Hargreaves - one signing too many?

Gazza · 30th January 2008, 04:02

I think Hargreaves, if he can sort out his injuries (which is seeming like a big if), will be a very important player for us in games against teams with a decent midfield who are prepared to have a go at us (like Champions League games, games against the big 3, and some away games), but he's not needed in most home games, because the defence can sort things out without his help, easily.

Gazza · 30th January 2008, 04:03

Fuck, this is 27 pages?? Has Berbatov signed yet??

Alex · 30th January 2008, 04:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazza

I think Hargreaves, if he can sort out his injuries (which is seeming like a big if), will be a very important player for us in games against teams with a decent midfield who are prepared to have a go at us (like Champions League games, games against the big 3, and some away games), but he's not needed in most home games, because the defence can sort things out without his help, easily.

He is the new Saha, the talent and ability is there, but when you can't ever stay fit its near impossible to play near your best

Ekeke · 30th January 2008, 04:36

The annoying thing is he's 27. The next 3 years of his career should be his best ones, but that wont be the case if he cant stay fit.

Johnno · 30th January 2008, 04:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekeke

The annoying thing is he's 27. The next 3 years of his career should be his best ones, but that wont be the case if he cant stay fit.

Hargreaves has had less major injuries in seven years than Rooney has had for us in three and a half years (three metatarsals anyone?), so by your way of thinking, we should fuck Rooney off as well perhaps?

Ekeke · 30th January 2008, 05:03

Hargreaves has a recurring injury problem. Its not the same as being unlucky with bone breaks.

And I never said to fuck him off, just that if he can't stay fit for the next 3 years they wont be the best ones of his career.

Johnno · 30th January 2008, 05:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekeke

Hargreaves has a recurring injury problem. Its not the same as being unlucky with bone breaks.

And I never said to fuck him off, just that if he can't stay fit for the next 3 years they wont be the best ones of his career.

Well that’s pretty obvious innit, but what’s to say he will be? He has had a few niggling injuries since he joined us, nothing more. Once he gets going, he’ll be fine.

Ekeke · 30th January 2008, 05:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnno

Well that’s pretty obvious innit, but what’s to say he will be? He has had a few niggling injuries since he joined us, nothing more. Once he gets going, he’ll be fine.

I hope that as much as anyone, but not everyone overcomes their recurring injuries.

Woodgate, Saha, Owen...

We just have to wait and see what happens there.

Alex · 30th January 2008, 06:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnno

Hargreaves has had less major injuries in seven years than Rooney has had for us in three and a half years (three metatarsals anyone?), so by your way of thinking, we should fuck Rooney off as well perhaps?

Rooney has been unlucky with those and doesnt pick up the minor knocks like Hargo. One only need and look at the fact that we are half way through the season, a season in which Rooney broke his foot in the first game and still Rooney almost has twice as many games played this year than Hargreaves. Rooney can't keep on breaking his foot though, it would be like a surgeon who kept breaking his hand after a while its just not gonna be the same.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber · 30th January 2008, 07:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

That is inaccurate and a gross misrepresentation of the truth

Quote:

Originally Posted by sincher

Truth is, you were spouting as usual.

You wish. I stand by my statement. He was the worst because his awful performance was the most costly.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber · 30th January 2008, 07:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by sincher

No, you haven't only done that. You said this: Originally Posted by Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

And on the night Carrick was by far our worst player.

What a Pathetic attempt at misquoting someone out of context to suit your own ends.

who said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

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

Another poster apart from me?

choiboyx012 · 30th January 2008, 08:46

he's a warrior though. i'm sure he'd play injured if he could. at least it doesnt seem like it's taking a mental toll on him like some other guy.

Xander45 · 30th January 2008, 09:40

The past couple of games that he played Hargreaves has been looking more like the player we wanted to sign. If he can stay fit then he has a big part to play, especially on tricky away days in Europe.

sincher · 30th January 2008, 10:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

You wish. I stand by my statement. He was the worst because his awful performance was the most costly.

But, originally, you rated Brown the worst. So, you changed your mind a long time later based on a fuzzy memory of the game. Not complicated is it? You don't really understand how words work, it seems.

Nucks · 30th January 2008, 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekeke

I hope that as much as anyone, but not everyone overcomes their recurring injuries.

Woodgate, Saha, Owen...

We just have to wait and see what happens there.

Taking an injury like that has long term recurring effects that usually won't be related directly to the original injury, but caused indirectly by it.

Take for example any ligament injury to the knee. Very often if a player (any sport) comes back too early they will end up with hip flexor and groin issues because they are subconsciously altering their gaite to compensate for the weaker knee.

Hargreaves came back probably too early at Bayern with his leg. Probably in no small part due to our interest in him. He probably felt a tremendous amount of pressure to prove he was deserving of a possible transfer and rushed back as early as possible.

I think Owen is another case of someone who has had an injury or too and then for whatever reason came back too early and now he has severely damaged his durability.

Shotgun raisin · 31st January 2008, 01:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

Re my Ronaldo example, I wasn't saying there'd be any debate about how many goals he'd scored, I was saying that by your lights, in order to infer from the number of goals whether he was in good form, you'd have to go though every goal and check what opposition it was against, whether it was a fluke, etc.

As it happens, I was actually talking bollocks - although you didn't work out the reason why it was bollocks, which is that Hargreaves hasn't played enough games to serve as a decent sample. I assumed he'd started more than 12 games, that's not a big enough sample size to effectively iron out the unusual features of each game. When he's played 100 games though, if we're still letting in more and creating less than we are without him over the same period, that will be very good evidence that he's making us play worse.

Same goes for your point about Rooney and Tevez, if your sample size is 3 games, then yes it's perfectly possible that the results are distorted by the fact that Rooney's was in a 4-5-1 in the rain against Arsenal, Chelsea and Milan. If your sample size is reasonable, then it will iron out factors like opposition and weather and be a good guide to how effective the players are.

Some decent points there and what you've said is fair enough. But the point of the statistics was never to give a "definitive" baseball batting averagey "type thing". The figures were intended to suggest a trend rather than provide conclusive evidence, which is why I only ever commented on the difference in our goal scoring stats. That difference was so incredibly stark that I felt it was enough to suggest something underlying. I never made any claims about the significance of our defending with Hargreaves in the side, beyond actually quoting the figures, for the same reasons that you've talked about in your post.

Anyway, the point of this all is that I didn't just decide to count up all these numbers on a whim. I've watched every minute United have played this season and imo we play with an ostensibly different dynamic when Hargreaves is in the side. Figures on their own don't mean everything (though Nucks seems to have the wrong end of the stick as to why, bless him) but in this case I thought they reflected reality enough for me to want to post them. Hopefully this will make people look at out teamplay with a bit more scrutiny now and save me having to write a detailed exposition in the future as to why I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

Nucks · 31st January 2008, 01:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

Re my Ronaldo example, I wasn't saying there'd be any debate about how many goals he'd scored, I was saying that by your lights, in order to infer from the number of goals whether he was in good form, you'd have to go though every goal and check what opposition it was against, whether it was a fluke, etc.

These are different circumstances. Taking arbitrary numbers and comparing players without context is rediculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

As it happens, I was actually talking bollocks - although you didn't work out the reason why it was bollocks, which is that Hargreaves hasn't played enough games to serve as a decent sample. I assumed he'd started more than 12 games, that's not a big enough sample size to effectively iron out the unusual features of each game. When he's played 100 games though, if we're still letting in more and creating less than we are without him over the same period, that will be very good evidence that he's making us play worse.

Thats for pointing that out Captain Obvious. I don't see why you are going in this direction but shall we? My points are valid and correct, you can't invalidate them by bringing up another point that I didn't feel the need to comment on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

Same goes for your point about Rooney and Tevez, if your sample size is 3 games, then yes it's perfectly possible that the results are distorted by the fact that Rooney's was in a 4-5-1 in the rain against Arsenal, Chelsea and Milan. If your sample size is reasonable, then it will iron out factors like opposition and weather and be a good guide to how effective the players are.

As it happens, I was actually talking bullocks, although you didn't seem to pick up on the fact. My example was an absurd and extreme example that while unlikely to occur is proof as to why you cannot compare players against each other in such a manner without any sort of meaningful points of comparison.

You bring up sample sizes, great, you are aware that sample sizes are part of scientific validity which is what I am talking about. It goes hand in hand and I see no reason to spell out every step of the process. If you don't know it, then you have no business presenting information about something that has nothing to do with what you think it does.

I have NO idea what those stats raisin posted were measuring, but they were certainly not the merits of Carrick versus Hargreaves.

Plechazunga · 31st January 2008, 01:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nucks

These are different circumstances. Taking arbitrary numbers and comparing players without context is rediculous.

Thats for pointing that out Captain Obvious. I don't see why you are going in this direction but shall we? My points are valid and correct, you can't invalidate them by bringing up another point that I didn't feel the need to comment on.

As it happens, I was actually talking bullocks, although you didn't seem to pick up on the fact. My example was an absurd and extreme example that while unlikely to occur is proof as to why you cannot compare players against each other in such a manner without any sort of meaningful points of comparison.

You bring up sample sizes, great, you are aware that sample sizes are part of scientific validity which is what I am talking about. It goes hand in hand and I see no reason to spell out every step of the process. If you don't know it, then you have no business presenting information about something that has nothing to do with what you think it does.

I have NO idea what those stats raisin posted were measuring, but they were certainly not the merits of Carrick versus Hargreaves.

Well, the point you missed, by not pointing out the actual flaw in the stats, and that you seem to be still missing, is that the statistic would indeed be meaningful and suggestive, if the sample size were bigger. That is, if, over time, games featuring Hargreaves continue to yield less goals for us and more against than games without Hargreaves, it will be very good evidence that we're less effective with Hargreaves.

Not sure it was ever meant to say anything about Hargreaves v Carrick, more Hargreaves v. the other centre midfielders. But I can't be arsed to check... be my guest if you're bothered.

Youngie · 31st January 2008, 02:01

Trust fergie lads...he knows best!

Shotgun raisin · 31st January 2008, 02:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nucks

You bring up sample sizes, great, you are aware that sample sizes are part of scientific validity which is what I am talking about. It goes hand in hand and I see no reason to spell out every step of the process. If you don't know it, then you have no business presenting information about something that has nothing to do with what you think it does.

Scientific validity, ffs? This is football. The best you're gonna do is form a subjective opinion and then use stats to suggest a trend.

Incidentally (and I don't mention this to try and nullify your opinion or anything) I studied Maths at Uni and one of the statistics lecturers once told an anecdote about how a paediatrician mate of his asked him to crunch the numbers on a new surgical procedure that his hospital was carrying out on babies. The sample size was only about 20, but based solely on the stats the lecturer came up with the new surgical procedure was immediately stopped.

Hargreaves inclusion in the lineup obviously doesn't have the life and death import of baby surgery, but sometimes it is possible to draw an inference on a limited sample. Even in a scientific context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nucks

I have NO idea what those stats raisin posted were measuring, but they were certainly not the merits of Carrick versus Hargreaves.

Err... You're right. It was never about Carrick. Though now you mention him, he is a much better player than Hargreaves.

Plechazunga · 31st January 2008, 02:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shotgun raisin

Some decent points there and what you've said is fair enough. But the point of the statistics was never to give a "definitive" baseball batting averagey "type thing". The figures were intended to suggest a trend rather than provide conclusive evidence, which is why I only ever commented on the difference in our goal scoring stats. That difference was so incredibly stark that I felt it was enough to suggest something underlying. I never made any claims about the significance of our defending with Hargreaves in the side, beyond actually quoting the figures, for the same reasons that you've talked about in your post.

Anyway, the point of this all is that I didn't just decide to count up all these numbers on a whim. I've watched every minute United have played this season and imo we play with an ostensibly different dynamic when Hargreaves is in the side. Figures on their own don't mean everything (though Nucks seems to have the wrong end of the stick as to why, bless him) but in this case I thought they reflected reality enough for me to want to post them. Hopefully this will make people look at out teamplay with a bit more scrutiny now and save me having to write a detailed exposition in the future as to why I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

Yes, I agree. Some stats are pointless, I don't much like the "assists" stats, partly cos I hate the word "assists", but also because so much of the creativity behind a goal is lost in that stat. Scholes doesn't lay on that many goals directly, but it's very often a clever ball from him that's made a simple lay-off possible. But the "assists" stats give all the credit to whoever played the simple lay-off. Obviously over the course of the season the assists stat tells you something, but it elides a lot.

I prefer making judgements based on a gut feeling from watching, as you say. In this case, the two seem to support each other, as in games involving Hargreaves - and especially Hargreaves and Carrick together - our play has tended to look more sterile.

mehro · 31st January 2008, 02:07

I agree with the sexy bird, i.e. Shotgun raisin.

Shotgun raisin · 31st January 2008, 02:12

I'm nowhere near as sexy as Mehro. Nobody makes leather chaps and gimp masks look as good as him.

Nucks · 31st January 2008, 02:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shotgun raisin

Scientific validity, ffs? This is football. The best you're gonna do is form a subjective opinion and then use stats to suggest a trend.

Incidentally (and I don't mention this to try and nullify your opinion or anything) I studied Maths at Uni and one of the statistics lecturers once told an anecdote about how a paediatrician mate of his asked him to crunch the numbers on a new surgical procedure that his hospital was carrying out on babies. The sample size was only about 20, but based solely on the stats the lecturer came up with the new surgical procedure was immediately stopped.

Hargreaves inclusion in the lineup obviously doesn't have the life and death import of baby surgery, but sometimes it is possible to draw an inference on a limited sample. Even in a scientific context.

Err... You're right. It was never about Carrick. Though now you mention him, he is a much better player than Hargreaves.

Thats why Carrick is a regular England player.

The point is you cannot compare something when there are so many variables you are not accounting for. It is simple really. Being a math whiz you should know that. It is a very basic principle.

Everyone who is slating Hargreaves are eventually going to realize the err of their ways. People are judging Hargreaves based on his form coming back from a DEVASTATING leg injury, a leg injury that will cause him problems well after the bone has mended. Even then Hargreaves has been at least as good as Carrick. Hargreaves hasn't had any shockers. Carrick has had 2 at last count.

Then we have people who have the built in excuse that "Carrick needs a run of games to find his form, he was injured afterall". Then out of the other side of their mouth they bash Hargreaves.

Carrick better than Hargreaves? Which way is the yellow brick road. Clearly we have left Kansas far behind.

Plechazunga · 31st January 2008, 02:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nucks

The point is you cannot compare something when there are so many variables you are not accounting for. It is simple really. Being a math whiz you should know that. It is a very basic principle.

This is the bit you're not getting. The whole point of a statistical analysis is that it can iron out a lot of those variables.

The stat in question, if it holds up over a reasonable period, will tell us a good deal about Hargreaves' impact on the team, for better or worse.

noodlehair · 31st January 2008, 02:32

I think I have this confused with another thread

30th January 2008, 04:02	#1041 (permalink)
Gazza Magic Carpet Pilot Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: "The great thing about United, as a result of Matt Busby, is that they have a philosophy of a club that is very discernable. You know what Manchester United stand for." Posts: 25,080	I think Hargreaves, if he can sort out his injuries (which is seeming like a big if), will be a very important player for us in games against teams with a decent midfield who are prepared to have a go at us (like Champions League games, games against the big 3, and some away games), but he's not needed in most home games, because the defence can sort things out without his help, easily.

30th January 2008, 04:03	#1042 (permalink)
Gazza Magic Carpet Pilot Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: "The great thing about United, as a result of Matt Busby, is that they have a philosophy of a club that is very discernable. You know what Manchester United stand for." Posts: 25,080	Fuck, this is 27 pages?? Has Berbatov signed yet??

30th January 2008, 04:36	#1044 (permalink)
Ekeke McFuckwit Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,915	The annoying thing is he's 27. The next 3 years of his career should be his best ones, but that wont be the case if he cant stay fit.

30th January 2008, 05:03	#1046 (permalink)
Ekeke McFuckwit Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,915	Hargreaves has a recurring injury problem. Its not the same as being unlucky with bone breaks. And I never said to fuck him off, just that if he can't stay fit for the next 3 years they wont be the best ones of his career.

30th January 2008, 08:46	#1052 (permalink)
choiboyx012 Carrick>Hargreaves Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 2,571	he's a warrior though. i'm sure he'd play injured if he could. at least it doesnt seem like it's taking a mental toll on him like some other guy.

30th January 2008, 09:40	#1053 (permalink)
Xander45 Reserve Team Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Everywhere and Nowhere Posts: 1,622	The past couple of games that he played Hargreaves has been looking more like the player we wanted to sign. If he can stay fit then he has a big part to play, especially on tricky away days in Europe.

31st January 2008, 02:01	#1059 (permalink)
Youngie Reserve Team Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: "Ach..away and print yer Shite!" Posts: 2,876	Trust fergie lads...he knows best!

31st January 2008, 02:07	#1062 (permalink)
mehro President of the Kick Smashed Out Movement Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 19,433	I agree with the sexy bird, i.e. Shotgun raisin.

31st January 2008, 02:12	#1063 (permalink)
Shotgun raisin Reserve Team Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: the path of the Mean Posts: 2,664	I'm nowhere near as sexy as Mehro. Nobody makes leather chaps and gimp masks look as good as him.

31st January 2008, 02:32	#1066 (permalink)
noodlehair Sacked Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. Posts: 31,982	I think I have this confused with another thread