Have seen the stats when Hargreaves has played?
He completely demolishes our fluidity by slowing down the game. He's actually detrimental to United's fast flowing system.
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
He completely demolishes our fluidity by slowing down the game. He's actually detrimental to United's fast flowing system.
Do you understand what 'hypocrisy' means? It means doing something youself when complaining about others doing the same thing. My complaint has been about people misrepresenting the arguments of other people when their actual arguments are clear.
For me to be hypocritical I'd have to be clearly misrepresenting an argument made by someone else (like the notion that the Chief uses the fact Bayern lost 2 - 0 to prove we need OH - that's nothing like what he's argued.)
You misrepresented the chief's arguments, I haven't misrepresented you or anyone else - it isn't even necessary for you to be fully serious when misrepresenting the chief in order to make it fair and appropriate that someone points that out.
I'm not a hypocrite on that basis.
Neither am I a hypocrite because I don't comment on every case.
Look at what I actually wrote: 'I fairly regularly criticise... intellectual dishonesty' - that doesn't mean I carefully look through every post on the cafe to see if there is an example. It does mean that I will comment upon a number of examples, as and when I encounter them, not every example, nor every example I encounter (in this place that would take too long).
That's fairly basic stuff - I don't see how you could have got the idea that there was any confusion between my 2 statements.
I've certainly had run-ins with old 'Intercourse Accident' in the past - whether on the basis of intellectual dishonesty or another issue I don't remember.
Lastly, I'm not obliged to comment on every instance of 'intellectual dishonesty' not doing so does not make me either hypocritical (see above) or dishonest, after all, I'm not misrepresenting their views am I? However, there is a sizable group of people consistently misrepresenting what the chief says - that makes their misrepresentation more noticeable and more likely to raise adverse comment. Their comments are also therefore generally unjust to Hargreaves and I reckon that's unfair.
There are also other posters here - surely they are equally capable of making the same points? Hell, if you really reckon the chief is misrepresenting someone's point of view that you've noticed, you could raise it yourself. Though you'd need it rather more grounded in the facts than the accusation you level at me. If you really can't manage it and would like me to check then I'm happy to do so when I have time (if you really feel it's that important to you) - otherwise I'll just wait until I happen to notice him doing it in future and comment if it's not already been dealt with (my usual practice).
So, regarding your false accusations of hypocrisy & dishonesty:
'Retract,
Retract,
Retract, retract, retract!'
Statistics are not necessarily the truth.
Perhaps he gets picked for special types of games?
I'm not saying I've got the answers here, nor do I have really strong opinions on the matter, but singling out Hargreaves for particular critique or praise seems strange to me, since he's hardly settled in the team.
I'll humbly accept, and take back everything I have said about Hargreaves, if he proves me wrong. Although I doubt that very much, he's been mostly very average throughout his career.
Well, that's settled then.
Thread closed.
Thread closed.
I posted it earlier in the thread. But there are a number of reasons.
I don't honestly see why he was selected against a team whose ambition was to defend their own half and try to win the lottery on the break. Under those circumstances we need our most creative players to unlock the Pompey defensive quagmire. But it's not OH's fault he was selected.
His mobility against Pompey was appalling. I honestly think - again I've said it in this thread - that he hasn't fully recovered from his injuries. He was rarely available to take the ball against Pompey. Scholes didn't have his best game ever but he wasn't helped by OH. Also I think that the vast majority of posters on here are unable to make a judgement about his mobility for United because they've only ever seen him on TV and you really need to be at the ground to understand how mobile and available he is. Against Pompey he wasn't either and other posters (well ralphie anyway) who were at the ground agree with me.
Again I would restate that I don't want Hargreaves to fail, nor do I hate him. I wasn't overjoyed with his signing - someone compared him in this thread to Nobby Stiles but I can assure you on performances so far he isn't fit to tie Nobby's bootlaces. I am hoping that with a full preseason behind him and a bit more luck with injuries, he'll come good next season. But I am worried that the pace and ability that he apparently showed with Bayern (didn't watch Bayern, not interested, I'll take the Chief's word for it) and that some people claim to have seen with England (I'll give him the game v Portugal but apart from that I'm unimpressed) has been consigned to history by the bad injuries he's suffered. I would like to be proved wrong but don't expect it to happen this season. So personally I wouldn't play him - he's out of form and he looks injured to me.
He's better defensively as well
Hargreaves runs around a lot, that does not make him a good defender.
That I disagree with. Oh, and "running around a lot" as you put it, helps disrupting the opposition's attack. Surely having a great engine is an advantage. (I'm not saying that you've said it isn't.)
So does positioning yourself perfectly, more so then running around a lot. Have you watched kids football? Thats Owen Hargreaves, chases around without a clue where he'll be most effective.
They are not alike anymore. And in truth they never were, as they have a different concept of their role.
Mascherano was just a player who sits in front of the back four and acts as a 5th defender. The reason he wasn't considered a 5th defender was that he also had good accurate passing and rarely lost the ball.
Now he's tapped into his potential and showing how good of a footballer he really is. At this moment in time he's going up and down the pitch providing something in both attacking and defending areas. Like Essien or like Vieira and Keane years ago.
Hargreaves, if I'm to go along with Nucks' acessment, doesn't strictly protect the back four. Instead he tries to win the ball on the half way line by rushing his opponent and not giving them time and space to pick passes.
This would be a lot more useful to us if we didn't have Darren Fletcher doing the exact same thing to the exact same (if not better) standard for the past 2 years. Which is why a lot of people are surprised and dissappointed that Hargreaves hasn't offered something more.
If we were to go out and buy a defensive midfielder last summer, most would have expected someone more accomplished and more effective than what we have already in the squad. That's just logical thinking. Why would you spend £18 million on a player you have already?
However, all Hargreaves has on Fletcher now is a little bit more big game experience in the champions league. And lets face it, over the years Fletcher has developed his own big game champions league experience. Was this really enough to warrant a 2 year saga and an eventual £18 million transfer?
Fletcher has proven to be a better passer and at least as able harrier and ball winner in midfield this season.
Phil Neville did it years ago too. And like Hargreaves this season, his best and most memorable performances were against some of the bigger teams.
But would United fans or the club at the time have said "You want Phil Neville? He's going to cost you £18 million"
One of the arguments people used in the summer and even the summer before that, as to why we should opt for Hargreaves over the likes of Essien, Diarra, Cambisso, De Rossi and Mascherano was that Hargreaves was playing in the Bundasliga and because he played for England, he'd take no time to adapt.
This has been found to be untrue evidently. Of course Hargreaves has not been helped by his recurring injury problems, but even when he's played and had extended runs in the side (at least, as extended as any other midfielder this season) he's still not suited us or our league. It's not just a case of "Owen Hargreaves isnt the best choice for our starting 11" its a case of "Owen Hargreaves wouldn't be the best choice for any of the top 4 in the premiership".
So what has Hargreaves shown this season? Well, he - in a partnership with Anderson (another player new to the English game) has nullified the effectiveness of some of the 'best' central midfielders in the premiership including Steven Gerrard and Cesc Fabregas. It's true that in both the Liverpool and Arsenal games when these players were quiet, Owen Hargreaves was playing next to Anderson.
However, it would be completely fair to say that if one of the two deserves credit for putting on a great defensive display in either match it would be Anderson. He matched Hargreaves every which way. And he is not a "world class" defensive midfielder.
However, in both games we surrendered posession and struggled to pass through our own central midfield. Certainly, if any leeway was made through that passage it was Anderson doing it.
Basically, we created a dead zone in the middle of the pitch where no football would be played. A black hole in the shape of Owen Hargreaves.
Was it effective? Somewhat - As stated above, the combination of players nullified some of the highest profile central midfielders in the premiership.
Was it pretty? feck no.
Now tell me, would things have been different with Fletcher playing?
Yes they would.
Instead of creating a dead zone in the middle of the pitch, Fletcher is actually an intelligent passer of the ball. With his help, Anderson wouldn't have been left alone as a 19 year old expected to dominate posession of the ball against Steven Gerrard and Cesc Fabregas who are both considered one of the best central midfielders in the world at this time.
Our defence would have been no less secure than it was, but our central midfield would have also given something going forward - another great way to pin back excellent attacking central midfielders, force them to defend.
When Hargreaves and Anderson played in the middle, they did not need to do that.
Carrick playing and dominating against Chelsea (MOTM may I add, when up against a midfield of Essien, Lampard, Makalele and Ballack), Liverpool, Arsenal (away) and Roma, to name but a few not mean anything to you just because some the games were at home ?
And as I've already pointed out, this season, Carrick wasn't match fit for the Arsenal match and he came on in the Lyon match (for Hargreaves) at 1-0 down, and we went on to draw 1-1.
I must say I disagree.
I believe he seems to be chasing the ball more than other players because of his great stamina and pace.
Then again, I'm Clueless.
No, it's because his positional sense is awful. He is always chasing, never reading the game, just chasing it.
Well that's quite bombastic.
If it's so obvious that's he's running around like a headless chicken I find it strange that I haven't noticed it.
Then again, I know that I haven't been studying his performance in the games he's played, nor do I doubt you have, unless it's possible to watch a spesific player on TV for an entire match.
Trust me, I'm not clueless about football.
I'm not one of these kids that just supports the best team because they win, expects them to win 10-0 every match, and expects the players to play like they do on Fifa or PES. Believe me, I hate those kids, as they give the ones of us that do know what they are talking about, a bad name.
I know far more about football then most grown men, and have proved so on numerous occasions, and not just on the Cafe, but in real life also.
You may think that because I'm 15 you can patronise me and dismiss my views because I am young, but that's just foolish, as you know that I'm very wise when it comes to talking football. You may not openly admit this, but you know it to be true.
Rant Over.
Actually you arsehole - you're the one who should be looking at 'what you're doing'!
So a bunch of pillocks who couldn't construct a coherent argument if their lives depended on it get their way...
Listen arsehole...
You're just a 'tag along' pillock, incapable of adding anything concrete to a debate.
So your opinions count for shit. You're a dickhead, with the moral sense of a diseased prawn
Actually - with a few notable exceptions:
feck OFF THE LOT OF YOU!!!!
WTF is that?
Chelsea went down a man within what 9 minutes? From that point on there was nobody contesting the midfield. Carrick and Scholes was it had acres and acres of space.
That fact alone tempers any "dominating" chelsea comments. Unless you are not talking about the game this year.
This is silly. His positioning is absolutely fine for what he does.
If he sat back and shielded the back four, yes I would agree he would be terrible at positioning.
He however doesn't do that. You claim to understand and agree with the method in which Hargreaves plays, in that he plays as a midfield interdictor.
To you Carrick has good positioning.
Carrick sits back and looks to intercept passes.
To you Hargreaves has poor positioning.
Hargreaves looks to get forward and harass play helping create turnovers.
You don't sit back and look to position yourself for an interception in this style of play. You aggressively get forward and look to anticipate the arrival of the ball on the man. Hargreaves does this. He does this VERY well. He is outstanding at cleaning up play.
Hargreaves positioning doesn't work for what Carrick does and Carricks positioning doesn't work for what Hargreaves does.
Fletcher's is just as good.
Stats don't prove much you know?
But you are right, they probably didnt as well as Scholes/Carrick, but feck's sake I wouldnt have expected Anderson to do so heckin well in his first year with ManUtd, would you?
If we were playing Barcelona tomorrow and I had to pick one of Hargreaves/Fletcher, it would be Fletcher every time.
how useful is a thread like this once it gets so long - esp. if you haven't been paying a great deal of attention to it like me?
What the feck is that supposed to mean Nucklehead? He shouts: "You shall not pass" at attackers. Doesn't seem to work very well.
You were also broughtb up watching United win feck all in Europe, with only one streaky cup run to show for nearly 2 decades of domestic domination.
Do you think the two might be connected?
Agree with this based on what I've seen of him live this season and on TV. The other thing is that because he appears not to be fully fit, he's actually not very good at chasing and when he does get caught out of position (for a defensive midfielder rather than an interdictor whatever that is - apparently it's a defensive midfielder with no positional discipline... which is OH to a tee) he's not fast enough to recover and either exposes the back four or commits a foul in a dangerous position which is exactly what we need in the Champions League...
People like to quote the game against Lyon away as an example of one of OH's better games. Well I wasn't in Lyon so have to rely on TV - ralphie was there, if he returns to the thread maybe he can comment. However, I would observe that their goal, fabulous finish though it was, originated on our left flank when Hargreaves went out to cover a position that was already covered. The wide man cut inside to where a 'traditional' defensive midfielder would have been positioned to cover the centre of our defence. A man in that position would have been able to pick up the ball if it had been overrun or channel the attacking player across the line if it was under control. Hargreaves was reduced to chasing the man with the ball from his wide postion and couldn't catch him so he was able to feed Benzema on the edge of the box.
He's recovering from injury and out of form. And possibly not very good. Wait and see next season.
You admit you were wrong about Hargreaves?
I'll humbly accept, and take back everything I have said about Hargreaves, if he proves me wrong.
I will use your own words to say " I doubt that very much".
You are not the type who would. You will hide behind an excuse like you always wished him success because he plays for Manchester United
Which is such a poor lie its laughable. You clearly just hate the fella.
Kin 'ell, Sam. You've always struck me as a nice young lad but you've got a bit of a high opinion of yourself.
You're definitely wise beyond your years but I there's a lot to be said for the wisdom that comes with age, no matter how much you think you know it all already. God knows, when I was 20 I thought I knew everything there was to know but that was 15 years ago and, looking back, I was just a jumped up little shit with a vastly over-inflated opinion of himself.
Not saying, for one moment, that the same will apply to you one day but I think you should show a bit more respect for opinions formed by people who have been playing/watching the game for decades.
the only stupid person around here is you. Falling in blindly with a brigade who hate a player for no valid reason whatsover. Who can't even define the defensive midfield role people like him play in the first a place. Yet dare to say he doesn't do his job. A job they clearly know zilch about.
You really are stupid.
And they're not and he won't.
True. But if I'm still alive, I will ensure no one forgetrs their comments in this thread. They will have no excuse to hide behind. I promise
Ya great gimp.
Obviously you were asleep when we played Arsenal, Liverpool and Man city away. Plus Blackburn at home. Matches in which he played like a top class DM is supposed too.
Gotta love the chief and his crusades to protect the righteous!
Thought noodles got it right earlier in the thread...
That's just your usual bullshit. Your Carrick when played in the same position waits around hoping for someone to make a wrong pass for him to intercept. Which you keep wrongly calling good positioning. When it caused by fecking laziness and an inability to tackle with any strengthThere were a lot of other factors for our lack of trophies on the European stage. I would hate playing the Liverpool way, even if it meant winning. I go to Old Trafford to be entertained.
Entertainment>winning
As most are aware im not shy to express my opinions...but i have to say whilst im unsure of hargreaves i just havent made up my mind either way. The time to judge owen hargreaves will be in moments like away to barcelona. Playing 451 as passively as we do his energy and ability to break up their passing movements will be vital if we are to have any hope of pulling a result out the bag in that shape.
Which brings me onto another point. Lets say that hargreaves pulls out a performance equal to that of fletcher's against roma last season(from what i can see ideally his job description will be very similar to what fletcher's was....against roma this season)...will that justify the purchase?? Could we not have expected fletcher to develop further into that role and come in to perform it when we needed?
One such performance and all those who blindly support hargreaves (there has been little evidence EITHER way) will claim to be proved correct....perhaps...i dont know.
His engine allows him to match them all the way across the pitch (as they pass the ball across) as they move forward. He acts like a one man counter attack repellent. Obviously he'll get a bit of help from the full back but by in large his running buys time for the rest of our mids to get back and get in shape.
The problem with the above is that this doesnt really happen, more often than not because we are playing so cautiously in the formation in the big games everyone is behind the ball anyway. and so the important thing is to keep your defensive shape. Thats where his energy and engine can be a negative thing because he seems to just chase everything instead of pressing at the right time. Fletcher gave a masterclass of pressing at the right moments without losing the teams shape against roma last season.
Which brings me onto another point. Lets say that hargreaves pulls out a performance equal to that of fletcher's against roma last season(from what i can see ideally his job description will be very similar to what fletcher's was....against roma this season)...will that justify the purchase?? Could we not have expected fletcher to develop further into that role and come in to perform it when we needed?
One such performance and all those who blindly support hargreaves (there has been little evidence EITHER way) will claim to be proved correct....perhaps...i dont know.
This is a statement i have to agree with. Even if he is the best at what he does in the game he represents a movement away from what we've always been about.
From what ive seen of hargreaves over the years he's most effective when he's isolated and trying to stop a counter attack. So say the rest of the mid get caught forward and the opposition break with 2 strikers occupying the defence in the main, and hargreaves is up against 3 opposition mids that are breaking quickly and spread evenly accross the pitch.
His engine allows him to match them all the way across the pitch (as they pass the ball across) as they move forward. He acts like a one man counter attack repellent. Obviously he'll get a bit of help from the full back but by in large his running buys time for the rest of our mids to get back and get in shape.
The problem with the above is that this doesnt really happen, more often than not because we are playing so cautiously in the formation in the big games everyone is behind the ball anyway. and so the important thing is to keep your defensive shape. Thats where his energy and engine can be a negative thing because he seems to just chase everything instead of pressing at the right time. Fletcher gave a masterclass of pressing at the right moments without losing the teams shape against roma last season.
Me and noodles will conspire to ban you from the forum.
- Status