As I say, MOST, of his passes are pointless.
As the stats show, 6 of them haven't been.
And I don't hate Hargreaves.
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
As I say, MOST, of his passes are pointless.
As the stats show, 6 of them haven't been.
And I don't hate Hargreaves.
He is not a limited player, he plays a limited role and all your desciptions are vastly over-exaggurated and have most likely happened a few times at the most.
Are you talking about Scholes?
Hargreaves-Anderson in a 4-4-2 seemed to own Gerrard-Mascherano-Alonso and were good against Fabregas-Flamini in their own backyards.
He's in the hole behind Torres. I couldnt be more clear about this.
You'll find that most of Torres' goals recently have been set up by Gerrard. This is because they are a partnership.
The defending is left to Mascherano and Alonso. Gerrard drops back to help create play.
He's playing where Benitez used to play Aimar.
Are you talking about Scholes?
Hargreaves-Anderson in a 4-4-2 seemed to own Gerrard-Mascherano-Alonso and were good against Fabregas-Flamini in their own backyards.
They were nullified but our central midfield created almost nothing. What was created was done by Anderson who arguably put in better performances defensively than Hargreaves in both matches.
How many of Carricks passes have lead to goals ? What about Scholes ? Is every pass a chance to create an attack ? They play numerous 5 yard square passes every game. Rio and Vida have hoofed balls to Rooney because our midfield was able to do feck all even when Scholes-Carrick play. Its not that they are Fabregas or Gerrard creating chances every game.
I think the common consensus on here is different
27 of Carrick's passes have led to an attack, compare that to Hargreaves 6.
I couldn't give a toss.
I know who I hate, and who I don't.
Our central midfield created feck all against decent teams with Scholes-Carrick last season anyway. Watch any of the away games in Europe or the cup final.
Atleast Anderson-Hargreaves weren't being run over in the middle.
The point was anyway about Sam's hatred which made him blind to Hargreaves playing well in a 4-4-2 and dominating some of the best midfielders in the league
Yes as a attacking midfielder not a striker, i could not be more clear about this..
Who is Aimar anyway? Oh now i remember a attacking midfielder not a striker.
Like the common censensus on here is that Hargreaves cant pass?
I can remember Sam making positive remarks about Hargreaves. I've made a few pro-Hargreaves posts too.
What I've yet to see is one of these Hargreaves supporters come out and criticize Hargreaves at any point.
This suggests they cannot and they will not at any point do that.
A Midfielder who played in the hole.
The same way Gerrard plays behind Torres right now. I never said he was a striker
Carrick playing home games and away against shite relegation sides is not quite the same as Hargreaves playing at Anfield, Emirates and Lyon. Better teams don't leave the likes of Ronaldo and Rooney in as much space.
Thankyou.
Like I've said, if he plays well, I will praise him, if he doesn't, I will criticise him.
IK, you are obviously incredibly stupid if you think that criticising someone automatically means that you 'hate' them.
Carrick couldn't play at The Emirates because he broke his arm, and he didn't play at Anfield because that game came right smack bang in the middle of his poor run of form.
The Lyon game was exactly what Hargreaves was bought for, Fergie was always going to play him, especially having payed 318 million for him, he'd have looked stupid had he not. However, we found ourselves 1-0 down after 78 minutes, when Carrick replaced Hargreaves, and we went on to force an equalizer.
Criticising someone for not being able to play in a 4-4-2 when he has played in that formation and done better than what Scholes-Carrick did in those games last season clearly shows your hatred.
If you actually play a proper attacking midfielder next to him, it works. Anderson-Hargreaves dominated or atleast were as good as the Liverpool and Arsenal midfield.
If you put a deep lying play maker
next to him who stays 5 yards square of him and keeps demanding the ball, then he will play the simple ball. If he didnt whats the fecking use of playing Scholes or Carrick that deep ? If they do venture forward like Scholes did against Fulham, we can dominate teams.Criticising someone for not being able to play in a 4-4-2 when he has played in that formation and done better than what Scholes-Carrick did in those games last season clearly shows your hatred.
If you actually play a proper attacking midfielder next to him, it works. Anderson-Hargreaves dominated or atleast were as good as the Liverpool and Arsenal midfield.
If you put a deep lying play maker
Mostly a fair post. We need to see Scholes back in form (which looks like, it will only happen if he gets a run of games next to Carrick) and ask him to get forward as much as he can - then put Hargreaves in next to him and see if the balance works.
Dominated you say ? Done better you say ?
Hmm, how many chances did we actually create against Liverpool ? Well I'll tell you, 5, we created 5 chances in 90 minutes, compare that to the 19 that Liverpool created.
And guess how many we created in the match where we were 'dominated' last season ? Yep, you guessed it, also 5. And how many chances did Liverpool create ? Wow, it was 15! 4 less than this season.But how can that be when we were dominated last season, yet dominated this season ?
Now the Arsenal match, that we 'dominated', yet didn't even win.
They created 18 chances, compared to our 10 chances.
Now, I wonder how that compares to our inferior midfield of Carrick and Scholes last season ?
Wow! Isn't that amazing, we created 10 chances, and Arsenal.....Go on guess....created 18 chances!
But, doesn't that mean that in both matches, one with a midfild paring of Anderson/Hargreaves and one with Carrick/Scholes, we created and allowed exactly the same amount of chances ? Well yes, it does.
Erm......
United 2 Liverpool 0
Spurs 0 United 4
Everton 2 United 3
United 3 Milan 2
And, erm... we also won the league. And er... got to the FA Cup Final. And er... the European Cup Semi Final.
In fact, another way of looking at it is that the Scholes-Carrick partnership led to our second most successful season in our entire history.
Ssshhh, don't talk stats and results. They don't like it.
And remember that a midfield partnership of the Djemba twins would have yielded the same results.
IK did you even watch us last season?
You seem to 'hate' Carrick more than we 'hate' Hargreaves
You seem to 'hate' Carrick more than we 'hate' Hargreaves
And this season the Carrick + 1 midfield (excluding Hargreaves) has brought us
United 2 Chelsea 0
United 1 Roma 0
Villa 0 United 2
United 4 Arsenal 0
Newcastle 1 United 5
(oh, and also 6-0 v Newcastle and 4-0 at Sunderland).
United 2 Chelsea 0
United 1 Roma 0
Villa 0 United 2
United 4 Arsenal 0
Newcastle 1 United 5
(oh, and also 6-0 v Newcastle and 4-0 at Sunderland).
Wow that Anderson and Hargreaves lads are only one year here and create already as many chances as a Carrick/Scholes partnership did last season against really decent teams.
A shot on goal is now creating a chance ? Well done !!!
Responding to your posts is pointless because you have proved often enough in this thread that you hate Hargreaves by mis-stating facts (chance = shot on goal) and ignoring common sense.
Darren Fletcher played in those games. Well done for misrepresenting facts once again and trying to prove a point about Scholes-Carrick playing well against top teams in a 2 man midfield when they actually played in a 3 man midfield.
I'll throw some more stats at you IK.
Last season, against Liverpool (At Anfield) with a midfield partnership of Carrick/Scholes, the possession was as followed;
Liverpool 51%-49% United
This season, against Liverpool (At Anfield) with a midfield partnership of Anderson/Hargreaves, the possession was as followed;
Liverpool 61%-39% United
Last season, against Arsenal (At The Emirates) with a midfield partnership of Carrick/Scholes, the possession was as followed;
Arsenal 53%-47% United
This season, against Arsenal (At The Emirates) with a midfield partnership of Anderson/Hargreaves, the possession was as followed;
Arsenal 51%-49% United
I merely responded to your claim that "Our central midfield created feck all against decent teams with Scholes-Carrick last season anyway" to point out it was utter shit.
So I assume the point you were actually trying to make was that we needed more than just Carrick and Scholes in midfield (despite winning the league with that midfield)? Well we played an extra midfielder in Milan too, which sort of blows a hole in that particular argument.
feckin hell Sam this is getting ridicolous.
Do you really expect the new boys to do better right away? Stop posting those stats. You can't deny that our boys did really well against both sides and you can't deny that Anderson was at least as good as Scholes this season and you can't deny that our strenght and depth in our central midfield is great and we shouldnt put out those stats but be happy that all those guys putting players like Gerrard or Fibreglass into their pockets are ours.
You're right. Anderson had a stormer in both games. I've not read all this thread (!) but I've not seen Sam claim otherwise.
Hehe good stuff. Now IK will turn around and say stats don't mean anything.
Why ?
Because they show that a Carrick/Scholes partnership are fantastic ?
IK claimed they weren't and I proved him wrong. I'll post all the stats I like.
I'm not, they did well
But the stats show they were not better than Carrick/Scholes. Infact, in the Liverpool game, they were far worse.
When one of our midfield plays week in week out, Ill pass judgement then.
And after checking the skysports match reports, some of his possession stats are made up anyway.
Their argument can be basically summed up as -
Last Season
When Bayern have around 60% of the possession and 18 shots on goal compared to 4 from Milan but lose - Possession doesn't matter and shots doesnt matter. Its the end result that counts and Hargreaves was shit
When United have 52% possession against the likes of Copenhagen/Celtic, about the same number of shots as the opposition and lose - End result doesnt matter. Only dominance matters and Carrick was great
This season
When United draw at the Emirates - End result doesn't matter, we didnt create any chances and Hargreaves is shit. Carrick was great even though we lost the same fixture last time and 2% greater possession is more important than the result.
When United lost to Pompey - Only end result matters and chances dont count - Hargreaves is shit (in spite of us conceding when Carrick was on)
Bollocks. Possesion isnt everything. Its football. Not rugby.
If you look at the stats for this Pool match this season, Hargreaves made 10 succesful challenges and 8 clearances. Anderson also got stuck in and defended brilliantly.
Statistics show very little about the match. After the match, the consensus on here, in match reports, in the media, was that United let Liverpool pass the ball deep, not getting anywhere. They had ridiculous long shots in the end. 2/3 of their shots were off target. They didnt have any shocking misses, because they didnt create any easy chances. Gerrard was completely and utterly nullified. Spraying hollywood passes from deep that got Liverpool nowhere.
Of course we werent as fluid in possesion with a new combination in midfield, both adjusting to a new league and team. But they defended brilliantly, and got the ball to our attackers to counter attack. In the second half we had a few brilliant counters by Ronaldo and Rooney, creating two better chances than Liverpool had all game, despite their possesion.
I didn't use Sky.
Those stats are not 'made up', but if you want to conveniently ignore them, then go ahead and be my guest, it just makes you look foolish.
1) I didn't see the Bayern Milan match, all I've sen are the goals. And even then, I only questioned Hargreaves positioning in the goals, I didn't say he was shit.
2) I didn't say Hargreaves was shit against Arsenal, and I don't think anyone else did.
3) I never said Carrick was great against Copenhagen/Celtic. I did however, say that he was equally as bad as the rest of the team. No better, no worse.
3) I haven't commented on Hargreaves performance in the Pompey match once.
'Their argument' doesnt mean 'Sam's argument'.
Though you hate Hargreaves and fudge match stats
, at least you don't go around making spastic claims that last season was more successful than double winning seasons.Exactly. Some people are talking crap on here cause we dont even have an stablished midfield. You see Scholes/Hargreaves one time, next time Carrick/Anderson, sometimes Fletcher. People are arguing and we dont even play Hargreaves or Carrick every single game.
Keep arguing shite and make this thread bigger, Fergie will keep rotating anyway and i will be laughing at your stupids stats.
Again, you're trying to change the topic. Sam never said that. You made the stupid claim that the Scholes - Carrick partnership was shit against decent teams. Sam has shown that they weren't it.
So to sum up:
1. You are wrong (not for the first time)
2. Carrick is better than Hargreaves
This thread has gone past its destroy by date. I can't take it seriously anymore.
Exactly.
Carrick did that last season, which was our best for seven or eight years, by some distance. He was also arguably our best player from January-February this year, when given a run of games.
Instant Karma hates Carrick, because he's English, and learnt his trade in England
- Status