Hoolahan is the new Hargreaves

Ormus

It amazes me how much a player's reputation can rise by not playing.

Owen Hargreaves became the second coming while he was out injured, despite being nothing more than tidy all his career. Any time United or England lost a match, everyone agreed that they woulda won with Hargo.

Stephen Ireland got the same treatment for a while. Dean Ashton, Joe Cole, James McCarthy, Andy Reid.....and now Wes Hoolahan.

I think Hoolahan is a nice little player and I would have started him yesterday, but a bit of realism is needed.

He is not a player who will ensure more possession, as Dunphy suggested after the game. He plays too advanced to control a game, more David Silva than Andrea Pirlo.

He is a nice passer of the ball but it remains to be seen if he is international class at this. His cameo against Sweden saw him misplace a few easy passes. He has 2 assists this season for Norwich.

I want Trap out as much as the next man and I know that for some people it's not so much that they think Hoolahan is world class as much as they see him as emblematic of a refusal by our manager to play nice football.

But let's be clear, Hoolahan is not the answer to all our problems, just like James McCarthy before him.

Liam O

Hargreaves was a fantastic player when not injured.

Also Hoolahan and McCarthy are the best Irish players we have at club level along with Coleman, should all be first choice.

applehunter

He hasn't been given a chance.

Hargreaves has 42 appearances for England as per wiki.

Hoolahan has 3 for Ireland.

SantryRed

No one is saying he is world class.

Blatter

Hargreaves was a fairly high quality midfielder at his best, and it's fair comment to say he'd probably have made a big difference to England and Utd if he'd be fit more.

Nobody suggested that Hoolahan was a Pirlo or a Xavi, and almost nobody has said he's a world beater. Yes he is a player like Silva, but obviously nowhere near as good. And yes those types of players are key in terms of retaining possession and relieving pressure from teams. It's simple really - they're good at holding on to the ball and playing creative passes, which will in turn mean the team will be under less pressure and will also likely create more chances to score and win. Particularly when the alternative that was played is Conor Sammon.

As I said, pretty much nobody claimed he was a world beater, he is just an excellent player by Ireland's standards and should be in the team.

Essien

My favorite thing about this thread is the lack of hyperbole.

Raoul

Nobody is saying he is world class but in comparison to Sammon well....he is world class.

Essien

SantryRed wrote: »

No one is saying he is world class.

But people are saying that people are saying he's world class, you know to discredit their opinions etc etc.

Backstreet Moyes

You obviously seen very little of Hargraves if you are mentioning him. Was fantastic for United and England's best player i think it was Euro 2006 or World Cup 2008. Also a regular for Bayern Munich.

Stephen Ireland started off his Ireland career very well and if he wasn't mad in the head would be one of Ireland's best players.

I don't see how anyone is overrating Hoolahan i don't see your point. He is our most gifted player technically and should be starting. I don;t see anybody calling him world class. But it's obviously understanding why most people are giving out he is not starting for Ireland.

Ormus

Blatter wrote: »

Hargreaves was a fairly high quality midfielder at his best, and it's fair comment to say he'd probably have made a big difference to England and Utd if he'd be fit more.

Nobody suggested that Hoolahan was a Pirlo or a Xavi, and almost nobody has said he's a world beater. Yes he is a player like Silva, but obviously nowhere near as good. And yes those types of players are key in terms of retaining possession and relieving pressure from teams. It's simple really - they're good at holding on to the ball and playing creative passes, which will in turn mean the team will be under less pressure and will also likely create more chances to score and win. Particularly when the alternative that was played is Conor Sammon.

As I said, pretty much nobody claimed he was a world beater, he is just an excellent player by Ireland's standards and should be in the team.

Hargreaves was never fantastic in my opinion. His reputation was as a solid holding midfielder, tidy at best, United paid over the odds for him and when he got injured his reputation went through the roof.

I wasn't saying that people think Hoolahan is as good as Pirlo or Silva, I only used those players to illustrate the kind of player he is.

Dunphy said last night that playing Hoolahan would have ensured possession and ensured that we controlled the tempo of the game. In my opinion, a player who could do that at will at international level would be world class.

FutureGuy

While I agree with parts of what you said regarding Houlihan, your assessment of Hargreaves is so far off the mark, I don't know where to begin.

listermint

Ormus wrote: »

Hargreaves was never fantastic in my opinion. His reputation was as a solid holding midfielder, tidy at best, United paid over the odds for him and when he got injured his reputation went through the roof.

I wasn't saying that people think Hoolahan is as good as Pirlo or Silva, I only used those players to illustrate the kind of player he is.

Dunphy said last night that playing Hoolahan would have ensured possession and ensured that we controlled the tempo of the game. In my opinion, a player who could do that at will at international level would be world class.

In the game last night as it was.

Was dunphy wrong ?

In detail explain how he was wrong.

Ormus

Nuts102 wrote: »

You obviously seen very little of Hargraves if you are mentioning him. Was fantastic for United and England's best player i think it was Euro 2006 or World Cup 2008. Also a regular for Bayern Munich.

Stephen Ireland started off his Ireland career very well and if he wasn't mad in the head would be one of Ireland's best players.

I don't see how anyone is overrating Hoolahan i don't see your point. He is our most gifted player technically and should be starting. I don;t see anybody calling him world class. But it's obviously understanding why most people are giving out he is not starting for Ireland.

It's a matter of opinion re Hargreaves, all I know is that I never heard any hyperbole about him until he got injured. Up until then the words used about him were "tidy", "composed", "good technique".

I agree Stephen Ireland could have been an excellent player.

There was a time when anytime Ireland lost a match it was because Andy Reid wasn't picked. Genuinely that was the general consensus. The same thing is happening now with Hoolahan.

I like Hoolahan and would like to see him in the team.

Should he be in the team? Yes
Is he better than what we have? Yes
Is he a realistic matchwinner at international level? No

Ormus

listermint wrote: »

In the game last night as it was.

Was dunphy wrong ?

In detail explain how he was wrong.

So you're saying that having Hoolahan on would have ENSURED that we controlled the tempo of the match?

Seriously?

Have you ever actually seen him play? I've seen a lot of him for Norwich and even Shels and I've never seen him control the tempo.

I think if you asked him he would say the same thing. He isn't even that type of player, let alone a dead cert to be able to do that at international level.

So yes, Dunphy was wrong.

listermint

Ormus wrote: »

So you're saying that having Hoolahan on would have ENSURED that we controlled the tempo of the match?

Seriously?

Have you ever actually seen him play? I've seen a lot of him for Norwich and even Shels and I've never seen him control the tempo.

I think if you asked him he would say the same thing. He isn't even that type of player, let alone a dead cert to be able to do that at international level.

So yes, Dunphy was wrong.

He most definitely had the best ability on the bench to control the tempo and keep hold of the ball, which im sure youll agree was what was required at that stage of the game.

We were hampered by bad decisions and the immediate 'go to hoof' of the ball. which cost possession. That is not his style of play as he can hold the ball and distribute properly.

LuckyLloyd

He's the second coming of Andy Reid.

Backstreet Moyes

Ormus wrote: »

It's a matter of opinion re Hargreaves, all I know is that I never heard any hyperbole about him until he got injured. Up until then the words used about him were "tidy", "composed", "good technique".

I agree Stephen Ireland could have been an excellent player.

There was a time when anytime Ireland lost a match it was because Andy Reid wasn't picked. Genuinely that was the general consensus. The same thing is happening now with Hoolahan.

I like Hoolahan and would like to see him in the team.

Should he be in the team? Yes
Is he better than what we have? Yes
Is he a realistic matchwinner at international level? No

Hargraves was Englands best player in the Euro's or World cup can;t remember.

Hargraves was one of United's best players when they won the Champions league. It's not hyperbole because he got injured. What was evident after he got injured was how much of a loss he was to United. They never replaced him and are still missing him in cm. He was the type of player you didn't take much notice of. But when he is gone you realise what an asset he was.

Donnielighto

Nuts102 wrote: »

Hargraves was Englands best player in the Euro's or World cup can;t remember.

Hargraves was one of United's best players when they won the Champions league. It's not hyperbole because he got injured. What was evident after he got injured was how much of a loss he was to United. They never replaced him and are still missing him in cm. He was the type of player you didn't take much notice of. But when he is gone you realise what an asset he was.

this, in a Nuts(hell)

Ormus

Nuts102 wrote: »

Hargraves was Englands best player in the Euro's or World cup can;t remember.

Hargraves was one of United's best players when they won the Champions league. It's not hyperbole because he got injured. What was evident after he got injured was how much of a loss he was to United. They never replaced him and are still missing him in cm. He was the type of player you didn't take much notice of. But when he is gone you realise what an asset he was.

He played well in a bad England team in one major tournament.

He played well for United the season they won the Champions League. He was good, he was tidy, he hasn't been properly replaced. But he wasn't seen as world class until he got injured and was seen as the missing piece of the jigsaw every time United or England lost a match.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

If your team loses and you were the only first team player missing, that's almost better for your reputation than being man of the match.

AgileMyth

He'd improve the team if he was starting. Mcarthy and Gibson with Wes in front of them is the only way we should be lining out. Anyone that can't see that shouldn't be in football.

Donnielighto

Ormus wrote: »

He played well in a bad England team in one major tournament.

He played well for United the season they won the Champions League. He was good, he was tidy, he hasn't been properly replaced. But he wasn't seen as world class until he got injured and was seen as the missing piece of the jigsaw every time United or England lost a match.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

If your team loses and you were the only first team player missing, that's almost better for your reputation than being man of the match.

and using latin phrases doesnt mean you win the discussion. sometime the importance of bits is only noticed when they go missing (alonso at pool?) jenga etc

Ferris_Bueller

Can't comment on Hargreaves but agree that Irish fans are putting way too much hope into Wes Hoolahan. Very tidy player and I would have him starting for Ireland at the minute, but I don't think he is going to be as game changing as most people are anticipating. A lot of fans are calling for Hoolahan to come on as soon as anything goes wrong rather than looking at the situation IMO, last night Green was a good player to bring on at the time, yet people are saying it's a disgrace Hoolahan didn't come on.

Hoolahan represents change, which is nearly why so many people are shouting for him to get his game I would think. If it comes to a point where Hoolahan is starting, it probably means we are lining up in a 4-5-1 type formation instead of our usual 4-4-2 which is what the majority of fans seem to want. He is technically one of our better players, and a player I too would like to see get more games at international level, but I don't think he is going to dramatically turn around any of our results or performances.

Backstreet Moyes

Ormus wrote: »

He played well in a bad England team in one major tournament.

He played well for United the season they won the Champions League. He was good, he was tidy, he hasn't been properly replaced. But he wasn't seen as world class until he got injured and was seen as the missing piece of the jigsaw every time United or England lost a match.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

If your team loses and you were the only first team player missing, that's almost better for your reputation than being man of the match.

The fact is he was a regular for Bayern one of the biggest teams in the World.

He was Enlgand's best player in a major championship. The fact the English team done poorly doesn't take away the fact he was very good on the biggest stage.

He was a key player in United's Champions league winning season i think he played around 50 games that season.

If anything he was underrated he was left out of English teams because he was playing abroad and people only realised how good he was when he went to the Premiership.

Their is no doubt Hargraves was world class i can presume you didn't see much of him. It's easy to look world class when your flashy. Hargraves was neat tidy and done a selfless job. It was not flashy but he was one of the best in the world at it and he was world class at it. People talk about him being world class after he was injured because a lot of people only realised when he was gone how important he was. If anything Hargraves was underrated in his career a fantastic player.

Ormus

Donnielighto wrote: »

and using latin phrases doesnt mean you win the discussion. sometime the importance of bits is only noticed when they go missing (alonso at pool?) jenga etc

I didn't say it meant I won the discussion, was just trying to illustrate a point and that fitted nicely.

My point is that if a team loses a game, it's not always the case that they would have won the game if the missing player had played. It's the easy explanation and it's very often used in football and it's impossible to refute, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Ormus

Nuts102 wrote: »

The fact is he was a regular for Bayern one of the biggest teams in the World.

He was Enlgand's best player in a major championship. The fact the English team done poorly doesn't take away the fact he was very good on the biggest stage.

He was a key player in United's Champions league winning season i think he played around 50 games that season.

If anything he was underrated he was left out of English teams because he was playing abroad and people only realised how good he was when he went to the Premiership.

Their is no doubt Hargraves was world class i can presume you didn't see much of him. It's easy to look world class when your flashy. Hargraves was neat tidy and done a selfless job. It was not flashy but he was one of the best in the world at it and he was world class at it. People talk about him being world class after he was injured because a lot of people only realised when he was gone how important he was. If anything Hargraves was underrated in his career a fantastic player.

Yup, he was neat, tidy, selfless, unflashy, and played for some big clubs.

Good player.

A bit like Mathieu Flamini.

Cantona's Collars

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

He's the second coming of Andy Reid.

Can he play guitar?

Holohan is a very tidy player & composed on the ball,he's shown that for Norwich.Perhaps if he'd been on the field in the closing stages last night we might not have lost that 2nd goal.
Our problem is having workhorses in the team who simply cannot play possesion football,perhaps with a change of management and playing style we'll see players flourish.

bullvine

Ormus wrote: »

Yup, he was neat, tidy, selfless, unflashy, and played for some big clubs.

Good player.

A bit like Mathieu Flamini.

You obviously didnt see much of him, he was magnificent for United in that one season, especially after the Christmas period and in particular the final in Moscow. He had the experience of 7 seasons in the bundesliga with Bayern before he went to England but suffered from terrible injuries.

He was far more than tidy, he was fantastic with the ball, his passing and delivery from out wide was superb.

As for Houlahan, hes comparable to Andy Reid as mentioned above, however, hes currently playing well and a lot more than Andy Reid was, when there was calls for him to be in the team.

Nalz

Hoolahan is a great player, who LOI fans cried out for years how he didn't get a chance, and afterwards when he was at Blackpool.

He's the best player we have in that position, he would have done more than a good job for us last night.

And if anyone thinks that people think him playing well in that position versus Sweden, Austria and the likes makes him world class then they need their head examined. I don't think anyone is claiming that anyways.

He's not the second coming of Andy Reid. He was a captain for a premiership side who he's playing very well in that are holding their own in the league... and he can't get a look into our team that can't hold on to the ball at home to Austria.

SantryRed

Ferris_Bueller wrote: »

Can't comment on Hargreaves but agree that Irish fans are putting way too much hope into Wes Hoolahan. Very tidy player and I would have him starting for Ireland at the minute, but I don't think he is going to be as game changing as most people are anticipating. A lot of fans are calling for Hoolahan to come on as soon as anything goes wrong rather than looking at the situation IMO, last night Green was a good player to bring on at the time, yet people are saying it's a disgrace Hoolahan didn't come on.

Hoolahan represents change, which is nearly why so many people are shouting for him to get his game I would think. If it comes to a point where Hoolahan is starting, it probably means we are lining up in a 4-5-1 type formation instead of our usual 4-4-2 which is what the majority of fans seem to want. He is technically one of our better players, and a player I too would like to see get more games at international level, but I don't think he is going to dramatically turn around any of our results or performances.

Hoolahan was perfect come on after 60. Green was perfect after 80.

Backstreet Moyes

Ormus wrote: »

Yup, he was neat, tidy, selfless, unflashy, and played for some big clubs.

Good player.

A bit like Mathieu Flamini.

After that summary i can only presume you have not seen much of Hargraves and wondering why you even created the thread. Hargraves was one of the top players in his position in the world. He was one of the main reasons United could fit Ronaldo, Tevez and Rooney into the same team.

An insult to compare him to Flamini. Can i ask who you support i presume it's not United if your making that comparison as you must not have watched Hargraves much.

tdv123

He's a bit like Jordi Cryuff or the Boro Emerson except not as good.

Ormus

Nuts102 wrote: »

After that summary i can only presume you have not seen much of Hargraves and wondering why you even created the thread. Hargraves was one of the top players in his position in the world. He was one of the main reasons United could fit Ronaldo, Tevez and Rooney into the same team.

An insult to compare him to Flamini. Can i ask who you support i presume it's not United if your making that comparison as you must not have watched Hargraves much.

Hargreaves was one of the top British players in his position and yes, playing a holding midfielder did allow United to play 3 forwards.

I don't support United but they're on TV every other week and I would tend to watch.

I don't hate United and I don't hate Hargreaves for playing for them, if that's what you were getting at.

My only point is that he was a good player who came to be considered a world class player in his absence because he wasn't properly replaced.

bullvine

Ormus wrote: »

Hargreaves was one of the top British players in his position and yes, playing a holding midfielder did allow United to play 3 forwards.

I don't support United but they're on TV every other week and I would tend to watch.

I don't hate United and I don't hate Hargreaves for playing for them, if that's what you were getting at.

My only point is that he was a good player who came to be considered a world class player in his absence because he wasn't properly replaced.

Owen Hargreaves was arguably world class before he joined United though!!

CSF

tdv123 wrote: »

He's a bit like Jordi Cryuff or the Boro Emerson except not as good.

As far as opinions go, this is like the Solihull Moors of opinions.

loyatemu

this is real straw man stuff - show me where anyone has claimed Hoolahan is world-class?

nonetheless does anyone seriously not agree that Hoolahan for Sammon would have been a better substitution than Green for Long last night, and that we would have had more possession as a result and maybe nicked an extra goal/not conceded the equaliser. Our chances would at the very least have been better. Trap was literally the only person in Ireland last night thinking "time to yank Long and bring on Green". We should've used our 3rd substitute as well, anything to freshen the team up when they started to retreat in the 2nd half.

lordgoat

I wish he was the new Hargreaves.

Donnielighto

I would have had either wes or brady for sammon. if brady then move walters centrally

Corholio

Exaggeration is the best way to discredit an opinion that very few had in the first place.

The thing about Hoolahan is, surely even the people who don't rate him would like to see him played so if he doesn't do it then they can say told you so. He seems to be criticised without actually playing to get that criticism, just like McLean and McCarthy, people are just wanting a player to get a chance, and not being made out to be world class players as some seem to make out.

corcaigh07

stupid thread, we just needed Hoolahan to come on around the hour mark for Sammon to tighten things in the middle and get on the ball more. the op's comparison just doesn't make sense!

Ormus

Corholio wrote: »

Exaggeration is the best way to discredit an opinion that very few had in the first place.

The thing about Hoolahan is, surely even the people who don't rate him would like to see him played so if he doesn't do it then they can say told you so. He seems to be criticised without actually playing to get that criticism, just like McLean and McCarthy, people are just wanting a player to get a chance, and not being made out to be world class players as some seem to make out.

Where is the exaggeration? I never said people were claiming he is world class.

Where is the criticism? I think he is a good player who should be given more of a chance.

Ormus

corcaigh07 wrote: »

stupid thread, we just needed Hoolahan to come on around the hour mark for Sammon to tighten things in the middle and get on the ball more. the op's comparison just doesn't make sense!

What's that got to do with this thread?

He shoulda been on from the start.

Jimmy Iovine

Ormus wrote: »

He played well in a bad England team in one major tournament.

He played well for United the season they won the Champions League. He was good, he was tidy, he hasn't been properly replaced. But he wasn't seen as world class until he got injured and was seen as the missing piece of the jigsaw every time United or England lost a match.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

If your team loses and you were the only first team player missing, that's almost better for your reputation than being man of the match.

West Wing fan?

Corholio

Ormus wrote: »

Where is the exaggeration? I never said people were claiming he is world class.

Where is the criticism? I think he is a good player who should be given more of a chance.

I never said you thought he was world class. You asked why it seemed a players stock can rise by not playing, it's not that his stock has risen, it's the frustration that he's not playing, that's obviously going to grow the more he's ignored.

Pro. F

Ormus wrote: »

It amazes me how much a player's reputation can rise by not playing.

Owen Hargreaves became the second coming while he was out injured, despite being nothing more than tidy all his career. Any time United or England lost a match, everyone agreed that they woulda won with Hargo.

Stephen Ireland got the same treatment for a while. Dean Ashton, Joe Cole, James McCarthy, Andy Reid.....and now Wes Hoolahan.

I think Hoolahan is a nice little player and I would have started him yesterday, but a bit of realism is needed.

He is not a player who will ensure more possession, as Dunphy suggested after the game. He plays too advanced to control a game, more David Silva than Andrea Pirlo.

He is a nice passer of the ball but it remains to be seen if he is international class at this. His cameo against Sweden saw him misplace a few easy passes. He has 2 assists this season for Norwich.

I want Trap out as much as the next man and I know that for some people it's not so much that they think Hoolahan is world class as much as they see him as emblematic of a refusal by our manager to play nice football.

But let's be clear, Hoolahan is not the answer to all our problems, just like James McCarthy before him.

Hoolahan is playing, every week in the EPL. You need to forget about this idea that our qualification groups are a higher standard than the league where Hoolahan is playing his club football. They're not and it's laughable to suggest otherwise.

Hoolahan is getting the same treatment as Coleman, McCarthy, Wilson and Long got. All good players who Trap stupidly refused to play in the past. It was obvious they deserved to play and now that they finally are being given the chance they have proven to be some of our best talent.

For each of those players we had chancers like LuckyLloyd and yourself calling them "flavour of the month" or "the new Andy Reid" or whining about the step up to international football. You lot were wrong about those players and you're wrong about Hoolahan too.

Al Capwned

Just as an aside, Hargreaves pen in the 08 CL Final shootout was a thing of beauty.

Ormus

Pro. F wrote: »

Hoolahan is playing, every week in the EPL. You need to forget about this idea that our qualification groups are a higher standard than the league where Hoolahan is playing his club football. They're not and it's laughable to suggest otherwise.

Hoolahan is getting the same treatment as Coleman, McCarthy, Wilson and Long got. All good players who Trap stupidly refused to play in the past. It was obvious they deserved to play and now that they finally are being given the chance they have proven to be some of our best talent.

For each of those players we had chancers like LuckyLloyd and yourself calling them "flavour of the month" or "the new Andy Reid" or whining about the step up to international football. You lot were wrong about those players and you're wrong about Hoolahan too.

I agree it's not a higher standard.

Wilson, Coleman, Long and McCarthy got similar treatment but a lot of people seem to think Hoolahan could be a matchwinner for Ireland in the same way they used to talk about Reid and Ireland.

I think Hoolahan will break into the first team within the next year or so, hopefully under a new manager. When he does, some people will be pleased to see a bright, positive player. Others will be a bit disappointed that he isn't a matchwinner.

Ormus

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

West Wing fan?

Aye

GavRedKing

Ormus wrote: »

I agree it's not a higher standard.

Wilson, Coleman, Long and McCarthy got similar treatment but a lot of people seem to think Hoolahan could be a matchwinner for Ireland in the same way they used to talk about Reid and Ireland.

I think Hoolahan will break into the first team within the next year or so, hopefully under a new manager. When he does, some people will be pleased to see a bright, positive player. Others will be a bit disappointed that he isn't a matchwinner.

Wes will also be 31 in May, time isnt on his side.

Hargreaves is a strange comparison. He was a quality player who was ravaged by injuries.

Andy Reid might be a better comparison.

While I think Hoolahan is an okay player, you can bet a lot of people calling for him to be in the team probably have rarely watched him play. Not talking about in in here but people who just hear some analysis from the lads on RTE and follow suit.

Wasn't Dunphy(and some sheep) still calling for Andy Reid to be played when he wasn't even getting a club game?

dan1895

GavRedKing wrote: »

Wes will also be 31 in May, time isnt on his side.

Scandalous his chance is only coming now. He was called up to the squad about ten years ago while still with Shels and was then just completely forgotten about despite constantly improving.

bullvine

rarnes1 wrote: »

Hargreaves is a strange comparison. He was a quality player who was ravaged by injuries.

Andy Reid might be a better comparison.

While I think Hoolahan is an okay player, you can bet a lot of people calling for him to be in the team probably have rarely watched him play. Not talking about in in here but people who just hear some analysis from the lads on RTE and follow suit.

Wasn't Dunphy(and some sheep) still calling for Andy Reid to be played when he wasn't even getting a club game?

Totally, I said this to the lads I work with the other day, hes a poorman's Juan Mata but I mean that in the nicest way of course.

I remember Dunphy going on about Andy Reid as if he was like Paul Scholes or something.