So, after 75 pages, 2960 posts, endless discussion and arguing, and of course, the odd poem and song, it comes down to this....
We have paid £18 million for a.................
Wait for it.....
Keep going.......
Ball Winner!
Brilliant!
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
We have paid £18 million for a.................
Wait for it.....
Keep going.......
Ball Winner!
Brilliant!
He has played beautifully weighted passes. He has played through balls. He has gone on more runs past defenders this season than Carrick has in his career at United.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 really don't see how you can be so short sighted. Hargreaves is not a midfield general type. He isn't there to control the flow and tempo of games against teams where we will control the flow and tempo in due course. He is there to win us the ball against teams that will control the flow and tempo of games against us because they have a more talented midfield. He has done this role very well for us so far this season.
I also question your understanding of football beyond a cursory level. Hargreaves doesn't sit in front of the back 4 like a Makelele. He has never played like that and your expectation of him to do so shows your lack of knowledge and understanding. He is an interdictor, if you don't know what that means look it up. He plays to cut off the supply. That is how he "protects" the back four. By being proactive in defense. He is aggressive and up field. Yes it can lead to him being caught out. His style of defense is "the best defense is a good offense". He wins the ball by hassling opposition players into making sloppy passes for other players to pickup. He wins the ball by jumping on players far up the pitch to take advantage of sloppy passing himself.
Yes, he has played beautifully weighted 5 yard passes and run up a billion blind alleys.
Well done Hargo, keep it up
Like feck he has
I never said he did though. And I don't expect him to either.
Idiot.
Surely even you don't believe that.
He has. You know he has, I know he has. Everyone who watches the games live or on TV knows he has. I didn't say he did it often.
Arsenal.
Like feck he has
Don't bother with the Hargreaves responsible for the goal myth either. Wes Brown was responsible for that. He was responsible by being pulled out of position, coming too central. Someone had to fill in his position and Hargreaves was the closest player. He drifted wide. When the ball came back in, yes he was out of position, because he was covering for someone who was out of position. Had the ball gone wide and Hargreaves stayed central and they scored off that cross you would blame Hargreaves yet again.
I was being condescending, I don't care what you expect from. I doubt you really know what you want from him, other than to be sold. Your expectations are unrealistic and your observations biased and inaccurate.
To say he hasn't is ignorance.
Yep, we all know he has run up a billion blind alleys. It's very big of you to admit it.
Although, your wrong on your second point, he does it a lot.
Wow, one match!
Fantastic Hargo, keep it up.
No shit Sherlock!
I don't want him to be sold, I just want him to play better. It's quite simple really, play well and I will praise him, play bad and I will criticise him. Not rocket Science.
Why, when all those slating him not only act like utter bellends, but are!
75 pages ----------->>
Oh the irony.
i support hargreaves and i don't consider myself a bellend, whatever that means.
So, in the brief time available this evening, let's consider the admirable notion that fans shouldn't slag off one Utd player to advance the cause of another. (Mozza please take note etc.)
This would be a very sensible course of action - eminently just, fair and honest. The problem is that a large number of posters in this thread, and others on the topic, seem to positively revel in being dishonest (and these seem to be predominantly anti-Hargreaves posters btw.) This dishonesty extends beyond the way in which they falsely characterise the arguments of thier opponents (which they do regularly) they also employ double-standards when judging a player's performance.
Thus, mistakes from one player would be entirely ignored, whilst those of another player are ruthlessly criticised - a good piece of play (eg a through pass) by one player would be highly praised, whilst one from another is once again ignored.
We see this type of behaviour regularly from the anti-OH lobby who happily ignore a number of excellent passes, runs etc, made by their hated player.
So when someone mentions an ignored piece of poor play by Carrick, this isn't so much a 'doing' down' of one player to advance another - as pointing out the double standards at work.
So - think about that amazing howler committed by Carrick on the right flank shortly after coming on in the Derby game. It was a mistake any player could have made - poor control, allowing himself to be outmuscled and resorting to a foul which carried a pretty automatic card. The crucial factor here is that had this occurred to OH we'd never have heard the end of how awful it was - but it wasn't him - so we should just ignore it.
Like I said - double standards - nothing new.
This would be a very sensible course of action - eminently just, fair and honest. The problem is that a large number of posters in this thread, and others on the topic, seem to positively revel in being dishonest (and these seem to be predominantly anti-Hargreaves posters btw.) This dishonesty extends beyond the way in which they falsely characterise the arguments of thier opponents (which they do regularly) they also employ double-standards when judging a player's performance.
Thus, mistakes from one player would be entirely ignored, whilst those of another player are ruthlessly criticised - a good piece of play (eg a through pass) by one player would be highly praised, whilst one from another is once again ignored.
We see this type of behaviour regularly from the anti-OH lobby who happily ignore a number of excellent passes, runs etc, made by their hated player.
So when someone mentions an ignored piece of poor play by Carrick, this isn't so much a 'doing' down' of one player to advance another - as pointing out the double standards at work.
So - think about that amazing howler committed by Carrick on the right flank shortly after coming on in the Derby game. It was a mistake any player could have made - poor control, allowing himself to be outmuscled and resorting to a foul which carried a pretty automatic card. The crucial factor here is that had this occurred to OH we'd never have heard the end of how awful it was - but it wasn't him - so we should just ignore it.
Like I said - double standards - nothing new.
...
Yeah, I know - conducting a logical argument and rebutting someone's points makes a poster a 'bellend'.
Repeatedly doing so, in a reasonable manner, more so it appears! Lying through your teeth, being a dishonest, cowardly hypocrite who can only wind-up someone by being a pillock over a prolonged period of time, asserting that an entirely honest poster is dishonest, and then changing a tagline, somehow makes you a hero.
If you really believe that then your opinion matters not at all.
PS - how are your man-boobs you seemed so keen to tell us all about?
Dishonesty.
Mistakes being ignored. The OH 'lobby' has failed to respond to this.
No wait, the chief claimed that Hargreaves in fact an excellent game that day and dismissed the entire caf's opinion.
Lies.
No one has claimed to hate OH. Stop making shit up. People have claimed that he's been nothing special so far, that's all.
Let's see - I reckon the 'more runs' bit MIGHT have been hyperbole
- but, actually, someone would need to do some counting. Carrick ventured forward very little in the first half of last season. More relevantly, there's a decent case to be made that OH beats more players running forward, and makes more many more good passes than his opponents here admit.
How many midfield generals do you need? and who will get the ball for the ones you have?
We also see this perpetual accusation of how OH slows down the game more than Carrick - which of course quotes instances in which OH has taken time to release the ball whilst ignoring instances when Carrick does exactly the same.
Hyperbole? What, you mean like noodle's invocation of a giant robotic Keano, or whatever it was?Let's see - I reckon the 'more runs' bit MIGHT have been hyperbole
Oh no, sorry, that was a lie wasn't it.
See above - also see almost the whole thread of posters misrepresenting the pro-Hargreaves points - see an anti-Hargreaves poster deciding to accuse me of dishonesty whilst unable to produce ANY valid evidence.
Actually - surely this would come in the category of noticing no one player can prevent all goals. Without re-checking the vid (and ny line is pretty f**ked at the mo) it may be no more a case of OH being to blame than the goal Arsenal scored - see post earlier this thread by myself.
Which day? Bayern?
Well let's see, there's match report which backs him up and one from the Guardian which, as Nucks pointed out, tends to agree with him as well. Pity that the intellectually dishonest anti-OH lobby prefer to cheery-pick phrases that suit - rather than the overall summary that was included.
Actually, people have claimed much, much more, as I pointed out earlier to a similar remark (of course, all anti-OH posters will have read ALL their opponents' remarks as Noods demanded of me).
Let's see 'if you love football and love Owen Hargreaves you have a hole in your soul' - location of an anti-OH poster here.
Remarks about OH being 'anti-football' and 'pointless' in contexts which referred to his general function as a footballer 'at all'.
You may be right that 'No one has claimed to hate OH' but a number have indicated feelings that amount to that. It is true though, that even posters who don't really hate OH, manage to post the same type of shit as those who do.
Nope - I'd reckon that: the 'giant robotic' bit was hyperbole - the comparison to Keane was misrepresentation.
That was pretty much confirmed when Noods 'explained' that the chief's praise of OH amounted to him saying OH was better than Keano - also a misrepesentation - when he's supposed to be explaining what he posted.
Anyway - the crucial bit you're ignoring is that Nucks is making his own exaggeration of his own point (so he takes the flak for whether his own rhetorical point works) - Noods exaggerates the point as if that exaggeration was the chief's.
That's what makes Noods' post dishonest, and Nucks' just exaggeration.
Well, the chief did have Hargreaves up there with Effenburg, didn't he? And Effenburg is generally considered Keano's peer.
What noodle wrote was clearly a comic, hyperbolic version of the Chief's impression of Hargreaves, not a lie. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. You're being an absolute child. Why not stop now?
What noodle wrote was clearly a comic, hyperbolic version of the Chief's impression of Hargreaves, not a lie. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. You're being an absolute child. Why not stop now?
I think he might have stopped...
fecking hell, you don't get it, do you?
First you claim that Hargreaves kept kaka quiet in that game, when in fact it took him, Seedorf and Gattuso only 30 minutes to put 2 past Bayern and make him look average. And now you're saying that yeah, Milan should've gone for more goals to prove their superiority?
I'll say this again, the game was ended as a contest after 30 minutes, that was all that was needed for kaka and co. to make hargo look average and win Milan the game, they DID NOT NEED to score any more goals ffs, because they were more than comfortable dealing with Bayern's long rage efforts and the useless crosses.
They'd practically qualified by then, you clearly haven't watched that game, or you wouldn't have made those daft 'hargraeves kept Kaka quiet' comments. Maybe you don't quite understand the game though, because if you did, you shouldn't be surprised Milan didn't go for more goals considering Bayern did feck all with the possession to really threaten Dida's goal. It really isn't rocket science, Einstein.
fecking hell!! I just looked at this thread after weeks!
Just when I thought it was impossible to outdo the rubber indian at posting endless pages of monotonous, pointless drivel, this seagull guy turns up.
You seriously need some help. Good luck with that. Advances in medical science have led to cures for all kinds of mental conditions. So don't lose hope, mate.
Just when I thought it was impossible to outdo the rubber indian at posting endless pages of monotonous, pointless drivel, this seagull guy turns up.
You seriously need some help. Good luck with that. Advances in medical science have led to cures for all kinds of mental conditions. So don't lose hope, mate.
Plech, I know you enjoy winding up random spastics on the internet, but you're dealing with a really serious mental case here. Have some sympathy and stop being a cnut. The guy really needs some help.
Absolute and complete balls!
Noods, when simply 'explaining' his point needed OH to be 'better than Keane' which the quotes don't support.
The chief's Effenberg remark (dug out way later I suspect) was about 6 years old I believe and the context was that OH was an 'Effenberg Clone' and would be great - which, in terms of forecasting his development and role within the Bayern team was not massively over-optimistic.
As per usual, you entirely omit the MAIN point I made about that post of Noods': that the chief maintained that 'Bayern losing 2 - 0 proved we needed OH ' (paraphrased).
That's the one where I said he should actually do his opponent the courtesy of representing his argument accurately when wanting to say it was the 'thinnest argument ever'. The point is that this is a blatant misrepresentation of the points made by the chief and others, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that they lost (2-0 or otherwise). There was a comparatively recent example of this being discussed. - Nucks' arguments echo those of the chief.
So given this additional example of misrepresentation, why should we assume that the 'Keane comparison' remark was just playful exaggeration? If memory serves, within his post containing his attempted 'explanation' of the Keane remark he produced a new misrepresentation to add to the collection.
Yet you want to tell me he doesn't serially and deliberately misrepresent posters to serve his own arguments!
Let's see - are you incapable of reading? or just of understanding? (My money's on the latter.)
FS is a liar.
Well it's certainly difficult being one of the few honest posters here - but I don't need help.
Perhaps you do... the 'logout' button is up on the top right just below your 'welcome' banner.
The problem , old bean, is that that remark is contrary to the evidence - which tends to suggest that the liar here is you.
Ah. Appears he hasn't stopped after all.Absoilute and complete balls!
Noods, when simply 'explaining' his point needed OH to be 'better than Keane' which the quotes don't support.
The chief's Effenberg remark (dug out way later I suspect) was about 6 years old I believe and the context was that OH was an 'Effenberg Clone' and would be great - which, in terms of forecasting his development and role within the Bayern team was not massively over-optimistic.
As per usual, you entirely omit the MAIN point I made about that post of Noods': that the chief maintained that 'Bayern losing 2 - 0 proved we needed OH ' (paraphrased).
That's the one where I said he should actually do his opponent the courtesy of representing his argument accurately when wanting to say it was the 'thinnest argument ever'. The point is that this is a blatant misrepresentation of the points made by the chief and others, which have bothing whatsoever to do with the fact that they lost (2-0 or otherwise). There was a comparatively recent example of this being discussed. - Nucks' arguments echo those of the chief.
So given this additional example of misrepresentation, why should we assume that the 'Keane comparison' remark was just playful exaggeration? If memory serves, within his post containing his attempted 'explanation' of the Keane remark he produced a new misrepresentation to add to the collection.
Yet you want to tell me he doesn't serially and deliberately misrepresent posters to serve his own arguments!
Saying he's an Effenburg clone clearly points to the very high regard the Chief has for OH, to the extent that it would be neither a misrepresentation nor even necessarily hyperbole to interpret that as "better than Keane" - I'm sure plenty of people consider Stefan Effenburg to have been better than Keane.
What does make it clear that it was intended hyperbole, though, is the giant robot bit. Obviously.
I focussed on that because you pointed out another poster's hyperbole, and it reminded me of noodle's and the silly rant it provoked from yourself. I'm not going to engage with all your tedious and hysterical arguments, life's too short and I've got work in six hours. Suffice to say, it was hyperbole as much as nucks' was, irrespective of whose argument it was exaggerating. It was about a giant robotic Roy Keane...
And by the way, if you think casting or forecasting Hargreaves as an Effenburg clone "wasn't massively over-optimistic", you understand the game even less than I thought.
4 points:
1 As per usual, you ignore the even less defendable point Noods made about the chief's argument re the Bayern game.
2 Once again you ignore the fact that Noods posted the 'better than' remark as an explanation (and therefore presumably hyperbole free remark) regarding his point.
3 Effenberg v. Keane - you seem to be the only person so far (I raised the question earlier) to rate Effenberg (via the opinions of unsubstantiated others) as superior.
4 Noods continued to construct new misrepresentations of both what the chief and I posted - not consistent with honesty - especially when he purports to advance evidence in support of his case.
This is worth a separate remark before retiring for the night.
The mere fact that you don't realise that 'exaggerating what your opponent said in order to make it easier to attack' is massively different from 'exaggerating your own point for rhetorical effect' would suggest you are either much less intelligent than I reckoned - or being deliberately disingenuous.
One misrepresents the view of an opponent and casts the negative judgements upon him. The other should, when used correctly, invite the reader to judge whether the exaggeration is justified.
Take Nucks' remarks about Hargreaves - his remarks about passing are sound - what about his contention about runs past opponents? He may reckon this is open to debate - he may even reckon he is definitely right. The crucial point surely, is that by stretching the point in an argument he himself is making he is inviting negative judgement on himself.
Noods, by making what he maintains the chief said to be less believable, is inviting negative judgement against his opponent. That's one aspect of what makes it dishonest.
He was a clone because he shared most of the same characteristics - that I'd reckon was accurate.
The eventual debating points would be - to what degree? - and then, to what effect?
You do so in almost ever post .That's why you came up with the fecking stupid notion that his only job is to stop us conceding goals. Deny that makes you the idiot
In addition to that his job is to win the ball back to keep a constant supply of the ball to our more creative midfield players.
You are an idiot. That is why you think the only people can support the attack is by being play makers. Plus all the other FIFA 2008/Pro Evolution maneuvers you could think of. Showing what a silly kid you really areSorry 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.
Hargreaves supports our attacks by keeping players like Scholes supplied with the ball constantly. By him winning it back and passing it to them. Then going further upfield to be an extra man outside the opponents box, to intercept clearances. That job doesn't need holy wood passes. Through balls or mazy runs with long shots, or amazing balls unless of course its a fecking computer game/console game. Where players can often impersonate Maradona when having the skills of Bramble.
With all due respect I am not exaggerating. I made a comment and they ran with it exaggerating or simply not clearly reading it. I didn't say he makes LOTS of beautifully weighted passes or cutting through balls. I said he has. This isn't a case of me making it up, the proof is out there for anyone who has eyes. He has done exactly this. How many runs has Carrick made to beat defenders this season or last? If I said 0 I probably wouldn't be very far off the mark. Hargreaves has made at least a couple this season alone in his limited number of appearances. Are they Andersonesque 60 yard runs? No of course not. Has he taken the ball and beaten the first man and then passed it off? Yes. One of these runs resulted in him winning a corner for us that resulted in a goal against Arsenal.
I can honestly say I can't think of any situations where Carrick has advanced the ball down the field with a defender he had to beat. I am sure a couple exist.
Well you're wrong old buddy. 6 years ago when I made that statement, Hargreaves was a youngster playing alongside Effenberg (an attacking midfielder with defensive nouse) & he looked like he had the big man's characteristics. However it proved later to be simply a case of copy catting. When the big man left Bayern. Most of those "characteristics" disappeared from Hargreaves' game.
He instead became a very down graded version of a Keane. With similar defensive ability and but little of the attacking skills the great Keane possessed. More akin to Keane in his decline. Only with much more speed & none of the attacking ability Keane possessed.
So for anyone to quote something I said 6 years ago, about an up and coming youngster, and say I still have that view now is preposterous. Hargreaves is nothing like Effenberg. No way near as good. So he can't be in any way considered to be better or equal to Keane. Who was up there with Effenberg as player.
3000
Well done lads, Hargreaves is proud of you all!
Well done lads, Hargreaves is proud of you all!
- Status