hmmm while we buy our 4th lb (3rd in 4 years) liverpool sign mascreano

Originally Posted by puressence

lets face none of us have a £#%&!ing clue whos coming or going

Most sensible thing you've ever posted. Don't let them see it on RI - they think you're 'in the know'!

Originally Posted by jem

as for "mascreano", it will be interesting to see whether the rules are bent for liverpool again.

Yeah cos no-one else has ever had three clubs in a season.

Behave yourself Jemima

Originally Posted by Red Caz

Yeah cos no-one else has ever had three clubs in a season.

Behave yourself Jemima

Don't you have a rat to feast on or a bin to rummage through?

Originally Posted by Red Caz

Yeah cos no-one else has ever had three clubs in a season.

Behave yourself Jemima

There's no excuse for you lot getting 'special dispensation' to sign him. It's Benitez's fault your midfield is shite.

Originally Posted by TreeFiddy

Don't you have a rat to feast on or a bin to rummage through?

It would appear not. Now, it's apparent I'm talking to the grown ups. So £#%&! off.

Originally Posted by Ether

There's no excuse for you lot getting 'special dispensation' to sign him. It's Benitez's fault your midfield is shite.

Other players have played for three clubs in a season recently so why shouldn't he?

Originally Posted by Red Caz

Other players have played for three clubs in a season recently so why shouldn't he?

Because it's the rules?? Who has played for 3 clubs in a season lately anyway? Doesn't seem much point in having the rule if any club can apply for special dispensation to break it just because they want to sign someone.

Originally Posted by Red Caz

Other players have played for three clubs in a season recently so why shouldn't he?

Name and shame this list of mercenary @#%&!s.

And when did this season's rules come into play?

Originally Posted by Red Caz

It would appear not. Now, it's apparent I'm talking to the grown ups. So £#%&! off.

Chill out babe.

Rawr!

its only lower league teams that have had a 3club player, like when rio was banned, previous examples of the same offence mean nowt when it comes to a big club......if they let you off, they'l have to scrap the rule

even when playing in a system which suits him - 5 man m/f - he is a very limited player. united have always had m/fs who could play all around the park - the only time we've had a central m/fer who limited himself to sitting in front of the back 4 was during keane's last years and it was a disaster. we need to build a new m/f with players who have the all-round ability to suit the way we play, not find a new anybody.

hargreaves, imo, is very underrated - as was carrick - and is a much more rounded player than is generally understood. there's far too much computer game labelling here. carrick was labelled as 'the new scholes' and it was a daft waste of money because we needed a 'dm' not an 'am'. fortunately, now it turns out that carrick was actually a dm. hooray. i've even seen it described (in the single most ridiculous post i've seen on here) as luck - fergie wanted a 'new scholes; and then realised, after he arrived, that carrick was really the 'new keane'. i hope we do get hargreaves. i think he has a lot more ability on the ball than is generally realised - looking at some of the posts on here he could be some kind of floppy-haired duracell bunny - and will prove to be a lot more creative and skilful than most expect. his basic technique is excellent - good control, accurate passing - and he has a very good sense of position and pace (i.e. how and when to speed up the movement of the play).

if we get him then i have no doubt at all that there will be exactly the same kind of posts about him on here as we currently get about carrick (of the 'well £#%&! me he's actually good' variety). on the other hand, if we got someone like mascherano it would slow our play down, make it much more regimented and predictable and more or less return us to the state we were in a year and a half ago. is hargreaves worth 14/18/20 million? no player is worth that in a way, but as an investment, the 25 million or so we payed for vidic, evra and carrick was well worth it if it brings us success for the next five years - as looks increasingly likely. similarly, if hargreaves is what we need to take us further - and i think he is - then it will be worth it if it brings the results. hargreaves suits united. he will allow us to continue playing the way we play, with pace, agression, movement and interchanging of positions. mascherano suits liverpool or chelsea and will enable them to continue their mechanical, slow grinding football.

and if you got to the end of this, bloody hell - haven't you got anything better to do?

Originally Posted by Whalefish

If Bale signs he's coming in as a long term replacement for Giggs. The lad can't defend for shit but is apparently very good going forwards/on the ball etc.

I'm glad my theory is finally being taken up

Originally Posted by 24hr Leavesey

Exactly - what I'm saying is I don't want Carrick as a replacement for Scholes, which would be the only other position he could play if Mascherano was at United.

Ditto Hargreaves, ditto any player in that position.


There will be no replacement for Scholes, because Scholes is irreplaceable. Something a bit different will be necessary. A good defensive midfielder plus Carrick would be a decent start.

Originally Posted by Whalefish

If Bale signs he's coming in as a long term replacement for Giggs

That is dispicable if true

Originally Posted by borsuk

even when playing in a system which suits him - 5 man m/f - he is a very limited player. united have always had m/fs who could play all around the park - the only time we've had a central m/fer who limited himself to sitting in front of the back 4 was during keane's last years and it was a disaster. we need to build a new m/f with players who have the all-round ability to suit the way we play, not find a new anybody.

hargreaves, imo, is very underrated - as was carrick - and is a much more rounded player than is generally understood. there's far too much computer game labelling here. carrick was labelled as 'the new scholes' and it was a daft waste of money because we needed a 'dm' not an 'am'. fortunately, now it turns out that carrick was actually a dm. hooray. i've even seen it described (in the single most ridiculous post i've seen on here) as luck - fergie wanted a 'new scholes; and then realised, after he arrived, that carrick was really the 'new keane'. i hope we do get hargreaves. i think he has a lot more ability on the ball than is generally realised - looking at some of the posts on here he could be some kind of floppy-haired duracell bunny - and will prove to be a lot more creative and skilful than most expect. his basic technique is excellent - good control, accurate passing - and he has a very good sense of position and pace (i.e. how and when to speed up the movement of the play).

if we get him then i have no doubt at all that there will be exactly the same kind of posts about him on here as we currently get about carrick (of the 'well £#%&! me he's actually good' variety). on the other hand, if we got someone like mascherano it would slow our play down, make it much more regimented and predictable and more or less return us to the state we were in a year and a half ago. is hargreaves worth 14/18/20 million? no player is worth that in a way, but as an investment, the 25 million or so we payed for vidic, evra and carrick was well worth it if it brings us success for the next five years - as looks increasingly likely. similarly, if hargreaves is what we need to take us further - and i think he is - then it will be worth it if it brings the results. hargreaves suits united. he will allow us to continue playing the way we play, with pace, agression, movement and interchanging of positions. mascherano suits liverpool or chelsea and will enable them to continue their mechanical, slow grinding football.

and if you got to the end of this, bloody hell - haven't you got anything better to do?

Good post as usual. Hargreaves is a very good player, England United and Munich all rate him highly. I'm not sure if Mascherano is as limited a player as you suggest though, i haven't seen a lot of him but i have seen some clips of him bursting forward and running with the ball, showing attacking ability. It's all pointless discussion anyway, we aren't going to sign Mascherano any time soon and that's that.

Originally Posted by DinGbAt

Good post as usual. Hargreaves is a very good player, England United and Munich all rate him highly. I'm not sure if Mascherano is as limited a player as you suggest though, i haven't seen a lot of him but i have seen some clips of him bursting forward and running with the ball, showing attacking ability. It's all pointless discussion anyway, we aren't going to sign Mascherano any time soon and that's that.

i was myself questioning wether we were talking about the same mascherano.

a cracking young player and much better offensively that people seem to think.

Originally Posted by borsuk

even when playing in a system which suits him - 5 man m/f - he is a very limited player. united have always had m/fs who could play all around the park - the only time we've had a central m/fer who limited himself to sitting in front of the back 4 was during keane's last years and it was a disaster. we need to build a new m/f with players who have the all-round ability to suit the way we play, not find a new anybody.

hargreaves, imo, is very underrated - as was carrick - and is a much more rounded player than is generally understood. there's far too much computer game labelling here. carrick was labelled as 'the new scholes' and it was a daft waste of money because we needed a 'dm' not an 'am'. fortunately, now it turns out that carrick was actually a dm. hooray. i've even seen it described (in the single most ridiculous post i've seen on here) as luck - fergie wanted a 'new scholes; and then realised, after he arrived, that carrick was really the 'new keane'. i hope we do get hargreaves. i think he has a lot more ability on the ball than is generally realised - looking at some of the posts on here he could be some kind of floppy-haired duracell bunny - and will prove to be a lot more creative and skilful than most expect. his basic technique is excellent - good control, accurate passing - and he has a very good sense of position and pace (i.e. how and when to speed up the movement of the play).

if we get him then i have no doubt at all that there will be exactly the same kind of posts about him on here as we currently get about carrick (of the 'well £#%&! me he's actually good' variety). on the other hand, if we got someone like mascherano it would slow our play down, make it much more regimented and predictable and more or less return us to the state we were in a year and a half ago. is hargreaves worth 14/18/20 million? no player is worth that in a way, but as an investment, the 25 million or so we payed for vidic, evra and carrick was well worth it if it brings us success for the next five years - as looks increasingly likely. similarly, if hargreaves is what we need to take us further - and i think he is - then it will be worth it if it brings the results. hargreaves suits united. he will allow us to continue playing the way we play, with pace, agression, movement and interchanging of positions. mascherano suits liverpool or chelsea and will enable them to continue their mechanical, slow grinding football.

and if you got to the end of this, bloody hell - haven't you got anything better to do?

Fair enough point, although I do think Mascherano is pretty decent on the ball. For instance, for Cambiasso's goal during the World Cup, Mascherano had quite a few touches of the ball in the buildup in the opposition half. He is a bright passer of the ball, and invites possession more than, say, Makelele does, and is capable of providing assists.

I actually think he could become a more rounded player. There was a goal he scored for River Plate (which is possibly what DinGbAt was thinking of) a few years ago where he picked the ball up inside his own half and burst past three or four players before smashing it in from a difficult angle. For me that type of thing gives a little glimpse that there is more to come from him as he develops.

I see your point, but I think Mascherano has the capability to be a bit more than just a Makelele-type. At the moment he's still a pretty defensive player, but he's got such a intelligent footballing brain - I think he can become much more.