Hargreaves - one signing too many?

Julian Denny

With Ronaldo, Rooney & Tevez plus Evra and Brown in support out wide, we have no worries whatsoever in that regard. That's the most fluid and potent strike force I know of. I'm quite happy with what they've all produced so far this season. It's not just Ronaldo - Rooney & Tevez have played their parts well too. When fit, Saha is also a great back up/ alternative option.

John the Writer

Having taken account of other posters opinions I acknowledge that my initial post could have been better phrased. I admit, I was far too eager for the discussion and I acted impulsively. I aplogise sincerely if this has offended anyone.

To clarify, my point was that I have seen little from Hargreaves that has made him the vital signing he was supposed to be. In fact if anything, the performances produced by Anderson have made me realise just how limited Hargreaves' game actually is. I understand that Hargreaves is a destroyer, a different option, something we didn't have in the squad. But did we really need to sign him? That's all I'm asking

My initial post did allude to Hargreaves' fitness levels, a point I did return to subsequently, but this I felt was not a point worth elaborating initially as it would've been stating the obvious.

I know it's very early in his United career, and the majority of you feel that his signing will be justified over the course of a season, which is fair enough, and I also appreciate that he's an improvement on Fletcher, which is also fine by me. Don't think I dislike the player or want to see him fail, because that's not the case at all. I love Utd, and I'd love to see Hargreaves clattering Gattuso and the like in Champions league finals, of course I would. In fact, before our interest was made official I suggested him as the answer to our problems on another forum. It's just now, from what I've seen, I don't think his signing was as necessary as a lot of us had believed. He has shown me nothing that makes me feel we couldn't have coped this season had we not signed him. What he does in the future remains to be seen. He might go on to find a cure for AIDS, who knows, I'm just going on what I've seen.

Of course now, we do have fantastic strength in depth and in all honesty I'm not overly concerned about the money we spend, but if there is a limit, which I'm certain there is, the money invested in Hargreaves would've been better served being spent this summer on other areas of the team.

Now before you destroy the little bit of self esteem I have left, I think you should understand that I don't take myself particularily seriously. I made an observation and I stand by it. If that makes me a bad man then I'm a bad man.

That bit about self esteem was irony by the way, just in case anyone feels bad.

redmanc

We havent really needed to use Hargreaves yet, hes been brought in to tighten up our midfield and shape us a little more defensively for those big games in europe or a tough away fixture, SAF may have tried him out a little earlier on in the season but i think he soon realised for the time being, its got to be Carrick.

Edit: this doesn't mean i think he's shit, quite the opposite.

choiboyx012

fair enough, i also stand by my observations, and my observation is that hargreaves has been consistently solid and as flawless as anyone on the team. and saying hargreaves is an improvement on fletcher is laughable. you can't be just an improvement on fletcher and start consistently when fit, and have league and cups under your belt playing at the highest level for an elite european team not to mention he was a starter.

it seems that not many people understand let alone appreciate what the role of a DM is and what a good one looks like. hargreaves is not only one of the best DMs out there in the world, but he does have more to his game than most other DMs imo. im sure everyone watched the WC when hargreaves was the only one hustling and attacking while the rest of the team was pathetic.

he already has been a good signing, so for those who feel they still aren't convinced with him.. you NEVER will. i honestly don't know what you guys were expecting, his performances so far have been quality and it's the way he's always played. as long as he continues to play the way he has so far then i'll be more than happy and so will SAF. he was our missing piece of the puzzle, and a good "option" for the games we'll really need him.

you can argue that tactically we don't need him, at least for certain games, but anyone questioning his quality as a player, at least as a Defensive mid, really is clueless.

reddevilcanada

agreed, some of the football we produced last season was simply amazing and that was with Carrick in the side. Our defeat to Milan has been used as the reason why we'd need a player like Hargreaves by many when the reality was that we had a complete make-shift defence and and a tired squad who had just come off a tough game away to Everton three days before, whereas Milan whose only preoccupation had been the CL the whole season, had rested their main players in the league game before our visit to San Siro. These details seem to escape some people's attention as well as the fact that Carrick was aboslutely fantastic and played an important role in our wonderful free-flowing football last season.

choiboyx012

good, not fantastic. everyone played an important role in our free-flowing football last season, not just carrick.

kelvinhole

You can't deny Carrick's a better passer than Hargreaves, and he was instrumental in our free-flowing attacking play. Of course Ronaldo et al had a big season for us, but who almost always got the ball to them, without fail? Twas Carrick.

Not saying Hargreaves isn't a great addition to our squad, but you have to question what he brings to the side other than an exuberance of energy. His passing is average at best. We won't need him apart from against the most difficult of teams, so he's really just a luxury.

redmanc

No, he's far from a luxury, more a necessity for the bigger games.

Red-Indian

I'd agree with the thread starter. I've always been in favour of not breaking up what was a premiership winnning central midfield partnership.

And while we were outplayed to an extent in the Milan game, I believe a fit defence would have made up to a large extent for Carrick's defensive deficiencies. What we lose from giving up Carrick's superior passing is not balanced by what we gain from Hargreaves' ball-winning.

Ofcourse, he does offer us the extra option but was it worth what we paid for it? At this point, i'd have to say no. I'm not too worried though. If it does come down to selling him, I don't think we'd make a huge loss. 10 to 12 million is guaranteed.

kelvinhole

Not many of them, though. We certainly don't need him against the likes of Blackburn or Bolton, he's far too uncreative for games like that, where you need to be more incisive with your passing.

Then again, without Anderson, I would have thought Hargreaves was a crucial team member. With Anderson, not so much so. Very few foresaw how good the lad could be, I certainly didn't see it coming, he's basically Cargreaves.

redmanc

I agree totally, he wont be needed for a lot of games, not just yet anyway. However im sure in the future SAF may try incorporate him a little more in a 433 or something (once scholes/giggs retire).

And Cargreaves

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Only a real idiot would defend the garbage he posted. Which is both inaccurate and clearly wrong in every opinion it tried to raise.

You must be pretty stupid then. Because it's obvious to all except the very blind or brain dead that he is the first choice holding midfielder at the club in Fergie's eyes. Which make shim second choice midfielder. Behind Scholes. Not 4th or 5th

You wouldn't get anyone better than Hargreaves for that price.

Amir

I think it may well be because Fergie is trying to bed him in, get him used to his team mates and all that.

Sultan

Well he's taking a few days off to reflect on his behaviour - Smashed asked people to stop personal abuse near the beginning of the thread.

redmanc

He is a bit of a cock to be fair

lem8sh

Hargreaves should never be first choice
Scholes, Carrick, Anderson > Hargreaves no matter the opposition

choiboyx012

SAF doesn't think so. im with him.

redmanc

Not quite.

One of the three and Hargreaves for the tough away games, or a must defend scenario in the order of Scholes/Anderson/Carrick.

I put Anderson second based on how well they have played together when they have played.

kemo

Same here! This Hargreaves bashing is tragic. Alot of people on here seem to think they know better than Fergie. A man who has master minded United's success for the past 15 years straight! Very baffling....

Sultan

It's a forum for debate - no one in their right minds think they know better.

PS: Fergie has made errors in the transfer market.

Bilbo

I haven't read the thread, but you sound really defensive in this post. You make a fair point, not one that I agree with, but certainly one worth discussing. I take it you've been flamed on here?

For my part, I think people are judging Hargreaves before we've seen the best of him. Even close to the best of him. His early performances were very encouraging.

With regards Anderson, I think his arrival puts into question the need for Carrick, rather than Hargreaves. Owen filled a hole in our squad that needed filling, yet Anderson has certainly outshone Carrick so far and he is likely to only improve.

kemo

Then why these endless forums full of people acting and claiming that they do? By saying a purchase like Hargreaves was not neccesarry, is a luxury, adds nothing extra to our team? Unless YOU are suggesting they are not in "their right minds" since they clearly think they know better? Just quoting your words by the way...

Because he is human. That alone shouldn't be grounds to question hsi excellentr ecord over the years. Which many are doing by questiong the purpose of signing Hargreaves. And for the people who claim Hagreaves is limited you are not being hoenst with yourselves at all. Or simply don't have grasp of the concept of a defenisve midfielder and what they should bring to a team. Which a player like Carrick can't. Besides, Look at Makelele or Diarra of Arsenal play. That is what a limited player play like. Not Hargreaves.

kemo

I couldn't agree more. All these people trying to hide be hind "opinons" are just being false. If you can't accept that Hargreaves is a good signing and was neccesary to our continued future success. Which is the opinion of Fergie. You basically think you are cleverer and more qualified to make decisions for United than him. Which is extremely lame. And meh...

kemo

I missed this I warned him. His temper would get him in trouble here.... But sometimes elder bros don't listen...

One thing I'm certain of. He won't repent. He'd rather call a spade a spade if he thinks something is that way. Even if it means getting into trouble...he is no diplomat that's for sure...