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

[Feedingseagulls]

For New Readers:

The Chief's central ideas (reposted from earlier):

The chief is not saying that the away defeat to Milan was solely down to Carrick - the chief hasn't denied that were other factors which made it difficult for our team (eg injuries, exhaustion etc.).

What the chief has fairly consistently pointed out is that Milan outplayed us when Gattuso was on the pitch in both games. He thinks that a midfield involving Carrick and not containing anyone capable of decreasing Gattuso's effectiveness and also being unable to deal with Kaka was a major (possibly the deciding) factor in our inability to win the 2-legged tie.

He reckons that Hargreaves would have been able to do this as he is the right type of player - he reckons that whilst Carrick can perform some defensive duties and add to the attack himself, he cannot do the job which was required in those games - Carrick's inability to do the job required 'cost us'. This is particularly relevant to the 'Hargreaves debate' because certain posters have maintained we don't need OH because of the defensive abilities of Carrick - the chief is pointing out that there are times when that is just not sufficient.

The chief uses the Bayern game v. Milan to provide evidence that OH can do this to Milan when surrounded by a side probably not as good as Utd. OH helped his team dominate, but he could not ensure that they scored enough - nor could he stop every Italian attack (no one player can do this).

The chief reckons that with OH available we could have won the tie, despite our personnel problems at the back, with Carrick we had a much worse chance.

All in all, a pretty simple thesis.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

...................


So OH is a world class defensive midfielder because he did such a good job on Kaka that he (Kaka - wouldn't want to get picked on by a pedant) only scored two goals. Looks like a thin argument to me.

O............

Because it's pretty fabricated and not what I said. Besides, people like you and others claim Carrick, is superior to Hargreaves, yet vs Milan he let Kaka score us 3 times from open play. Twice in front of our own fans. On top of letting us get dominated in both legs. In 3 halves of football, over two legs. In a far stronger side than Hargreaves was in, that never got dominated in a single half of football vs Milan.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

If you actually watched the match, you'll know that Kaka scored from a penalty.

Atleast have the honesty to watch the match before jumping on the chief and slating his views. By the way, the chief is wrong too, Kaka scored only in the first leg. But the Cheif's point all along has been that Bayern had a more patched up defence against Milan than us. Hargreaves and Van Bommel dominated Kaka/Pirlo/Gattusso in the central areas and Bayern had most of the possession but Seedorf was brilliant.

Spot on

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

.

Point 2 - Actually it's true that the Chief habitually uses the Bayern game to back up his point about Hargreaves, and noodlehair destroyed that argument in his post showing how badly everyone watching the match thought he played............

so posting garbage from the match day thread amounts to "destroying an argument"

 

[sincher]

For New Readers:

The Chief's central ideas (reposted from earlier):

The chief is not saying that the away defeat to Milan was solely down to Carrick - the chief hasn't denied that were other factors which made it difficult for our team (eg injuries, exhaustion etc.).

Well, ok, but he pinpointed defensive midfield as the main reason we went out, and said Carrick was 'by far our worst player', which is what I would call wrong, and what you would call a lie, since he himself rated quite a few players worse than him after the game, and changed his mind to suit an argument over a year later.

I forgot to add, Kaka's two goals at OT didn't kick us out, It was the abject failure of our defensive midfield department to handle Gattuso's physicality or pick up the movements of Kaka and Seedorf, even though they sat deep all game, that kicked us out. And on the night Carrick was by far our worst player. A case of lack of ability and equipment for the task at hand. Nothing else. That is what precipitated our purchase of Hargreaves.

What the chief has fairly consistently pointed out is that Milan outplayed us when Gattuso was on the pitch in both games. He thinks that a midfield involving Carrick and not containing anyone capable of decreasing Gattuso's effectiveness and also being unable to deal with Kaka was a major (possibly the deciding) factor in our inability to win the 2-legged tie.

Yes, that's probably true, but it's become an obsession, and is also only his opinion. Other people have different opinions, and appear to remember the game better, given comments like the one above.

He reckons that Hargreaves would have been able to do this as he is the right type of player - he reckons that whilst Carrick can perform some defensive duties and add to the attack himself, he cannot do the job which was required in those games - Carrick's inability to do the job required 'cost us'. This is particularly relevant to the 'Hargreaves debate' because certain posters have maintained we don't need OH because of the defensive abilities of Carrick - the chief is pointing out that there are times when that is just not sufficient.

The chief uses the Bayern game v. Milan to provide evidence that OH can do this to Milan when surrounded by a side probably not as good as Utd. OH helped his team dominate, but he could not ensure that they scored enough - nor could he stop every Italian attack (no one player can do this).

Bet you didn't watch the game, but from the majority opinion Hargreaves did not play well at all, and Bayern lost, making it an extremely flimsy game to use in an argument, quite apart from the fact that any one game would be a poor way to argue the case.

The chief reckons that with OH available we could have won the tie, despite our personnel problems at the back, with Carrick we had a much worse chance.

All in all, a pretty simple thesis.

And most people disagree with him - hence the argument. Still don't see his arguments about Hargreaves to be misrepresented - you've chosen to cherry pick some of the points he has made, and ignore a lot of the blatant errors, bad memory, and poor evidence.

 

[sincher]

so posting garbage from the match day thread amounts to "destroying an argument"

Yes. Let's look at this.

Many people on the day of the match say he has played poorly. Noone disagrees.

Over a year later, 1 poster claims he was actually excellent.

Pretty obvious who to believe, isn't it?

 

[sincher]

Actually, I've never noticed the chief make remarks that could be realistically construed as saying OH was 'even better than' Keane. It's vaguely possible, but I reckon it's highly unlikely - just another misrepresentation I'd guess. (Neither of us, I'd reckon, have read all of his posts.)

Saying Hargeaves is overated is like saying that about Effenberg. Hargreaves is the German's clone for sure.


Hargreaves is the star for the future. If we sign him I would be over the moon. Thus sayeth the chief

Hmm...

 

[noodlehair]

In all his posts the chief's central points have been entirely consistent

Except for the various parts of this thread where that's been proven not to be the case, which you've decided to pretend don't exist

When I tell you you have misrepresented both the chief and myself I do so by comparing what you said to what your opponent said - with quotes - that's evidence to back up my claim. (Occasionally, when opponents actually comment on a particular post this is much easier.) So nowhere have I misrepresented your words have I?

You repeatedly misrepresent tongue in cheek remarks for brutal personal attacks. The problem isn't that people are misrepresenting each other's quotes, or being dishonest; it's that you just don't get it, because the section of your brain which tells you when to get it, isn't there. You're thick.

The problem is also that you have a bone to pick with me, for some reason. Possibly because you like Owen Hargreaves, or secretly want to bone the Chief, or possibly because you perceive me as Plech's mate, or something. I dunno.

You make frankly ludicrous claims about what the chief argues without trying to back them up and eventually appeal to the idea that he must have said something sufficiently like that somewhere, sometime.

We have ample evidence of you misrepresenting the contents of posts that you quote - so why should we think you're right with your unsupported claims which go against what the chief repeatedly and consistently posts. The evidence (that word again) suggests it's just another example of the typical cafe (see Plech) argument style where exaggeration and caricature is the norm. The evidence is that the chief consistently maintains opinions different from those you portray him as having.

So I haven't misrepresented either you or anyone else here have I?

My accusations are accurate - yours are baseless.

I got bored from this point onwards

poor evidence.

Selective evidence, since he's now claiming to be "pretty sure" he's read all of the Chief's posts in this thread.

What a bellend

 

[ralphie88]

All in all, a pretty simple thesis.

So is my thesis that the world was created by a Luminous Turtle that can shit planets so long as it has the right number of star pixies to eat.

 

[ralphie88]

Hmm...

good find. Hargreaves the clone of Effenberg indeed.


I'd prefer Stefan Edberg in our midfield the way moose is playing at the moment.

69

 

[kf]

Nope - the chief's argument is that OH showed how good he was, and how useful against Milan, by preventing them from functioning well in that game and enabling his team to dominate the overall play.

Well I was relying on your precis of the Chief's position. Try harder next time.

Incidently, did you watch those particular games?

The Chief's position is his own and he's quite capable of arguing it for himself. I agree with some of his posts, I just don't agree that Hargreaves has played particularly well for United and I accept that there may be several possible reasons for that - one of which is that actually, since his injury, he's not very good at football. His mobility in the game against Pompey - which I'm sorry but you can't actually tell anything about his mobility when watching a TV set, you have to be at the ground - was shite. He actually looked like he was carrying an injury.

You on the other hand seem to enjoy arguing a theoretical position despite no one having any idea what your own view is. You chose to argue the ins and outs of a cow's arse in the AIG logo thread using all sorts of irrelevant bollocks (like medieval customs and practices) to justify something which if you were forced off the fence you actually would rather wasn't happening. Do you actually agree with the Chief's view? Do you think Hargreaves is an excellent defensive midfielder? Do you think he's played well or indifferently for United this season? No one has a bloody clue because you're contributing nothing to the subject of the thread and just waffling on ad nauseum boring the arse of everyone and trying to show how clever you are. It's so irritating that some of us have started posting about sea mammals in order to pass the time.

 

[ralphie88]

The Chief's position is his own and he's quite capable of arguing it for himself. I agree with some of his posts, I just don't agree that Hargreaves has played particularly well for United and I accept that there may be several possible reasons for that - one of which is that actually, since his injury, he's not very good at football. His mobility in the game against Pompey - which I'm sorry but you can't actually tell anything about his mobility when watching a TV set, you have to be at the ground - was shite. He actually looked like he was carrying an injury..

Difficult to argue with any of that.

 

[Feedingseagulls]

And most people disagree with him - hence the argument. Still don't see his arguments about Hargreaves to be misrepresented - you've chosen to cherry pick some of the points he has made, and ignore a lot of the blatant errors, bad memory, and poor evidence.

The point is that the errors, memory failure, and quality of his evidence aren't affecting the fact that my summary does spell out what the chief said. (Although he obviously has said a lot more as well.)

Never once when someone has pointed out an error in the chief's actual arguments have I said they have misrepresented him - only when they have actually done so. So those errors, and the overall strength of his argument aren't relevant to the fact that people have been consistently misrepresenting what he said when argumuing against him.

Of course, that means they are not actually arguing against his points - just straw men.

So what we are getting here is an unjustified , unfair, undermining of the case for Hargreaves, who has always (imo) got a lot of unjustified criticism. When people want to argue that the evidence may be flimsy or ambiguous then fair play to them - falsely portraying your opponent's arguments isn't on though.

 

[Feedingseagulls]

Hmm...

So do you (or the chief) think Effenberg is 'better than Keane'?

 

[sincher]

Not sure - but it would be a close call.

 

[Mozza]

Effenburg was the only central midfielder that could match Keano at his best, Hargreaves is nowhere near that level

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Yes. Let's look at this.

Many people on the day of the match say he has played poorly. Noone disagrees.

Over a year later, 1 poster claims he was actually excellent.

Pretty obvious who to believe, isn't it?

1 poster my arse! I have people like Karma, Ballache 13 and REd FUn DevIl who back up my version of events that night. People with far more reliable views on matches than all those people Noodle quoted from the match day thread combined! If you want to take the crap word of the match day thread brigade, as gospel truth, be my guest! But don't expect everyone else to follow suit.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Effenburg was the only central midfielder that could match Keano at his best, Hargreaves is nowhere near that level

That's very obvious now. None of our current midfielders is even close

 

[REd FUn DevIl]

Effenburg was the only central midfielder that could match Keano at his best, Hargreaves is nowhere near that level

You really dont care if he does well or not, simply didnt want him at United and will keep throwing shite at him every time you can.

Comparing a player that doesnt even have an entire season with us is just pathetic. Even Evra had an awful time with us and was even considered that would may be a flop.

 

[noodlehair]

So everyone who watched the match and posted in the match thread is automatically an idiot with unreliable views? based purely on the fact that they posted in the match thread?

Great argument

I mean, feckin' hell

 

[Longsden_7]

You really dont care if he does well or not, simply didnt want him at United and will keep throwing shite at him every time you can.

Comparing a player that doesnt even have an entire season with us is just pathetic. Even Evra had an awful time with us and was even considered that would may be a flop.

Response of the thread, hats off to you fellow.

 

[REd FUn DevIl]

Another point is that everyone seems to compare Hargreaves with Keane and thats fecking bullshit. You dont see people comparing Tevez with Ruud.
Tevez hardly will reach the amount of goals that Ruud got in just 5 years and that doesnt make him a shite player.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Hmm...

Pulling up a 6 year old quote of mine, about Hargreaves, with out any relevant back ground data about why the statement was said and it's context is hardly something to write home about

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

You really dont care if he does well or not, simply didnt want him at United and will keep throwing shite at him every time you can.

Comparing a player that doesnt even have an entire season with us is just pathetic. Even Evra had an awful time with us and was even considered that would may be a flop.

Well said, dude! Well said!

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

So everyone who watched the match and posted in the match thread is automatically an idiot with unreliable views? based purely on the fact that they posted in the match thread?

The majority definitely. Because most people in there post shit. You being the number 1 example. Thus, it isn't surprising you picked out mostly the shit to quote.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Another point is that everyone seems to compare Hargreaves with Keane and thats fecking bullshit. You dont see people comparing Tevez with Ruud.
Tevez hardly will reach the amount of goals that Ruud got in just 5 years and that doesnt make him a shite player.

spot on.

 

[noodlehair]

The majority definitely. Because most people in there post shit. You being the number 1 example. Thus, it isn't surprising you picked out mostly the shit to quote.

I quoted every post that mentioned Hargreaves. You're clutching at straws again.

In my experience, when nearly every single person watching a football match thinks someone played rubbish, that usually means the player in question played rubbish.

You and IK are in the minority here.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I quoted every post that mentioned Hargreaves. You're clutching at straws again.

You wish. You posted all the usual shit views people have in the match day threads during games. When they are usually being over the top and inacurate with most of their comments. Or just plain stupid.

In my experience, when nearly every single person watching a football match thinks someone played rubbish, that usually means the player in question played rubbish.

Yes. Provided those views don't come from the match day thread. Where people like you have be known to post utter crap. Even before a game has begun.

You and IK are in the minority here.

Yes. The good minority. Who actually know what took place in that match. Go to any match report from any sports website about that game. Not even one will collaborate you and your famous "majority's view that Hargreaves was shit in that game. Which says it all really

 

[sincher]

Personally I think Hargreaves is alright, apart from the porpoise-eating, which puts me off him a bit.

In retrospect, we probably shouldn't have bought him, but I can understand why we did (maybe).

 

[ralphie88]

Personally I think Hargreaves is alright, apart from the porpoise-eating, which puts me off him a bit.

In retrospect, we probably shouldn't have bought him, but I can understand why we did (maybe).

Damning with faint praise indeed!

 

[kf]

Personally I think Hargreaves is alright, apart from the porpoise-eating, which puts me off him a bit.

In retrospect, we probably shouldn't have bought him, but I can understand why we did (maybe).

Bayern obviously knew about the porpoise thing. That's why the let him go for such a reasonable fee. Didn't want to be associated with it when it hit the papers. Christ, can you imagine the headlines in Bild?

Schande des Engländer: Hargo ißt Tümmler schlag

 

[Jacob]

'Kinell, drop this discussion will ya?

 

[Gazza]

Schande des Engländer: Hargo ißt Tümmler schlag

It only took 3000 posts but finally this thread is worth something

 

[noodlehair]

You wish. You posted all the usual shit views people have in the match day threads during games. When they are usually being over the top and inacurate with most of their comments. Or just plain stupid.

No, I quoted every post that mentioned Owen Hargreaves. We're going round in circles again...

Yes. Provided those views don't come from the match day thread. Where people like you have be known to post utter crap. Even before a game has begun.

The one fatal flaw being, it wasn't a matchday thread, as Manchester United don't usually tend to play in games between Bayern Munich and AC Milan.

Yes. The good minority.

Not really. You'd probably already decided how well Hargreaves had played before the game had even kicked off. A bit like IK with Rooney. You're too blinkered to consider any other possibility.

I just find it funny how you've become so pointlessly obsessed with the two AC Milan games, and yet despite being so obsessed by them, you still can't bring yourself to consider what actually happened during them

 

[Sam]

To end this debate, can someone just post some links to the Bayern - AC Milan matches so we can all watch and see what really happened ?

 

[ralphie88]

The one fatal flaw being, it wasn't a matchday thread, as Manchester United don't usually tend to play in games between Bayern Munich and AC Milan.

Aren't three teams allowed to play in the same match in the UEFA Cup Final? I thought that was what made Zidane's victorious performance for Bordeaux even more impressive?

 

[kf]

The shit's hit the fan!

 

[choiboyx012]

come on guys we can get 3000 posts... i believe in you

 

[Wes]

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

No, I quoted every post that mentioned Owen Hargreaves. We're going round in circles again...

All posts full of shit views. Which no sports website in the world will back up.

The one fatal flaw being, it wasn't a matchday thread, as Manchester United don't usually tend to play in games between Bayern Munich and AC Milan.

Please That was a match day thread. Started and sued as the match was in progress. The usual shit that gets posted in match day threads was posted there. It doesn't matter whether United is involved or not.

Not really. You'd probably already decided how well Hargreaves had played before the game had even kicked off. A bit like IK with Rooney. You're too blinkered to consider any other possibility.

I have never been you. Who already determines and declares assured losses for our team. Even before a ball has been kicked.
Neither have I ever let my personal feelings getting in the way of assessing a player.

I just find it funny how you've become so pointlessly obsessed with the two AC Milan games, and yet despite being so obsessed by them, you still can't bring yourself to consider what actually happened during them

You really are stupid. I'm not remotely obsessed. I just keep pointing out to ignorant people like you the facts on the ground. Because you love to tell us how Carrick is superior to Hargreaves and has no flaw. Plus how Hargreaves is shit. With nothing concrete to back you up. Thus, I always bring out the one litmus test they both took: Milan. Only when you stop being obssesed with spreading your heretic gospel that Hargreaves is shit and Carrick is way superior to him. Will I stop bringing it up.