6 titles in the next 18 years. I think that if you only win 6 out of the next 18 it wont be liverpool you are worrying about but rather who picked up the other 12 and will have some excuse as to why they unfairly won their titles. You sh!tebag
I reckon in the next 5 years there won't be a Manchester United to worry about, they are set to become like Portsmouth and Rangers.
The rivalry was never likely to develop between City & Liverpool as it was always so utterly one sided,whether it was at Maine Rd or Anfield,we generally got a similar hiding and the odd time we actually got a result was taken in good part by the scousers presumably thinking we were due one. City & Liverpool fans have always been able to drink together before & after games through a lack of animosity,something the arrogant Traffordites simply wouldnt be able to comprehend
Who knows who will win the other 12. We might not even win 6 but I dont think anyone thinks Liverpool will get to 20 before we get to 30. Not a living human being*
Even when City won the title, there was no arrogance whatsoever. Yes they did want to kick Manchester United fans in the teeth when they were down, but that is expected. City had to suffer that for years when the roles were reversed. As for the ''RIP Fergie'' sign, well he asked for that, with his ''Not in my lifetime'' comment.
Mancs and Scousers are two peas out of the same pod. There is a natural rivalry between the two major cities of the NW region, Liverpool traditionally the more important, but having been comprehensively overshadowed by Manchester in recent generations. Having worked in both areas, often with many inhabitants from both cities in the same organisation, in general I would say everyone got on well and enjoyed a healthy piss-taking. The hatred that exists is more or less confined to MUFC & LFC fans IMO
Agreed. Its an inferiority complex amongst Manchester United and their fans, they can't cope with being second best, so they attempt to big themselves up at every opportunity and always have done.
My ex is a Kiwi, She couldn't tell the difference between the Oasis-type Manc accent (as opposed to the Coronation St accent) and the Scouse accent. Then again, i can't tell the difference between a Kiwi and an Aussie accent, oneof the reasons she's an ex, no doubt. She's also a 'sociologist' (pseudo science) and frequently used to tell me that both sets of people are basically formed from the same stock of poor, celtic immigrants who never made it onto the boats to the new world, supplemented by Carribbean andA Asian immigrants in the second half of the 20th century. "No wonder you hate each other", she used to say "You're family".... Eugh....
Who knows what will happen after Fergie. Utd weren't up to much before him, and its big shoes for the next manager to fill. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see UTD fall back a bit. Just as we have. I would bet my house Utd dont win their next 10 titles anywhere near as quickly as their last 10, so I think your prediction of utd winning 10 before Liverpool win 2 is a tad optimistic Edit: 11 even
I think what the owners do when Fergie retires will be quite interesting. They certainly have not been as public in their dealings as our yanks have, and this will be the first test of how they run the footballing side of things that i am aware of. That appointment will go a long way to deciding how dominant United swill be going forward. To be honest, United should have surpassed our record a while ago. Had Munich not happened i think we would have been chasing a united record longer than They were chasing ours.
It's easy in hindsight and with no proof either way to say that the Utd team that died in Munich would have fulfilled their potential, as you said had Munich not occurred they could have been light years ahead(or maybe not)of us. But you have to take into account the Shankly effect(which would have happened even if munich hadn't happened), he took us to a European Cup semi-final in 63-64 season and only for a bent referee against Inter we 'could' have been the first English club to lift the trophy. Also the ban after Heysel cost us a possible 3 more European Cups(we were good enough during the ban to win it in those years) It's all if's and buts Campbell mate.
Sorry to be pedantic but our European Cup Semi final was in the 64-65 season. The home leg was on the Wednesday after we won the FA Cup for the first time in 1965. Sorry about that
I disagree. From another angle my take on it was different. For me there are key factors that escalated the rivalry, part of it stemmed from jealousy on Liverpool's part but also insecurity on ours. 1. The £100m pound match and what followed - Had Liverpool won that game in all likelihood we would have imploded, all of a sudden RA came in and we had enough money to buy Liverpool never mind their best players. 2. Chelsea trying to buy Gerrard - Something that did not go down well in the red half of Merseyside 3. The North v South element - You have the working class traditions of Liverpool vs The nouveau Chelsea adjacent to the Kings Road. It was seen as Northern Grit v Southern Flash 4. Liverpool's Attempted ridicule and castigation of Chelsea Football Club - This followed on from #2. And this is where the jibes such as "Plastic club" "Plastic fans" came from. You can ridicule a club but when you ridicule a loyal fanbase such as Chelsea and something that is close to the heart people will only take so much. 5. Benitez targeting individual Chelsea players in pre-post match press conferences/interviews and constantly bemoaning our new found wealth despite the fact he had spent millions also - This includes publically calling Drogba a diver and "cheat" less than 24 hours before a Champions League Semi Final, and his comments re: Robben after a league game in 2005/06. 6. Familiarity breeds contempt - Something like 40 games played between the teams in 8 seasons. The trophy count of each would have doubled but for each other. Chelsea had the thing Liverpool so desperately craved and vice versa. 7. Chelsea were the first - Chelsea revolutionised football in 2003. By the time City came around it wasn't a novelty anymore. History shows that people hate change and hate difference which is what Chelsea were. City were/are effectively a richer version of us and nobody hated City before the takeover, they were virtually everybody's 2nd team. In contrast Chelsea were despised hugely throughout the 80s/90s/00s, not to mention Leeds and other London clubs who hated us long since then. In contrast the Greater Manchester clubs saw City as the lesser of two evils v United so there was never that intense hatred for them in their own area.
No probs dave. But seriously, the point is that due to a bent ref we 'could' have been the first English winners of the trophy.
"Inter clawed back one goal from the first leg when, having been awarded an indirect free-kick that was hotly disputed by their opponents, Corso curled the ball inside Lawrence’s left post and the goal was allowed by Spanish referee Ortiz de Mendibil." http://www.europeancuphistory.com/euro65.html It was mooted years later that Ortiz admitted to accepting a bribe.
Hard to disagree with much of that. I'll bet the number of people in Manchester and Liverpool with fully English heritage is way below 20%.
