Hargreaves - one signing too many?

Feedingseagulls · 9th December 2007, 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by DA2

Jesus H...... in this particular case and in the context of the thread does it really fucking matter?? You understood exactly what he meant so stop being such a pedantic git....

Actually, when he's so deluded he thinks he isn't making a mistake and then expects us to take notice of his opinions generally, then yes tbh, it does matter. If he's that inaccurate in the simple things, what's he like when it comes to important detail? What credit should we give to his arguments when he appears not to understand the logical structure of debate?

His error meant that I had to 'infer' (or guess) what he really meant - not too difficult, but we really shouldn't have to do this for native speakers.

I also think his points are garbage, as I pointed out earlier - that will tend to make me less tolerant.

Finally, someone labelling themselves a 'writer' should be able to recognise their linguistic mistakes when they are pointed out, rather than suggest that the other person is in error.

Instant Karma · 9th December 2007, 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekeke

It's not about Carrick being one of the best players on the pitch. It's about him giving the ball to Rooney and Ronaldo in situations they can take advantage of on the break and helping Scholes to make progressive passes whilst playing deep enough to break up play - something he doesn't do much worse than Hargreaves.

He brings much more to our game than Hargreaves does.

And is that why Ronaldo, Rooney and Giggs were isolated upfront and each surrounded by 2/3 markers against Milan? They were getting fuck all support from Carrick. Plus the likes of Ronaldo and Giggs always need to track back more even when we have a 3 man midfield.

How many times has Carrick actually passed the ball to Ronaldo/Rooney to break against a top side? Not once, because Ronaldo is always in our own half when we dont have the ball. Maybe half heartedly tracking back but he sure isnt in a position to break. We dont have a ball winner to get the ball back and top sides just dont give away possession. When Ronaldo/Rooney do get the ball when we attack, they are surrounded by 2/3 players and with no support from midfield. Scholes doesnt go forward that much to support because he cant track back quickly and Carrick isnt good enough to cover defensively.

Hargreaves allows our attacking players the freedom to go forward more without worrying much about tracking back/ defending.

REd FUn DevIl · 9th December 2007, 21:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instant Karma

And is that why Ronaldo, Rooney and Giggs were isolated upfront and each surrounded by 2/3 markers against Milan? They were getting fuck all support from Carrick. Plus the likes of Ronaldo and Giggs always need to track back more even when we have a 3 man midfield.

How many times has Carrick actually passed the ball to Ronaldo/Rooney to break against a top side? Not once, because Ronaldo is always in our own half when we dont have the ball. Maybe half heartedly tracking back but he sure isnt in a position to break. We dont have a ball winner to get the ball back and top sides just dont give away possession. When Ronaldo/Rooney do get the ball when we attack, they are surrounded by 2/3 players and with no support from midfield. Scholes doesnt go forward that much to support because he cant track back quickly and Carrick isnt good enough to cover defensively.

Hargreaves allows our attacking players the freedom to go forward more without worrying much about tracking back/ defending.

Thats the reason why Hargreaves is first choice no matter if we play against Derby or Arsenal

John the Writer · 9th December 2007, 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feedingseagulls

Actually, when he's so deluded he thinks he isn't making a mistake and then expects us to take notice of his opinions generally, then yes tbh, it does matter. If he's that inaccurate in the simple things, what's he like when it comes to important detail? What credit should we give to his arguments when he appears not to understand the logical structure of debate?

His error meant that I had to 'infer' (or guess) what he really meant - not too difficult, but we really shouldn't have to do this for native speakers.

I also think his points are garbage, as I pointed out earlier - that will tend to make me less tolerant.

Finally, someone labelling themselves a 'writer' should be able to recognise their linguistic mistakes when they are pointed out, rather than suggest that the other person is in error.

Jesus, you're like a dog with a hard on. Just give it up. Inferred, implied, who really gives a fuck. It's just words Mr Seagulls, I never meant you any harm.

You think my points are garbage, that's fine. They probably are. I'll have a wank and sleep soundly.

Personally I think you're a little bitter. It's hardly my fault your thread about gun jumping or whatever it was, was a bit too inside for the rest of the board.

Instant Karma · 9th December 2007, 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by REd FUn DevIl

Thats the reason why Hargreaves is first choice no matter if we play against Derby or Arsenal

Exactly...watch the goal we conceded against Derby. Carrick is jogging 5 yards from Teale and does fuck all to gain back possession. Hargreaves would have tried to win the ball but he runs around like a headless chicken

Last season - a last minute smash and grab at Anfield, get beaten home and away by Arsenal, get humiliated by the likes of Lille, Celtic, Copenhagen away from home. FFS, we even struggled against Boro, away to Fulham, away at Pompey, away against City and at St James when the likes of Ronaldo/Scholes had to produce something exceptional for the points. Carrick is exactly what we need because he can pass well against Charlton and Wigan.

Eyepopper · 9th December 2007, 21:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekeke

Watch the videos. He could do nothing about the first goal video (unless he was playing inside the 18 yard box) in the second he could possibly have brought Kaka down.

Fletcher was great against Roma. What's your point?

I also find it funny how Sissoko is considered a joke on this forum, but he plays largely in the same way Hargreaves does. He's agressive and strong, makes tackles but he's got shit for actual footballing ability. Hargreaves is still much better at this, but nowhere near to the same level as our other midfielders.

Thats the greatest load of bollocks ever...

John the Writer · 9th December 2007, 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instant Karma

Exactly...watch the goal we conceded against Derby. Carrick is jogging 5 yards from Teale and does fuck all to gain back possession. Hargreaves would have tried to win the ball but he runs around like a headless chicken

Last season - a last minute smash and grab at Anfield, get beaten home and away by Arsenal, get humiliated by the likes of Lille, Celtic, Copenhagen away from home. FFS, we even struggled against Boro, away to Fulham, away at Pompey, away against City and at St James when the likes of Ronaldo/Scholes had to produce something exceptional for the points. Carrick is exactly what we need because he can pass well against Charlton and Wigan.

We did win the league though did we not?

Instant Karma · 9th December 2007, 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by John the Writer

We did win the league though did we not?

Carrick was the least influential starter and all this claims about him being able to tear apart weak teams is a fucking myth. Other than maybe one or two games Carrick was generally very mediocre in the away games. From VDS to Rooney, everyone of our regular starters had a far bigger hand in us winning.

If Arsenal win the league this season, it wouldnt make the likes of Flamini, Sagna or Alumina world class. If Chelsea do win, Mikel or Belleti wouldnt be called as great. Every title winning side has a passenger or two.

Moston Red · 9th December 2007, 21:26

No...he's worth his place in our team.

Mozza · 9th December 2007, 21:27

We didn't need him but he is better then Fletcher so he is atleast an improvement on what we had.

Feedingseagulls · 9th December 2007, 21:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by John the Writer

Jesus, you're like a dog with a hard on. Just give it up. Inferred, implied, who really gives a fuck. It's just words Mr Seagulls, I never meant you any harm.

You think my points are garbage, that's fine. They probably are. I'll have a wank and sleep soundly.

Personally I think you're a little bitter. It's hardly my fault your thread about gun jumping or whatever it was, was a bit too inside for the rest of the board.

The point is that your opinions/arguments here are themselves just words - we use them to communicate. When trying to make a case it makes sense to use words to accurately express what we mean. (When making a point with a joke we might use a bit more freedom.)

Personally, I think your main mistake (apart from your erroneous conclusion) was in suggesting that your liking Hargreaves performances and his lack of fitness summarised your earlier points when they did not.

Enough people understood what the 'gun jumping' thread was about - and it was a bit more fun than just telling everyone to hold fire until the evidence allowed us to make allowances for the different circumstances, at length, in every single thread concerned.

John the Writer · 9th December 2007, 21:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feedingseagulls

The point is that your opinions/arguments here are themselves just words - we use them to communicate. When trying to make a case it makes sense to use words to accurately express what we mean. (When making a point with a joke we might use a bit more freedom.)

Personally, I think your main mistake (apart from your erroneous conclusion) was in suggesting that your liking Hargreaves performances and his lack of fitness summarised your earlier points when they did not.

Enough people understood what the 'gun jumping' thread was about - and it was a bit more fun than just telling everyone to hold fire until the evidence allowed us to make allowances for the different circumstances, at length, in every single thread concerned.

Christ, you're about as much fun as syphilis.

Feedingseagulls · 9th December 2007, 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by John the Writer

Christ, you're about as much fun as syphilis.

Much more fun - just as difficult to get rid of though.

John the Writer · 9th December 2007, 21:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feedingseagulls

Much more fun - just as difficult to get rid of though.

No shit!

All's well that ends well.

Ekeke · 9th December 2007, 22:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instant Karma

And is that why Ronaldo, Rooney and Giggs were isolated upfront and each surrounded by 2/3 markers against Milan? They were getting fuck all support from Carrick. Plus the likes of Ronaldo and Giggs always need to track back more even when we have a 3 man midfield.

^

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekeke

It was hardly a thrashing. But in these isolated incidents neither player would have made a difference. Well maybe Keane might have won the ball from Kaka in the second video (I'd have more faith in his tackling than Hargreaves)
and Keane was a thousand times better on the ball than Hargreaves has shown which makes all the difference.

It's not about Carrick being one of the best players on the pitch. It's about him giving the ball to Rooney and Ronaldo in situations they can take advantage of on the break and helping Scholes to make progressive passes whilst playing deep enough to break up play - something he doesn't do much worse than Hargreaves.

He brings much more to our game than Hargreaves does.

Quote:

How many times has Carrick actually passed the ball to Ronaldo/Rooney to break against a top side? Not once, because Ronaldo is always in our own half when we dont have the ball. Maybe half heartedly tracking back but he sure isnt in a position to break. We dont have a ball winner to get the ball back and top sides just dont give away possession. When Ronaldo/Rooney do get the ball when we attack, they are surrounded by 2/3 players and with no support from midfield. Scholes doesnt go forward that much to support because he cant track back quickly and Carrick isnt good enough to cover defensively.

Hargreaves allows our attacking players the freedom to go forward more without worrying much about tracking back/ defending.

We intercept. Carrick is very good at it. And he spreads play in most matches, I suggest you take more care when reading posts and watching matches.

Sultan · 9th December 2007, 22:12

Good thread John - I agree with the gist of your opinions...We could have done a lot better for the supposed 18 Million fee.

Last year, had we had long term injuries to Scholes, Carrick, Fletcher we would have had O'shea and Giggs filling the void. This year, we could play any combination of the 4 midfielders and the team does not seem weak - Hargreaves being the 4th choice.

I think Hargreaves is a speciality player, ideal for closing down teams and protecting leads - although it's never been the United way.

John the Writer · 9th December 2007, 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sultan

Good thread John - I agree with the gist of your opinions...We could have done a lot better for the supposed 18 Million fee.

Last year, had we had long term injuries to Scholes, Carrick, Fletcher we would have had O'shea and Giggs filling the void. This year, we could play any combination of the 4 midfielders and the team does not seem weak - Hargreaves being the 4th choice.

I think Hargreaves is a speciality player, ideal for closing down teams and protecting leads - although it's never been the United way.

Thanks man. You are indeed bearded and wise.

Ixion · 9th December 2007, 22:20

Hes a good player and I'm sure he'll prove his worth over the course of this season and the next few. Its impossible to judge his worth so early.

Ekeke · 9th December 2007, 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sultan

Good thread John - I agree with the gist of your opinions...We could have done a lot better for the supposed 18 Million fee.

Last year, had we had long term injuries to Scholes, Carrick, Fletcher we would have had O'shea and Giggs filling the void. This year, we could play any combination of the 4 midfielders and the team does not seem weak - Hargreaves being the 4th choice.

I think Hargreaves is a speciality player, ideal for closing down teams and protecting leads - although it's never been the United way.

Very well put.

Again, I expect Hargreaves to improve as a player and will eventually prove himself a success. Right now however, I don't rate him as a first choice player.

KOV · 9th December 2007, 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by bergen

He'l be very important in the latter stages of the season. Mark my words.

true

we sure could have used a extra midfielder at the san siro last season! cant harm having extra players imagine if anderson and carrick where injured we wiuld be fuked with out hargreaves!

2red4U · 9th December 2007, 23:29

it's a long season

MufcAgs23 · 9th December 2007, 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instant Karma

Carrick was the least influential starter and all this claims about him being able to tear apart weak teams is a fucking myth. Other than maybe one or two games Carrick was generally very mediocre in the away games. From VDS to Rooney, everyone of our regular starters had a far bigger hand in us winning.

If Arsenal win the league this season, it wouldnt make the likes of Flamini, Sagna or Alumina world class. If Chelsea do win, Mikel or Belleti wouldnt be called as great. Every title winning side has a passenger or two.

Brilliant post. Complement coming from a Carrick > Hargreaves believer in myself.

Ekeke · 9th December 2007, 23:47

Carrick certainly wasn't a passanger. It was just very easy to overlook his defensive efforts, seeing as he doesn't charge around the pitch like a pitball - instead using positional sense and timing to intercept passes.

It was effective. While he may not have been one of our most important players last season, we needed somebody to do that else we simply wouldn't have won the league.

He breaks up play and spreads the ball about, letting us keep our passing flow and plays deep enough so that our attacking players can concentrate on attacking. Fantastic option to have a player like that for a team like ours.

REd FUn DevIl · 9th December 2007, 23:55

I'll just say talk after the season ends to judge Hargreaves and see what we achieve. Fergie knows better what he is doing and he prefers Hargreaves instead of Carrick.

Chapster · 10th December 2007, 01:28

whilst i sort of agree with the general idea that we might not need him he will still become an important player. It's difficult to fit him into the midfield except for the big time games where we need that extra layer of defence to harry the key opposition attacker.

john - beware the chief will be here soon no doubt dismissing you as a fool, etc etc

Red Sense · 10th December 2007, 01:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmashedHombre

I say you're an idiot and if you have nothing useful to say, then just bother. That goes for the rest of you as well. Seriously, whats the point? It was a well constructed post and is exactly what we need in the United forum.

Anyway I kind of agree with you john. I would much rather we hadn't bought Hargreaves, especially considering the price we paid for him. I think he is our fourth best CM, fifth if you include Giggs. Should have kept the money and gone for a striker. 17mil can get you a lot more than Hargreaves.

I see where Smashed and John are coming from but don't agree really. I don't worry about the money side thats for someone else to think about, not me as a supporter.So to have someone of Owens undoubted skill in the United squad is ok with me,the stronger the squad the better our chances.(Ididn't want to see Phil Neville go)

Plechazunga · 10th December 2007, 01:52

I agree with Sults and Ekeke

He's a decent player to have, as Moz says he's better than Fletcher so we're an improved squad with him

The price-tag is ridiculous, but heigh ho. As long as it doesn't mean 4-3-3 all the time I'm happy enough.

He is a crock mind

9th December 2007, 21:26	#129 (permalink)
Moston Red Formerly Giggs1973 Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Manchester Posts: 1,381	No...he's worth his place in our team.

9th December 2007, 21:27	#130 (permalink)
Mozza "Geek" Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Football, bloody hell Posts: 15,991	We didn't need him but he is better then Fletcher so he is atleast an improvement on what we had.

9th December 2007, 22:12	#136 (permalink)
Sultan Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Top Red Posts: 14,758	Good thread John - I agree with the gist of your opinions...We could have done a lot better for the supposed 18 Million fee. Last year, had we had long term injuries to Scholes, Carrick, Fletcher we would have had O'shea and Giggs filling the void. This year, we could play any combination of the 4 midfielders and the team does not seem weak - Hargreaves being the 4th choice. I think Hargreaves is a speciality player, ideal for closing down teams and protecting leads - although it's never been the United way.

9th December 2007, 22:20	#138 (permalink)
Ixion Reserve Team Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greater Manchester Posts: 2,807	Hes a good player and I'm sure he'll prove his worth over the course of this season and the next few. Its impossible to judge his worth so early.

9th December 2007, 23:29	#141 (permalink)
2red4U Reserve Team Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Srbija, homeland of Nemanja Vidić and Novak Đoković Posts: 3,611	it's a long season

9th December 2007, 23:47	#143 (permalink)
Ekeke McFuckwit Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,913	Carrick certainly wasn't a passanger. It was just very easy to overlook his defensive efforts, seeing as he doesn't charge around the pitch like a pitball - instead using positional sense and timing to intercept passes. It was effective. While he may not have been one of our most important players last season, we needed somebody to do that else we simply wouldn't have won the league. He breaks up play and spreads the ball about, letting us keep our passing flow and plays deep enough so that our attacking players can concentrate on attacking. Fantastic option to have a player like that for a team like ours.

9th December 2007, 23:55	#144 (permalink)
REd FUn DevIl First Team Regular Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: I Love Sugarcult Posts: 11,603	I'll just say talk after the season ends to judge Hargreaves and see what we achieve. Fergie knows better what he is doing and he prefers Hargreaves instead of Carrick.

10th December 2007, 01:28	#145 (permalink)
Chapster Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,374	whilst i sort of agree with the general idea that we might not need him he will still become an important player. It's difficult to fit him into the midfield except for the big time games where we need that extra layer of defence to harry the key opposition attacker. john - beware the chief will be here soon no doubt dismissing you as a fool, etc etc

10th December 2007, 01:52	#147 (permalink)
Plechazunga Phones, soup, paint and chairs are troubling. Join Date: May 2003 Location: My enthusiasm is the same. I love this club. It is not about brochures. Posts: 49,498	I agree with Sults and Ekeke He's a decent player to have, as Moz says he's better than Fletcher so we're an improved squad with him The price-tag is ridiculous, but heigh ho. As long as it doesn't mean 4-3-3 all the time I'm happy enough. He is a crock mind