I strongly agree with Michael on the concept, although I disagree with his crop in this particular photo. It seems absurd to me to try to jam any particular human composition into a 2:3 aspect ratio; most things just don't fit. If you wander around trying to find things that fit, you'll miss 99 percent of the possible good photos. IMHO, the aspect ratios of the MF cameras are much better than the traditional 35mm aspect ratio, which was chosen for several practical reasons which had little to do with the aesthetics of composition. (There were commercial reasons, but also, at the time, the 35mm was about the smallest film/camera combination from which you could get a really good magazine-sized shot.) In any case, the compose-in-camera-only idea strikes me as an old photo folk myth that needs to be discarded.
As to this specific image, I think Michael mistakes exactly what makes it. There are all kinds of guys in carts, but the colors are terrific, and color, not subject, is what holds this composition together. There is a nice progress from the red-orange of the wall behind the cart to the darker red of the door to the most-saturated color in the figure on the left, which functions as a kind of "period." If I were cropping it, I'd crop right behind the back wheel, and trim just a tiny strip off the left side, so that we loose those architectural lines just to the left of the small figure.
I think Michael also misunderstands the comment about "If your pictures aren't good, you're not close enough." That was originally attributed to Robert Capa, speaking of war photos, and what he was saying was that if your pictures weren't good enough, you weren't taking enough risks and getting right in where the action was. His point didn't involved cropping, it was being in position to get the photo *at all.*