|
|
Post by onenedkelly on Jul 18, 2006 12:38:32 GMT
The difference is simple - Carrick is a footballer.
Only used against Equador to enable England keep the ball and let Equador do all the running when we had possesion.
Hargreaves is a work horse who was used just to win the ball and break up opposition play.
Carrick is by far a better footballer then Hargreaves although he probably isn't as good in the tackle.
So what do we want at United? Id say we'd be better off with Carrick the footballer.
|
|
|
|
Post by missunited on Jul 18, 2006 13:45:11 GMT
Carrick.
|
|
|
|
Post by moxdevil on Jul 18, 2006 13:57:21 GMT
What do we want? what do we already have?- a footballer (Scholes), a tackler (er..........O'Shea?) Presuming we play 4-4-2 i think we have a more pressing need of a tackler alongside Scholes than a back-up to Scholes. Therefore Hargreaves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sky Sports 1 on Jul 18, 2006 14:35:18 GMT
I really like the way Carrick plays tbh, reminds me of old ways, the ball comes down the pitch and he collects, keeps it up the other side with intelligent passing, he keeps the pressure on the other team which with the players we now have would allow us to create sooo many chances.
It's ok Hargreaves working hard, but its doing it with Intelligence that makes Carrick so good, he's in the place Hargreaves is running to when the ball comes. Creative and defensive always wanting the ball.. just not so good getting forward yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by stonecarver on Jul 19, 2006 10:03:00 GMT
Why not both?
|
|
|
|
Post by onenedkelly on Jul 19, 2006 10:17:12 GMT
15 Mill Carrick and 12 mill approx for Hargreaves  Hargeaves looked good doin what he was doin in the WC but remember he also had Gerrard and Lampard in the side. If Smith was playing the DM last season with two players of the calibre of Gerrard and Lampard Im sure he would have looked a lot better than he did. So Hargreaves really isn't for me, but thats just my opinion. |
|
