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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
52,711
Location
Founder of IhateMakeleles.org and Gourcufffanboysa
Hargreaves reminds me of Ralph Milne.

Yes Chief, that's have long I've been watching football.
I dont care how long you've watched it. Milne was fecking shit for us. If you can't see Hargreaves didn't play badly at all tonight and did his job to near perfection, which was to shackle Juninho, Lyon's key attacking midfielder, while provding the platform for our more attacking players to shine then you are a very dishonest person. There's nothing more to say. Since Milne didn't his job for Manchester United. EVER!
 

M160RA

Full Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
5,085
Yes but if Carrick is better at opening teams up and Hargreaves place on the pitch didn't make us as solid as we'd like and we ended up one down then what's your argument exactly? Surely we can't always take him off of we go a goal down?
I think some people have a pretty ridiculous view of a defensive midfielder's role. They're not gods. It's not like a team is not going to concede at all with them on the pitch, and if the team concedes it doesn't mean the defensive midfielder was at fault.
 

GusHiddink

Alex Ferguson will not win another champions leagu
Newbie
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
6,564
Location
In the berbatov thread trying to push the deal thr
the idea that a player is only good for certain games has never been and never should be the manchester utd way. He's either a utd player or he's not.

e.g. had we signed essien he would be able to play either role in accordance with whats needed with regard to the opposition. ala keane.

if and im not saying it is, but if hargreaves has to be brought in and out the side depending who we are playing he was the wrong signing at that price.
 

mehro

Ass face
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
25,408
Location
Better than Smashed
I don't like what I've seen of Hargreaves so far but I'm willing to be patient with him. I would like to see him try to make a few more ambitious passes though. It may not be something he's done in the past but he's got to adapt to the way United play football. Back passes or horizontal passes is all I've seen from him so far. Also, those that claim that he breaks up plays, Carrick has been especially good at that the last few games. Hopefully Hargreaves will come good in the long run but based on current form Carrick should at the very least be starting every home game.
 

noodlehair

"It's like..."
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
16,333
Location
Flagg
For me, there is a clear distinction. If you prefer Carrick then you prefer good, aesthetically pleasing football. If you prefer Hargreaves then you would probably find the dross served up by Chelsea and Liverpool more pleasing.
Pretty much I think

Except Hargreaves would never be a first choice at either Chelsea or Liverpool
 

moses

Can't We Just Be Nice?
Staff
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
43,209
Location
I have no idea either, yet.
I dont care how long you've watched it. Milne was fecking shit for us. If you can't see Hargreaves didn't play badly at all tonight and did his job to near perfection, which was to shackle Juninho, Lyon's key attacking midfielder, while provding the platform for our more attacking players to shine then you are a very dishonest person. There's nothing more to say. Since Milne didn't his job for Manchester United. EVER!
was giving juninho a couple of nice free kicks on goal really the best way to shackle him? I know there is more to his role than that but I really couldn't see his worth.

Even defensively I think Carrick offers more. When Lyon attacks were repelled by the centre backs Hargreaves was too deep to pick up the 2nd ball, Carrick marks space very well and doesn't have to make as many tackles as he breaks up play with brain more than braun.

Even if Hargreaves was impeccable defensively I don't feel that's enough for a Manchester United central midfielder.
 

Feed Me

I'm hungry
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
29,319
Location
Midlands, UK
Pretty much I think

Except Hargreaves would never be a first choice at either Chelsea or Liverpool
Wouldn't even be first choice at Liverpool. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of him is it! :nervous:

Fact is, Makelele should collar the blame. Ever since he came on the scene, everyone has gone "holding midfield" crazy.
 

Sultan

Gentleness adorns everything
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
48,569
Location
Redcafe
I dont care how long you've watched it. Milne was fecking shit for us. If you can't see Hargreaves didn't play badly at all tonight and did his job to near perfection, which was to shackle Juninho, Lyon's key attacking midfielder, while provding the platform for our more attacking players to shine then you are a very dishonest person. There's nothing more to say. Since Milne didn't his job for Manchester United. EVER!
Because I believe Hargreaves is no upto the task, I'm dishonest? :lol:

Milne>Hargreaves
 

thebelfastboy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
875
Location
Belfast
How on fecking earth can you claim that his passing was poor when he only had one or two misplaced passes? So many Hargreaves haters FFS. What's worse is that they don't have a strong reason to bash him.
we are manchester united.
we are not an average european side who should struggle against an average european side away from home.

how about asking for a little more creative passing in the middle? is he exempt from playing forward thinking football as a central midfielder?

in my eyes anderson has cemented his place in the middle of the field. carrick, hargreaves and scholes need to fight for the 2nd central midfield spot.
 

GusHiddink

Alex Ferguson will not win another champions leagu
Newbie
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
6,564
Location
In the berbatov thread trying to push the deal thr


torn rubber: you are talkin shit, tevez played great when he came on, but i thought rooney done well on his own up front. tevez wouldnt have done any better alone up front.

we looked better at our favourite 442, when rooney had someone with him up front.

i'm baffled why we continue to play 451 away in europe when we are (9 times out of time) the better team. we need to start playing to our strengths.....


amen my friend amen to that

I can only remember us having one 'clear chance' and that was Rooney's. Scholes had a decent chance (hardly a poor finish though, just a good block). Can't remember much else?

You keep insisting we were very unlucky not to win 2-0 or 3-0. I think a draw was a fair result, neither team creating much in way of chances. I've mentioned ours, they had Benzema's shot that went just over, a good Juninho free kick and Rio's moment of madness.
last ditch tackle from evra
 

moses

Can't We Just Be Nice?
Staff
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
43,209
Location
I have no idea either, yet.
the idea that a player is only good for certain games has never been and never should be the manchester utd way. He's either a utd player or he's not.

e.g. had we signed essien he would be able to play either role in accordance with whats needed with regard to the opposition. ala keane.

if and im not saying it is, but if hargreaves has to be brought in and out the side depending who we are playing he was the wrong signing at that price.
or if we are one down ... it's absurd
 

Instant Karma

Closet Gooner
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
7,134
Location
Fletchcafe - Population: 5 (May 2006)
Pretty much I think

Except Hargreaves would never be a first choice at either Chelsea or Liverpool
Neither would Carrick. In fact Carrick wouldnt start at any top club in the big leagues. He is a mediocre player who will probably never even be a regular international. He is probably behind Jenas in England pecking order. Most top coaches would rather play central defenders in midfield because he offers nothing other than Hollywood balls
 

RedSky

Shepherd’s Delight
Scout
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
74,252
Location
Hereford FC (Soccermanager)
Time to jump into this discussion.

When Hargreaves was signed, SAF told us "He was the missing jigsaw piece". Putting it bluntly, so far he's been a waste. He hasn't given us what we expected. I thought he would marshal our midfield and stamp his authority on our players, getting them to do their jobs like Rio does with his defense. He was signed to be our hard man, our player to break up and dominate a midfield. I haven't seen one match this season where he's done that.

I was and still am a supporter of Hargreaves. But I do ask myself the same question after every match, is he really what we need? I always give our signings at least a full season before starting to get on their backs. All players need time to adjust to their surroundings, espically if coming from Europe. But we should be starting to see his talent shine through and I simply don't see it.

Its also worth noting (espically in the second half) the Lyon midfielders seemed to allow the ball to always reach Hargreaves, and he was the midfielder they always pressurised, often with 2 players. Almost every time he lost the ball. The goal was very much his fault as he should never have allowed the Lyon player to pass it to Benzema (Anderson and Scholes also allowed him to run on). He also gave away 4 freekicks around our penalty box, thank god Junhino had 'one of those games'.
 

M160RA

Full Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
5,085
I don't like what I've seen of Hargreaves so far but I'm willing to be patient with him. I would like to see him try to make a few more ambitious passes though. It may not be something he's done in the past but he's got to adapt to the way United play football. Back passes or horizontal passes is all I've seen from him so far. Also, those that claim that he breaks up plays, Carrick has been especially good at that the last few games. Hopefully Hargreaves will come good in the long run but based on current form Carrick should at the very least be starting every home game.
Agreed.

Hargreaves as yet has failed to impress, but we should give him more time.

Based on current form, Carrick deserves to start.

If Hargreaves' strength isn't passing, then he should just concentrate on doing what he does best. Once he gains his form and confidence, then he can start expanding his game a little. Evra has become a lot more adventurous with his trickery once he settled in.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
52,711
Location
Founder of IhateMakeleles.org and Gourcufffanboysa
Head. Banging. Brick wall.

Hargreaves can pass the ball. But it is not his forte. He takes too long to pass the ball. Our play becomes to methodical..
Was it that way tonight? Seriously?

Carrick has proven himself. He dovetailed with Scholes and helped us win the title after 3 or 4 years. That is a good enough reccomendation for me.
So what? What if he won the league alongside Scholes? Away from home in Europe we lost every game with that partnership. He proved beyonda shadow ofa doubt he wasn't good enough to shield our defence in Europe! So why aren't you complaining that Scholes took his place instead! Especially when he was awesome in Scholes role on. Jeez:annoyed:

United has never played (in the Fergie Era) with a pure destroying midfielder whose job it is to break up play - United's philosophy is based on attacking, incisive football and by having a Hargreaves in the side we are handicapping ourselves in attack. Robson - a very accomplished player with the ball. Same with Keane. Essentially, Hargreaves is too basic.
That tell you why we've only on it once. The one year in which Keane protected our defence like a bear protcting cubs.
 

moses

Can't We Just Be Nice?
Staff
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
43,209
Location
I have no idea either, yet.
I think some people have a pretty ridiculous view of a defensive midfielder's role. They're not gods. It's not like a team is not going to concede at all with them on the pitch, and if the team concedes it doesn't mean the defensive midfielder was at fault.
it does if he is incapable of helping us come back from said goal , to have a player so one dimensional means the team suffers unless he is amazing at what he does ... if he offers so little going forward then we should be totally bulletproof at the back ... to spend 18 million quid on him to make us solid and to take him off because we go one down is ridiculous
 

Nucks

RT History Department
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
4,462
if his injury prevented him from playing again as well as he's ever had, he'd have retired or Fergie wouldn't have wasted so much money on him
Who said that? Where are you pulling this out of your ass?

The guy had a broken leg. Do you know what a broken leg is? It is when a bone in your leg either snaps or cracks. That is a pretty serious injury that can happen to anyone. It's not like some people have bones that are lined with adamantium in real life. Ya that means Wolverine isn't real sorry to burst your bubble.

This is an injury that will take MONTHS to heal. It means that it will take the player MONTHS to just get fit again and it will take MONTHS on top of that to get their form back.

You comparing a broken leg to a bruised thigh or a twisted ankle is absurdity of the grossest proportions.. Could Hargreaves be a little harder and play through some of these knocks? I am sure he could. However psychology is SO vitally important to players. If you have ever competed in any sort of sport at an elite level you would know this. What is going on in your head is probably more important than how fit you are. If some players are not confident when they are carrying a knock, you don't want them playing because they are not going to have the confidence and they are being setup to fail. If that failure happens you can damage that psyche in a permanent way and they may never be the same mentally again.

There are some people that will play with broken bones or torn ligaments. That is rare, extremely rare. There are some people who will not play with an ingrown toe-nail. That is rare, extremely rare.

The fact is, Hargreaves plays in a physical manner. He is bound to pickup more knocks because of this. If he didn't play in that manner he wouldn't be the kind of player he is. Could he play through some of those knocks? Maybe I don't know I'm not the person picking them up. Could he have played through a broken leg? Are you fecking mental? That is what you are insinuating. That he is a pussy and that it is his fault that he picked up a broken leg.
 

moses

Can't We Just Be Nice?
Staff
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
43,209
Location
I have no idea either, yet.
Neither would Carrick. In fact Carrick wouldnt start at any top club in the big leagues. He is a mediocre player who will probably never even be a regular international. He is probably behind Jenas in England pecking order. Most top coaches would rather play central defenders in midfield because he offers nothing other than Hollywood balls
do you remember our midfield before Carrick joined, it was a joke, no natural rhythm at all ... then suddenly we won the league ... he gives it shape, he covers space naturally , when he slotted into our midfield the whole team looked better , the defence even had more confidence ... look at how spurs dipped and we peaked after the transfer ...
 

DiaboliQue

Full Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
I always tell the truth, even when I lie
we are manchester united.
we are not an average european side who should struggle against an average european side away from home.

how about asking for a little more creative passing in the middle? is he exempt from playing forward thinking football as a central midfielder?

in my eyes anderson has cemented his place in the middle of the field. carrick, hargreaves and scholes need to fight for the 2nd central midfield spot.
So let me get this straight, it was Hargreaves' fault that Fergie decided to go all pragmatic on us and start with a really negative lineup? Damnit, it's really difficult sometimes to come to terms with some of you.

The team we had at the end of the match is the one which we should have started with and probably would have twated them with that team and that formation.

On another day and against another team, one midfield place is up for grabs and Carrick, Hargreaves and Scholes should fight for it. We should always play 4-4-2 regardless of whom and where we play them.
 

Nucks

RT History Department
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
4,462
it does if he is incapable of helping us come back from said goal , to have a player so one dimensional means the team suffers unless he is amazing at what he does ... if he offers so little going forward then we should be totally bulletproof at the back ... to spend 18 million quid on him to make us solid and to take him off because we go one down is ridiculous
This is what substitutions are for.

It is the same idea that you take a striker off for a defensive player to protect a lead. Does this mean that the offensive player is "so one dimensional that the team suffers unless he is amazing at what he does"?

If you are behind and you need to score you take defensive players off for offensive players.

This is basic, fundamental logic.
 

moses

Can't We Just Be Nice?
Staff
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
43,209
Location
I have no idea either, yet.
Who said that? Where are you pulling this out of your ass?

The guy had a broken leg. Do you know what a broken leg is? It is when a bone in your leg either snaps or cracks. That is a pretty serious injury that can happen to anyone. It's not like some people have bones that are lined with adamantium in real life. Ya that means Wolverine isn't real sorry to burst your bubble.

This is an injury that will take MONTHS to heal. It means that it will take the player MONTHS to just get fit again and it will take MONTHS on top of that to get their form back.

You comparing a broken leg to a bruised thigh or a twisted ankle is absurdity of the grossest proportions.. Could Hargreaves be a little harder and play through some of these knocks? I am sure he could. However psychology is SO vitally important to players. If you have ever competed in any sort of sport at an elite level you would know this. What is going on in your head is probably more important than how fit you are. If some players are not confident when they are carrying a knock, you don't want them playing because they are not going to have the confidence and they are being setup to fail. If that failure happens you can damage that psyche in a permanent way and they may never be the same mentally again.

There are some people that will play with broken bones or torn ligaments. That is rare, extremely rare. There are some people who will not play with an ingrown toe-nail. That is rare, extremely rare.

The fact is, Hargreaves plays in a physical manner. He is bound to pickup more knocks because of this. If he didn't play in that manner he wouldn't be the kind of player he is. Could he play through some of those knocks? Maybe I don't know I'm not the person picking them up. Could he have played through a broken leg? Are you fecking mental? That is what you are insinuating. That he is a pussy and that it is his fault that he picked up a broken leg.
I think Nucks is Hargreaves posting in a fury that we don't all love him
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
52,711
Location
Founder of IhateMakeleles.org and Gourcufffanboysa
I can only remember us having one 'clear chance' and that was Rooney's. Scholes had a decent chance (hardly a poor finish though, just a good block). Can't remember much else?

You keep insisting we were very unlucky not to win 2-0 or 3-0. I think a draw was a fair result, neither team creating much in way of chances. I've mentioned ours, they had Benzema's shot that went just over, a good Juninho free kick and Rio's moment of madness.
We were very dominant with possesion. And had 3 clear chances that should have been goals. 2 others which were an offside goal and the equaliser. They scored from a momment of magic. Threatening with onyl half chances. This was a side that was at home and playing well. Yet we were far better than them. In a big game.

Anyone thinking we should have had many more chances like we had at home last Saturday is just deluded really. That was never going to happen.
 

reddevilcanada

Full Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
11,339
Who said that? Where are you pulling this out of your ass?

The guy had a broken leg. Do you know what a broken leg is? It is when a bone in your leg either snaps or cracks. That is a pretty serious injury that can happen to anyone. It's not like some people have bones that are lined with adamantium in real life. Ya that means Wolverine isn't real sorry to burst your bubble.

This is an injury that will take MONTHS to heal. It means that it will take the player MONTHS to just get fit again and it will take MONTHS on top of that to get their form back.

You comparing a broken leg to a bruised thigh or a twisted ankle is absurdity of the grossest proportions.. Could Hargreaves be a little harder and play through some of these knocks? I am sure he could. However psychology is SO vitally important to players. If you have ever competed in any sort of sport at an elite level you would know this. What is going on in your head is probably more important than how fit you are. If some players are not confident when they are carrying a knock, you don't want them playing because they are not going to have the confidence and they are being setup to fail. If that failure happens you can damage that psyche in a permanent way and they may never be the same mentally again.

There are some people that will play with broken bones or torn ligaments. That is rare, extremely rare. There are some people who will not play with an ingrown toe-nail. That is rare, extremely rare.

The fact is, Hargreaves plays in a physical manner. He is bound to pickup more knocks because of this. If he didn't play in that manner he wouldn't be the kind of player he is. Could he play through some of those knocks? Maybe I don't know I'm not the person picking them up. Could he have played through a broken leg? Are you fecking mental? That is what you are insinuating. That he is a pussy and that it is his fault that he picked up a broken leg.
:lol:

Anderson had a broken leg as well with Porto last season, in fact he missed the majority of the last season exactly because of that. He hasn't had a problem settling in or being actually quite good for the team, has he?
 

moses

Can't We Just Be Nice?
Staff
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
43,209
Location
I have no idea either, yet.
This is what substitutions are for.

It is the same idea that you take a striker off for a defensive player to protect a lead. Does this mean that the offensive player is "so one dimensional that the team suffers unless he is amazing at what he does"?

If you are behind and you need to score you take defensive players off for offensive players.

This is basic, fundamental logic.
I agree but it's not quite the same as going three at the back and throwing on a 4th attacker ... my main point is that we replaced him not with a striker but a similar player because the defensive midfielder couldnt help us score ... he also didn't help us defend ... he must be great craic on the away bus ... or something
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
53,283
Location
Hope, We Lose
I don't think Lyon did play well to be honest. Aside from Benzema who was a monster.

Govou threatened with pace and then had no end product time and again and Kallstrom seemed to pretty much mishit everything. Juninho was playing too deep to make anything much happen aside from set piece situations.
 

Alex

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
41,955
Location
____
:lol:

Anderson had a broken leg as well with Porto last season, in fact he missed the majority of the last season exactly because of that. He hasn't had a problem settling in or being actually quite good for the team, has he?
You have to remember Anderson is God
 

M160RA

Full Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
5,085
it does if he is incapable of helping us come back from said goal , to have a player so one dimensional means the team suffers unless he is amazing at what he does ... if he offers so little going forward then we should be totally bulletproof at the back ... to spend 18 million quid on him to make us solid and to take him off because we go one down is ridiculous
:rolleyes:

It's not the first time a player has been taken off for tactical reasons.

It would be great to have complete players for every position on the pitch, but it's unrealistic. So we have to settle for a top class winger who scores plenty of goals, but less likely to track back. We have to settle for two brilliant albeit diminutive forwards who don't offer much aerial threat. A rightback who's a good defender, but poor going forward, etc...

Hargreaves had an okay game, and he could've done better. Fair enough. But to say that he's a waste of money based on his first Champions League start is over the top. Give him a chance, ffs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.