Hargreaves - one signing too many?

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

No he isn't. He is plain rubbish at passing. Can't pass beyond 2 feet in any direction. Whenever he does he gives away possession. One of the chief reasons he sits so deep and plays so close to his center backs. So that he doesn't have far to pass the ball.

Makelele can't tackle at all. Whenever he does it's almost always a foul. He is just an expert at interception.

That I agree with

You are not serious. Makelele is a midget. Especially for a defensive minded midfielder.

Redundant statement. That goes for everyone who plays football. You can't be very mobile without fitness.

That's plain rubbish. He is excellent at winning the ball. And when we have possession he is always available to support the attack. And always plays the simple ball to his more attack minded players. Who are alongside him or to either flank Keeping them in constant supply of ball. We have even having insane possession stats with Hargreaves on the pitch more often than not this season. Than we ever had with Carrick in the side last year. I really don't know what the hell you've been watching.

I've never seen worse contradictive bullshit in my life! If Carrick is truly "better than Hargreaves" why would we play the "inferior" Hargreaves if we thought the opposition stronger than us?


deploying Hargreaves rather than Carrick will prove effective in breaking up their play - at the cost of doing the same to ours.

Utter rubbish. Hargreaves is not as limited neither does he play like Makelele. Carrick is nothing like Cocu. Carrick is a Veron. Cocu could tackle as well as he could attack.

You have to actually win the ball back to have it. So your statement is clearly foolish and totally clueless.

You would get the ball less, win important games less, lose silly games more, drop points more against mid level sides.. (i.e boro/bolton) and end up with one trophy like the EPL, if we are lucky, in a season like the current one. We can't afford the luxury of luck. So thankfully Fergie wont be following your advice.

the chief has spoken

Bilbo

Its too easy to say that he is limited though. If we're going to level that at Hargreaves, we have to say the same thing about Makelele, Mascherano, Gattuso etc etc etc. Doesn't mean that they aren't necessary. You'll notice that the players listed all play for top European clubs.

I was going to add Essien, but he has a little more about him. Hargreaves approaching top form is a similar player. We haven't seen that yet for United, but we will.

Rowem

Ekeke: And you live in?

Just curious...

P.S. If Hargreaves is a Makelele, and Chelsea played Makelele almost every game during the two seasons they won the league, does that mean Chelsea were 'admitting their opponents were a better side'??

Ekeke

Oh lord, the multiquotes!

I'm at work, will read all that when I get home. (should be right before the match)

Rowem : England.

Rowem

I'm shocked.

No offense.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Pure shit in that aspect of play.

No. He is poor. The Milan game proved this beyond any reasonable doubt. It's no longer debatable.

What does three in midfield have to do with a player being good or not? Don't you get how dumb that sounds?

A list of the clubs Hargreaves has played for, the mangers he has played under and the number of times he has been picked ahead of Carrick for club and country, when fully fit, should have told you by now that Instant Karma is beyond right.

Instant Karma

Also, Real became shite when Makelele left though they still had the worlds best attacking players in the squad. They win their next trophy once they buy Diarra.

Liverpool turn around a CL final when they bring on Hamman. They concede a freak first goal against Milan last year but Kaka hardly touches the ball as long as Mascherano is on the pitch. They concede within 2 minutes after he is subbed.

Freduardo

Shame it's wrong then.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Good call...

Rowem

I said the majority.

Do you represent the majority?

No, so fuck off.

Ekeke

Still better than Hargreaves. That's why he's been man marked before in europe to stop him starting Chelsea's moves.

Load of rubbish.

Which makes me worried

This part you've misunderstood. I in fact stated Makelele is a midget and therefore Hargreaves is defnately much better in the air.

It's more about the chances of him being fit, which isnt a concern for everyone who plays football.

We were also had 3 men in midfield most of the time. Off the top of my head I can think of 1 premiership match where Hargreaves was playing in a 2 in midfield and we had huge posession stats. The rest were in 3 man midfields.

Hargreaves isnt an inferior player. He's just a type of player we simply dont need (Because of Carrick) for most games we will play, where we'll have the majority of posession.

There's no doubting he's an effective player defensively. He's just extremely limited when we have the ball.


I agree with you on this.

Carrick does. And Hargreaves is a very limited player at the moment. I hope he improves.

Even if we played 1 man in midfield, at some point we would have the ball.

What else do you see in your crystal ball? When was the last time you won the lottery?

We can tell by the multiquotes.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

For a DM it Unfortunately does. He was our main defensive midfielder at the time. And against Milan he was badly exposed. Over two legs. By a top quality side. Who Hargreaves faced and didn't suffer the same fate. He is good midfielder. But useless as an anchor man.

IMO He had too much to do because he is shit in the main DM role. Ia gree that Hargves lets carrick play hsi natrul game. Which is to attack. If we want to use him best it has to be alongside Hargreaves, but never ever on his own with Scholes or Anderson. Against most sides. If we want to be really successful as a team.

R0N4LD0

but, though i'm over 15, all those things are true for me, and yet i think hargreaves, or mr. syrup as i like to call him, is an integral part of the team!

do i get a prize?

Rowem

Yes you win a bottle of Golden Syrup.

Congratulations.

Ekeke

Which, if you take away the swearing, is poor.

So one game makes or breaks a player? In that case Hargreaves has proven to be a total liability. Can't control the ball to save his life or pass to a team mate to save theirs.

Because if he's as good as the players he's been compared against, he would never need to play in a 3 man midfield - helping him do his job. They certainly didn't need it, not until their age got the best of them.

Playing Scholes, Carrick and Fletcher would be more than strong enough. We bought Hargreaves because he's the best defensive midfield English player. He doesnt and shouldnt ever need another 2 players next to him if he's worth anywhere near what we paid for him.

And someone should have explained by now that an opinion cannot be wrong. He's used no solid facts, neither have you. You aren't wrong, just misguided.

When the England team features Ronaldo, Evra, Vidic, VDS, Tevez, Giggs and Scholes as well as Hargreaves, Neville and Rooney - That's when you can say that picking Hargreaves over Carrick for England shows that he's the better player in that position for our team.

You, being the one who came up with the Mr. Syrup crap, agreeing with them is a fantastic thing indeed.

Heck of a circus you could make with these Hargreaves enthusiasts.

R0N4LD0

now there's an idea: hargreaves is so good in the midfield he doesn't need be in a 451 or 4231.

________VDS_______
wes__rio__vida__evra
hargreaveshargreaves
ron___scholes___giggs
___rooney_tevez

its like he's both DMs in a 4231, so we get an extra striker! defo worth 18mil if it works.

Ekeke

________VDS_______
wes__rio__vida__evra
--makeleleinhisprime--
ron___scholes___giggs
___rooney_tevez

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Stop lying to yourself. No one man marks Makelele. They just overload his duties by having more than one midfielder attack the area around the 18. Which makes him retreat from the protection he gets by being between his to center backs in a bid to snuff out the extra danger and makes turns him into a liability in possession. That's why to counter this Essien or Mikel usually play closer to him in Chelsea's 4-3-3 system.

You clearly don't watch football at all.

Not surprising. You are allergic to anything remotely sensible. As your tag line states.

I didn't misunderstand anything. You wrote one thing and meant another. Which is your fault.

Come off it. You can't expect some one to be mobile when they are not fit. That is plain stupid.

Then the top of your head isn't filled with much that is true.

Which is rubbish. You wont get the ball in the first place by having only passing ability in your team, in midfield. You have to win possession back too! And Hargreaves' role is not that of playmaker but a ball winner and the anchor man in midfield. No good side wins anything of note without it. And Carrick is plain shit in the role. If you want him to play let him kick out Scholes or Anderson. Their role is for passers and playmakers. Not the one Carrick filled in for last term.

You are basically agreeing with your self. Which is plain lame. I have never uttered such garbage.

You talk rubbish. Carrick doesn't tackle well at all. Hargreaves is not limited. But this is all too difficult for you to fathom.

there's no use being able to use a ball and able to stop your opponents from using it when they have it. For most half decent sides will never let you get it once you lose it. The likes of Lille showed that last season.

I'm not a gambler like you. Who gambles on everything from your opinion to your cash. Even when what you are banking on is plain wrong.

pathetic

Rowem

Oh gosh that would be an awesome dinner party. A haggle of us Caftards, sharing jokes and stories about Owen Hargreaves' rise to greatness, sat together with Sir Alex, Sven Goran Erikkson, and a host of football's elite. The wine would floweth, and then Hargreaves himself would arrive fashionably late and enthral the guests with stories about Moose and Ice Hockey.

R0N4LD0

CHIEF!!!

do you have any indian blood? if so, what kind. if not, what's with the name?

Ekeke