So is that Hargreaves chasing the ball around like a headless chicken for the first goal? It's a bit difficult to tell on there but it does look like him.Closely watch Hargreaves' marking on Kaka and the ease with which the Brazilian goes past him for the first goal, and look how well Hargreaves ''neutralizes'' Gattuso in the midde of the park, for the second goal
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
I believe its him letting the ball past him, then chasing Kaka for a bit before stopiing pointlessly on the edge of the area, if Khan had saved the shot and pushed it away Kaka would have been unmarked for a tap in
Don't annoy the pro-Hargo knobs with evidence.
Interesting...
I thought they might both be Manatees, with identity disorder, on crack. Thanks for clearing that up.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carrick and Hargreaves are our next generation of superstars. Comparing them at this point is unhealthy. I would hope that we the spectators could give them every last bit of encouragement as they grow into the roles that will be left open by our beloved Giggs and Scholes.
There is enough trouble with the transition of the midfield, let's not make things worse than they are.
That certainly sounds like him. I think the technical term for that is "protecting the back four".
Yeah, same.
I would really like to see it.
I brought this up earlier in the thread.I don't know, I'll look around to see if I can find it, but here's the Guardian's match report you can read to get a sense of the game and Hargreaves' performance:
http://football.guardian.co.uk/Match_Report/0,,2055101,00.html
Meanwhile, here's the video of the two goals that won Milan the game in only the first 30 minutes:
Closely watch Hargreaves' marking on Kaka and the ease with which the Brazilian goes past him for the first goal, and look how well Hargreaves ''neutralizes'' Gattuso in the midde of the park, for the second goal
The Hargreaves Camp just dismissed it, same with his marking on the Arsenal goal. Apparently, I 'faked' the evidence.
Yeah, same.
I would really like to see it.
I brought this up earlier in the thread.
The Hargreaves Camp just dismissed it, same with his marking on the Arsenal goal. Apparently, I 'faked' the evidence.
Is there any more despicable figure in football than Inzaghi?
Not counting Deco, obviously
Not counting Deco, obviously
Eboue?? Drogba??? Joe Cole?? Carragher??
Not even close
Inzaghi's so fecking limp, and pathetic... not to mention a spawny cnut
Not much to hate about Joe Cole, unless you're prejudiced against people with Down Syndrome
Inzaghi's so fecking limp, and pathetic... not to mention a spawny cnut
Not much to hate about Joe Cole, unless you're prejudiced against people with Down Syndrome
Victor Baia(?) O i hated that cnut
Martin Keown. Proves the theory that man evolved from apes...my local Baptist Church closed down because of him. The swine.
hargreaves camp.. woo hoo!
feck you
Well said
f@p
Oh I see. So when ever a team concedes a goal and Hargreaves is on pitch. It must be his fault. Because goals should never be conceded when he is protecting a back four.That certainly sounds like him. I think the technical term for that is "protecting the back four".
After all when a play who's natural role is to protect his back 4 plays, goals are never conceded. That is why when Roy Kane played for United and Makelel plays for Chelsea, the opposition never score any goals.
Meanwhile, when a team concedes with Carrick on pitch, its all down to things like either shit defending, tiredness, or the loss of injured players. Or a combination of all 3. Carrick can never ever be at fault for causing a goal to be scored. He only becomes a victim of existing circumstances.
I think your missing one vital point here.
Hargreaves main, infact, his ONLY job is to stop the opposition from scoring. Carrick's, isn't.
That's the pretty lame excuse you keep telling yourself. Hargreaves is there to help neutralise the main midfielders of the opponents and to break up play. By marking or harrying them. He is also there to win the ball back. A thing that is down in both halves of the pitch. He also attacks too. Because he isn't a player like Makelele ( a player who never ventures far from his 18 yard box.) Even though he isn't a play maker like Carrick.
Hargreaves role is to stop the opposition from scoring.
Carrick's isn't
It really isn't that hard to comprehend you know.
We should probably start doing this in rhyme
On the 74th page, it's about fecking time -
All this analysis of one or two games is bollocks
And I'll bet FeedingSeagulls sounds like Jane Horrocks.
He has a little voice, and it's very annoying
And a manner of posting that people find cloying,
And just because he knows what Habeas Corpus is,
He likes to defend Hargreaves, who lunches on porpoises.
On the 74th page, it's about fecking time -
All this analysis of one or two games is bollocks
And I'll bet FeedingSeagulls sounds like Jane Horrocks.
He has a little voice, and it's very annoying
And a manner of posting that people find cloying,
And just because he knows what Habeas Corpus is,
He likes to defend Hargreaves, who lunches on porpoises.
Hargreaves' role has never been only stopping the opposition from scoring. That's utter bollocks. Just like saying because Carrick has more than one role it's some how okay for us to concede because of him is fecking bullshit. That shouldn't be too hard to understand. Unless you're just a plain moron.
What's Hargreaves' role? in your opinion?
Kinell, if Hargreaves role isn't to stop the opposition from scoring, but actually assist the attack in some way, shape or form aswell, then he's even worse then I first though.
Play Carrick and Anderson in the center end of!
SPOT ON!!!
He is ball winner. Not an insurance policy against conceding goals as some on here are trying to claim.
No answer to the statement I see.
Well put
You wish. I just don't have an answer to your utter stupidity. As long as you dare to claim the only job Hargreaves has on a pitch is to stop us conceding you're beyond stupid. There's nothing more to add to that. You are certainly not worth the time.No answer to the question I see.
Approaching 3k posts..
Sorry your right, I forgot how he continually plays beautifully weighted passes and through balls. How he often goes on brilliant runs, going past defender after defender, before picking a perfect pass. Or how he plays wonderful Hollywood passes across the pitch. Or even how he continues to control and dictate games from the centre of the park. Yep, his job isn't to help protect the back 4 and stop the opposition from scoring, it's so much more.
I would always suggest you go for more goals. Would you actually argue that you should ever sit on a lead unless it is totally insurmountable? The run of play was against Milan from the opening whistle. Are you actually suggesting that Milan had any choice in how the game unfolded? They defended because Bayern in no small part forced them to.
Milan had the game wrapped up in the first 30 minutes. Kaka didn't even need 90 minutes to do his damage. They were winning by 2 goals with 2/3 of the game left, they allowed Bayern the possession because they had practically qualified for the semi's, they didn't need to score any more, or are you suggesting they should've gone for more goals?
How many clear cut chances did Bayern exactly have? Their possession meant feck all, because Milan had already done the damage and were more than comfortable holding on to the advantage. Kaka didn't need to make Hargreaves look average again, nor did Gattuso or Seedorf. 30 minutes was all that was needed for that to happen TWICE and knock Bayern out!! It's not that difficult to understand, really.
They may have been content to play in this manner, nick two goals against the run of play. It very well may have been their plan, it is the general approach to tough away games in Europe is it not? However to suggest that Milan was able to score at will is extremely disingenuous. Yes, Milan scored two goals quickly. Yes Milan scored two goals on what was basically their only two chances of the game. The evidence would seem to support that Milan could score at will. It would look like that if you were 11 years old and lacked any sort of analytical ability.
I don't know offhand what Milans shot to goal ratio is, but I would conservatively guess it is not 100%.
Milan scored two goals against the run of play. Was this a tactical ploy by Milan? That they chose to sit back and hope that Bayern had no bite to go with their bark because they were so heavily depleted? I have no idea and neither do you. All we can do is analyze what happened.
What happened is Bayern had more chances and more of the ball. They failed to score. Milan had 2 decent chances and they scored both. Was Hargreaves to blame? It is a team game. He is no more responsible than anyone else that played in a defensive role in that game.
People need to get over the whole notion that if anyone scores when Hargreaves is on the pitch he has failed in his job. You don't believe it and you are just setting it up as a straw man to easily knock down.
The fact is, Bayern put up a much better fight against Milan than we did. They did it with not only an inferior first team, but they did it with half of those players out and many of the rest playing out of position. Hargreaves was a big part of that. It's not that difficult to understand, really.
What we've basically learned so is that hargo's main duty is to be a ball winner and break up oppositon attacks through his athletic ability,speed and timing of his tackle.(Notice how I didn't mention his positioning ability as he has none)Unfortunately he's not too good at it but fear not cos he also has a duty to keep the rythm and speed of our attack going when we have the ball...which he also isn't too good at either.Great.
- Status