Rival watch

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
BrunelGooner said:
I would say the same, but our return fixture is sadly at Old Trafford where we haven't won in the league since 2006. We did beat them there in 2015 on our way to winning the FA Cup (thanks to Valencia's mishit backpass), but obviously positive results there are far and few in between for us.



Every time they drop points where they shouldn't, you can telegraph what he's going to say. His words may gather the interest of the masses when you're winning the majority of your games and are looking a cut above the remaining pack, but when you consistently underperform and struggle to get positive results/performances, particularly after spending the amount of money that he has, it becomes tiresome.

His mindgames aren't working. His tactics aren't working. His management isn't working. The writing will be on the wall very soon methinks...
Click to expand...

He's not staying there beyond May anyway. All of his previous successes have been premised on arriving at a huge but underperforming club, enjoying a solid if unspectacular 1st season during which he assesses the weak links in the squad, then spends a bottomless pot of gold in Summer 2 for a Season 2 sweepstake, then slowly fade towards a noble farewell in Season 3. Wash, rinse and repeat.

Where this formula has gone wrong is that the bottomless pot can no longer solve the weak links. Simply because the weakest link in that united team is currently him.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
You made mistakes and can't defend. Entirely believable if you've watched Arsenal play.
People in glasshouses, eh? <doh>
Click to expand...

Never claimed we were a great side nor that we were great at defending. If you actually cared to understand the essence of my comment, instead of getting defensive (not as defensive as your manager, though), you will realise that what I wrote was actually a criticism of Arsenal and their defending, moreso than me having a go at United.

I'm sure you're absolutely thrilled with how this season has panned out for you so far. Well done. Seriously. It takes a special type of manager to spend £90m on a midfielder, £75m on a striker and yet look as blunt in attack as you do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Page_Moss_Kopite
BrunelGooner said:
Never claimed we were a great side nor that we were great at defending. If you actually cared to understand the essence of my comment, instead of getting defensive (not as defensive as your manager, though), you will realise that what I wrote was actually a criticism of Arsenal and their defending, moreso than me having a go at United.

I'm sure you're absolutely thrilled with how this season has panned out for you so far. Well done. Seriously. It takes a special type of manager to spend £90m on a midfielder, £75m on a striker and yet look as blunt in attack as you do.
Click to expand...
You do know that "blunt" attack has scored 6 more goals than yours don't you?
 
BrunelGooner said:
Never claimed we were a great side nor that we were great at defending. If you actually cared to understand the essence of my comment, instead of getting defensive (not as defensive as your manager, though), you will realise that what I wrote was actually a criticism of Arsenal and their defending, moreso than me having a go at United.

I'm sure you're absolutely thrilled with how this season has panned out for you so far. Well done. Seriously. It takes a special type of manager to spend £90m on a midfielder, £75m on a striker and yet look as blunt in attack as you do.
Click to expand...

Pogba and Lukaku cost United a lot more than that, mate. UEFA may have chosen to ignore that his agent trousered £41m for his alleged <whistle> part-ownership of the player but the true cost for Pogba was £130m. Lukaku will cost United £90m with £12m in agent's fees to Raiola on top.

How United get away with hiding £68m of 'investment' on those 2 deals is beyond me?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrunelGooner
Diego said:
You do know that "blunt" attack has scored 6 more goals than yours don't you?
Click to expand...

First of all, that should be the minimum expected of your team given how much you spent on reinforcing your attack compared to us. Secondly, most of those goals came at the beginning of the season and have seldom come in the remaining couple of months, one would imagine. Thirdly, you need to factor in the spread of the goals too. For example, two teams score 15 goals across 5 games. Team A scores 7 goals in the first game and 8 goals in the second game, but fail to score in the other 3 games. In contrast, Team B scores 3 goals across every one of those 5 games. Whose attack would you prefer to have and whose would you say is more potent?

Context is important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Citizen Kane
"Thanks for that Brian" said:
Pogba and Lukaku cost United a lot more than that, mate. UEFA may have chosen to ignore that his agent trousered £41m for his alleged <whistle> part-ownership of the player but the true cost for Pogba was £130m. Lukaku will cost United £90m with £12m in agent's fees to Raiola on top.

How United get away with hiding £68m of 'investment' on those 2 deals is beyond me?
Click to expand...
You seem like a well read chap, I would imagine you know who signed that contract and had to pay the agents fee :emoticon-0100-smile

Not sure about the agents fee for Lukaku but it will be made plain in the next accounts <ok>
 
BrunelGooner said:
First of all, that should be the minimum expected of your team given how much you spent on reinforcing your attack compared to us. Secondly, most of those goals came at the beginning of the season and have seldom come in the remaining couple of months, one would imagine. Thirdly, you need to factor in the spread of the goals too. For example, two teams score 15 goals across 5 games. Team A scores 7 goals in the first game and 8 goals in the second game, but fail to score in the other 3 games. In contrast, Team B scores 3 goals across every one of those 5 games. Whose attack would you prefer to have and whose would you say is more potent?

Context is important.
Click to expand...
Did you get yours for free? the cost of players has rocketed in the last 3 years, it doesn't mean you are buying better players, just costlier.

Probably the one with the most points. And your point is?

Context is important :emoticon-0105-wink:
 
Diego said:
Did you get yours for free? the cost of players has rocketed in the last 3 years, it doesn't mean you are buying better players, just costlier.
Click to expand...

This is just pure whataboutism. You have a habit of doing this. I shouldn't have bitten the bait, but when the focus in on United, your instinctive response is to ask questions about other teams.

No, we didn't get ours for free. Yes, they cost money. But you know full well that the expectations for Manchester United and Arsenal are completely different. If you want to compare spending between the two clubs, there is no comparison to be made.


Probably the one with the most points. And your point is?

Context is important :emoticon-0105-wink:
Click to expand...

Again, you're deflecting from the question. I asked you specifically about attacking potency, not about points, and you've given a total non-sequitur. You know I am making valid points and you're refusing to acknowledge it.
 
BrunelGooner said:
This is just pure whataboutism. You have a habit of doing this. I shouldn't have bitten the bait, but when the focus in on United, your instinctive response is to ask questions about other teams.

No, we didn't get ours for free. Yes, they cost money. But you know full well that the expectations for Manchester United and Arsenal are completely different. If you want to compare spending between the two clubs, there is no comparison to be made.




Again, you're deflecting from the question. I asked you specifically about attacking potency, not about points, and you've given a total non-sequitur. You know I am making valid points and you're refusing to acknowledge it.
Click to expand...
And I have answered you, only 2 teams have scored more than us so far City and Liverpool, if that means we have no potency in attack then fair enough but I just thing you are chatting without thinking <ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD
Diego said:
And I have answered you, only 2 teams have scored more than us so far City and Liverpool, if that means we have no potency in attack then fair enough but I just thing you are chatting without thinking <ok>
Click to expand...

I addressed everything in this post a couple of posts ago, yet you've chosen to ignore it and repeat the same thing.

Either address my post properly or stop replying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back