4000 posts 
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
- Status
Why should the thread be closed because WesBrownIsAGod is a sick perv?
No, because Instant Karma is a closet gooner and a Carrick, Rooney, Scholes hater.
And because surely, after 4000 posts, 101 pages, 20 different arguments, 200 insults, 5 accusations of racism and 1 disturbing GIF, we can finally agree that
Owen Hargreaves is not the next Roy Keane
"I know Jamie, even I think this thread has gone on for too long."
"I know Jamie, even I think this thread has gone on for too long."
Becks "Don't be like that Owen, you've just lost your passion. Here you go"
"Shh, IK, Chief and FS, I'm not that good really."
So, after 4000 posts, which is the better pairing, Scholes-Hargreaves, Carrick-Anderson, Carrick Fletcher, Fletcher-Hargreaves, Carrick-Scholes, Scholes-Fletcher, Scholes-Anderson....I need to know
I'll see you on page 200.
Ooooh I can't be arsed reading all that. What page?
I got as far as Two-Teams claiming that Klass was a better finisher than Van Nistelrooy and switched off.
By which time we will have signed another central midfield player.Um is that directed at me? I meant that since we've decided nothing thus far it would take at least that long to answer that question.
(By the way the answer is Scholes and Carrick)
Well we don't appear to be playing a midfield two anymore.
Carrick Scholes Anderson (with Rooney, Ronaldo and Tevez in fornt of them) - you'll not go far wrong.
"I never won the UEFA Cup with Bordeaux, you moron."
Not you honey. Sorry for the ambiguity. Directed at the whole thing. And no matter what we would decide here, Fergie would decide something else. With the midfield players we have now it's any three from five on any day. And to be honest I don't mind any of the combos.
I just find this thread hilarious.
JT "I've never had a thread that long"
OH "Trust me, it not all it's cracked up to be. Starts off pretty cool but after a while you just want to end it all"
AC Bzzzz. Bzzzz. Bzzzz.
JC "Eh, I'm gonna score a cracka ov an OG on Sunday. 89 mins. Mint"
The Chief on the morning this thread was first started,
And how he looks now.
And how he looks now.
Living up to your name there Ralphie
You already condemn yourself with your lame attempt at trying to look clever. I haven't denied what I said. I clearly talked about the summer, when I said that.
Proof
Red Indian Cheif Torn Rubber said:
Ekeke is instead suggesting I meant we should release him with immediate effect. Just like you. But don't let such facts get in the way of your trying to look clever. When you and him are just misquoting me to suit your own ends.
"I never won the UEFA Cup with Bordeaux, you moron."
I wasn't misquoting you Chief, I was just quoting you. And it wouldn't have been to suit any 'ends' as clearly there is no end - surely you know this by now. The thread will go on for ever.
I think it tells us that some people are comfortable with conducting 'debate' in a particular way and get annoyed when someone wants to do it differently.
Noods decided to gun for me here when I pointed out his misrepresentations and suggested we could/should debate differently (aggravated by yourself btw.) He decided to conduct a wind-up that was answered by reasoned argument until he decided to cheat by changing a tagline - big personal victory that one fella.
kf took a dislike to the idea that I was capable of disliking the presence of a logo but didn't think it was 'wrong' and that I was interested in what made people believe it was 'wrong' (or disliked) when fairly similar events are (and have been) accepted. He reckoned this was just 'arguing for the sake of it' regarding something I didn't care much about (presumably the logo presence/absence.) He referred to this exchange recently - either here or in the related general thread. So he has 'crossed swords' at least twice.
The only problem here is that the author of that remark, Noods, said his Keane point was meant to indicate that the chief had praised OH so highly it was the equivalent of saying he was better than Keano - which does rather make it relevant to the 'robotic keano' one.
Yeah right. You are supporting someone who is basically claiming I wanted Saha released, with imediate effect, on the very day we got a 7 million pound offer for him. Insisting I said that. Which clearly isn't what I said. So you tell me what the feck I should call what your doing? If it isn't misquoting.
Really getting rather defensive here aren't you?
Look back at the words used:
'we are not going to give the poor sod a chance'.
That's 'we' -as in a group of people consisting of more than one poster.
I specifically describe the criticisms levelled by members of this group:
'Loads of people have complained OH 'runs around like a headless chicken' (inaccurate but wth.) and then along comes another guy who doesn't like his performance to slate him for not moving around enough!!'
That's other people as well as yourself - comprising a group who criticise OH (generally unfairly). Together, you (the group) do seem to be trying to criticise OH whether he runs a lot or little - which is the contradiction to which I specifically refer that's the area in which he is 'not being given a chance'.
However, the point about the worthwhile effect of running is valid - and made by myself earlier (if memory serves). The problem is that the 'anti-OH' group (generally) can't admit when he either chases, or positions himself, well - neither can they acknowledge his many good passes - another example of 'not giving him a chance'. BTW in this context 'not giving a chance' doesn't mean 'not waiting to see how he develops', it means 'generally, no matter what he does - only the negative interpretation will be used'.
Let's get this back on track
How can anyone NOT say that Hargreaves was substantially responsible for Arsenal's equaliser this season? He tries to challenge Fabregas (one of the ball players that he is apparently meant to be stifling) but then lets him go free and instead dashes off after the ball like a headless chicken, despite the fact cover is there. Then, when he's reached Adebayor, he just stops, allowing Adebayor to run into the area free. Adebayor causes the damaged, Fabregas, completely free, passes the ball into the net.
Awful awful stuff, and this in apparently his best game for us
at 1.12
How can anyone NOT say that Hargreaves was substantially responsible for Arsenal's equaliser this season? He tries to challenge Fabregas (one of the ball players that he is apparently meant to be stifling) but then lets him go free and instead dashes off after the ball like a headless chicken, despite the fact cover is there. Then, when he's reached Adebayor, he just stops, allowing Adebayor to run into the area free. Adebayor causes the damaged, Fabregas, completely free, passes the ball into the net.
Awful awful stuff, and this in apparently his best game for us
at 1.12
I used 'think' because it is my opinion. I don't really see the remarks quoted as racist (possibly a bit insensitive though 0 hence lacking in taste -see above).You don't think?
I'm guessing 'Downfall' is a film? - since the context didn't fit the Milligan 'Adolf Hitler & my Part in His Downfall' books. I don't tend to rate film much & so watch little of it.
A quick Google shows it's a film - probably about the last days - so why remarks comparing posters to characters in this film are substantially different to comparing them to the historical characters could perhaps do with being explained - especially since the remark may be read by those unfamiliar with the film.
How can anyone NOT say that Hargreaves was substantially responsible for Arsenal's equaliser this season? He tries to challenge Fabregas (one of the ball players that he is apparently meant to be stifling) but then lets him go free and instead dashes off after the ball like a headless chicken, despite the fact cover is there. Then, when he's reached Adebayor, he just stops, allowing Adebayor to run into the area free. Adebayor causes the damaged, Fabregas, completely free, passes the ball into the net.
Awful awful stuff, and this in apparently his best game for us
at 1.12
The thing is, he doesn't even realise that Adebayor is there until he's gone past him. So, once again, he's left chasing the game, rather than reading it before it's happened.
Reactive defending, rather than pro-active defending.
Oh well, despite normally being happy to give other posters the benefit of the doubt (honest), if you insist you're not, I'll believe you.
OH is class however.
The chief did say only the back five have the job of stopping the other side scoring goals - because he wants to draw the distinction that others (having other jobs as well) merely have the task of helping the back five to do theirs.
Of course, his opponents happily misinterpret him as if he felt they had no role to play in assisting the team to not concede. The chief can't see that they are missing his distinction and wanting to rightly insist that this is still a part of the team not conceding - because they don't draw 'his' distinction, this is 'everyone stopping the opposition scoring'. The chief can't see their point either - so he misinterprets them - both sides get exasperated with the other.
As pointed out above, this is a classic example of people 'talking past one another'.
- Status