|
|||
|
|||
How on earth is a Hargreaves + Carrick partnership supposed to take the team forward?
We need a Scholesy who can get goals and make things happen. Not a Hargreaves who will snap away at defenders and mids. or a Carrick who is a Pirlo style deep lying creative player - who is perhaps best described as a defensive mid to be honest.
One or the other is great, but both at once? Thats a bit lacking if you ask me. If you think its to model after the Italy/Milan Pirlo/Gattusso thing, it suggests another change of formation to a diamond midfield or a 4-3-1-2, which I can't see happening. In a nutshell WHAT THE £#%&! IS GOING ON FRED?? |
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
you think Rooney, Ronaldo, Saha and Giggs can just make goals as long as you give them the ball then? where the £#%&! did nani come from? Every team which plays 4-4-2 has one deep lying defensive mid and one thrusting attacking mid OR 2 box to box players. Do your homework lad. |
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Hargreaves + Carrick as our main central pairing will not win us the champions league or premiership in years to come. Neither of them are special enough, Hargreaves is the Alan Smith of midfielders, Carrick is a poor mans Beckham or Veron. Both good players, but they need better players alongside them to win things. |
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
seriously though, few teams have the players to play a good 4-4-2 now, if you study the ones who do - and do it well - you'll see what the minimum requirements are. I'm very worried we're after Hargreaves for the wrong reasons - UNLESS Fergie has it in his mind that we will not be playing 4-4-2 anymore. |
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
the suggestion we actually might buy a winger. the fact that nani is a possibility. you're the one who started all this hypothetical nonsence. if you can't live with contradictory opinions i suggest you £#%&! off back to Fred Tissue or maybe just keep hunting for your wii you £#%&!ing dick. you are the one stating we are playing 4-4-2 which i euphemistically suggested was simplistic. it's actually total %@#$&!s. but i wished to contribute to football themed thread and got abused by a know nothing £#%&!wit, so £#%&! you. |
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Carrick is and always will be extremely underrated IMO if you were to slide hargreaves into a defensive midfielder position carrick would have no choice but to move forward into a more attacking minded position and whilst he has the genius that is paul scholes next to him there is simply no one better he can learn from The fact you compare carrick to veron and beckham points towards sheer ignorance on your part as beckham is and always will be a one of a kind, In my eyes there was no one better than beckham on the right wing he may not have had pace in abundance but he had the technique that others could only dream of veron on the otherhand had all the attributes to be a classic player but just lacked the phisque to cut it in England all in all I can only see bright things for united there midfield especially if we do sign hargreaves we'll need to replace giggs eventually but that will come in time |
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
my 4-4-2 is far and away more complex and detailed than your £#%&!ing "hargreaves will tackle and carrick will spray it about" I mean what the £#%&! is that all about? Thats a good game plan is it? Give me a break mate. I've posted a lot of "debate" regarding contrdictory opinions whereas you've posted nothing but criticisms of me and some vague description of the players. Well done cleverclogs. Let me know when school teaches you how to have an adult debate. |
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Shame he hasnt shown any of the goal scoring ability of Pirlo or Ballack. I do think he is a good player, but we should be looking at a top class attacking player to partner him. |
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
my description is vague because we don't play 4-4-2. the point is hargreaves will be expected to be the main enforcer, carrick the main creator. get it yet? obviously, this assumes we will sign the canadian. |
|
|||
|
|||
This is why I was confused we got Carrick. Its not as simple as pass the ball to others - job done. its about keeping things ticking, working the spaces and a lot of other stuff. not to mention goal threat.
Hargreaves and Carrick might have 3 goals in them per season and 5 assists if we're lucky. Neither are a threat in the air. To me it seems extremely lacking in options. When its 0-0 vs Sheffield and we cant £#%&!ing score, what will Carrick or Hargreaves do? Not a lot. Not championship material I'm afraid. Who could we sign? I'd have a look at Sneijder, and sniff around a few others. |
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Similar Threads for: How on earth is a Hargreaves + Carrick partnership supposed to take the team forward? | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
West Ham forward Said Benrahma lauds 'really natural' partnership with Michail Antonio | fred tissue | Football Auto-Threads | 0 | 03-10-2021 08:40 AM |
So whats our best team going forward | gbmufc | Football | 75 | 04-09-2013 10:49 AM |
Who is worst - Nani, Anderson, Carrick or Hargreaves? | Fatboy Shrek | Football | 21 | 07-11-2008 05:27 PM |
How we can line up without Carrick and Hargreaves | Paul Mcgrath | Football | 33 | 04-10-2007 06:03 PM |
Hargreaves + Carrick + Scholes | Lou_Macari_Chippy | Football | 72 | 27-08-2007 09:42 AM |