Owen Hargreaves | 2010/11 Performances
- Thread starter SharkyMcShark
- Start date
- Status
That just your take on things. A fully fit Hargreaves would be an asset to our side. No question.
No he isn't. All his problems with injuries have stemmed from dodgy knees. If Steadman has worked his magic again, Hargreaves will not get injured as often any more. If at all.
That's a terrible assupmtion really. Many players have come back from long term injuries and have still proven to be top players or in some cases like Xavi, better than the were prio to injury. People like Alan Smith are actually the exception to the rule.
Still more assumptions. You just don't grasp that all his problems with injury came from dogy kness. Once those knees are completely fixed, as Steadman believes they are, he wont be getting injured as much. That should be obvious really. All this talk of a 'glass cannon' is laughable in the extreme.
You do think up some serious bullshit don't you
We wouldn't be fools to give him another one once his knees are fixed. For his knees have been his one and only problem.
Wow...
You really, truly, believe all this don't you?
For me, the great fallacy about Hargreaves is that he is a great holding/screening midfield player. That, he is not. He's no where near as good as Carrick at that role because he doesn't have as much discipline or positional awareness. If we are going to play him in midfield, then he is going to be a Fletcher type player who presses far higher up the pitch.
I'd prefer that we allow Carrick to play himself into form and make that holding midfield role his own once more than put Hargreaves in there.
I'm with the Hargreaves-on-the-wing brigade, a position where he put in some of his best performances. He's a good option on that side in big games because obviously he can provide additional support to the central duo. It can work especially well if you've got an attacking full back that can keep the width if Hargreaves does get drawn into the middle. That's why I hope that Rafael can nail the spot down. An in-form Neville (like the back end of last season) also attacks to great effect.
This Hargreaves conversation is getting hugely frustrating though. He'd be such a great option to have, but we keep getting our hopes up unduly. I have severe doubts as to whether he'll ever be back at United.
In any case, if people see him as the answer to the holding midfield area, then I suspect they'll be disappointed. Carrick's the man to be looking to.
BBC Sport - Football - Owen Hargreaves 'closing in on return'
Has this been posted?
If yes, please spare me the Hitler Dead/Titanic Sinks posts!
Has this been posted?
If yes, please spare me the Hitler Dead/Titanic Sinks posts!
So any chance of a brief run out against Scunny?
It would be alot easier to play 4-4-2 in big games with the insurance of Hargreaves on the right...
Why shouldn't I? Mathaus, Ronaldo, Del Piero, Shearer, Van Nistelrooy to name a few all went through Steadmans hands. They also continued having top level careers after. There are also many players who have come back from career threatening injury and continued to have top level careers either better or close to their previous pre injury. People like Smith were amongst the unlucky few.
Didn't Keano also go to Steadman?
I refuse to get my hopes up though. We've been let down before by comments like this, although it's never come from Steadman like this I don't think. His opinion certainly carries more weight.
I'm not sure. I suspect he did.
Was discussing Smith in this context with friends yesterday. The conclusion was that his career was already on the wane/he was never that good in the first place.
I agree. If he thinks Hargreaves has hope. There is reason to hope.
Which is untrue. Smith really wasn't a poor player pre injury. Eduardo is another unlucky example. He recovered from the injury physically but not mentally.
You're talking about players with a whole host of different injuries there, chief.
If Hargreaves had done his cruciate or broke a bone I'd feel a lot more confident.
If Hargreaves had done his cruciate or broke a bone I'd feel a lot more confident.
Never said he was a poor player, but even before he did his knee in, he was on a downward spiral. The move into central midfield killed off his top level career imo.
It probably did, turning a decent squad striker (for a top team) into a midfield player of very little class. It was never going to last anyway.
I'm talking of players who all had knees that where next to finshed when Steadman go this hands on them. IIRC he also worked on Nadal who had the same problem as Hargreaves and returned with a bang to Tennis.
IMO if Steadman is optimistic. There is reason to hope.
Will be very surprised if he comes back into the team after so long out .. Will be surprised if he comes back at all ... I'll believe it when I see it ..
It all sounds too much like Ole to me.
Bad sign for Hargreaves then.
As with Smith, unable to hold a first team spot in his favoured position, had to make do with playing a less favoured position else not being in the team.
Never thought I'd see anyone compare Smith to Hargreaves... the internet really does have everything.
Remarkable. Presumably even Sven Goran Eriksson and Alex Ferguson have fallen for this 'great fallacy' then?
As he showed for England in 2006, he's a brilliant screening player and I'm sure that that's what Ferguson bought him for. Carrick, on the other hand, is not great at screening the back 4.
Seems to me you've got that all the wrong way round.
What he showed for England was a never say die attitude and a willingness to get forward and attack even while we were playing shite against Portugal. His screening wasnt impressive.
Why not? Especially as they play in the same position these days.
Granted that's not why the comparison was made like but still.
Or maybe he needed to play in other positions for the team, just like how rooney was pushed to left wing a couple of seasons back.
Same as Smith
Yeah now you're just trolling or have some mad vendetta against Canadians...
I don't think I've got it wrong at all. We'd be tighter at the back with an in form Carrick as opposed to an in form Hargreaves, whose dynamism would be better used higher up the field.
Say we played Barcelona, you'd want Hargreaves and Fletcher pressing high up the field, not sitting.
No, I just remember the tournament.
And dont overrate a player simply because his name was being talked about after it, and he's a defensive midfielder. It doesnt mean his defensive play was all that great. It wasnt. The reason he was being talked about was, England were shite and he got forward to help attack well even when England were playing shite.
I think you're just Canadianist... go on, admit it.
I'm not. Maybe Hargreaves is though. Afterall he chose not to represent them.
Now we get to the reason for your hate! You're a lover spurned!
I hate myth. Hargreaves is part of one. Possibly more than one.
Yeah, he's also the stig, well he would be if he could get the helmet over his glorious locks.
People don't like to actually critically think about what happened that season.
He came to us off a broken leg, which set us down this path. Struggled to remain fit. Carrick was having his best ever season. Was playing with what we now know was a progressing potentially career ending injury and he was playing through it.
Many people use the fact towards the end of the season when Hargreaves began to pick up steam he was shifted out to cover the right wing or right back. They say, "I have PROOF he was shit at CM, he only played well on the right!".
They ignore the fact Hargreaves in general started to get a run of games and start to pick things up. Shifting him to the right was coincidental to finding his form after a start-stop season.
Additionally, we needed someone to play on the right, I suppose we should have moved Carrick there, or Scholes, or Fletcher because that would then prove something about Hargreaves abilities in the center of the pitch, what specifically I am not sure! It never seems to register that Hargreaves is one of, if not the most versatile player on the team.
It was a situation where we were able to field a STRONGER squad than we would have had otherwise by having Hargreaves play wide. The alternative was what, picking between Hargreaves and Carrick and playing Nani, who was fairly terrible that year out wide? Instead you get Carrick and Hargreaves.
The reality is however, it is highly unlikely Hargreaves will shake off 2 years of rust. He will most likely be sold unless he stuns us or becomes a valuable utility player. Fletcher has grown into the position Hargreaves was meant to play and while I don't think Fletcher is as athletic or dynamic as Hargreaves will Hargreaves be as athletic or dynamic as he was before the surgeries?
If he does decently for us, I can see spurs or any of the 4-5 spot challengers picking him up.
I won't believe a thing until I see his name in the starting lineup. I've been disappointed too many times in the last 2 years!!!
hargreaves is better out wide than he is in CM positions in the league. He dwells on the ball much too long and takes ages even to pick out a short pass (i guess spent too much time in the much slower paced bundesliga). I've seen him get caught in posession easier than any of our other midfielders. I do think he does well in a RM/RB position where his crossing and engine can be used to shut down a whole side of the pitch.
Who would you trust against Barcelona?
Scholes - Fletcher
------Carrick
Scholes - Fletcher
--- Hargreaves
I know which one I'd go for.
Scholes - Fletcher
------Carrick
Scholes - Fletcher
--- Hargreaves
I know which one I'd go for.
You're speaking in terms of Carrick's recent form (or rather, lack of it). When he's on his game, I'd have him as the holding midfield player over Hargreaves.
Hargreaves would be competing with Fletcher to all intents and purposes, if we assume that Scholes would be playing. I prefer Hargreaves as the winger, being able to tuck in.
Edit:
For my money, all fit and in form, I'd go:
Nani-Scholes-Fletcher-Hargreaves
-----------Carrick
First one for sure. The manager would go with it as well.
- Status