"Hands off Hargreaves"

[kikks]

Hands off Hargreaves

Bayern Munich have told United they are fighting a losing battle in their quest to sign Owen Hargreaves.

Earlier this week Sir Alex Ferguson revealed that the Reds are still keen to recruit the England midfielder after missing out on securing his services during the summer.

The 25-year-old, who is currently recovering from a broken leg, is reportedly still keen to join the Reds, but Bayern general manager Uli Hoeness insists the midfielder will not be allowed to leave.

"All United's efforts to sign Owen Hargreaves are utterly futile," Hoeness told the Daily Mirror.

"We will not release Owen Hargreaves in January under any circumstances."

http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid={B4CEE8FA-9A47-47BC-B069-3F7A2F35DB70}&newsid=376198

Damn stubborn Hoeness :-/

 

[ega04cmd]

Prick. If a player genuinely wants to leave United he can't leave quick enough. Why do clubs insist on keeping players against their will? I know you're gonna say something about Ronaldo but he didn't genuinely want to leave, he was just a kid who was scared of the reaction he was getting in England and just needed some support. He has repeatedly said since then that he wants to stay. Hargreaves wants to leave in an amicable way. Prostituting himself would have been going on strike or something. Hoeness is a tosser

 

[Hellboy]

German cnuts

 

[kikks]

Agreed. Goddamnit Hoeness, who the hell are you to keep someone against their will? It's obvious the guy wants to leave, why not stop being a fecking whiny bitch about it and concede to the players wish? And my wish

 

[Liverpool_FC Bollocks]

They have a point to be fair. If this was Chelsea we'd be accusing them of all sorts.

Fergie must have scouted other players surely? Why is he so desperate to spend so much money on Hargreaves?

 

[SiYuan]

That probably meant we want more money.

 

[M160RA]

They have a point to be fair. If this was Chelsea we'd be accusing them of all sorts.

Fergie must have scouted other players surely? Why is he so desperate to spend so much money on Hargreaves?

Agreed with your first point - if Bayern are insistent on keeping Hargreaves, then we shouldn't try to further unsettle him and we should focus on other targets.

I think a player of Hargreaves type - i.e. a tenacious defensive midfielder is something we're lacking in the squad and really could do with. If it were a fit Hargreaves playing ahead of O'Shea in midfield, we wouldn't look half as bad. We don't need the lumbering holding midfielder types - Hargreaves seems to be an excellent choice because he would inject some much needed energy into the midfield with his work rate.

There aren't many other similar players that I could think of who would be realistic targets for us. But there are a few off the top of my head:
- Jean Makoun (Lille)
- Yaya Toure (Monaco)
- Kristoffer Haestad (Start)

Other midfielders of a different nature that we might want to consider are Fernando Gago (Boca) and Nigel Reo-Coker (West Ham).

I think the Copenhagen game showed that we need more options for the central midfield.

 

[DA2]

Wouldnt be surprised if he didnt come in January but really do find it difficult to believe theyll hold on to him next summer - would seem totally pointless.

The one thing that does concern me is that Bayern have smelt the stink of desperation and when the time comes are gonna screw us royally to the tune of 20mil or some ridiculous figure. I think Hargreaves would be great but ive got a baaaaad feeling about this.....

 

[Liverpool_FC Bollocks]

The problem with this "British only" policy is that it limits our options. There's really only Scott Parker and Reo Coker who fit what we're looking for, but I'm not sure they're good enough.

I would have gone all out to get Gattuso, who probably would have been a lot cheaper too.

 

[RedSky]

The problem with this "British only" policy is that it limits our options. There's really only Scott Parker and Reo Coker who fit what we're looking for, but I'm not sure they're good enough.

I would have gone all out to get Gattuso, who probably would have been a lot cheaper too.

Scott Parker isn't a DM, and he never has been. Neither is Reo Coker.

Hargreaves is the only genuine British DM that the country has and ironically he doesn't even play in the Premiership! Hargreaves will join United, Bayern simply cannot stand the pressure, if we don't get him come January we will try again in the Summer and we will keep trying. We're nothing short of persitient, and when it comes to a SAF target, we're in it for the long haul, just look at the Ruud transfer saga for proof of that.

 

[Striker10]

we don't need a dm...we never needed a dm player. It's only because we used keanos as a dm in his final season or two that people keep flipping bringing it up and because of makelelelelelelelele lol at chelscum with people putting 2 and 2 together. We're not after a dm specifically and if there's a preference it's a cm that can go about the place and that includes coker, hargreaves and parker

 

[M160RA]

we don't need a dm...we never needed a dm player. It's only because we used keanos as a dm in his final season or two that people keep flipping bringing it up and becasue of makelelelelelelelele lol at chelscum. We're not after a dm specifically and if there's a preference it's a cm that can go about the place and that includes coker, hargreaves and parker

Butt and Ince, weren't defensive midfielders?? How about Remi Moses? Or Paddy Crerand?

 

[Striker10]

gosh defensive midfielder is limited hence defensive. Keano WASN'T limited in his peak and nor is hargreaves, parker etc as they can get goals and they do get forward, while at the same time defend when needs be. Butt got forward too it's just his best attributes were tackling because his shooting was woeful and ince was a pretty good attacking midfielder who got back and made tackles

 

[M160RA]

gosh defensive midfielder is limited hence defensive. Keano WASN'T limited in his peak and nor is hargreaves, parker etc as they can get goals and they do get forward, while at the same time defend when needs be. Butt got forward too it's just his best attributes were tackling because his shooting was woeful and ince was a pretty good attacking midfielder who got back and made tackles

I never said Keane was a bonafide defensive midfielder - he was box-to-box. But to say that United have never played with defensive midfielders, or that we don't need one, is completely wrong.

 

[padzilla]

We don't need an all out defensive midfielder jsut someone who can do that role well when needed.

 

[SonnyDo]

German cnuts

Why German cnuts?? If Barcalona wants Rooney you let him go??

 

[M160RA]

We don't need someone who just sits in front of the back four and doesn't move an inch past the halfway line in the mould of Makelele.
But what we do need is a robust ballwinner will tenacity and stamina who will run his socks off and get stuck in. And you're right about just getting someone to use when needed - he doesn't necessarily have to start every game. We can stick with Carrick-Scholes so long as they are fit, but when it seems tactically more suitable, it is always good to have a reliable "defensive" midfielder.

 

[Drifter]

Good news.

 

[horselesspaul]

Butt and Ince, weren't defensive midfielders?? How about Remi Moses? Or Paddy Crerand?

I'll NEVER forget

 

[kklm05]

De Rossi in Jan? anyone?

 

[Chapster]

Why German cnuts?? If Barcalona wants Rooney you let him go??

well if rooney really wanted to leave....

 

[RedTom]

United should move on now, we tried and failed, lets try and find a true genus like Paul Scholes or Ryan Giggs instead of wasting our time on an above average battler like Hargreaves.

In time Bayern will regret not taking the 15+ million but while they are still trying to prove they are a big club we should forget about Hargreaves and leave them with a player who doesn't want to play for them, and it will be very hard for them to find another club willing to pay what United were.

 

[Gabe]

Agreed with your first point - if Bayern are insistent on keeping Hargreaves, then we shouldn't try to further unsettle him and we should focus on other targets.

I think a player of Hargreaves type - i.e. a tenacious defensive midfielder is something we're lacking in the squad and really could do with. If it were a fit Hargreaves playing ahead of O'Shea in midfield, we wouldn't look half as bad. We don't need the lumbering holding midfielder types - Hargreaves seems to be an excellent choice because he would inject some much needed energy into the midfield with his work rate.

Yes the play bogs down every time it reaches JohnO. He does his best, he's a good shield for the defence but thats about it.

Hargreaves would add some zip, he's tenacious, a decent passer and isn't afraid to run with the ball. Not world class admittedly but would balance the midfield nicely.

 

[Orton]

Good news.

Agreed. We dont need him.

 

[Mainoldo]

Reo Coker..... Reo Coker...!!

 

[Giggzinho]

Reo Coker..... Reo Coker...!!

no and to the second part, no!

 

[Plechazunga]

we don't need a dm...we never needed a dm player. It's only because we used keanos as a dm in his final season or two that people keep flipping bringing it up and because of makelelelelelelelele lol at chelscum with people putting 2 and 2 together. We're not after a dm specifically and if there's a preference it's a cm that can go about the place and that includes coker, hargreaves and parker

This is correct. Ince was actually sold for refusing to do enough defensive work.

If we got Hargreaves, we'd end up playing 433 or 451, because Scholes is better than either Hargreaves or Carrick. And that means wasting Rooney.

 

[VanNistelrater]

This is correct. Ince was actually sold for refusing to do enough defensive work.

If we got Hargreaves, we'd end up playing 433 or 451, because Scholes is better than either Hargreaves or Carrick. And that means wasting Rooney.

Good point that.

Cant see him dropping Carrick and Scholes has been superb. It would mean 4-3-3, but it would mean a better midfield.

Bit of a conundrum.

 

[Plechazunga]

Yep. He's invested in Carrick, who's decent defensively, and he's going to have to stick by that. It means we're still a bit soft in the middle, especially when we have to get a grip on a game that's slipping away from us...but on the bright side, going forward we look class.

 

[kanchelskis14]

Not that suprising that they don't want to release one of their better players mid-season.

 

[Spoony]

This is correct. Ince was actually sold for refusing to do enough defensive work.

.

I think Fergie wanted Keane to play the more attacking role. But Ince wasn't having any of it. Fergie had enough and got shot of him. . .

So I take it, you wouldn't get Hargreaves?

 

[Plechazunga]

I think Hargreaves is a decent player, but I worry that he'd feck up our system. I'd rather see a slightly weaker midfield than Rooney stuck out on the wing.

 

[Mainoldo]

I would rather we fix our weakend midfield! cuz you'll be the first to moan if Carrick or Scholes gets injured and we're stuck with O'Shit!!! Hargreaves will just have to fight for his place like everybody else nothing suggest we will be changing our system...

 

[Spoony]

True, Plech. Fergie did say that Owen would give him more options. Perhaps all three(Scholes, Carrick and Hargreaves) won't start, if we do indeed get Hargreaves.

I'd get him, though.

 

[DA2]

Good point that.

Cant see him dropping Carrick and Scholes has been superb. It would mean 4-3-3, but it would mean a better midfield.

Bit of a conundrum.

Apols about opening this can of worms - it wouldnt mean 4-3-3 it would most prob mean 4-2-3-1....... and before Plech or any other smart arse opens their gob there is a most definite diffence between the 2 formations.


Typical 4-3-3 = Drogba with 2 wingers behind

Typical 4-2-3-1 = Ronaldo with Figo, Raul and Zidane behind, all changing positions during the course of the match.

 

[Plechazunga]

Apols about opening this can of worms - it wouldnt mean 4-3-3 it would most prob mean 4-2-3-1....... and before Plech or any other smart arse opens their gob there is a most definite diffence between the 2 formations.


Typical 4-3-3 = Drogba with 2 wingers behind

Typical 4-2-3-1 = Ronaldo with Figo, Raul and Zidane behind, all changing positions during the course of the match.

I never said there was no difference between 433 and 4231. I agreed with you to the extent that an extra centre midfielder is clearly a significant difference

There's no major difference between 442 and 4231, beyond getting the wingers to tuck in a bit

If we played that, with Carrick, Hargreaves and Scholes, Scholes would effectively be playing as a deep-lying centre forward, and Rooney would be stuck out wide. Waste of his talents...I'd rather even see Scholesy dropped than that.

 

[DA2]

I never said there was no difference between 433 and 4231. I agreed with you to the extent that an extra centre midfielder is clearly a significant difference

There's no major difference between 442 and 4231, beyond getting the wingers to tuck in a bit

If we played that, with Carrick, Hargreaves and Scholes, Scholes would effectively be playing as a deep-lying centre forward, and Rooney would be stuck out wide. Waste of his talents...I'd rather even see Scholesy dropped than that.

If done properly as demonstrated by the almost unplayable Real Madrid of 5-6 years ago - then Rooney wouldnt be stuck out wide, neither would Ronaldo. The 3 forwards would all be very fluid and interchangeable and to a ceratin degree free to create and attack safe in the knowledge that they are solidly covered behind. Bearing in mind that having Rooney sometimes out wider in offensive areas can be very effective as he is strong, has pace, comfortable with either foot and capable of decent balls into the box. You also have to consider we would have Giggs and Park to accomodate so players wouldnt be playing every match - Giggs and Scholes especially.

 

[Plechazunga]

When it works, it's very nice...it worked for us for about ten games at the end of 02/3

The problem is, that although Rooney sometimes picks it up wide and drifts in, more often he drops deep and plays through the middle. That's what he's happiest doing, and so either we'd be stifling his game, or we'd be playing without proper width. United is and has been all about playing with width.

 

[kanchelskis14]

I still stand by '4-3-3' as it were. I think the key is a good enough midfield 3, which we will see for the first time when Hargreaves comes. With enough energy, we won't be too light out wide, and I don't buy Rooneybecoming a 'winger' either. It's basically Saha, with Rooney and Ronaldo behind him. Obviously they aren't both going to line up directly behind Saha in the middle, one will perhaps be to one side more, and that is interchangable at that. I think if they get it right, Rooney will be able to play exactly how he usually does, and Ronaldo doing a similar role too.

But overall, the good of the team should be paramount. I think Rooney can and has in the past played well enough 'out wide', like in the 04 cup final, and i think it is more sensible for the manager to ask him to continue to do so if it would overall give our team the greater balance, as opposed to not signing a defensive midfielder because of a striker. I mean, even Ronaldinho was never a 'left winger', but he fits into the team's system and plays there, very well at that. But he would have been just like Rooney perhaps and preferred to play off the front man, which would perhaps not make Barca as good as they are today because they'd have to change.

I just don't think it would be good management to say knowingly that we'll be soft in the midfield, but Rooney or any other player would prefer it that way. I mean look at Ruud, was as important to us as anyone, scored a ridiculous amount of goals, but a problem came when the whole team had to adjust for him. Rooney is good and adaptable enough for it to be the other way round. I mean, in the countless 'Rooney is better than x,y or z' debates, one of the things i've read more than anything is how he's 'so good he can play anywhere'.

 

[sincher]

In my time watching football, only one team has ever won the top league playing a system other than 4-4-2 (Chelsea).