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

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

They are all things that contribute to stopping goals. Without a team doing those things they would concede goals aplenty. The very point I was making right back at the start. That is why the responsibility for stopping goals cannot just be for the defence alone.

Which is utter bollocks. Unless a goal is scored by a a run from deep by a midfielder or a preventable long range shot. Every other goal that can possibly be scored is supposed to by prevented by the keeper and his defence. Team can defend all day and as 11 men but still concede if their back 4 and keeper are not ding their job. Which is to prevent goal. Especially those scored by wingers and strikers in open play.

I have given you scenarios that prove that every player has defensive responsibility at some point in a game, the defensive midfielder especially, whether that bve Owen Hargreaves, Michael Carrick or Darren Fletcher. You have chosen to ignore them..

Rather, you have chosen to ignore my answers. You keep equating helping someone do his job, in a moment of crisis, to having his job full time.

Defending and stopping goals are the same thing.

Here is where the discussion ends. You clearly have never played football in your life. That is why you don't get the difference between defending and directly stopping a goal being scored.

 

[acnumber9]

Which is utter bollocks. Unless a goal is scored by a a run from deep by a midfielder or a preventable long range shot. Every other goal that can possibly be scored is supposed to by prevented by the keeper and his defence. Team can defend all day and as 11 men but still concede if their back 4 and keeper are not ding their job. Which is to prevent goal. Especially those scored by wingers and strikers in open play.

Rather, you have chosen to ignore my answers. You keep equating helping someone do his job, in a moment of crisis, to having his job full time.

Here is where the discussion ends. You clearly have never played football in your life. That is why you don't get the difference between defending and directly stopping a goal being scored.

I am fully aware of that. I have merely said time and time again that if the rest of the team did not ciontribute defensively then we would concede bagfuls. No matter how good your defence is if they are offered no protection they will concede.

 

[acnumber9]

Which is utter bollocks. Unless a goal is scored by a a run from deep by a midfielder or a preventable long range shot. Every other goal that can possibly be scored is supposed to by prevented by the keeper and his defence. Team can defend all day and as 11 men but still concede if their back 4 and keeper are not ding their job. Which is to prevent goal. Especially those scored by wingers and strikers in open play.

Rather, you have chosen to ignore my answers. You keep equating helping someone do his job, in a moment of crisis, to having his job full time.

Here is where the discussion ends. You clearly have never played football in your life. That is why you don't get the difference between defending and directly stopping a goal being scored.

No I haven't. That's a blatant lie/misrepresentation whatever you want to call it.

 

[acnumber9]

Which is utter bollocks. Unless a goal is scored by a a run from deep by a midfielder or a preventable long range shot. Every other goal that can possibly be scored is supposed to by prevented by the keeper and his defence. Team can defend all day and as 11 men but still concede if their back 4 and keeper are not ding their job. Which is to prevent goal. Especially those scored by wingers and strikers in open play.

Rather, you have chosen to ignore my answers. You keep equating helping someone do his job, in a moment of crisis, to having his job full time.

Here is where the discussion ends. You clearly have never played football in your life. That is why you don't get the difference between defending and directly stopping a goal being scored.

Then since you have clearly played so much football why don't you tell me what defending is?

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I am fully aware of that. I have merely said time and time again that if the rest of the team did not ciontribute defensively then we would concede bagfuls. No matter how good your defence is if they are offered no protection they will concede.

Which is obvious. Something that was never ever in dispute. All I said just because you defend as 11 men, doesn't men all 11 men are directly responsible for stopping goals. Football doens't work that way. Roles are defined. Mostly in times of crisis do they change. But usually with less than favorable results.

 

[Instant Karma]

Yeah, and of course no-one who posts or visits this site knows me personally and knows what username I post under, making this site completely free from obligation regarding the law of defamation.... oh no, hang on a minute...

1) The site isnt responsible if you share your username with your mates. You may not be able to prove that any of your mates knew you as ralphie88 on redcafe before the alleged incident
2) The site may log IPs at registration/login time but unlikely for every post. Anyone could have hacked into the chief's username and posted. Heck the mods may have even modified his post
3) You might be able to obtain the IP of an username but actually cant prove the association of a particular person to that username.

 

[acnumber9]

Which is utter bollocks. Unless a goal is scored by a a run from deep by a midfielder or a preventable long range shot. Every other goal that can possibly be scored is supposed to by prevented by the keeper and his defence. Team can defend all day and as 11 men but still concede if their back 4 and keeper are not ding their job. Which is to prevent goal. Especially those scored by wingers and strikers in open play.

Rather, you have chosen to ignore my answers. You keep equating helping someone do his job, in a moment of crisis, to having his job full time.

Here is where the discussion ends. You clearly have never played football in your life. That is why you don't get the difference between defending and directly stopping a goal being scored.

Like the Fabregas goal you mean?

How about if a player who is being marked by a midfielder for a corner rises unchallenged to head in. Who would be responsible for that?

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Then since you have clearly played so much football why don't you tell me what defending is?

Been there done that. You keep ignoring the simple explanations.

 

[lem8sh]

If Hargreaves tracked Adebayor, as he should have. No goal would have been conceded. It's not even debatable.

Nobody's gonna deny this?? I'm shocked

 

[acnumber9]

Which is obvious. Something that was never ever in dispute. All I said just because you defend as 11 men, doesn't men all 11 men are directly responsible for stopping goals. Football doens't work that way. Roles are defined. Mostly in times of crisis do they change. But usually with less than favorable results.

I never said they were directly responsible. I said by and large they contribute menaing it was not the sole job of the defence. I did give scenarios however where they would be directly responsible and you ignored it.

 

[acnumber9]

Been there done that. You keep ignoring the simple explanations.

Really because I've read pretty much all of this thread and haven't seen you do it once. Explain to me why is it we defend?

 

[Sam]

If Hargreaves tracked Adebayor, as he should have. No goal would have been conceded. It's not even debatable.

Nail meets head.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

It has matured even more so this season. I haven't resorted to fabricating a players participation in matches to try and prove my points though.

It matured! Who matured? We have the
same awesome backline we had last season. The same midfield and attack during this period. |How the feck could they "mature" ?

We instead added the likes of Tevez, Anderson, Nani and Hargreaves and formerly on loan men like Pique and Simpson to our champions league squad. That is a far better reason overall for our improvement than your joke called maturing.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Nail meets head.

Rather fool agrees with blithering idiot.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

People have been making jokes about the Nazis for over 50-fecking years mate, including Jewish comedians. And one of the ways they've done it is by trivialising what they did (eg by comparing your wife's cooking to a Nazi atrocity). Doesn't make them racists.

I've spelled out what racism is for you and asked you to justify your position in accusing me of being "racist", "racist scum" and being someone who views Jews as "subhuman" - you have failed to do this. If you were of any significance whatsoever to real life I would be asking the mods for your fecking IP address at this moment because frankly that's libel pal.

Sue me then. I already pointed out my reasons. I've also already classified you as you wanted

 

[lem8sh]

Rather fool agrees with blithering idiot.

Jesus Christ this thread hits a new low, you telling me if Hargreaves tracked Adebayor we would still have conceded?

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Really because I've read pretty much all of this thread and haven't seen you do it once. Explain to me why is it we defend?

I explained to you already the difference between defending and being responsible for stopping a goal. Which you can't grasp. What makes you think you would grasp an explanation about defending?

 

[acnumber9]

It matured! Who matured? We have the
same awesome backline we had last season. The same midfield and attack during this period. |How the feck could they "mature" ?

We instead added the likes of Tevez, Anderson, Nani and Hargreaves and formerly on loan men like Pique and Simpson to our champions league squad. That is a far better reason overall for our improvement than your joke called maturing.

Gee I don't know....Perhaps by being a year older, added with the experience of a long run in the Champions League and a successful title challenge. That awesome backline you talked off has got better by playing together week in week out.

You could be right though, that 15 minutes Hargreaves had was definitely the key.

I'm sadly going to have to resort to one of your sign offs now. feck off you idiot, you yellow liar you.

 

[acnumber9]

I explained to you already the difference between defending and being responsible for stopping a goal. Which you can't grasp. What makes you think you would grasp an explanation about defending?

So, why do we defend? I'm sure if you broke it down into your lovely English I would understand. A nice picture would help too.

 

[Sam]

Fool
Immature
Juvenile
Childish
Racist
Ignorant
Blind
Idiot
Buffoon
Mad
Stupid
Liar
Chicken
Yellow
Yellow Man

And who says the art of mature debating is dead?

You can now add 'blithering idiot' to that list.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Jesus Christ this thread hits a new low, you telling me if Hargreaves tracked Adebayor we would still have conceded?

Yes. Where the feck was Vidic? The man supposed to be marking Adebayor? Hargreaves tracking Adebayor, would never have negated the cross from Eboue, that was going to get into the box and land on an unmarked Fabregas. Who would have been Scot free because Hargreaves was doing Vidic's job. A Vidic who was fecking AWOL, along with Brown, ball watching & marking nobody from the beginning of Adebayor's run till the time Fabregas scored.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Like the Fabregas goal you mean?

no. Like the goals Carrick let Kaka get against us at OT.

How about if a player who is being marked by a midfielder for a corner rises unchallenged to head in. Who would be responsible for that?

The person marking that player provided he who scored isn't a striker or winger. Defending is about doing your job. During a set piece. If you stick to man whom you are supposed to be marking (not a striker like Owen marking a John Terry), stopping him from scoring is doing your job. Which is what defending is all about. In contrast a striker harrying a defender in his own 18 is not stopping goals. He is defending.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

So, why do we defend? I'm sure if you broke it down into your lovely English I would understand. A nice picture would help too.

Go figure it out yourself.

 

[Wonder Pigeon]

 

[acnumber9]

no. Like the goals Carrick let Kaka get against us at OT.

The person marking that player provided he who scored isn't a striker or winger.

So when it's Maichael Carrick playing it's the midfielders job when Hargreaves is playing it's the defenders job. I see.

So you agree that a midfielder could be responsible for stopping a goal? So if Michael Carrick was marking say Dirk Kuyt on Sunday and he scored. Who's responsibility would it be?

 

[acnumber9]

Go figure it out yourself.

I know why. I wanted to know if you knew why.

 

[Sam]

The Chiefs list of insults

Fool
Immature
Juvenile
Childish
Racist
Ignorant
Blind
Idiot
Buffoon
Mad
Stupid
Liar
Chicken
Yellow
Yellow Man
blithering idiot

Very Impressive I must say.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Gee I don't know....Perhaps by being a year older, added with the experience of a long run in the Champions League and a successful title challenge. That awesome backline you talked off has got better by playing together week in week out.

That's biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard on here. Our team never matured one bit. We got new players. Which made us stronger.

You could be right though, that 15 minutes Hargreaves had was definitely the key.

Yes. I never mentioned Tevez, Anderson and Nani before him right?

How childish of you

I'm sadly going to have to resort to one of your sign offs now. feck off you idiot, you yellow liar you.

You've created you own. You haven't used anything from me!

You claimed I couldn't answer your question. Yet you were too much of a coward to repost it. That's why I call led you yellow.

I cal the likes of you a fool for constantly rehashing what some one already admitted was wrong. Just to deflect attention from the fact your talking bullshit at the time. Like that gimmick fools anybody.

 

[lem8sh]

Yes. Where the feck was Vidic? The man supposed to be marking Adebayor? Hargreaves tracking Adebayor, would never have negated the cross from Eboue, that was going to get into the box and land on an unmarked Fabregas. Who would have been Scot free because Hargreaves was doing Vidic's job. A Vidic who was fecking AWOL, along with Brown, ball watching & marking nobody from the beginning of Adebayor's run till the time Fabregas scored.

I'm done with this thread,your stupidity is fecking outrageous

 

[acnumber9]

Yes. Where the feck was Vidic? The man supposed to be marking Adebayor? Hargreaves tracking Adebayor, would never have negated the cross from Eboue, that was going to get into the box and land on an unmarked Fabregas. Who would have been Scot free because Hargreaves was doing Vidic's job. A Vidic who was fecking AWOL, along with Brown, ball watching & marking nobody from the beginning of Adebayor's run till the time Fabregas scored.

Watch the video again. Hargreaves follows the ball towards Adebayor when Vidic was still beside him leaving Fabregas alone to run into the box. Vidic then goes on to make the same mistake allowing Adebayor to run in behind him. Hargreaves rightly then tracked Adebayor's run before VDS went a bit crazy. Wes Brown was nowhere near close enough to intercept.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Chief, correlation = causation.

 

[ralphie88]

1) The site isnt responsible if you share your username with your mates. You may not be able to prove that any of your mates knew you as ralphie88 on redcafe before the alleged incident
2) The site may log IPs at registration/login time but unlikely for every post. Anyone could have hacked into the chief's username and posted. Heck the mods may have even modified his post
3) You might be able to obtain the IP of an username but actually cant prove the association of a particular person to that username.

The site has a responsibilty not to have defamatory comments put on it. As I'm sure you're aware, those are what Chief has been posting (in addition to a whole speel of personal insults which I'm sure are also against the site's policy but I'm not complaining about - they just show him up as being a short-tempered immature kids). If defamatory posts are put on a messageboard then it's primarily the site owners/hosts who are responsible. They can descharge that responsiblity in a number of ways. But if a dispute does go fruther, then typically site discloses the IP details of the poster to avoid being sued itself.

As for point (1), that's completely irrelevant to libel law. I post on a number of different sites under the same username and a lot of people know who I am - ffs I live round the corner from the fecking ground. I am under no obligation whatsoever to try and hide my identity just in case someone wants to start defaming me on tinternet.

I have to say, I've no idea why you're defending him on this.

 

[Wonder Pigeon]

I bet youse can take it to 100 before the night is out....

 

[kf]

Put up or shut up. Yellow man

That's racist

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I'm done with this thread,your stupidity is fecking outrageous

Rather yours is. That is why you'd rather leave this thread pretending to be clever than admit the truth.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

That's racist

 

[acnumber9]

That's biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard on here. Our team never matured one bit. We got new players. Which made us stronger.

Yes. I never mentioned Tevez, Anderson and Nani before him right?

How childish of you

You've created you own. You haven't used anything from me!

You claimed I couldn't answer your question. Yet you were too much of a coward to repost it. That's why I call led you yellow.

I cal the likes of you a fool for constantly rehashing what some one already admitted was wrong. Just to deflect attention from the fact your talking bullshit at the time. Like that gimmick fools anybody.

That is without doubt the stupidest thing you've ever posted. Yes even stupider than believing Hargreaves was instrumental in the groups stages, us beating Valencia and Celtic away from home, Bordeaux winning the UEFA Cup and stating that anybody said strikers get paid to stop goals.

You knew what the question was and you knew where it was. I shouldn't have to post the same thing twice.

You've been proven to be a liar so many times over. You liar you.

 

[Wonder Pigeon]

 

[acnumber9]

That's biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard on here. Our team never matured one bit. We got new players. Which made us stronger.

Yes. I never mentioned Tevez, Anderson and Nani before him right?
How childish of you

You've created you own. You haven't used anything from me!

You claimed I couldn't answer your question. Yet you were too much of a coward to repost it. That's why I call led you yellow.

I cal the likes of you a fool for constantly rehashing what some one already admitted was wrong. Just to deflect attention from the fact your talking bullshit at the time. Like that gimmick fools anybody.

If I remember correctly you never claimed any of those three players where the main reason for improved performance in this year's group stage. I do recall you saying it about Hargreaves though. Which is strange because the other three all played for more than 15/20 minutes of that group stage. It's all very peculiar because you haven't been exposed for making things up before.

 

[Sam]

If I remember correctly you never claimed any of those three players where the main reason for improved performance in this year's group stage. I do recall you saying it about Hargreaves though. Which is strange because the other three all played for more than 15/20 minutes of that group stage. It's all very peculiar because you haven't been exposed for making things up before.

He said something along the lines of Hargreaves being instrumental for us in the group stages, before someone pointed out that Hargreaves had only played like 10 minutes as a sub.