Ralph Milne was quite handy!Hargreaves reminds me of Ralph Milne.
Yes Chief, that's have long I've been watching football.
Ralph Milne was quite handy!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!Hargreaves reminds me of Ralph Milne.
Yes Chief, that's have long I've been watching football.
Do you attribute this to Hargreaves? Or the system?3 chances in 70 odd minutes, thats appalling
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.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?
The two are inter-linked. The system is existing because of Hargreaves.Do you attribute this to Hargreaves? Or the system?
He isn't. He is just a different playerYou didn't mention the Milan game..
Carrick is a better player than Hargreaves, that should be obvious now.
Pretty much I thinkFor 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.
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.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!
Wouldn't even be first choice at Liverpool. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of him is it!Pretty much I think
Except Hargreaves would never be a first choice at either Chelsea or Liverpool
Aside from giving him one or two freekicks on the edge of the box, which on another day Juninho (more than anyone) would have buried.Hargreaves kept Juninho quiet. He did his job in my opinion.
Because I believe Hargreaves is no upto the task, I'm dishonest?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!
we are manchester united.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.
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.....
last ditch tackle from evraI 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.
or if we are one down ... it's absurdthe 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.
Different player? This isn't Bramble vs Zidane all over again..He isn't. He is just a different player
Couldnt have sumed it up better, great post Feed me.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.
Milne>HargreavesRalph Milne was quite handy!
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 ballsPretty much I think
Except Hargreaves would never be a first choice at either Chelsea or Liverpool
Agreed.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.
I attribute that mostly to the system, Hargreaves however makes it worse cause he can't play footballDo you attribute this to Hargreaves? Or the system?
Was it that way tonight? Seriously?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..
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. JeezCarrick 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.
That tell you why we've only on it once. The one year in which Keane protected our defence like a bear protcting cubs.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.
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 ridiculousI 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.
Who said that? Where are you pulling this out of your ass?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
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 ...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
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.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.
This is what substitutions are for.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
I think Nucks is Hargreaves posting in a fury that we don't all love himWho 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.
You didn't mention the Milan game...
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.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.
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.
If I were hargreaves my name would be "nuckrautlander" ;pI think Nucks is Hargreaves posting in a fury that we don't all love him
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 somethingThis 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.
wouldn't be surprised if he's a relative of 'hargo' tbhI think Nucks is Hargreaves posting in a fury that we don't all love him
You have to remember Anderson is God
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?
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