Anderson Better Than Fabregas?

taken from the 365 letters page

Quote:

Anderson Has Already Proved He's Better Than Fabregas
Anderson has already won (and made worthwhile contributions to before the "Phil Neville" argument pops up) numerous major trophies (4 with Porto in two seasons, 2 with United in just one season, and a Copa America) at the age of just 20. Like Fabregas, he was by far the best player respectively when they made appearances in the U-17 World Cup. And on the two occasions they have faced each other this season, Anderson has quite literally run rings around Fabregas.

Not only would I say that there is a justifiable comparison between the two players right now, but I wouldn't swap Anderson for Fabregas, no way.

Once Anderson is fully settled (which he should be just about, after a season of acclimatization) we should see the full fruit of his potential. A potential which suggests, on development, he will be better than Fabregas. Who, by the way, has one FA Cup winners medal to his name. Trophies are obviously not the be all and end all but when we're discussing two young players and dismissing one as someone who can't be "justifiably compared", then it's only fair to point out that 7 trophies to 1 in the last four years is a pretty telling statistic at their respective tender ages.

interesting opinion :)

Nah no way...

For the money paid for Anderson, Nani and Hargreaves i would say there Seasons were poor.

Out of them, Andersons was the best.. .

He had some good games, but not good enough to get into the squad for the more important games in the CL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numeric

taken from the 365 letters page

interesting opinion :)

Lifted from 365.

The throwaway line in 365's summer focus on Manchester United that 'the contribution of Nani, Anderson and Owen Hargreaves was generally underwhelming' has raised the hackles of sensitive ManYoo fans and prompted a deluge of criticism and abuse.

So here's the response to the response...

Large pete wrote: "Suggesting Nani, Anderson and Hargreaves have had an underwhelming season is simply wrong. Hargreaves was outstanding in the Champions League final and was essential to the 4-3-3 necessary to deal with Chelsea and to accomodate the Tevez, Rooney and Ronaldo."

PG: To use your own phrase, that's simply wrong. Hargreaves was far from outstanding; he was very good for the first half-hour or so but was then put on the back foot by Ashley Cole, rather than vice versa. If you believe that he 'was essential to the 4-3-3 necessary to deal with Chelsea and to accommodate the Tevez, Rooney and Ronaldo' then presumably you weren't watching the match. Hargreaves was deployed on the right of a four-man midfield so that Cristiano Ronaldo would line up in direct opposition to Chelsea's stand-in right-back Michael Essien. It was crafty management from Sir Alex - but, alas, beyond your perception. Only at the end of the match did Hargreaves revert to the centre in response to the control Chelsea had taken.

largepete wrote: "Nani's form has accounted for Giggs' intermittent contribution."
PG: What form is that? Nani's performance at Chelsea in April - a match that Giggs that also started incidentally - was the worst I have witnessed from a Manchester United player in the last two years. You imply that Giggs' 'intermittent contribution' is a new development, caused by Nani's expensive recruitment. In reality, Giggs started 25 Premiership games this season which is precisely the same number he began in 2006/07, three more than in 2005/06, and just one less than in 2004/05.

Jon2711 wrote: "Another point id add would be to see the names of uniteds penalty scorers in one of the most pressurised penalty shootouts ever played. Hargreaves, Nani and Anderson."

PG: So what? That doesn't mean they had good seasons, does it? If your point had any worth then the flip-side would be that Cristiano Ronaldo's season was a failure because he failed to score in the shoot-out.

Jon2711 wrote: "Underwhelming? What a terrible piece of journalism. You posed the question 'would united have dropped any points without Nani, Anderson and Hargreaves'"
PG: No, I didn't.

Jon2711 wrote: "Who curled in the winning free kick in a rather important game against Arsenal in the title run in?..Its a poor observation made by someone who clearly only sees the edited down highlights of uniteds games."

PG: The fact that Hargreaves scored the winning goal in one match - as did Nani, incidentally - doesn't mean that his season wasn't an overwhelming success. Darren Bent scored eight goals last term but I think we are all in agreement that he was a flop.

I like your self-contradiction, by the way. You accuse me of basing my argument on the 'edited down highlights of uniteds games'. But if that was the case, wouldn't I be making a bigger deal of the goals scored by Hargreaves and Nani?

Vodkasoda wrote: "Nani has a lot to learn, there is no doubt about that, but I seem to recall a certain Mr Ronaldo taking a little while to settle and adjust to the demands of English football..."
PG: True, but aren't you saying that Nani's contribution was indeed underwhelming then?

Vodkasoda wrote: "Anderson ran the show at Anfield with a certain Steven Gerard firmly ensconced in his pocket!!!"

PG: Anderson was excellent at Anfield, and at the Emirates a few weeks beforehand, but that's not the point. One or two performances does not a season make and if he did have an excellent season then wouldn't he have played against Barcelona rather than Ji-Sung Park? Anderson looks a fine player and was the best of United's three Premier League newcomers but I'm still not convinced that his season wasn't in general underwhelming considering the price United paid. 16 Premiership starts hardly makes him an integral factor, does it?

Mike Christie wrote: "If he [Anderson] improves in anything like the way Ronaldo did since coming to England over the next season or two he'll be giving Fabregas a run for his money as the league's best before long."

PG: Absolutely. Anderson is a particularly exciting talent because he has the capacity to be any number of different midfielders - in glimpses this season he looked like Fabregas, at others he was more reminiscent of a Mathieu Flamini type, and at others a Gerrard/Lampard sort. If he picks and chooses their best attributes then Manchester United will boast the complete midfielder. But, as you say, that is not only if he improves but also if he improves at the rate Ronaldo has. He has a long way to go before he can justifiably be compared to Fabregas, let alone Ronaldo.

Mike Christie wrote: "Hargreaves showed his versatility in covering different positions, do you really think United would have looked more secure in defence with either O'Shea or a half-fit Neviller in defence when Vidic had that run of injuries?"

PG: And do you really think that if Hargreaves had impressed beforehand he would have been summoned to display his versatility? He was bought, at considerable expense, to bring the bite to United's midfield that Paul Scholes and Michael Carrick so conspicuously failed to provide against AC Milan last April and the fact that Hargreaves was unable to dislodge either player is further proof that his form was, in general, underwhelming.

Nice try with the suggestion that Hargreaves was the saviour of the United defence. 'O'Shea and the half-fit Neviller' weren't the only options - Gerard Pique held the United team together when he replaced Rio Ferdinand at Middlesbrough and he was then selected for the match with Arsenal (Vidic returned the following week). O'Shea started the match in between, the victory over Roma in which United kept a clean sheet, and was then called on to replace Vidic when he was injured against West Ham. Your implication that it was Hargreaves alone who acted as cover is misleading and wrong.

Largepete: "There's no debate to this: it's lazy journalism."

PG: Well clearly there is a debate. As to the 'lazy journalism' barb, that's the response punters make when they don't agree with something they've read and are either incapable or too indolent of thinking up an intelligent riposte. In other words, it's both tedious and lazy. You're probably not large either.

Put some mancs in there place there anyhow...

i read those comments from 365 yesterday, mostly accurate to be fair