How To Be A Successful WUM?

... spot on ... what's not to like?

 

At the moment, true. You can't beat the price either...

 

To give credit where it is due - Vards is just one of the component parts of a collective that is playing very well (arguably above itself) ... we have a good group / mix of youth and experience but also with a touch of 'attitude' that comes through as a 'healthy' disregard for reputation .. and not to be too disingenuous ... we actually have some real talent too ... Mahrez is superb by anybody's standards..

 

There's quite a bit more to football and far more difficult thongs to achieve. Any side can win a cup. Any... Remember these **** sides, Porto, Liverpool, Greece, Chelsea?

A side called Alves once got to the uefa cup final, im not sure they exist any more....

Cups are of little relevance. Top managers are judges on these little things called league titles....

 

... ironic really .... because my abiding memory of United's footballing prowess stems from them being the first English team to win the European Cup ... Sir Matt Busby, Best, Law, Charlton ...

... numerous titles in later years with teams stuffed with foreign mercenariies don't seem half as impressive and certainly not as romantic ...

... the test of a top manager to me is 'unexpected' acheivement ... e.g Brian Clough to take two second division sides with limited funds to win the title and with Forest , European Cups is nothing short of amazing ... to win league titles with the biggest budget in a domestic league (and several transfer windows available over the course of a season to use that budget) is less so ...

... perhaps that's just me mind

 

Winning the league title after 26 years is right up there.

Imagine (there's no other way) Liverpool won the title this season, 26 years on since the last time anyone knew who they were..... It would be mayhem... Come on, they string a few good results together and get a double decker bus wrapped declaring them champions....

The league is far, far bigger than Europe.

 

They are both major achievements, no doubt. Winning the league requires consistency over a whole season, but only against other premiership sides. The Eurpean Cup - as was, is a shorter competition but probably requires you to be at the top of your game against, arguably some of the best sides in world football.

Neither is easy.

 

Really, the old European cup. Go look at some of those clubs. Being restricted to only the league winners, the best clubs always missed out.

Had it remained that way, it would be the secondary competition now.

The league is what's tests every football team, its far harder to win, luck plays only a small part while luck in the CL plays a huge part.

Look at Chelsea's win. Luck. Liverpool's. Luck. Even United, luck played a huge part in 99.

Liverpool fans disagree but there great manager agrees with me. The league is a clubs bread and butter.

 

Top managers are judged on winning league titles.
The best clubs missed out on playing in the European Cup, because you had to win the league title.

Isn't cognitive dissonance lovely?

 

I entirely disagree. The old European Cup was the REAL champions league, as only the champions of each country participated. How you translate that into the best clubs missing out, I've no idea. Unless, of course, you just mean that unless Utd were there, it was not a real competition?

Yes, Chelsea were lucky to even reach the final. Liverpool, I'd have to disagree. Milan thought the game was won and took their foot off the pedal. I remember watching, and when their first goal went in, I said, 'if Pool score another one, Milan are going to get twitchy arses'. The rest you know!

As I've said, they're both major achievements.

 

Stan's been busy!

 

Only fans of clubs whonhavent won the league in many, many decades would think that way.

The reality is, the league is and always will be number one. Without leagues, there is no European football.

 

Yes, but you don't need to win your league anymore.

 

It was an easier competition to won back then for the few genuinely big teams in it. You had far less competition. In the early years, one team won them all.... Because they were the only decent team in it.

A CL win when you have the likes of Bayern's, Barcelona, Dortmund, Arsenal, United, Madrid, Ac, Juventus etc is better than one with most of those teams missing.

 

Yes, in one way, no in another. Yes, there were far fewer teams - although they were all league champions. No, because you had one shot, and one shot only. Lose a tie, and you're out.

It was straight knockout. I wonder how many winners of the champions league would have actually won it under the old knockout rules?

 

It's difficult to distinguish which us harder or more worthy, It's all relative. but I'd agree that knockout football is and was more exciting than the current cl format.

So basically Liverpool are still better than utd.

 

It'll be interesting to see how Arsenal and Chelsea perform in the Europa.

Gooners will pretend that they're not interested in it (having slagged the competition off for so many years), but they'd be rubbing their cocks raw if they got any where near the Europa Final.

 

Definitely very bored with no proper European cup competition to play in aren't you HIAG?

 

When Liverpool ruled the roost, they ruled Europe too. And the European Cup was a straight knockout tournament with the true champions of the European leagues.

 

But let's not forget that when 'Pool were "ruling the roost," football, at that level, was dominated by teams who had the best thugs. Leeds and 'Pool tended to get the best leg-breaking thugs, so they tended to win everything, because the rules allowed the likes of Billy Bremner and Tommy Smith to hold sway and take out any player who tried to play football the right way.

If you were to put the 'Pool of the late 70s up against, say, today's Real Madrid, 'Pool would be down to 8 men inside the first 15 minutes, and would go on to lose the game by a cricket score!