Please may it happen. Also Micah Richards.
Last edited:
Liverpool
- Thread starter Sally Cinnamon
- 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.
Please may it happen. Also Micah Richards.
Oh come on, I don't think it's implausible to claim you'd rather be Liverpool than Man Utd right now. I do see the balance being redressed somewhat next season in that I think Man Utd will improve and Liverpool will not be AS good as this time, but I don't think redman is saying anything unreasonable.
I don't doubt for one minute that LVG will not improve United should he take over. The challenge awaiting him will be far different to those faced at Ajax, Barca, & Bayern, where he managed in leagues that had very little in the way of competition. Has he ever taken over a side in a similar position to United & turned them into champions ?
No, you are currently playing much better football than United however that does not make you a better team. You have played just about to your very best this season and managed 84 points if you beat Newcastle.
United got 89 points last season playing to their very best however that only tells part of the story, they stopped playing after they won the league however with the pace they were going at prior to being declared champions they were on course for 94 points.
If by 'currently a much better side' you mean't you are playing better then yes, this is obvious. But I don't think you have a better side than Manchester United. If both teams perform to their best next season, expect United to finish above Liverpool.
What do you mean by similar situation? Didn't the poster outline the relatively similar thing he did at Bayern and Barcelona?
He also won the league at AZ when they'd come 11th the season before.
We're a better team because we've finished considerably higher than you in the league. Played the better football. & have had the better manager.
Isn't that how it works ?
Well the side he is taking over were champions two seasons ago by a mile therefore he will probably be in a better situation than he usually is. Normally the team's he takes over need a bit of work such as Klinsman's Bayern and Robson's Barcelona however this is still largely Ferguson's United, not even David Moyes could change that. He is taking over a team of winners that are used to an authoritarian regime.
The league is more fierce but I'm sure you noted where I mentioned he took a Bayern team that lost the Bundesliga to Wolfsburg the season previously and were up against what were to become Klopp's strong Dortmund side, and he took that Bayern team to the domestic double as well as the champions league final in his very first season. I think the champions league is fiercely competitive therefore I don't worry about his ability to manage in a competitive league.
The only question mark is how he works without a director of football. He has always been jealous of Ferguson's power, his natural dictatorships have led to fall outs with directors of football. An act such as benching world player of the year Rivaldo or not playing the newly signed Gomez will not go down well with a director of football understandably and so he has ended up parting ways with such clubs.
At United one would plausibly assume he will be given Alex Ferguson like freedom to establish his authoritarian regime. So the only question mark is whether with freedom to implement a totally authoritarian regime, whether he can surpass what was accomplished at Ajax, Barcelona and Bayern Munich.
He could fail for nothing is absolutely certain. However, I'm very happy with the position United look to be in right now.
His squad will be challenged more. But they look to be strengthening. But Rodgers knows tactics. He is still not at the level of the top coaches. But he will learn. So long as he does not buy into the supporters expectations, he will be alright.
There is a difference between playing better football and actually being a better team.
That is to say, if one team under-performs for a season they are not magically a bad team nor if one team over-achieves, they are not now a great team.
Consistency over a 5 year period would be a much better indicator, look at what the United players have done over the last 5 years to understand how good they are, one poor season more likely represents merely temporary poor form as opposed to a miraculously bad decline in terms of footballing ability over one season.
Therefore United do not need to improve leaps and bounds between now and next season but instead perform to their normal level.
Rodgers, as much as you celebrate him as the new Ferguson, has not won a title. He might seem to be potentially good, but has nothing to show that he's capable of winning titles. I actually think he's shown the first sign of missing a killer instinct. The one that wins titles. Getting close is worth nothing at all. You can celebrate this season as a huge success as much as you like, but coming second is nothing to be proud of, it means you are loser #1.
We might 'need' a new manager and 'need' new players but you 'need' to repeat a season of over-achievement with extra-games and extra-pressure and on top of that you 'need' to win a title. If you don't win anything next season either, I think you may 'need' to relive the past 24 years.
Absolutely right this season. That's why you also agree that we are the all-time better team, because we've finished higher than you, played better football and had the better manager. At last a Liverpool supporter with some sense!
There are big differences though.
When Liverpool first slipped down to 7th, they'd lost a number of really key players - Alonso, Mascherano, that version of Torres who could actually play football. United have managed to avoid losing anyone - Rooney's been nailed down to a good long contract (expensively, yes, but the fact remains we've kept him), our brightest young talent, Januzaj, has been protected, and we've even done some pre-strengthening by buying one of the best players in the league. None of our top players have left us, and it doesn't look like any of them are going to. What's more, United have a really strong bunch of academy prospects banging on the door, whereas at the time the best Liverpool could offer was Dani Pacheco.
Also, when Liverpool slipped their ownership was never going to be able to sanction the big signings necessary to replace those top players they'd lost. Instead they scrambled for bargains and ended up with a lot of overpriced dross - Aquilani, Kyrgiakos, Konchesky, Jovanovic, Poulsen, Meireles etc. United, on the other hand, have never been as financially powerful as we are now, and will be able to spend big to buy the quality required to refurbish those problem positions that are holding us back.
Finally, Liverpool's decline started under a manager who their fans will maintain was their greatest in recent times, and who took them to their biggest (only
) achievement of the modern era, Rafa Benitez. United were quite clearly not in the same sort of 'decline' under Fergie, clinching the league with 16 points to spare. We've had a terrible season under a manager who was very obviously just not up to the job. That makes the most important solution - a new and better manager - very obvious.Where have I said that ? We have a very good young manager in charge at the moment, who's shown a lot of potential in his short time at the club. We just hope he can continue to improve. That's about as much as I said.
& coming 2nd is a great deal to be proud of for a club that's not even come close to getting into the top 4 over the past few seasons. Even better considering how very few of you even contemplated us breaking back into the CL places at the start of the season, let alone go into the final day of the season still in with an outside chance of winning the league.
Your post more than smacks of a touch of bitterness.
Why so serious?
The facts are that United have an ageing squad and no manager. Liverpool have a young squad full of British talent and one of the best players in the world, as well as a great young manager. Doesn't matter how you dress them up, those are facts that it's hard to argue with.
The facts are that United have an ageing squad and no manager. Liverpool have a young squad full of British talent and one of the best players in the world, as well as a great young manager. Doesn't matter how you dress them up, those are facts that it's hard to argue with.
Care to respond to any of my actual points? I was just demonstrating the numerous reasons why the season when Liverpool slipped to 7th and the season United have done it are barely comparable.
Also worth pointing out that our squad isn't particularly old. The average age is... average, and that's counting Ferdinand, Vidic and Giggs, all of whom very probably won't be playing for us next season. It is 'ageing', though. All people age.
Bob Paisley was the greatest manager of all time mate. & his Liverpool side was vastly superior to anything Fergie produced. So don't even go there.
You know it's the wrong forum for your 'Fergie was never as good as Paisley' tantrum yea? Surely, you know this.
The points aren't relevant though. What's the point responding to them?
OK, this is a step too far redman
Sorry, I just assumed you meant what you posted...
Bitterness?
Your club has provided me with one of the funniest slips in PL-history. I'm having a ball!What is comparable is Liverpool struggling to replace Kenny Dalglish when he resigned in 1991. We were champions, & top of the league when he left in February 1991. A lot of the players who'd won the league were still at the club when we finished 6th just 15 months later.
Players are just instruments. You need a good manager to get them to perform to their maximum week in, week out.
Relevant to what? Redman suggested that United are in the same situation Liverpool were in 09-10. You agreed. I've demonstrated why that isn't true. But feel free to continue to evade, if you can't think of a proper counter-argument.
A much better comparison than the one to which I was responding, definitely.
I'm sorry, you confused me. By using Rodgers and Ferguson in the same paragraph I assumed you were trying to compare the situations...my bad
Well no, he was suggesting that Liverpool are in a better situation than United right now. That's really not hard to agree with and that's the context in which your massive post before was irrelevant.
OK, this is a step too far redman
I recall listening to a radio phone-in some years back when Mickey Thomas (ex-United), Gary Owen (ex-City), Graham Sharpe (ex-Everton), & Alan Kennedy (ex-Liverpool) were asked who they thought had produced the better side/s out of Paisley & Fergie. All 4 of them voted for Bob Paisley. Thomas stated that he felt that Liverpool's possession football under Paisley would outdo Ferguson's expansive type of football. & TBF, he did have a good point. United's 2 CL wins in 19 years show that Fergie did tend to struggle against the technically better sides. Bob Paisley on the other hand, changed Liverpool's style of play. He did away with wingers, & played a more compact, yet fluid style of play. He basically took the European's on at their own game & beat them. Ferguson is the games most successful manager of all time, that is beyond question. But put his best 9 years as United's manager up against Paisley's 9 years in charge at Liverpool, & you'll see that our man had very few weaknesses in comparison.
Yes he will learn, no doubt. But being tactically astute is just one part of being a top manager. He has not had to deal with either massive expectations or squad rotation which is not forced. Keeping two egos happy is a challenge in itself. While getting results when resting key players for important mid-week/weekend fixtures is another issue which he has not had to tackle.
I am not saying that he will fail but it's a bigger challenge now.
You cant compare the CL of now to the European cup of the 70s/80s.
Liverpool beat Crusaders, Trabzonspor, St Etainne, Fc Zurich to get to the final in 77.
Do you have in depth knowledge of good or bad those teams were back then? Notts Forest won two European cups and now are in the 1st division, so should we just assume they were always crap? When Man Utd won the European Cup in 1968 they beat some unglamorous teams as well so should we just write that off as well?
I love these anti-historical analyses of "old football".
Liverpool winning these cups with tiny squads aside, didn't all the other European power-houses also have the opportunity to beat these type of teams to win oil' big ears? If it was so easy why didn't Real, Barca, Bayern, Ajax, United, Inter, AC Milan, Juve, Roma, Benfica win four European Cups between 77 and 84? The exact same conditions were there for them as well?
Football should be debated within the context of that era. Comparisons with days of yore are futile - money, professionalism, squad sizes, foreign players, fitness and playing surfaces render comparisons a bit daft.
It's like saying United could only dominate once football became money-centric and the playing field inbalanced. It's a silly position as United could only beat what was in front if them.
Of course not. But the point stands. This current version is harder to win than the old European Cup. Especially since 2000 when 4 teams from the top leagues became a part of it. There is a reason why no side has ever retained the CL. Not even the Barcelona of Messi.
If Paisley and Ferguson swapped era's you'd likely see Paisley finding it tougher than back in the 80s. Steven Gerrard would never have played in the CL if the rules had stayed the same. But brilliant players like that are part of the current day competition, which is one reason its much harder to win. Conversley a prime Bryan Robson never got to play in the old European Cup.
Real Madrid won the first 5 European Cups. Benfica won the following two. Then Milan won one before Inter won it two years running. From 1970-73 Ajax won all three European Cups. After them, Bayern won it consecutively also for three seasons. Liverpool then won it twice consecutively as you will obviously know. It is no coincidence that since the inception of the Champions League no one has won it consecutively.
It is without question that European Cup/CL is much harder to win now. Has been since the format. There is a reason why no team has retained it yet while that was not the case with the old format.
The European cup was easier to win but harder to qualify for (seeing as you had to win the league).
Not sure how your point contradicts mine?
I was mainly making the point that the European Cup was easier to win than the Champions League.