. Hargreaves wouldn't have done that if we'd played all night - it's not his game. So why was he selected?
 
kf said:
(and on the occasions he needed to defend on Saturday, their breaking players just strolled past him)
Click to expand...

Yeah I noticed that too. Pathetic. :(

He seems to spend an awful lot of time chasing. Chasing players. Chasing the ball. But always chasing. Rarely in the right place at the right time.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
You're a liar. A player like Scholes has been our worst midfielder this season. It's not even debatable.
Click to expand...


Liar is a wrong term but perhaps you do not understand the language very well ......... I make my opinion which I believe it is at least as worthwhile as yours ... Scholes has not been our worse player in midfield or close Hargreaves has and that is fact and I do believe a few thousand United fans would agree with me and very few agree with you
 
RedPhil1957 said:
Liar is a wrong term but perhaps you do not understand the language very well ......... I make my opinion which I believe it is at least as worthwhile as yours ... Scholes has not been our worse player in midfield or close Hargreaves has and that is fact and I do believe a few thousand United fans would agree with me and very few agree with you
Click to expand...

I think it would be more truthful to say that Scholes had a great start to the season, but got injured. That injury kept him out till recently, and in truth he's not come back half the player he was. Cameo's against Portsmouth and Fulham in the league have been in. Since his return to the team, Scholes has been our worst midfielder, and his return has coincided with some poor performances by the team.
 
noodlehair said:
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
Click to expand...

Except, not doing that would not make me either intellectually dishonest or hypocritical - of which you therefore falsely accuse me.

So, when accusing me of hypocrisy and/or intellectual dishonesty you are either unable to understand and use the terms correctly - or you are simply lying.



In either case I can happily ignore the accusation - but the fact that you will let such accusations stand with no evidence at all to back them up is a stain on your character rather than mine. I once possessed some respect for you - but no longer.
 
Ekeke said:
The bold text really brings these posts to life. Great formatting.
Click to expand...

I think he could do better, take a look....
''Except, not doing that would not make me either intellectually dishonest or hypocritical - of which you therefore falsely accuse me.

So, when accusing me of hypocrisy and/or intellectual dishonesty you are either unable to understand and use the terms correctly - or you are simply lying.

In either case I can happily ignore the accusation - but the fact that you will let such accusations stand with no evidence at all to back them up is a stain on your character rather than mine. I once possessed some respect for you - but no longer.''
Click to expand...
 
Scholesy said:
This thread is for poofs
Click to expand...

avatar_3487.png
 
This fecking thread needs shutting down.

I thought the Carrick camp won the war on page 10 or something...
 
Feedingseagulls said:
Or perhaps Noods takes slanderous accusations contrary to the evidence rather too lightly?

Especially for a mod/admin?
Click to expand...

Ooh I missed that. Serves me right for not following this thread religiously and only popping my head round the door to shoot holes in the Chef's ramblings.

Anyway, surely libelous rather than slanderous?
 
ralphie88 said:
Ooh I missed that. Serves me right for not following this thread religiously and only popping my head round the door to shoot holes in the Chef's ramblings.

Anyway, surely libelous rather than slanderous?
Click to expand...

Well I did think about that - apparently it hinges on whether the accusation is made in 'permanent' or 'transient' media.

Typically, 'permanent' means books, films, printed matter generally etc. and 'transient' means speech. I adopted the less extreme variant but certainly a case could be made for the internet page being 'reasonably' permanent - it probably comes down to precedents established by esting case judgements.
 
I've never given anyone an infraction. I find them rubbish and pointless.

A bit like Owen Hargreaves
 
noodlehair said:
I was thinking I might go to bed in a minute
Click to expand...

You really are something of a dishonest prat aren't you?

1st you serially misrepresent the chief's remarks - presumably to weaken the pro-Hargreaves arguments.

When challenged you get all defensive and post complete drivel.

Not even your mate Plech-Gerrard can manage to argue that you haven't misrepresented your opponent.

So since you can't actually call on any evidence to support your case you decide to label me a hypocrite and intellectually dishonest whilst wittering on about my posting habits in supposed support of your case. Unfortunately, none of the 'evidence' you produce supports any of your case.

So let's see - by the labels you employ, you are misrepresenting my case, so:

you're the one being intellectually dishonest.

Since you complain about me being 'intellectually dishonest' (wrongly) when you are guilty:

that makes YOU the hypocrite.

:lol::lol::lol:

End of debate really. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.