We might not be either. The wierdest proclamation of this thread (amongst a few) is from Luv, saying we seem miles behind City. The same City who have been utterly gash in the CL for the two years they've been in it. The same City who currently lie 15 points behind us in the league. How, in the name of ****, can we be deemed miles behind them?
Seeing as Nof and Swarbs have posted the above I'll stop having digs at christian. None of my posts were having a go at Utd I was just chatting with matt and Swarbs until christian came along and started with his little digs, there is a banter thread if people want to have a pop at each others clubs.
My point is that if SAF had that squad or the backing that mancini has had he would have done a lot better. So I'm asking do you think you could have done even better if SAF had been given more funds during this period of dominance.
Tbh some of swarbs responses did make me rethink to some degree that it's not quite as simple as money. But I do wonder.
In the league, no. Not really possible. In europe, probably also no as I think that has come down to Fergie not being at his absolute best in this environment. We should have done better, at least one more CL and probably two, and I think we've blown it more than not having the personnel to do it. There are two or three notable years when we really should have won it, some shocking ref decisions and some piss poor performances on the pitch put paid to that.
And yet you've spent much of the season saying he's not all that. Switching your argument time and again just emphasises how bitter you are. So carry on! Out of interest, what qualifies you to assess that United played their best football against Real whereas Real were off their game? Any possibility that Real didn't play well against eleven men because they weren't allowed to? Just a thought.
The only time more money might have helped us in the league would have been 04/05 and 05/06. The plc board left us with no cash to spend in those windows summer (they actually publicly admitted the Rooney signing was our transfer budget for two full years), and so Chelsea easily beat us to players like Essien and Robben. If we'd had the chance to get those two we might have been able to give Chelsea a decent run in the league. As it was we were far too weak back then to compete financially./ Agree with this - we've been unlucky at times in Europe, but haven't dealt with that bad luck as well as we should have. Decisions went against us vs Porto, Bayern and Real, but when they did we were in a winning position and should have closed the games out regardless. I think it's partly down to SAF being more of a league manager - looking to get the highest level out of his players over the full season rather than building up to just a few important games. Like I said above, it's very hard to balance performance in the league and the EC in the same season, and only SAF, Mourinho and Guardiola have managed it in living memory. Even Paisley, Cramer and Michels didn't manage it more than once, despite the fantastic teams they had.
I've never seen it as finding a balance between CL and EC. Other than Barca, no sides have ever been expected to actually win the CL. It's a knockout comp and luck plays it's part. Winning the CL and league in the same year is as much chance and circumstance as anything.
This. It should always be the premiership. If we do win the league this season (!), it will have been a successful season. Prioritising cups does not make sense. Even if it is a big cup like the Champions league. Most of the Cl champions needed some luck along the way and any little bad luck on the day could knock you out (remember Barca and Bayern recently?) Great if you win the FA Cup or COC or any cup but those should be a bonus to the bread and butter stuff.
Luck tends to play a big part in any knockout competition. The league doesn't lie, but the best team doesn't always win the CL or other knockout cups. Look at the final when we beat Chelsea, yes we deserved it imo but we were 1 penalty kick away from losing. Every season team progress and get knocked out because of good or bad luck be it deserves it not.
I see your point, but then I'd say winning the CL is where the chance and circumstance comes in . You need a lot of luck, and also need your players to perform on the CL dates with your opponents having an off day in at least some matches. So it's obviously much harder to do when you also need your players to perform consistently throughout the season in the league. Like training for a marathon and a sprint at the same time. Which, as I said above, is probably why only SAF, Mourinho and Guardiola have managed it twice since Stefan Kovacs around 40 years ago.
I see it more as those sides won the title most years. When they get around to winning the CL (which happens eventually if you're in it every year) it would be unlucky not to do the double as the league is almost a gimme for those sides.
That argument sounds fine in theory, but in practice it's far from the case. You'd have thought the league would be a 'gimme' for the great Milan side in the early 90s, but they didn't win the league in either of their CL seasons, or did the great Juve side in 96. Ditto with Real's 'Galacticos' in the early 00s when Barca were in crisis and La Liga was the weakest it has been in years - again they never won the league and CL in the same season. Even Ancelotti's Milan sides in 03 and 07 (and 05) didn't win the league in the seasons they did well in Europe (their Calciopoli deductions didn't make any difference). Regardless of the theory, the evidence shows it's very difficult to win the league and CL in the same season, and only the best managers can do it.
