Will Hargreaves be a Redblood?

yeah but i think Carrick will sit and start off attacks rather then getting foward he can make the occasional run but he likes to pick a pass from deep rather then get foward.

Out of the two i would Expect Hargreaves to get down the left and provide width with the engine he has on him whilst also breaking attacks up high up the pitch from the very start like he did V Sweden.

Scholes will be given complete freedom and may also provide an option on the right

so when attacking its

-----------------------Carrick---------------------

Ronaldo--------------Scholes----------Hargreaves

------------------------------------------------------

------------------Saha-------Rooney-------

or when Ronaldo goes up with the front-man like he does for Portugal

-------------------------Carrick-----------------------

Scholes---------------Hargreaves----------Rooney

------------------------------------------------------

------------------Ronaldo-------Saha-------

@Blut, so you havent seen much of Carrick?

Pouiy there is no way ronaldo will play upfront and rooney on the left in the same team, other way around. when rooney doesnt play, ronaldo will take his position.

i dont see fergie changing formation to much. 4-4-2 carrick hargreaves centre of midfield. park ronaldo rooney saha to do the rest. solid defence good keeper. very good team. for some matches of mid-way through may change to this 4-3-3 4-5-1 4-3-2-1 type stuff.

scholes giggs will get a lot of playing time no matter what anyway.

17 mill is a bit much i think 15 will be as far as we go and they should accept eventually.

poiuy1, no I haven't. Just a few international matches. From what I have read about him, he is a deep lying playmaker, similar to Pirlo. That's why I'd play him behind Scholes, who is a classical CM, while Hargreaves aids him in the defensive midfield. Hagreaves is most effective there, but he can play on the wings as well.

l r d wrote:Pouiy there is no way ronaldo will play upfront and rooney on the left in the same team, other way around. when rooney doesnt play, ronaldo will take his position.

i dont see fergie changing formation to much. 4-4-2 carrick hargreaves centre of midfield. park ronaldo rooney saha to do the rest. solid defence good keeper. very good team. for some matches of mid-way through may change to this 4-3-3 4-5-1 4-3-2-1 type stuff.

scholes giggs will get a lot of playing time no matter what anyway.

17 mill is a bit much i think 15 will be as far as we go and they should accept eventually.

I'm not suggesting this will be the actual lineup but it's what will happen when we go foward Ronaldo is given the freedom to join the front man the same as Rooney while Scholes covers for him etc. to provide width. This would be the scenario mid game as all those players are so versatile with Rooney dropping off etc.

I don't know why you think Fergie will stick to such a rigid 442, he won't sometimes it may even be lined out as a 442 with Hargreaves on the left when in actual fact it's a 433 like i said.

Giggs should be used sparingly on the left and as cover or as an impact sub for scholes centraly.

Against the smaller teams i would expect us to go with Park on the left with Hargreaves and Scholes/Carrick it will depend on the opposition but they will all get plenty of playing time especially with Carrick in the champions league

blutgraetsche wrote:poiuy1, no I haven't. Just a few international matches. From what I have read about him, he is a deep lying playmaker, similar to Pirlo. That's why I'd play him behind Scholes, who is a classical CM, while Hargreaves aids him in the defensive midfield. Hagreaves is most effective there, but he can play on the wings as well.

yeah sure Pirlo is the player i'd compare him to both in temprement and playing style maybe not as good but in the same mold. He doesn't score to often which may be a concern and isn't the quickest, prehaps Pirlo get's foward a lot more then him i.e i don't think carrick coul play behind the strikers when we are chasing a game

as somebody said on here: "he is a taller broader shouldered Pirlo"

poiuy1 wrote:

blutgraetsche wrote:poiuy1, no I haven't. Just a few international matches. From what I have read about him, he is a deep lying playmaker, similar to Pirlo. That's why I'd play him behind Scholes, who is a classical CM, while Hargreaves aids him in the defensive midfield. Hagreaves is most effective there, but he can play on the wings as well.

yeah sure Pirlo is the player i'd compare him to both in temprement and playing style maybe not as good but in the same mold. He doesn't score to often which may be a concern and isn't the quickest, prehaps Pirlo get's foward a lot more then him i.e i don't think carrick coul play behind the strikers when we are chasing a game

as somebody said on here: "he is a taller broader shouldered Pirlo"

In a league where the midfield scoring "engine" is championed (Gerrard, Barton, Nolan, Lampard etc.,) its not really a suprise that a naturally 2 footed, tactically disciplined, gifted deep lying passer is somewhat overlooked...

Carrick will not take a game by the scruff of its neck, score 35 yard screamers and cover every blade of grass- its not his style. What he does is take up a position and quietly dictate the pace and movement of the ball, and retain possession...

He is a cultured footballer, and one which will suit United in Europe to the ground where retaining possession and accurate passing are the key.

With the more industrious Hargreaves by his side, its very exciting for England - Im certain Ferguson is aware of the Gattuso- Pirlo partnership, and is attempting to mould an English version at club level.

I dont support any sides in the EPL, but if Hargreaves does go to United, then I know they will win a lot of neutrals including myself for bringing in English players and looking to build a side which can only benefit the national team

Tweedledum wrote:@ blut

There is still the question of financing in Germany though.

Germany in terms of GDP is the richest club in Europe yet the football clubs there (Bayern exception) seem to receve little or no investment.

Take Dortmund - they have HUGE debts yet regularly attract crowds of over 80,000.

How is this? Should the Bundesliga not be trying to re-brand itself like the EPL and should ticket prices be raise a small amount?

This is a very valid and good point.

The reason behind the lack of profit making is quite simple. The German government and clubs have always tried to keep Football as the working class game. From ticket prices to drinking, standing and smoking in stadiums. We had to ask ourselves, do we a) want to make more money by increasing TV money and ticket value to attract a richer crowd and be more successful in Europe? or b) keep the supporters happy and faithful by ensuring they will always be made welcome by the club? In England for example there are many clubs who's priority is to make money, evident by floating on the stock market. We had one club who did that and they won the European Cup then nearly died 8 years later.

In the end we realised that the money to be made in football is short term on the grand scale of things. The bubble will burst one day, and only those in our position will survive.

We've still had reasonable success in Europe over the last 10 years. Actually as much as the EPL in terms of winners. So it's not all bad.

As long as the Bundesliga is doing well and the national team is doing well, then you won't hear too many Germans complaining about what happens in Europe.

Fair points Isar. Money is indeed becoming as much of a hinderance in the English game as it is helpful. The German system of keeping ticket prices down is of course enviable..but how it is seen in England is the question of "is it worth it?"

Paying top dollar to watch a team full of stars like Chelsea, or a team play great football like Arsenal and Man United- its probably ok. Spurs fans wont have minded paying relatively high prices seeing their team entertain and succeed in equal measure...

the disgrace though is when you go lower down the table, and even into the lower divisions.

I used to go and watch Leeds United play regularly when the ticket prices were reasonable and the team played some great football. But since being relegated, in order to survive the club is asking for more expensive tickets to watch pretty dire football. Only the hardcore will stand for this - and you'll be suprised just how many "hardcore" supporters there are in England - but the rest of us are left disillusioned..

Isar Truppe wrote:

Tweedledum wrote:@ blut

There is still the question of financing in Germany though.

Germany in terms of GDP is the richest club in Europe yet the football clubs there (Bayern exception) seem to receve little or no investment.

Take Dortmund - they have HUGE debts yet regularly attract crowds of over 80,000.

How is this? Should the Bundesliga not be trying to re-brand itself like the EPL and should ticket prices be raise a small amount?

This is a very valid and good point.

The reason behind the lack of profit making is quite simple. The German government and clubs have always tried to keep Football as the working class game. From ticket prices to drinking, standing and smoking in stadiums. We had to ask ourselves, do we a) want to make more money by increasing TV money and ticket value to attract a richer crowd and be more successful in Europe? or b) keep the supporters happy and faithful by ensuring they will always be made welcome by the club? In England for example there are many clubs who's priority is to make money, evident by floating on the stock market. We had one club who did that and they won the European Cup then nearly died 8 years later.

In the end we realised that the money to be made in football is short term on the grand scale of things. The bubble will burst one day, and only those in our position will survive.

We've still had reasonable success in Europe over the last 10 years. Actually as much as the EPL in terms of winners. So it's not all bad.

As long as the Bundesliga is doing well and the national team is doing well, then you won't hear too many Germans complaining about what happens in Europe.

the final part of your statement isnt true..people are getting very tired here of the lack of success in europe and the lack of big name players in the bundesliga...ive read numerous threads in football forums asking why is it that none of the big names want to come to germany and that until they do german clubs have no chance of winning anything in europe...that the german clubs just cant compete with teams from the big 3 leagues etc...

obviously every now and then something happens and one team gets pretty far..dortmund ages ago..leverkusen etc who achieved something similar to leeds a while back.....but a real sign of a quality league is constantly having teams that get far in tournaments...and over the last few years the results in europe seem to have been getting worse for german clubs.

maybe this will change soon as i see HSV getting better and bremen seem to be getting stronger too which is good for the league..