Hargreaves - one signing too many?

Sam Atherton · 9th December 2007, 19:26

While the majority of your points do make sense John, I have one issue and that is your point around Veloso. How can you be asking if Hargreaves was one signing too many whilst insinuating that we will need to replace him if we get rid?

Other than that I understand your point but i feel that Hargreaves will be of the utmost importance in the Champions League and will help us particularly in the big league games. Hopefully we will see that against Liverpool, although having said that, the way Carrick and Anderson played against Derby, he may not get the chance.

John the Writer · 9th December 2007, 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feedingseagulls

Except the balance of your initial points is clearly mostly about 'we don't need him when we have Anderson'.

That's not really the same as your later post...

... which reads as if his injury is the main point.

If you want to debate then stating your points clearly (and realising whether you have done so accurately or not) is important IMO.

Fair dos. But my first post does infer both points - however, I didn't underline the fitness issue as this is a fairly obvious point. I'm a bad man.

Feedingseagulls · 9th December 2007, 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by John the Writer

It's hardly ridiculous. I wouldn't say Anderson is worldclass at defending, but he has a physicality in his play that I hadn't anticipated. The slight improvement Hargreaves offers in this respect doesn't justify his price tag or his place in the team (neither does the fact he's injured more than he's fit but hey).

Except Hargreaves does offer much more in terms of defence - at least part of this is about his reading of the game and his experience allowing him to function well despite the pressure. With Hargreaves in the side we will be able to 'empower' the more creative players alongside him to an extent that is not brought by any alternative in our squad, when we need the extra defensive solidity, he will bring that as well.

Lastly, it is way too early to be having discussions like this if they are to be meaningful - we need more games with different combinations to come to any judgements. (Just consider how differently you probably felt about Carrick in April compared to November last season.)

Feedingseagulls · 9th December 2007, 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by John the Writer

Fair dos. But my first post does infer both points - however, I didn't underline the fitness issue as this is a fairly obvious point. I'm a bad man.

It's more that your later post suggested that the fitness point was your main issue, with no regard to how he plays - then you decided there was no contradiction here with your initial post.

(Oh btw it'd be 'imply'.)

John the Writer · 9th December 2007, 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Atherton

While the majority of your points do make sense John, I have one issue and that is your point around Veloso. How can you be asking if Hargreaves was one signing too many whilst insinuating that we will need to replace him if we get rid?

Other than that I understand your point but i feel that Hargreaves will be of the utmost importance in the Champions League and will help us particularly in the big league games. Hopefully we will see that against Liverpool, although having said that, the way Carrick and Anderson played against Derby, he may not get the chance.

I think the point about Veloso is that whilst I claim that Hargreaves wasn't a necessary signing, this is due primarily to his fairly limited capabilities and the fact he's injured a great deal. I'm confident we'd have managed fine this season without him, but with Scholes' advancing age, we would always have been looking to signing another midfielder at some point. Now, I can't say Veloso would've been any better than Hargreaves (I've seen him play once), but I'm not convinced Hargreaves would still be on our radar had we not signed him.

Hindsight is a fine thing mind.

Hassan · 9th December 2007, 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eyepopper

Thats a hell of a lot of bullshit in such a small space...

Can I quote?

Count Duckula · 9th December 2007, 19:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by friendlytramp

Count Duckula- biggest spastic on Redcafe?

Quite possibly. I say we ban him.

John the Writer · 9th December 2007, 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feedingseagulls

It's more that your later post suggested that the fitness point was your main issue, with no regard to how he plays - then you decided there was no contradiction here with your initial post.

(Oh btw it'd be 'imply'.)

Jesus, you really are about the semantics aren't you?!

John the Writer · 9th December 2007, 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Count Duckula

Quite possibly. I say we ban him.

Agreed.

Count Duckula · 9th December 2007, 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by John the Writer

Agreed.

Love you.

John the Writer · 9th December 2007, 19:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Count Duckula

Love you.

I knew it!

You're like the boy who punches the girl because he likes her and he's too embarrassed to admit it.

Come here you big daftie.

Feedingseagulls · 9th December 2007, 19:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by John the Writer

Jesus, you really are about the semantics aren't you?!

Not really, I do like people to try to make their arguments at least fairly logical and accurate though.

Also the infer/imply mistake was so basic for a 'writer' that I couldn't really reist it.

John the Writer · 9th December 2007, 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feedingseagulls

Not really, I do like people to try to make their arguments at least fairly logical and accurate though.

Also the infer/imply mistake was so basic for a 'writer' that I couldn't really reist it.

What mistake?

scottish_red · 9th December 2007, 19:53

to be honest i think your looking at this all wrong. It wasnt Hargreaves who was the surplus signing but indeed Anderson. Of course Mr A has surprised us by the form he has showed but at the start of the season, i recall he was going to be a bit part player for us this season. So Hargreaves current status is not due to misfortune, but the fortune of Anderson developing into a world class act.

Feedingseagulls · 9th December 2007, 19:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by John the Writer

What mistake?

You used the wrong word - the meanings are different.

Ekeke · 9th December 2007, 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by John the Writer

I know that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I really do get the feeling that Hargreaves has been a completely unnecessary signing. Obviously we all knew the need to sign an additional midfielder over the summer, and none of us could have expected Anderson to bed into the side in the manner he has. I get the feeling that ferguson persisted with this transfer due to the song and dance made about the lad the previous summer, but I also get the feeling he may well be re-evaluating Hargreaves' status in our squad. I think there might be something about the Veloso rumours, and if this move was to become a reality, I think Owen could well be the player to make way.

Now I realise that scholes won't play forever and Fletcher might not have Hargreaves' quality, but he's clearly injury prone, and he seems to be somewhat of a liability.

I didn't envisage Anderson being the player he is, and his ability to dominate a midfield and make crunching tackles renders what Hargreaves offers to the team almost redundant.

So what say you, was Hargreaves one signing too many?

We won't sell him after one season. He'll come good eventually, provided he can stay fit. He'll have to learn how to become a better footballer before then so that he doesn't disrupt our attacking flow, but I think he will.

I suspect we'll see him come into his own at the end of this season or the start of next season and offer a lot more than he does currently.

John the Writer · 9th December 2007, 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feedingseagulls

You used the wrong word - the meanings are different.

Is that so. I think it is you who has made the mistake my friend.

Gazza · 9th December 2007, 19:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feedingseagulls

Not really, I do like people to try to make their arguments at least fairly logical and accurate though.

Also the infer/imply mistake was so basic for a 'writer' that I couldn't really reist it.

Resist

John the Writer · 9th December 2007, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazza

Resist

Slick.

Feedingseagulls · 9th December 2007, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazza

Resist

Thanks!

Feedingseagulls · 9th December 2007, 20:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by John the Writer

Is that so. I think it is you who has made the mistake my friend.

Imply means 'to suggest'. Which a post might do on behalf of the poster.

Infer means 'to deduce' - it's the action of a reader understanding the intention of the writer.

scottish_red · 9th December 2007, 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feedingseagulls

Imply means 'to suggest'. Which a post might do on behalf of the poster.

Infer means 'to deduce' - it's the action of a reader understanding the intention of the writer.

so which one of you has the biggest cock ?

Ekeke · 9th December 2007, 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eyepopper

Think back to Milan last year.... they beat us because we showed them too much respect... for games like that we need a tough tackler to break up play, win the ball in CM and give it to Scholes, Ronaldo etc do their stuff,,,, thats exactly what Hargreaves is..... we dont have anyone else for that role...

They won because most of our first choice defense was injured and most of our players were jaded and tired. To add to that, most of our best players just didnt perform on the night (partly due to Milan's formation and tactics). Fletcher is the same type of player also (just not quite as good)

Eyepopper · 9th December 2007, 20:01

Look the fact is Hargreaves is an experienced senior international player whose been playing regularly at one of Europes top clubs for ten years, winning a stack of medals and other plaudits (European u21 player of the year a few years back).... He'd be a regular at most of the top teams in Europe (anyone wonder why we had such a fight getting him from Bayern?)

You can have whatever opinion you want but to suggest a player with that sort of experience is surplus to requirements is out and out bollocks... another point you might want to consider before he's packed off is that while Anderson (who I personally think is a totally different type of player) has had a brilliant start, he's 19 years of age and far from the finished product... a few weeks of him being off form and you'll be calling him the new Kleberson...

Eyepopper · 9th December 2007, 20:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekeke

They won because most of our first choice defense was injured and most of our players were jaded and tired. To add to that, most of our best players just didnt perform on the night (partly due to Milan's formation and tactics). Fletcher is the same type of player also (just not quite as good)

Ok, yeah the fact that Kaka was allowed to run riot had nothing to do with it...

John the Writer · 9th December 2007, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by DA2

Yes....

Imply is a more assertive and 'active' term and infer generally more 'passive' and subjective.

Passive and subjective, that was my intention, not that this really has anything to do with the thread.

I'd just like to point out that trying to make people look stupid isn't an attractive quality. You also look quite foolish when you fail.

Ekeke · 9th December 2007, 20:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eyepopper

Ok, yeah the fact that Kaka was allowed to run riot had nothing to do with it...

He'd run riot whether Hargreaves was playing or not.

However, we'd play worse attacking football with the Hargreaves we've seen in a United shirt so far. It would have been a similar result.

Besides, Kaka's goals came from our defensive lapses. Do you really want Hargreaves to play inside our 18 yard box?

Eyepopper · 9th December 2007, 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekeke

He'd run riot whether Hargreaves was playing or not.

However, we'd play worse attacking football with the Hargreaves we've seen in a United shirt so far. It would have been a similar result.

Besides, Kaka's goals came from our defensive lapses. Do you really want Hargreaves to pla

9th December 2007, 19:26	#81 (permalink)
Sam Atherton Reserve Team Player Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: "They rested their balls on our chins and brushed our teeth with their d*cks"- Michael Cera Posts: 1,170	While the majority of your points do make sense John, I have one issue and that is your point around Veloso. How can you be asking if Hargreaves was one signing too many whilst insinuating that we will need to replace him if we get rid? Other than that I understand your point but i feel that Hargreaves will be of the utmost importance in the Champions League and will help us particularly in the big league games. Hopefully we will see that against Liverpool, although having said that, the way Carrick and Anderson played against Derby, he may not get the chance.

9th December 2007, 19:53	#94 (permalink)
scottish_red Youth Team Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: cloud 9 Posts: 403	to be honest i think your looking at this all wrong. It wasnt Hargreaves who was the surplus signing but indeed Anderson. Of course Mr A has surprised us by the form he has showed but at the start of the season, i recall he was going to be a bit part player for us this season. So Hargreaves current status is not due to misfortune, but the fortune of Anderson developing into a world class act.

9th December 2007, 20:01	#104 (permalink)
Eyepopper First Team Regular Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Lowering the Tone since 2006 Posts: 10,474	Look the fact is Hargreaves is an experienced senior international player whose been playing regularly at one of Europes top clubs for ten years, winning a stack of medals and other plaudits (European u21 player of the year a few years back).... He'd be a regular at most of the top teams in Europe (anyone wonder why we had such a fight getting him from Bayern?) You can have whatever opinion you want but to suggest a player with that sort of experience is surplus to requirements is out and out bollocks... another point you might want to consider before he's packed off is that while Anderson (who I personally think is a totally different type of player) has had a brilliant start, he's 19 years of age and far from the finished product... a few weeks of him being off form and you'll be calling him the new Kleberson...