Afternoon all, i wanted to talk about the topic in question, all i've heard all season is '' United are the best out of a bad bunch'', '' the premier league lacks quality'', what a load of sh(i)t, if this was any other team apart from United, people would be praising them to the hilt but because its united nothing is said about it, let me tell you something, we're on the verge of winning our 20th league title, no-one in english football will do that in my time, also to say the premier league lacks quality is a load of nonsense, its because we're top of the league and the critics have decided to say that, also we could break a record in terms of number of league points, its 95 or 96 points done by Chelsea in the 04/05 season when they first won their league title in 50 years, if we can do that, then surely people should give us credit for that.
I think you get plenty of credit. The debate on your team will go on though, is it SAF that gets them playing or are they all better players than other fans give them credit for?
Look at Carrick, was underrated by opposition fans, now they're saying he's an important player for us and england, Rafael is another example, some said he looked rash in a tackle and could'nt defend but he's beeen the best right-back in the league this season in my opinion.
Carrick is important for you but seems to struggle in Europe, Rafael is a very good full back that's a given. If I'm honest then you have very good players throughout your squad but compared to RM and Barca or even City you seem miles behind and with the amount of success you've had should you be closer to the kind of squads they have? I think SAF does elavate some of your players game after game and credit to him and them for getting that it is needed if you want to win titles but imo if you want to win the Champions league you need to add quality to your squad.
Both the above were correct, as is that he loses concentration and does not follow up shots so let's the opponent get the rebound. This is all true. He is, however, improving and getting better and better, although he's not as good as you'd like to claim. Be realistic please.
Real and Barca have "slightly" bigger transfer budgets than us. I also don't think we're miles behind Real who only led our tie against them across 2 legs once we were down to ten men. Chelsea won the CL last season, did they have more quality in their squad than Real and Barca? It's a cup competition.
Odd comment there luv. City and Real are no closer to winning the CL than we are imo - Real were lucky to get past us and even with Mourinho, who is probably the ultimate cup manager, I can't see them challenging Barca or Bayern over two legs. And City don't have much quality in their squad at all outside their big five or six players, who now seem thoroughly burnt out after dragging the rest of their squad for the last couple of years. Real and City have spent a lot more than us in pursuit of glory but for all their big names they have ended up no better off domestically or in Europe. I think Bayern are the better comparison - they're a great example of what you can do with a solid team and a strong squad, and when you don't rely on splashing the cash but instead bring players like Lahm, Muller and Kroos through the ranks. They may not have won the CL since 2001, and even missed the CL in 08/09 but they have certainly performed better than City and Chelsea over the long run. I wonder if there's a much hand wringing in Germany about Bayern dominating a "poor league" now they're 20 points clear of Dortmund?
Ok, fair arguments back and you are all going to rate your squad higher than me but lets say Fergie was in charge of any of the clubs I've mentioned do you think he would have won more European Cups with those squads and resources? I'd say Real are but agree on City of course but imo that's down to the manager. Same argument, if Fergie was the City manager would they be dominating all competitions?
Real, probably not. He'd have won a CL, but then he'd have been sacked the instant he came second to Barca. City possibly, tho' mainly cos he'd have spent the money they have spent more effectively over a longer period to build a better squad. If he had to manage their current squad with the current financial constraints I don't think he would. That does of course assume he'd focus on the CL, which is very unlikely. SAF's first priority at either of those clubs, as at Aberdeen and Utd, would be to establish them as long term title contenders who are in the title race right up until the end of every season. Before he achieved that the CL would be very much a secondary consideration, as it was for Utd this season.
I agree the league is always the priority but still feel that with the right investment in players over the last few years you lot would have done even better than you have. I don't know what the situation is with your owners, that side of footy just doesn't interest me but it seems from the outside that if Fergie had been given or asked for funds for top players and they had been granted then you lot may well have added European cups to the league titles you've won.
I am still ambivalent about this United team. By all accounts it is the best in the premiership and the big gap between us and second shows it. However how good is it? There is no doubt in my mind that what happened last season has had a lasting impact on SAF who had been determined that what happened would not happen again. He and his players have been focussing on the league. The teams he has put out in the league and in the cups show that. The dominance and the consistency is his work. I am not sure any other manager would have achieved the same with the same players. I agree with those who say that the current squad so dominant in the prem is nowhere near good enough to challenge for the champions league.
I think if SAF had been given the funds available to the scousers in the last few seasons he would have won at least one CL and a few other domestic trophies...
You may be right, but there's no guarantee that would happen. Just look at 2001 - he finally got big money for Veron and RVN and then we had our worst five year period of the past two decades. And for all the money Real spent around that period they didn't do much better - one EC and two league titles in six seasons is a poor return and I wouldn't sacrifice our five or six extra league titles for the one extra EC they have won in the last twenty years. Ultimately I think the current CL format works against clubs that focus on the league. Neither Chelsea nor Liverpool were able to win it, nor Arsenal get to the final, until they got themselves in a position where they could completely ignore the league, and even Real and Milan have never managed to win the league and CL double since runners up were allowed in. It's incredibly difficult to balance the league and CL even for the top clubs, and I can honestly say I'm much happier we've won the CL twice and won the league in both those seasons, rather than potentially having won the CL three times but missed out on the league.
Take a look at my posts you knob, have I had a go at Utd? I was replying to a thread and having a reasoned debate without being childish or having sly digs at you lot. Maybe I should just act like a wum in the future. Prick!
Good point, the league has to come first and I agree it should not be sacrificed for the CL. The balancing act needed is difficult and even with good squad depth teams are failing to win it. It may just be a fact that with the amount of games now played through a season the days of winning the CL over and over are gone.
I think only Utd and Barca have won the league and EC in the same season more than once in the last three decades (I think the last club to win two Euro doubles before us was Liverpool), tho Mourinho has managed it with Porto and Inter. Even Milan's team in 89 and 90 didn't win Serie A, and IIRC Paisley only won the European double once? So even back when the competition was smaller it was still pretty tough!