Ralph Milne was quite handy!
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Ralph Milne was quite handy!
I dont care how long you've watched it. Milne was fecking shit for us. If you can't see Hargreaves didn't play badly at all tonight and did his job to near perfection, which was to shackle Juninho, Lyon's key attacking midfielder, while provding the platform for our more attacking players to shine then you are a very dishonest person. There's nothing more to say. Since Milne didn't his job for Manchester United. EVER!
Do you attribute this to Hargreaves? Or the system?
I think some people have a pretty ridiculous view of a defensive midfielder's role. They're not gods. It's not like a team is not going to concede at all with them on the pitch, and if the team concedes it doesn't mean the defensive midfielder was at fault.
The two are inter-linked. The system is existing because of Hargreaves.
the idea that a player is only good for certain games has never been and never should be the manchester utd way. He's either a utd player or he's not.
e.g. had we signed essien he would be able to play either role in accordance with whats needed with regard to the opposition. ala keane.
if and im not saying it is, but if hargreaves has to be brought in and out the side depending who we are playing he was the wrong signing at that price.
e.g. had we signed essien he would be able to play either role in accordance with whats needed with regard to the opposition. ala keane.
if and im not saying it is, but if hargreaves has to be brought in and out the side depending who we are playing he was the wrong signing at that price.
Hargreaves kept Juninho quiet. He did his job in my opinion.
He isn't. He is just a different playerYou didn't mention the Milan game..
Carrick is a better player than Hargreaves, that should be obvious now.
I don't like what I've seen of Hargreaves so far but I'm willing to be patient with him. I would like to see him try to make a few more ambitious passes though. It may not be something he's done in the past but he's got to adapt to the way United play football. Back passes or horizontal passes is all I've seen from him so far. Also, those that claim that he breaks up plays, Carrick has been especially good at that the last few games. Hopefully Hargreaves will come good in the long run but based on current form Carrick should at the very least be starting every home game.
Pretty much I think
Except Hargreaves would never be a first choice at either Chelsea or Liverpool
was giving juninho a couple of nice free kicks on goal really the best way to shackle him? I know there is more to his role than that but I really couldn't see his worth.
Even defensively I think Carrick offers more. When Lyon attacks were repelled by the centre backs Hargreaves was too deep to pick up the 2nd ball, Carrick marks space very well and doesn't have to make as many tackles as he breaks up play with brain more than braun.
Even if Hargreaves was impeccable defensively I don't feel that's enough for a Manchester United central midfielder.
Wouldn't even be first choice at Liverpool. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of him is it!
Fact is, Makelele should collar the blame. Ever since he came on the scene, everyone has gone "holding midfield" crazy.
Aside from giving him one or two freekicks on the edge of the box, which on another day Juninho (more than anyone) would have buried.
Because I believe Hargreaves is no upto the task, I'm dishonest?
Milne>Hargreaves
we are manchester united.
we are not an average european side who should struggle against an average european side away from home.
how about asking for a little more creative passing in the middle? is he exempt from playing forward thinking football as a central midfielder?
in my eyes anderson has cemented his place in the middle of the field. carrick, hargreaves and scholes need to fight for the 2nd central midfield spot.
or if we are one down ... it's absurd
Different player? This isn't Bramble vs Zidane all over again..
Couldnt have sumed it up better, great post Feed me.
Milne>Hargreaves
Neither would Carrick. In fact Carrick wouldnt start at any top club in the big leagues. He is a mediocre player who will probably never even be a regular international. He is probably behind Jenas in England pecking order. Most top coaches would rather play central defenders in midfield because he offers nothing other than Hollywood balls
Time to jump into this discussion.
When Hargreaves was signed, SAF told us "He was the missing jigsaw piece". Putting it bluntly, so far he's been a waste. He hasn't given us what we expected. I thought he would marshal our midfield and stamp his authority on our players, getting them to do their jobs like Rio does with his defense. He was signed to be our hard man, our player to break up and dominate a midfield. I haven't seen one match this season where he's done that.
I was and still am a supporter of Hargreaves. But I do ask myself the same question after every match, is he really what we need? I always give our signings at least a full season before starting to get on their backs. All players need time to adjust to their surroundings, espically if coming from Europe. But we should be starting to see his talent shine through and I simply don't see it.
Its also worth noting (espically in the second half) the Lyon midfielders seemed to allow the ball to always reach Hargreaves, and he was the midfielder they always pressurised, often with 2 players. Almost every time he lost the ball. The goal was very much his fault as he should never have allowed the Lyon player to pass it to Benzema (Anderson and Scholes also allowed him to run on). He also gave away 4 freekicks around our penalty box, thank god Junhino had 'one of those games'.
When Hargreaves was signed, SAF told us "He was the missing jigsaw piece". Putting it bluntly, so far he's been a waste. He hasn't given us what we expected. I thought he would marshal our midfield and stamp his authority on our players, getting them to do their jobs like Rio does with his defense. He was signed to be our hard man, our player to break up and dominate a midfield. I haven't seen one match this season where he's done that.
I was and still am a supporter of Hargreaves. But I do ask myself the same question after every match, is he really what we need? I always give our signings at least a full season before starting to get on their backs. All players need time to adjust to their surroundings, espically if coming from Europe. But we should be starting to see his talent shine through and I simply don't see it.
Its also worth noting (espically in the second half) the Lyon midfielders seemed to allow the ball to always reach Hargreaves, and he was the midfielder they always pressurised, often with 2 players. Almost every time he lost the ball. The goal was very much his fault as he should never have allowed the Lyon player to pass it to Benzema (Anderson and Scholes also allowed him to run on). He also gave away 4 freekicks around our penalty box, thank god Junhino had 'one of those games'.
Agreed.
Hargreaves as yet has failed to impress, but we should give him more time.
Based on current form, Carrick deserves to start.
If Hargreaves' strength isn't passing, then he should just concentrate on doing what he does best. Once he gains his form and confidence, then he can start expanding his game a little. Evra has become a lot more adventurous with his trickery once he settled in.
I attribute that mostly to the system, Hargreaves however makes it worse cause he can't play football
Was it that way tonight? Seriously?
So what? What if he won the league alongside Scholes? Away from home in Europe we lost every game with that partnership. He proved beyonda shadow ofa doubt he wasn't good enough to shield our defence in Europe! So why aren't you complaining that Scholes took his place instead! Especially when he was awesome in Scholes role on. Jeez
That tell you why we've only on it once. The one year in which Keane protected our defence like a bear protcting cubs.
it does if he is incapable of helping us come back from said goal , to have a player so one dimensional means the team suffers unless he is amazing at what he does ... if he offers so little going forward then we should be totally bulletproof at the back ... to spend 18 million quid on him to make us solid and to take him off because we go one down is ridiculous
Who said that? Where are you pulling this out of your ass?
The guy had a broken leg. Do you know what a broken leg is? It is when a bone in your leg either snaps or cracks. That is a pretty serious injury that can happen to anyone. It's not like some people have bones that are lined with adamantium in real life. Ya that means Wolverine isn't real sorry to burst your bubble.
This is an injury that will take MONTHS to heal. It means that it will take the player MONTHS to just get fit again and it will take MONTHS on top of that to get their form back.
You comparing a broken leg to a bruised thigh or a twisted ankle is absurdity of the grossest proportions.. Could Hargreaves be a little harder and play through some of these knocks? I am sure he could. However psychology is SO vitally important to players. If you have ever competed in any sort of sport at an elite level you would know this. What is going on in your head is probably more important than how fit you are. If some players are not confident when they are carrying a knock, you don't want them playing because they are not going to have the confidence and they are being setup to fail. If that failure happens you can damage that psyche in a permanent way and they may never be the same mentally again.
There are some people that will play with broken bones or torn ligaments. That is rare, extremely rare. There are some people who will not play with an ingrown toe-nail. That is rare, extremely rare.
The fact is, Hargreaves plays in a physical manner. He is bound to pickup more knocks because of this. If he didn't play in that manner he wouldn't be the kind of player he is. Could he play through some of those knocks? Maybe I don't know I'm not the person picking them up. Could he have played through a broken leg? Are you fecking mental? That is what you are insinuating. That he is a pussy and that it is his fault that he picked up a broken leg.
do you remember our midfield before Carrick joined, it was a joke, no natural rhythm at all ... then suddenly we won the league ... he gives it shape, he covers space naturally , when he slotted into our midfield the whole team looked better , the defence even had more confidence ... look at how spurs dipped and we peaked after the transfer ...
So let me get this straight, it was Hargreaves' fault that Fergie decided to go all pragmatic on us and start with a really negative lineup? Damnit, it's really difficult sometimes to come to terms with some of you.
The team we had at the end of the match is the one which we should have started with and probably would have twated them with that team and that formation.
On another day and against another team, one midfield place is up for grabs and Carrick, Hargreaves and Scholes should fight for it. We should always play 4-4-2 regardless of whom and where we play them.
This is what substitutions are for.
It is the same idea that you take a striker off for a defensive player to protect a lead. Does this mean that the offensive player is "so one dimensional that the team suffers unless he is amazing at what he does"?
If you are behind and you need to score you take defensive players off for offensive players.
This is basic, fundamental logic.
I think Nucks is Hargreaves posting in a fury that we don't all love him
We were very dominant with possesion. And had 3 clear chances that should have been goals. 2 others which were an offside goal and the equaliser. They scored from a momment of magic. Threatening with onyl half chances. This was a side that was at home and playing well. Yet we were far better than them. In a big game.
Anyone thinking we should have had many more chances like we had at home last Saturday is just deluded really. That was never going to happen.
Anderson had a broken leg as well with Porto last season, in fact he missed the majority of the last season exactly because of that. He hasn't had a problem settling in or being actually quite good for the team, has he?
If I were hargreaves my name would be "nuckrautlander" ;p
I agree but it's not quite the same as going three at the back and throwing on a 4th attacker ... my main point is that we replaced him not with a striker but a similar player because the defensive midfielder couldnt help us score ... he also didn't help us defend ... he must be great craic on the away bus ... or something
I don't think Lyon did play well to be honest. Aside from Benzema who was a monster.
Govou threatened with pace and then had no end product time and again and Kallstrom seemed to pretty much mishit everything. Juninho was playing too deep to make anything much happen aside from set piece situations.
Govou threatened with pace and then had no end product time and again and Kallstrom seemed to pretty much mishit everything. Juninho was playing too deep to make anything much happen aside from set piece situations.
Anderson had a broken leg as well with Porto last season, in fact he missed the majority of the last season exactly because of that. He hasn't had a problem settling in or being actually quite good for the team, has he?
You have to remember Anderson is God
It's not the first time a player has been taken off for tactical reasons.
It would be great to have complete players for every position on the pitch, but it's unrealistic. So we have to settle for a top class winger who scores plenty of goals, but less likely to track back. We have to settle for two brilliant albeit diminutive forwards who don't offer much aerial threat. A rightback who's a good defender, but poor going forward, etc...
Hargreaves had an okay game, and he could've done better. Fair enough. But to say that he's a waste of money based on his first Champions League start is over the top. Give him a chance, ffs.
- Status