While I think everyone deserves their own opinion. If someone is so completely wrong, it doesn't really warrant much response.
It's official, better season than team A, B and C...
- Thread starter Mister_Stubbs
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
While I think everyone deserves their own opinion. If someone is so completely wrong, it doesn't really warrant much response.
You are right, but let's say we would play on that level, then it's easily possible we still could win everything after that. We could win the treble in season 11. To kind of make the CL final very often over 10 years you need to be on Barca/Real-level and that's where we want to be and should be, aren't we?
I know it's just hypothetical, but if course if we would play on that level we would be too good to not win sth at some point.
Scenario B would mean we haven't won a league in 15 years, so basically Pool. It would also mean we are basically not a CL club anymore, because you only can win the EL that much if you don't qualify for CL or crash out in group stage. Plus some cup trophies.
We would lose a lot of money and would lose our status as top tier club, so again basically Liverpool with probably no chance to return to the elite.
You would really rather take some trophies?
For me that scenario kind of only shows even more that trophies aren't all that. A fluke cup win doesn't change the fact that you might have played shit all year and you will have the same problems next year. Can we call that a succesful season? A team who played great all year but missed out has a good chance to get it next year if they just continue their hard work. Succesfull in terms of trophies? Maybe not. Succesful in where the team is going and how they develope and improve? Definitely.
So that wasn't me hallucinating. Someone would actually prefer losing a title on goal difference to city over winning the Champions league and Fa cup. Wow. This thread has officially jumped the shark.
Id put us close to parity with Spurs, though if you adjust for expectations they probably had a better season. But in absolute terms, it is Chelsea first, us and Spurs very close in second and third (Im going to say us second but I acknowledge my bias here), but we are comfortably ahead of City, let alone Liverpool.
Well anyone who says we have had a better season than Chelsea can be ignored. We obviously had a more successful season than 2,3 and 4 though. All of us are in CL and we have trophies to show for. It's a different discussion if we are evaluating who is a better team at the moment. End of the day, I'd rather have trophies and qualify for CL than finish higher in the league and not win anything. The whole progression thing is not that straightforward with many equal good teams around. When the opportunity for trophies come, one has to take it.
Spurs barely had a better season than City, I mean neither challenged for the league. Spurs might have finished 2nd but City got further in the Champions League while Spurs were atrocious in Europe. I'd say that one is close.
This is about results for me not style of football.
Cheer up then FFS, your faith in the squad and signings has been borne out and partially repaid by last night's victory! More signings of Pogba's quality may well be on their way, and many of those existing squad members seem happy and motivated, and those that aren't will probably move on - same as at any club in the world. It's not all doom and gloom you know
I guess I am still adjusting a bit for expectations, I just think coming second for Spurs is a great achievement for them. Its true they didnt do great in Europe, but I would still put them comfortably ahead of City. Its not like City lost in the final or the semis, they got further without doing particularly well.
Is it really developing and improving if you never actually win anything though. I get your point, you feel cup competitions aren't the best measure for success and i agree with you that the league is priority number 1. Which is why no one here has said we've had a better season than chelsea. Nobody remembers the scrappy games, the fortunate refereeing decisions, the offside goals when you win a league. At the very top clubs, it's all about winning. I'd be on your side if we supported a smaller team but at the top of the food chain which is where Man united are and strive to be, 2nd place just doesn't cut it.
I think at the top level, which is where Spurs fans claim they are part of, then you can't take expectations into account. I think that is definitely clouding your viewpoint, that and their overall style of play which is brilliant in my view.
It doesn't go away from the fact they were unbelievably shit in Europe. City qualified from a group that had Bayern and got beat by Barca. Spurs got dumped out of two European competitions, the latter by Genk. That has to be a factor, and I think that makes up a little bit for the fact they finished one place behind Spurs.
Why does it? Success = titles and trophies. If as you say Spurs have a better team than us then winning absolutely sod all should be considered a failure, no? Especially when an supposed inferior side had won a domestic and European trophy, earned more from these successes and enter the best competition available for club football as a higher seed.
Spurs are quite rightly regarded as one of the best teams in the league, therefore their expectations must align with that also.
We can't continue to say that them finishing second is a great achievement, because finishing top 4 is a minimum expectation for everybody else in the top 6.
With us, Chelsea & City being expected to challenge for the title.
True but Europa Leagues and League Cups won't cut it either. I agree with you that I would rather take a bit of inconsistency here and there and win a CL trophy inbetween instead of winning nothing on a consistent good level. But overall you have a good chance with consistency and the league is always a indicator for that. We shouldn't do as poor as we do in the PL and we won several things under Fergie, who won the PL for fun. Bayern lost every final under Heynckes, the season after that they won the treble. A season without silverware can still mean you are on your way to greatness. We won 2 titles, which is nice, but there are still tons of things to do. I doubt anyone will celebrate the EL trophy much next year while finishing 6th and if it wasn't for CL entry through the trophy the season would be in a completely different light.
'
If Chelsea wins the FA cup who will get a crack at Sheild next season?
People forget We also have a chance to win the UEFA super cup.
Spurs
Spurs
Griezmann says he wants to win things and looks set to join us. That's what winning does. It's hard to foster a winning culture and grit if they don't fecking win.
Ask any Spurs fan if they would swap with us, they finished second in a one horse race but they are also in pot 3 of the CL next season while winning the EL propelled us from pot 3 to pot 2.
That's huge and a no brainer if only for practicality purposes.
Ask any Spurs fan if they would swap with us, they finished second in a one horse race but they are also in pot 3 of the CL next season while winning the EL propelled us from pot 3 to pot 2.
That's huge and a no brainer if only for practicality purposes.
Ask that to liverpool who had a chance to win it last season and bottled it, with trying to come into top 4 this season still on the last day and secure cl football or Arsenal who arein europa league now yet far away from reaching top 4 again next season.
No. Griezmann wants to join you because a)you are one of the very few clubs that can afford his fee plus wages and, most importantly, are willing to pay them, and b) you're in the CL. I doubt that winning Europa League and League Cup would impress him that much.
Spurs just don't have your money.
Why not wait till that happens instead of your Nostradamus predictions about how people will react? As for me, I will never say that a team which wins any European trophy has had a worse season than a team in any position in the league except the top one.
Griezmann has his choice of clubs, join Utd and even in a difficult moment you will win things.
I can only go by what Antoine himself has said, if you know better then fair enough.
You could give Spurs our summer budget and they wouldn't attract the players we do. Nobody wants to join Napoli, Nice or Sevilla so why are Spurs special?
Yes and no. I think you're underestimating expectations re Spurs.
They were the only team that put Leicester under any pressure last season and went into this campaign with a settled team and a manager who was already established at the club. I think they could have reasonably expected to have a very good chance of finishing ahead of the two Manchester clubs in the league as both Pep and Jose might not get an instant response at their new clubs. So finishing second wasn't that big a surprise.
Plus they would also have expected to kick on from having such a good season and go on to win some sort of domestic trophy (or at least make a final) and/or have an impressive European campaign.
Spurs, Napoli, Nice or Sevilla don't have a fraction of the financial resources United have at their disposal. If Spurs were bought by some billionaire tomorrow who decided to spend a fortune on their squad, I don't see why the likes of Griezmann wouldn't want to go there. They currently are a better side than you and they're in London, which matters to a foreigner.
Last edited:
OK so that's the case for no. The case for yes?
Of course Spurs had aspirations, realistic aspirations, to win the title. But they must have known how difficult that would be. After an anomalous season last year the expectation was the usual suspects - the Manchester clubs, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea - would all be better this season, with their significant investment, new or now-settled managers, without European distractions in some cases. Six into four doesnt go, I think qualifying for the CL again was par for them, and coming second is a great achievement.
But I guess the fact is I am adjusting for my expectations, not theirs, Im not a Spurs fan so I cant say how they rate their own season.
Anyway, I think a few people have made some very fair points about how to judge Spurs' season, and I might adjust them down fractionally, having considered those points, but I stand by my original rankings: Chelsea, us, Spurs, City, Liverpool. No way can I accept City had a better season than Spurs.
Chelsea's season is better regardless of the outcome of the FA Cup Final in my opinion. But no other English team can say they had a better season than us then as far as results are concerned. We've won a European competition which I rank above the domestic cups and we also won one of those cups as well.
Chelsea - Won the league, might win the FA Cup, qualified for CL group stages -> better season than us because winning the league is just better than anything else except maybe the Champions League but that's arguable.
Man United - 6th in the league, won the Europa League, won the shield, won the League Cup, qualified for CL group stages - Despite a long unbeaten run in the league, the endranking is disappointing. But there's no difference in terms of trophies whether you end 2nd or 6th. The only difference is Champions League qualification, which we got anyway as a result of winning a trophy. Winning the League Cup and the Community Shield only adds to that.
Tottenham - League runner up, no trophies, qualified for CL group stages -> Better in the league and played better than us, but they have nothing to show for it except for Champions League qualification which we have as well. Bottom line: worse season than us
Man City - 3rd in the League, no trophies, qualified for CL group stages -> Not convincing in the league and only really have the higher endranking in the league which turns out not to make a difference in terms of trophies or European qualification. Bottom line: worse season than us
Liverpool - 4th in the league, no trophies, qualified for CL qualifiers -> inconsistent league campaign despite not having the added games in Europe, still have to get through qualifiers to get into the Champions League next season. Bottom line: worse season than us
Arsenal - 5th in the league, might win the FA Cup, qualified for Europa League -> No Champions League next season because of a disappointing League campaign and possibly trophyless this season. Even if they do win the FA Cup, it's not a better achievement than winning both the Europa League (which gives CL next season) and the League Cup. Bottom line: worse season than us
Chelsea - Won the league, might win the FA Cup, qualified for CL group stages -> better season than us because winning the league is just better than anything else except maybe the Champions League but that's arguable.
Man United - 6th in the league, won the Europa League, won the shield, won the League Cup, qualified for CL group stages - Despite a long unbeaten run in the league, the endranking is disappointing. But there's no difference in terms of trophies whether you end 2nd or 6th. The only difference is Champions League qualification, which we got anyway as a result of winning a trophy. Winning the League Cup and the Community Shield only adds to that.
Tottenham - League runner up, no trophies, qualified for CL group stages -> Better in the league and played better than us, but they have nothing to show for it except for Champions League qualification which we have as well. Bottom line: worse season than us
Man City - 3rd in the League, no trophies, qualified for CL group stages -> Not convincing in the league and only really have the higher endranking in the league which turns out not to make a difference in terms of trophies or European qualification. Bottom line: worse season than us
Liverpool - 4th in the league, no trophies, qualified for CL qualifiers -> inconsistent league campaign despite not having the added games in Europe, still have to get through qualifiers to get into the Champions League next season. Bottom line: worse season than us
Arsenal - 5th in the league, might win the FA Cup, qualified for Europa League -> No Champions League next season because of a disappointing League campaign and possibly trophyless this season. Even if they do win the FA Cup, it's not a better achievement than winning both the Europa League (which gives CL next season) and the League Cup. Bottom line: worse season than us
Yes for Liverpool and City, no for Spurs.
Yes, we're a bigger club than Spurs. Just because Leicester came first last season and Chelsea 10th, didn't particularly mean that Leicester is a better draw for players than Chelsea. Anyways I suspect you know that and is just here for the wumming.
You'd think, reading this thread, that Arsenal were lauded for having the second best season in the league after winning their recent FA cups and qualifying for the CL.
PSG are struggling to attract the players we do and they're richer than Spurs will ever be and are situated in fecking Paris. We seem to attract players despite not being in London.
This EPL bubble is ridiculous. My point about those side are they are the versions of Spurs in their countries yet nobody goes gaga over their prospects. Most European watchers look on our league as Pep and Jose struggling, not wow! Look how good Spurs are! Their European disasters hasn't done them any favours.
Look at Dortmund under Klopp v a struggling Bayern. Nobody was turning down Bayern for Dortmund now.
Top top players will never turn us down for Spurs. They cant even attract moderate names that they can afford.
What is this obsession about wumming? Can I just have a different opinion? Or is this place turning into RAWK already?
Again, Leicester example isn't relevant. They're not rich and aren't located in London.
Over non league title winners? Who would argue any differently?
If Chelsea win the FA Cup:
1. Chelsea
2. United
3. Spurs
4. City
5. Liverpool
6. Arsenal
If Arsenal win the FA Cup:
1. Chelsea
2. United
3. Arsenal
4. Spurs
5. City
6. Liverpool
1. Chelsea
2. United
3. Spurs
4. City
5. Liverpool
6. Arsenal
If Arsenal win the FA Cup:
1. Chelsea
2. United
3. Arsenal
4. Spurs
5. City
6. Liverpool
You're free to leave the place if you feel like this.
I don't remember it being lauded as such. Prove me wrong otherwise.
PSG have one of the best squads in Europe. Even if they struggle to sign certain players, it's due to the fact that they play in a league vastly inferior to PL, La Liga and even Serie A.
Of course most top players won't turn you down for Spurs. It's because Spurs cannot afford to sign most top players. If they could, it would be a different discussion.
Where did he say anything about CL?
He said he wants to win titles. Nothing was mentioned about CL.
We don't give a chuff about Arsenal though, so no. Just like I imagine most fans of other clubs couldn't care less about United this season.
He didn't post anything wrong here though. We are a bigger club than City and Chelsea too and still there are players outthere who would rather join them. If a billionaire takes over Spurs they might get some top players. They are bigger than City were before the takeover.
Read his whole contribution in the thread. Almost mocking United fans for celebrating this victory.