Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Rubbish. Last season Carrick played the holding role. And played it very well.
The season before Carrick joined we were well short in both the PL and the CL.
Last season Carrick (along with Scholesy's return) is the only change to the team. Carrick moves into the defensive midfield role previously filled by Smudger (another in the Hargreaves mould of running around after the ball and throwing himself into tackles but actually being unable to read the game at all) or JOS and, lo-and-behold, United win the League and but for a decimation of their back 4 by injury in the semi vs Milan would have seen us in the Champions League final. 48 appesarances (same as Rio and only fewer than Rooney and Ronaldo) and only 4 goals (not the mark of an attacking midfielder - that role was taken by Scholes).
But anyway, that is irrelevant. This thread is about Hargreaves, and the fact that those 'supporting' Hargreaves have resorted to trying to deconstruct Michael Carrick, or go on about how great Hargreaves was for Bayern, illustrates just how bad things have got. If Hargreaves had been any good for United you'd be focussing on his performances for us this season. But of course, if they'd been any good we would't even be having this discussion.
it would seem that this bit of the argument may have been won!
which is a good thing since it shows that IK/chief are listening rather than just dismissing
The argument was won about 80 pages back.
Only three people left in the bunker denying that the Red Army are at their door.
Ooops I've done it again.
what's the over/under on this thread reaching 105 pages the day after the scousers game?
Ready your breakfast and eat hearty, for tonight we dine in Hell !
The argument was won about 80 pages back.
Only three people left in the bunker denying that the Red Army are at their door.
Ooops I've done it again.
What is hard to understand is you claiming trying to now assign equal blame to when back then when you posted Hargreaves was the one you marked with the lions share of blame.
FYI , it's Brown's ball watching that cost us the goal. Nothing else.
That day the caf wont be available. remember the announcement.
RedCafe.net - Announcements in Forum : General Chat
Monty Python my arse. You are fooling no one. You clearly mentioned Hitler Himself. Hence your comparing of trivial things like support for a footballer to being like Hitler shows a blatant disregard of what Hitler was and represented to people like the Jews. In short you don't think it important at all what he was to them. So you can joke about it. Meaning you most likely think them sub human. Because what happened to them for you is something to joke about. You do the math and place yourself in your description list appropriately. I don't need to.
You really are making yourself look stupid.
The Monty Python team dressed up as Hitler and Himmler. John Cleese did the Hitler impression in Fawlty Towers. Father Ted was seen standing at a window looking like Adolph Hitler.
Are all these racist? Do all these comedians think Jews are subhuman?
If I were to joke, for example, that my wife was once again cooking with her Nazi recipies, y’know, chicken Himmler, would that mean I was racist and thought the Jews were subhuman?
No Chief, that's Jim Royle...
No. There in the team to win the ball in midfield, launch counter attacks, disrupt the oppositions play and shield the defence from attacking midfielders runs. Stopping goals is the defence and keeper's job
Which is blaming him for what wasn't his job. Besides, the main essence of his point was Hargreaves cost us the goal. Which is grossly in accurate
this below, that I posted in another thread, explains why:
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
See what I posted above
Such a job doesn't exist on a football pitch. Players either have defensive or attacking roles. Some times both.
It isn't. But that never happened in the Arsenal game in dispute. Hargreaves was doing his job, yet people expected him to at the same time do Vidic's job too.
That was absolutely brilliant. Pity they didn't make more of them
You really are making yourself look stupid.
The Monty Python team dressed up as Hitler and Himmler. John Cleese did the Hitler impression in Fawlty Towers. Father Ted was seen standing at a window looking like Adolph Hitler.
Are all these racist? Do all these comedians think Jews are subhuman?
If I were to joke, for example, that my wife was once again cooking with her Nazi recipies, y’know, chicken Himmler, would that mean I was racist and thought the Jews were subhuman?
If you'd played football competitively you'd know that type of excuse rarely cuts with your manager. Hargreaves didn't track his man when danger developed and as a result Arsenal scored. And this in one of the very few games that you claim he was actually any good.
If you had ever played football in your life you would know the manager would have come down on Vidic and Brown like a ton of bricks for ball watching and no one else. There ball watching and failure to do there job is what causes the problem in the first place. There are no two ways about it. Adebayor is not Hargreaves' man. That is why Hargreaves initially is watching for the flight of the potentially dangerous cross from Eboue, as Adebayor sneaks past. No manager worth his salt would dare give Hargreaves trouble when he even tracked back to try and rectify the situation, which was Vidic not doing his job. While the man fault, Vidic, was still AWOL till we conceeded.
Rather you have shown just how thoughtless and crass you are. Those comedians made fun of Hitler. Just like if you came out with that Himmler thing, you'd be making fun of Himmler.
You really are making yourself look stupid.
The Monty Python team dressed up as Hitler and Himmler. John Cleese did the Hitler impression in Fawlty Towers. Father Ted was seen standing at a window looking like Adolph Hitler.
Are all these racist? Do all these comedians think Jews are subhuman?
If I were to joke, for example, that my wife was once again cooking with her Nazi recipies, y’know, chicken Himmler, would that mean I was racist and thought the Jews were subhuman?
Those comedian made fun of Hitler and co.
However you did none of that. You equated people's support for Hargreaves as behaving like Hitler. You infact called them Hitler. By the mere fact you can dare to equate something as trivial as being a supporter of a footballer, to what Hitler was, stood for and how he behaved, means you don't see what all the fuss was about Hitler. In your book he was just a mere joke. Meaning what he did to people like the Jews must have been a fecking joke to you too. Meaning you lack respect for them or what the went through. It aint rocket science. If that not what you intend it hight time you appolgised or back tracked on your actions. Other wise you just prove all the more what a racist scum you are.
No Chief, that's Jim Royle...
I see you're still ignoring my questions Chief. Why would that be?
You're right. Fabregas was Hargreaves man....
Yet Hargreaves had been drawn into covering Vidic. So it's his fault he couldn't track Adebayor and Fabregas at the same time. Because he couldn't be in two places at the same time. Right?
I have no question of yours to answer. You asked a question that didn't deserve an answer. Just a rod for your back. For being stupid enough to ask it. When the answer was before your eyes already.
No I was using your twisted logic that Adebayor wasn't his man so shouldn't have been tracking him. That's the defence's job after all.
Had he stuck with 'his' man. He would've stopped the goal. I'm not saying that's what he should've done, he was right to track the player he thought was the danger. I'm just pointing out your flawed logic which has got you into a hole you can't get out off. Cue the feck off you idiot response.....
The response of an extremely childish man. You won't answer it because you can't. Keep trying to dig your way out of the hole. Try digging up, it might work.
15,953 posts of complete bollocks tells its own tale
rather it's you being childish. I am under no obligation to answer any question you ask. It under my digression as to whether I bother or I don't. Your question was fecking stupid. You can even post it again and again. That fact wont change.
It also won't change the fact that you can't answer it. The same way you couldn't prove the massive contribution Hargreaves played in the group stage, or United winning at Valencia and Celtic, or even Bordeaux's UEFA cup win. Not to mention failing to find that quote for me about strikers being paid to score goals.
Rather you were suing your own logic. The logic that led you to believe I said only defenders and the keeper defend. The same logic that tells you because Hargreaves goes after Adebayor, it suddenly becomes his job to have been marking him all along. .
No you're not. You're instead pointing out yours. Your post above on applies if I had said defender and the keeper are the only ones who defend. I instead I said the responsibility for stopping goals is theirs alone. Wes Brown's failure to get the ball before Fabregas, proved it all the more. Without that error. There wouldn't have been an Arsenal goal. Without Vidic being AWOL, Adebayor's run would never have been dangerous. And no one would be discussing how Hargreaves allegedly "Let go his man"
My hair is quite similar to that of Hargreaves, except mine isn't permed.
Me>>>Hargreaves
Me>>>Hargreaves
I can answer it alright. You just seem so desperate for an answer. Like your life will end
if you don't get it. Then when I excercise my God given right whether to answer your bullshit or not. That according yo your warped sense of logic means I cant answer you
If you are a man. I dare you to re- Post it. Then lets see If I really can't answer it like you claim. Else you are a chicken and yellow.This is a load.
Hargreaves plays well and people invent situations where he was at fault for something.
We've just grown tired of it all. It's the same shit over and over. Hargreaves plays well. Someone blames him for a goal or a chance to score that he was not responsible for. Then someone else takes this mythical event and spreads it around like it actually happened. Or even better they then question his use to the team because "Isn't he there to stop the other team from scoring? If the other team scores then hasn't he failed us and then what use is he?"
Carrick didn't play a holding role. Carrick is an anomaly. Carrick isn't a defensive midfielder. He is a deep laying passer with decent defensive skills. That is what Carrick is.
He is not competing with Hargreaves for that holding role because Hargreaves actually does it.
Carrick is extremely overrated here. Carrick is not the next Roy Keane by the way.
Show me where I said that then.
Explain to me then how you can be resonsible for defending but not be responsible for goals not being conceded.
Can you also explain to me how Wes Brown can mark two people at the same time?
It's roughly a page back, you're a big boy I'm sure you can find it. Not what was that you were saying about being childish?I can answer it alright. You just seem so desperate for an answer. Like your life will end
if you don't get it. Then when I excercise my God given right whether to answer your bullshit or not. That according yo your warped sense of logic means I cant answer you
Really
1 The return to form of Ryan Giggs
2. Saha becoming a designated starter from the season's begining
3. Ronaldo's coming of age
4. Evra and Vidic settling down
5. Rio and Vidic partnership
Where not changes to the team?
Chief, correlation = causation.
- Status