Hargreaves - one signing too many?

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

No one said he wasn't.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Mate you are wrong. His failure to turn up had a domino effect on most of the team. Without a fully functioning midfield our defence was over exposed, our attackers under fed. Besides, no one said he alone didn't show up or that would be lie. But there is little doubt he and Fletcher's failure to contain Milan's midfield and one Gattuso precipitated the purchase of Hargreaves.

Judas Heinze was atrocious it's true. But mostly in first half. He wasn't as bad second half. But worse people were there.

As for Carrick, he never showed up for the match at all! He was shit from start to finish. By any standard. I rate him as the worst simply because his enforced absence a more crucial in our defeat.

But Just check out the match rating thread of that day. TBH there were even worse performers than those two:

Player Ratings

Pogue Mahone

You do realise there's a certain irony in you scape-goating a single player, after a poor team performance, in the same thread as you've fought tooth and nail to defend another player from suffering the same fate!

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Not really. Since I'm not actually scape goating him at all. I've consistently blamed many other players and departments for their role in our demise that night. However, I'm just presenting the clear truth that his being ill equipped for the situation cost us. Especially when people constantly promote the false claims that he is superior to Hargreaves, Hargreaves should not have been bought and the like. Had it not been for that night at the San Siro, we probably wouldn't have Hargreaves here. We would probably have brought in a cheaper, lesser experienced and younger option to under study Carrick and Fletcher.

Mate, I told people long before Carrick ever signed for us that a midfield of him and Scholes would fall badly short of the standard in Europe, when we met a Milan like side or other stubborn teams at home or domestically. Due to their natural lack of Hargreaves' qualities. But people like me and Devlish were laughed at and ridiculed often. However that match vindicated or view and high lighted our initial beliefs the best. So forgive me if I have been over using it to prove a point. In a somewhat gloating fashion

Pogue Mahone

The reason we lost to Milan was because our first-choice defence were all either injured or just back from injury and because the rest of the team didn't show up on the day. Rooney and Ronaldo were both shite in Milan. This doesn't mean they are bad players or the reason we got knocked out of Europe, it just means that they had a bad day at the office, having run their legs off in pursuit of the Premier League, while Milan had the luxury of resting all their best players in Serie A.

I can't quite believe you're trying to blame one player for the result (i.e. Michael Carrick) or trying to pretend that one player would have made an enormous difference on the night (i.e Owen Hargreaves). No wonder you and Devilish got stick. You deserved it. And gloating is only gonna make you look foolish all over again.

acnumber9

I thought Hargreaves played well on Sunday. He's the kind of player who's game is all about energy, hassling the opposition and breaking up play. I thought he did it quitre well while for the most part moving the ball on quickly and adequately. We will have to accept that he will have moments in games when his passing is not up to scratch, unfortunately it seems to be part of his game. At the moment, almost certainly due to lack of match fitness he's losing the ball quite often when trying to run it out of defence. when fully fit this side of his game should imporve a lot and will be of great benefit to us in the later stages of the season.

The whole Carrick - Hargreaves debate is one that will run and run. Some have gone way over the top in their defense of their own 'favourite' and have failed to see that both have deficincies in their game and that both despite that are excellent midfielders. My own take on the matter is that the Hargreaves fans have overstated his defensive qualities, his reading of the game and positional sense is not in the same league as Carrick's. Hargreaves however makes up for it with his pace, energy and strength. All of which are weaknesses in Carrick's game. It is obvious to all that Carrick is a superior passer.

My own opinion at the minute is that Carrick brings more to the team. But at the same time I would like to see Hargreaves and Scholes together for a few matches as I believe it has the makings of a great pairing. I also beleiev we can comfortably win matches with a midfield of Carrick and Anderson. It's great to have such choices and know that the team would not suffer greatly from anyone of them playing.

Pogue Mahone

A voice of reason. Agree completely. Nice summary.

Does my head in the way some fans have players who are such "favourites" that they lose all sense of perspective when it comes to discussing them.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Quit embarrassing your self. We played a weak defence against the same side at OT and won. The difference is at OT we never lost the midfield battle. Because Gattuso left the pitch. At the San Siro he didn't. Making us lose badly. Don't forget for one second that Carrick who was supposed to be our best and most experienced defensive midfielder on the day was far worse than even Fletcher. If by now still don't understand that the prime reason (not the only reason) Milan kicked us out was due to our midfield then you are pretty oblivious.

Stupid argument. Have I said any where Carrick is a shit player?

Better yet, did you EVER think that part of the reason Ronaldo, Giggs and Co didn't show up was because our midfield never supplied them with anything to work with? Because they mostly never had the ball and when Scholes, our only functioning midfielder, finally got it, he had no one to pass to because they were all man marked? And there was not space to play, since mostly Carrick was conceding space far to easily? Did that ever occur to you?

Did it Also escape you how Ronaldo and Rooney were both consistently double teamed, and triple teamed, especially when with the ball?


I never did. I said he was largely to blame. Which is totally different

Only a fool can fail to see that one player would have made a difference that night. Especially since one player actually decided the match in Milan's favour! If you had given us a Gattuso clone that night and stuck him in our team and left Gattuso on the other side, they would have canceled each other out, our midfield would have functioned like it did at OT and we would have won.


The only person looking foolish is people like you. Who always want to hide behind lame excuses rather than accept the truth. Which is had we had a one combative midfielder of Hargreaves ability to face Milan, even with out our best defence, we would have won ourselves a final appearance. That match was simply lost in midfield. Not due to fatigue or weak defence.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

I would agree with you if I hadn't seen Hargreaves make a mockery of a midfield containing the likes of Figo, Zidane and Makelele at their peak, over two legs. While in turn seeing a Carrick fail to make an impact against lesser mortals like Bodmer and Makoun in the self same champions league. Carrick's abilities continue to be overstated in such unbelievable fashion. The rest of you post is spot on though. I forgot to state

acnumber9

Whatever you say mate.

Pogue Mahone

Can't be arsed doing this whole multi-quote thing with you again (when will I ever learn?) but I think you're just plain wrong (not to mention bizarre) to come up with a hypothetical scenario where a "clone" of Gattuso would have won us that game and where the defeat was all down to problems in midfield (conveniently ignoring the keystone cops defending that gifted Milan their first two goals in Milan - not to mention their goal at OT)

FWIW, I think Hargreaves does provide an option in Europe that we didn't have last season. Which is a good thing. But any hope we have of winning the damn thing will depend on good luck with form, fitness and injuries throughout our squad and not on the presence or absence of a single player.

You obviously disagree with this opinion so I'm not gonna try and change your mind. Life's too short for such a futile exercise.

Peace.

Eyepopper

Hargreaves is a good player, exactly what we were missing in the squad last year. I agree with Chief in that he is exactly the type of player we need in games like Milan last year. That said I dont agree that it was Carricks fault we lost that game, Milan were better, more organised and more experienced (another reason Hargreaves is a good player for us, he has tons of experience).

Carrick is also a great player, his distribution is excellent when on form and he brings a certain organisation to the mf (if thats the right word)..

Its not really a question of one or the other, different horses for different courses, given time I could see them being good together (if Carrick could start pushing up the pitch a bit). People need to remember its only Carricks second year at Utd and Hargreaves first (in England even)... Both have missed a lot of time through injury aswell...

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

FFS come off the dumb ass act You know damn well what I meant when I talk of a Gatusso clone. There was nothing bizzare about it. It was a fucking metaphor. I din't have to spell it out to you like you were from kindergarten

Beside, how thick can you get? How many fucking times should I spell it out for you that others factor HAVE NO BEEN IGNORED? Have you seen ME SAY ANYWHERE that CARRICK ALONE was the only factor in our demise? ffs....Some people can never ever read what others actually post.

FWIW if you think even think I disagree with your oipnion one how we can win the champions league, it shows how much you actually read my posts and comprehend. Which is clearly zero. .on this evidence

& Good bloody, riddance by the way . Not peace. Don't freaking bother me again until you actually fucking learn how to read what I post.

Thus concludes the chief

sincher

That ratings thread reveals that by common consensus, the worst player on the pitch was in fact Heinze, and not Carrick.

It also reveals that the Chief has decided to change history by naming a completely different player as his 'worst'.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

This below must have escaped you in one of my previous posts:

Pogue Mahone

Grow up.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Neither do I. I've only consistently stated that his contribution was major amongst many but it keeps escaping people.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Go to hell, Pogue

Plechazunga

No, that's the whole point of statistics like this, they tend to iron out unusual or extraordinary factors. Their usefulness lies in the fact that they allow you to avoid having to go through each game's conditions and opposition etc. on a case by case basis.

If I told you Ronaldo had scored at least one goal in 70% of the games he's played this season, you wouldn't then go through every game, checking the quality of the opposition, in order to establish whether that meant he'd been in good goalscoring form this season. Whereas if I presented the same evidence based on one game where he'd got a hat-trick, you would.

The Hargreaves stat, as Shotgun said, is too divergent from the figure showing games without him to just dismiss out of hand. It's suggestive at the very least.

sincher

AH, but that was a correction to your own previous statement (that Carrick was the worst player on the pitch) - and a correction that you only made because someone pointed out that this may not have been the case.

Truth is, you were spouting as usual.

sincher

No, you haven't only done that. You said this:

Pogue Mahone

But you can't ignore selection bias. This is the fact that Hargreaves is more likely to be selected in tougher games against "big" opposition, when the team, as a whole, will struggle. This happened a lot, in the early part of the season, when he was used very sparingly because of his knee problem.

Julian Denny

Of course it wasn't just down to Carrick. We had a spate of injuries to start with. Both Rio and Vidic were out in the first leg and Neville's experience was missed too. Heinze was woefully inadequate in both games although we did produce an exhilarating finish at OT. We didn't adapt to the conditions in Milan and although Vidic was back there was no understanding between him and Heinze. We undoubtedly missed Rio. The defence just buckled under pressure. Also Ronnie and Giggs were isolated on the wrong wings with Rooney equally isolated upfront. There's no doubt that we would have done better with Hargreaves but we sorely missed our first choice defence and a decent tactical approach.

Carrick is a very good player but not a great one in my view. Hargeaves is quite limited as a midfielder but good within those