Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic

[sincher]

Football rules:

1. No player may touch the ball with any part of their arm. If they do, and do so deliberately, this is a foul.
2. A player is offside if there are fewer than 2 opposition players between him and the opposition goal when the ball is passed to him.
3. Canadians know nothing about football.

 

[Nucks]

That was an irrelevant exercise in semantics Nucks.

To suggest that a midfielder whose speciality is supposedly sitting in front of the back four "to stop the opposition playing" should not bear responsibility for those times when the opposition does play, and scores goals as a result is misleading.

One, I don't know how you got that out of what I said.

Second, Hargreaves doesn't sit in front of the back four. This has been covered before. A Makelele type player does what you suggest. Hargreaves plays up the field looking to cut out the source of the supply rather than to sit back.

 

[Sam]

Which according to you is the same as the defensive midfielder stopping goals being conceeded, in your esteemed opinion, correct?

No.

Your stupid, really stupid.

 

[Cupid Stunt]

Hey Red Chief, will you explain to everybody why Hargreaves is good?

about 87 pages will do..

 

[Sam]

I thought you said you didn't patronise.

To be honest Chief, I have you down as being little older than Sam. Your posts on this thread at least do not exactly exude maturity.

It's a clear case of intellectual dishonesty...

Now where is FeedingSeagulls when you need him ?

 

[Nucks]

No.

Your stupid, really stupid.

Why yes, I bet he owns several stupids.

 

[Scholesy]

What is going on here?

Does chief rate Hargreaves? Or is he a doubter?

 

[Sam]

Why yes, I bet he owns several stupids.

Was that an attempt at humour ?

If so, poor effort. Must try harder.

Coincidently, the same could be said about Hargreaves.

 

[Sam]

What is going on here?

Does chief rate Hargreaves? Or is he a doubter?

Is the Pope Catholic ?

 

[ralphie88]

Hargreaves doesn't sit in front of the back four. This has been covered before. A Makelele type player does what you suggest. Hargreaves plays up the field looking to cut out the source of the supply rather than to sit back.

Well if that's what he's meant to be doing for us he's been doing it wrong, in all the games he's played CM for us he's been deeper than any of the other midfielders. And not with great effect (hence he currently finds himself below Fletcher in the pecking order at United).

 

[sincher]

I think people are forgetting rule 3 here.

 

[Nucks]

Was that an attempt at humour ?

If so, poor effort. Must try harder.

Coincidently, the same could be said about Hargreaves.

I'd be shocked if you even know what that was.

You don't know what rhetorical questions are. I think most people learn at least in function what a rhetorical question is by the time they can hold a conversation with an adult that consists of more than pointing and saying "BLUEEEEEE"

I bet you're fecking baffled every time you see a bumble bee.

 

[Cupid Stunt]

I think people are forgetting rule 3 here.

Maybe a little harsh.

No your right, Canadians know feck all about football!

 

[ralphie88]

Hey Red Chief, will you explain to everybody why Hargreaves is good?

about 87 pages will do..

I'll summarise.

Because he used to play for Bayern Munich (who is the Chief's "first team") and did well there.

And because I don't rate him and I'm top of his (Chief's, not Hargreaves's) most hated list.

And there was something to do with Zidane winning the UEFA Cup but I've forgotten exactly how that fitted in.

 

[Nucks]

I think people are forgetting rule 3 here.

The only thing I listen to Frenchmen for is advice on how to surrender.

 

[sincher]

I'm not French, in the same way that you're not funny.

 

[Sam]

I'd be shocked if you even know what that was.

You don't know what rhetorical questions are. I think most people learn at least in function what a rhetorical question is by the time they can hold a conversation with an adult that consists of more than pointing and saying "BLUEEEEEE"

I bet you're fecking baffled every time you see a bumble bee.

To be fair, I am only a stupid immature kid.

How could I possibly know what a rhetorical question is, I mean, I can barely tie my own shoe laces.

 

[Cupid Stunt]

I'll summarise.

Because he used to play for Bayern Munich (who is the Chief's "first team") and did well there.

And because I don't rate him and I'm top of his (Chief's, not Hargreaves's) most hated list.

And there was something to do with Zidane winning the UEFA Cup but I've forgotten exactly how that fitted in.

Whats Zidane got do with anything? Titus Bramble is much better according to the Chief.

 

[Nucks]

I'm not French, in the same way that you're not funny.

Assumptions work both ways don't they. I'll hope you can figure that one out.

 

[sincher]

There many levels of assumption here Nucks. You might have assumed rule 3 applied to you, for example.

 

[ralphie88]

 

[Nucks]

There many levels of assumption here Nucks. You might have assumed rule 3 applied to you, for example.

Nucks being my handle here could be construed as a derivative of Canuck.

I haven't seen any other posters who could be linked to Canada in the thread recently.

 

[sincher]

Oh dear. Not the brightest, are we?

 

[ralphie88]

I haven't seen any other posters who could be linked to Canada in the thread recently.

Ooops

 

[Sam]

Oh dear...

 

[noodlehair]

 

[Cupid Stunt]

 

[Nucks]

So I guess someone is well known to be Canadian. Sorry I don't keep up on who is from where.

 

[ralphie88]

So I guess someone is well known to be Canadian. Sorry I don't keep up on who is from where.

I think you might be barking up the wrong tree here.

Anyhoo, off to bed. I'm sure this thread will still be here in the morning.

 

[BahamaRed]

Thought Hargreaves had a pretty good game today. I'm getting used to different midfielders every game....With so many great options it's not a matter of our 'best' lineup but our best lineup for that match. Takes some getting used to....and puts a lot of responsibility on SAF and CQ to get it right.

 

[Nucks]

I think you might be barking up the wrong tree here.

Anyhoo, off to bed. I'm sure this thread will still be here in the morning.

Oh, I get it. It didn't occur to me that he was referring to Hargreaves.

Does Hargreaves even consider himself Canadian?

In truth it was a pretty absurd comment to make.

 

[Ekeke]

Oh, I get it. It didn't occur to me that he was referring to Hargreaves.

Does Hargreaves even consider himself Canadian?

In truth it was a pretty absurd comment to make.

It was most probably a joke, like that thing you tried to create earlier and failed to deliver.

 

[Nucks]

I tried to make a joke?

I remember that you were talking out your ass about Hargreaves being out of position and I corrected you?

 

[LizardKing]

The irony. That's rich coming from the person who wants the whole world to believe taht a striker "defending from the front" some how prevent his team conceding goals

It's an old football phrase - "defence starts at the front"

Where did I claim that a striker is supposed to prevent his team from conceding? Defending also includes closing down, putting pressure on opponents and tackling.

p.s. I love the way you swear at somebody and call them Hitler, then when somebody swears at you they're childish hehehe.

 

[Nucks]

It's an old football phrase - "defence starts at the front"

Where did I claim that a striker is supposed to prevent his team from conceding? Defending also includes closing down, putting pressure on opponents and tackling.

p.s. I love the way you swear at somebody and call them Hitler, then when somebody swears at you they're childish hehehe.

Goes with the "The best offense is a good defense phrase.

Unfortunately it's pretty much rubbish ;p

You can be a GOOD team if you are all offense but rarely will they be a great team.

Luckily for us we are also one of the top defensive sides ;p

 

[LizardKing]

How did we get on to this argument about defence starting at the front? I was drunk last night.

 

[Instant Karma]

How did we get on to this argument about defence starting at the front? I was drunk last night.

Arent you 13 ? Or was that Sam ?

 

[Cornell]

How did we get on to this argument about defence starting at the front? I was drunk last night.

Chief claimed that it's not Hargreaves responsibility to stop goals going in or something. Only a 3rd centre-back like Makelele takes that responsibility or something.

feck I don't know, probably completely wrong. I'm happy with a few people telling me I "Hit the nail on the head". I'm outta here on a high before Chief laughs in my face and accuses me of fabricating and twisting his words.

 

[Cornell]

Here we go Lizard:

A defensive midfielder's main job is to win the ball back in midfield. In addition to stopping the opposition from playing and keeping their main attacking midfielder under wraps, to enable the defence behind him to only have to deal with strikers and wingers. Which is the defensive job in midfield.
Hence the role being described as one that "shields the back four".

That has nothing to dor with stopping or helping a team from conceding goals. That has always been and will always be the job of the entire back four and the keeper alone. Not anyone in midfield. Unless you are using a 3rd center back/defender in midfield like Makelele.

Chief said it wasn't Hargreaves' job to stop goals, but to win the ball back in midfield. And that winning the ball back has nothing to do with stopping or helping us not to conceed goals.

Make of it what you will.

 

[Ekeke]

I tried to make a joke?

I remember that you were talking out your ass about Hargreaves being out of position and I corrected you?

So you've only talked with one person here?