I don't understand this criticism. Liverpool's defence has been criticised all season and we have limited depth so for the most important game of the season we're to rely on it to get us through and not the attacking 3 that have delivered all season? I would take my chances on the one delivering and that is exactly what Rogers did. A chance. You're certain of nothing and that's unfortunately what we got.
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.
I don't understand this criticism. Liverpool's defence has been criticised all season and we have limited depth so for the most important game of the season we're to rely on it to get us through and not the attacking 3 that have delivered all season? I would take my chances on the one delivering and that is exactly what Rogers did. A chance. You're certain of nothing and that's unfortunately what we got.
I don't think that's right. If you looked at united in the Champions League in the early 90s and you see the type of player Ferguson started bringing in. The Dolly/Daisy partnership that was good enough to win the Premiere League was upgraded to passing and pacey centre halves to compete in Europe. He tinkered formations and created about 4 sides that could play excellent attacking football but also could defend well. He evolved many sides to be one of the best in the world. To say otherwise is blinkered imo
Not to mention that it was the very same Barcelona side he mentions that stopped us winning 3 Champions League titles in 4 years. Yet they had European dominance due to their evolution and United didn't.
The fact is that our greatest period of European dominance coincided with the presence of arguably the best team of all time. It's like the fact that Ronaldo would have won 5 Ballon d'Or titles in 6 years if not for Messi. It doesn't make him a worse player, it just means his timing was incredibly unfortunate.
If that Barcelona team is around late 70's or early 80's, Liverpool have 2-3 European Cups, not 5.
Yeah you can be lucky or unlucky in the era you develop in but that's not to take away from any of the achievements. I don't see a point in arguing whether the EC is more difficult that the Champions League because it's impossible for me to tell. I think winning either is a great achievement for any club.
Liverpool didn't have to play every team to win it when they won it. In fact they played far fewer than you do in the CL. Liverpool played 9 games in three EC wins, and 7 games in one. They also played shite teams in about half of those games. The same can't be said for the CL games because the shite teams get knocked out in the qualifiers.
No one has managed to transfer their domestic dominance to the European stage in the CL era. No one has retained it, and only a handful of teams have reached consecutive finals. Do I need to remind you that United reached 3 finals in 4 years, winning one of them? That's something that's not been done since the early years when it was still a competition just for champions. If your measure for dominance is winning both the European and Domestic titles in consecutive years, you're going to find that no one's managed to do that since Milan in 89 & 90.
Again, in 22 years of existence, no one has retained the CL. The closest teams have come were Milan and Juventus in the early-mid nineties, and Manchester United in the late 00s. 3 teams have played in the final the year after winning it, the most recent of which, and the only in the current format, is United. Madrid won 5 ECs in a row, Benfica 2, Inter 2, Ajax 3, Bayern 3, Liverpool 2, Forest 2, and Milan 2. That's 8 teams winning it in consecutive years, on 3 occasions more than once. Additionally, Real Madrid played 8 finals in 11 years, winning 6, Benfica played 5 in 8, winning 2, Ajax played 4 in 5, winning 3, and Liverpool played 5 in 9, winning 4.
Essentially, you're slating the knockout record of a team with the best run of "dominance" in contemporary CL football.
Dangerous game for a scouser to be starting the whole "where they finished in the league" thing, given that your last European success came after finishing 5th. Did Juventus, the Italian champions for that year, or Milan, the runners up, think that Liverpool were a poor team because they were only the 5th best side in England? Did Bayern Munich, the German runners up, or Barcelona, the Spanish runners up, think Chelsea were a poor team because they were only the 6th best team in England? Or did they, perhaps, consider that both were good sides at the time and were hard to beat?
Did Liverpool consider it an achievement to scrape their way through a group stage containing the 3rd best team in France and the 8th best team in Spain? Did Liverpool consider it an achievement when they beat the 6th best team in Northern Ireland, the 5th best team in France, and the 3rd best team in Switzerland (who they played in the semi-final) on their way to winning their first EC? Did they consider it an achievement to not even have to play the first of their second win, and then breeze past 2 teams to make the semi-final? Did they consider it an achievement when they battered a shockingly bad Finnish team 11-2 in the first round of their 3rd, only to breeze past 2 teams to make the semi-final again?
Also, the Schalke team that we played in the semi-final in 10-11? The one that won the German cup that year? The one that battered Inter Milan, treble winners the year before, and cup winners and Serie A runners up that season? The same Schalke that beat Valencia, 3rd best in Spain to only a dominant Real Madrid and Barcelona? The same Schalke that topped their group winning 4 of 6 games, and only losing once? A group that contained the Portuguese champions and French runners up from the previous season? Teams that finished 2nd and 3rd that year? And if we're praising champions so much, the Israeli champions were there too.
Tell me, in 09-10, how did Liverpool feel about finishing 3rd in a group that was won by the 11th best team in Italy, Fiorentina? How did they feel when they got knocked out of the Europa League, that same season, by the 9th best team in Spain, Atletico Madrid? Did they look at Fiorentina go out only on goal difference against that year's finalists and Bundesliga winners, Bayern Munich, and think that Fiorentina were a poor team? Did they look at the eventual winners of the Europa League, Atletico Madrid, and think that they got knocked out by a side much worse than themselves?
You're full of shit, redman. Liverpool dominating Europe as they did back then was a marvelous achievement, but it's incredibly clear that the CL, especially in its current format, is far harder to win that the EC was. Liverpool could only beat what was put in front of them, and they did so more often than not over that period. However, I certainly won't be claiming that a cup win that involved playing 4 of 9 games against the champions of Malta and Poland as more impressive than a cup win that involved playing the Spanish champions twice, the German runners up three times, the Italian champions twice, and the Italian runners up twice, or one that involved playing the Portuguese runners up twice, the Ukrainian champions twice, the Italian runners up four times, the French champions twice, the Spanish runners up twice, and the English runners up once.
This thread has become pedants' corner - the on-going European Cup debate has led some people here to write dissertation length post after post. Seriously?
Redman makes his points well and you make yours well but you disagree. I dont think either of you is full of shit but I do think it's impossible to prove either of you right or wrong. Like saying Messi is better than Maradona. Why not just enjoy both?
Comparing players from different eras isn't the same as comparing competitions. You literally cannot compare the players other than on what they won, and then people will just say differences are because of the players around them, or the management, etc.
You can look at the EC, see that a big proportion of games were played against incredibly poor sides, and that not many games were played in the first place. You can look at the CL, see that barely any games are played against weak opposition, if any at all, and that more games are played. You can look at the EC, and see that eight teams managed to retain it. You can look at the CL, and see that no one has managed to retain it, and that only three teams in its entire history have managed to reach the final as holders.
Like I said, Liverpool's dominance was a marvelous achievement, but it was in a competition that was easier to win. A team doing the same now would be far more impressive, because the competition is harder to win.
I agree with a lot of your points but arent the group stages of the champions league just fluff most of the time and in fact they take away the potential of an upset which was much more likely in the EC. There are many points that can be argued for and against both competitions. I for one miss the fact that the smaller countries get no representation at the group stages of the champions league and only get a preliminary round. To be honest my best answer is I don't know how to measure this and while your points are good so are redmans so I think you should call it a draw.
Is it not four? I have United (2008 winners, 2009 final), Juve ('96, '97), Ajax ('95, '96) and Milan ('94, '95). Not trying to derail the argument, sorry, just checking my trivia.
(Three of those in a row, btw. What's that about?)
When United won it in 99, their group contained Bayern Munich, Barcelona, and Danish champions, Brondby. When they won it in 08, they got out of a group with Sporting Lisbon, Roma, and Dynamo Kiev. All of those teams are far harder to beat than playing teams from Northern Ireland and Malta. If the EC format was still in place, you'd be reaching the last 16 after beating one or two teams from the likes of the Faroe Islands, Wales, Luxembourg, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, and then going on to play a team from somewhere like Sweden, Israel, Romania, or Belarus to reach the quarter finals.
The EC was easier to win than the CL is. Harder to qualify for, granted, but easier to win.
You are right. Must have missed that when I skimmed through. Still, the point stands that United are the only team to do it since the competition stopped being exclusively for champions, and half as many teams have managed to reach the CL final as holders, as teams that successfully retained the EC, some of which retained it 3 to 5 times on the bounce.
Yep, it's certainly a pretty convincing statistic.
All good managers make tactical & formation changes, but you're mistaking that for a total change in footballing philosophy, & style of play. Ferguson's sides have always had wing-play as a key element of their success. He might have made certain changes for certain matches, but the foundation & format of all United achieved was pretty much the same right throughout his 26 year tenure. Like United, Liverpool's success in the 60's centred around wingers. This carried on into the 70's with Steve Heighway. But towards the end of the decade, this changed as Paisley's team become more compact, & fluid, as a unit, with players often interchanging with each other. Our right back could turn up playing wide out on the left, whilst someone like Alan Hansen would be playing a one-two on the edge of the opposition penalty area. However, their positions would be covered by other team-mates. They had to the flexibility to do this within a framework of team responsibility. This wasn't something we'd do when chasing the game, it became an intrinsic part of our play, & it made us into the formidable team we were under Bob Paisley. It was also a major contributory factor to our success in Europe, as the foreign sides generally deployed a man to man marking system. Which of course was very difficult when the striker you were marking spent a fair bit of time on the half-way line covering for the centre-half who had gone on a foraging run.
I don't think I've ever said Paisley's Liverpool were as good as the recent Barcelona side. But football is evolutionary, & they, like Liverpool, evolved into a side that was feared throughout Europe. Something that Ferguson's United never did. & I'm really sorry to break that to you to. I've been on here giving reasons as to why Liverpool were a dominant European side under Paisley. Whilst a lot of people on here have been giving me excuses as to why United weren't under Ferguson.
Well that's bollocks as well. This is the first year in quite a while that United have played traditional wing-play, and Moyes got a lot of stick for doing so. Fergie abandoned it sometime in the early-mid 00s when we started to play more games with a 4-3-3/4-5-1, or 4-2-4/4-4-2, depending on the opposition. It was far more common to see the wide players cutting inside, the strikers moving out wide, and playing with a midfield three. It still happened, such is football, but running to the byline and putting in a cross, or having the full-back looking for the overlap were no longer key parts of our attack. This was particularly noticeable during Ronaldo's best years when we'd regularly play with a midfield 3, and Ronaldo up top alongside any 2 of Rooney, Berbatov, Tevez, Nani, and occasionally Park or Giggs. United's philosophy has been quick, ruthless, counter-attacking football, not wing-play. Wing-play just happened to be one of the tactics used when we happened to have a series of exceptional wingers.
Interesting stuff regarding Paisley and how you played under him. He was obviously a brilliant manager.
As for the rest... we're just going to keep going round and round in circles. Liverpool were feared throughout Europe and they rightly go down in history as one of the great sides. But it just brings us back to what has been said repeatedly in regards to the level of competition. And being around the same time as the best club side in history.
I think finneh said earlier "It's like the fact that Ronaldo would have won 5 Ballon d'Or titles in 6 years if not for Messi. It doesn't make him a worse player..." which really shows how vital timing is. Just because Ferguson didn't win 4 CL titles, (3 of them in 4 years) doesn't make him a poorer manager. You say we weren't feared throughtout Europe like Barca or you but the fact is these days only Barcelona have done so since it became the CL. That is once in 20 odd years. Back when Paisley was around Ajax had won 3, Bayern had won 3 then Liverpool had their turn. Sides dominated and were feared throughout Europe far more frequently back then.
So, we agree Paisley and Ferguson are both all-time greats, you'd take Bob everytime while I'd take Sir Alex everytime. Fair enough.
An important and impressive stat. Goes to highlight Ferguson's unmatched consistency in Europe.
Aye, that's true. For Fergie that is clearly true. To me, at least, the "hit 'em on the counter with more than they can handle" approach was his true game, more than anything else. He was happy to let 'em come at us, even, since he usually had a defence capable of fending off whatever came - and then kill them on the counter.
@redman5 One final thing, when Paisley did have the closest thing he ever had to an experience of what the current CL is like (i.e. more than 1 top team in it from the top league) he got knocked out in the first round. Notts Forest 1978-79.
Just sayin'
Just sayin'
It seems a fairly 50-50 argument really.
clearly it used to be harder to get into the cup, but easier to win, whereas these days it's easier to get into (except for Moysie), and harder to win.
How can it not be, when you have 2-4 top teams from each country, rather than 2-4 top teams in total.
I forget which year, but Liverpool won it once, with about 5 games, and playing some Irish mob in the first round!
Thought you were moving on, seeing as we are going round in circles and all that.
Hope I've not gotten under your skin too
Please don't nominate me in the worst poster thread like Alex99 has done. I'm a sensitive soul you know.
Looks like the Can deal is getting close to being done.
Lots of rumours going around that Alberto is off to Malaga for €8m and Assaidi is off to Stoke for £4m.
Lots of rumours going around that Alberto is off to Malaga for €8m and Assaidi is off to Stoke for £4m.
What was the point in Alberto? Why not just loan him out?
I rate Alberto. Think he'll make a name for himself in Spain.
Where does Can play? Alberto looked ok but a bit slow for me. I dont think Assaidi would have made it at Liverpool.
Yeah I agree. The Irish mob would've been tough nuts!!
He's a midfielder primarily, but he has played at left back too apparently.
Bit like Aureilio then? Not a bad option so.
Nope. He's a central midfielder, but he's quite versatile.
Good we could do with a few players like that. Add Caulker to the squad and bring back the spanish centre half on loan and take in Coleman and I'll be dancing next September.
It's still a toughie for me, Liverpool could have played football in front of Chelsea, they didn't have to concede possession, the likes of Coutinho,Leiva, Allen, Gerrard you would think more than capable of sitting in front and looking for a way through without leaving vast spaces at the back. Thinking back to how they beat United 3-0 at OT, we sat deeper to allow for Ferdinands lack of pace so Rogers cleverly got his back line to sit a bit deeper giving the central midfield more space to play in, Moyes failed to do anything about this and they took us apart at will with our hapless central midfielders dragged around everywhere. He got it wrong on the day which then caused what can only be described as a huge brainfart against Palace.
BarneyITK.
I don't think Assaidi has got the game intelligence to play in a set system. He strikes me as someone who doesn't even know what he's going to do himself, so his team-mates are really going to struggle to predict his movement.
I'm always a bit sceptical about these so-called versatile players. I'd rather we signed someone who's a specialist in one particular position. 'Versatile' suggests otherwise.
Nope, Barney's rumour round up would be more apt!
His main position is central midfield. That's where he's best at. He just cimes with the added bonus that he can play left back too.
To be fair if you saw his game against us in Leverkusen, you'd have to say there's no way he should ever play as a left back 
Sorry if this is the wrong thread or has been posted elsewhere:
Looks as if there's a friendly LFC - BVB on August 10!!!
Looks as if there's a friendly LFC - BVB on August 10!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...r-Bayer-Leverkusens-German-star-Emre-Can.html
They'll play against eachother in the CL group stage now tooSorry if this is the wrong thread or has been posted elsewhere:
Looks as if there's a friendly LFC - BVB on August 10!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...r-Bayer-Leverkusens-German-star-Emre-Can.html
I must have missed the draw.
A clash in the knock out stages would be more fun though.Sorry if this is the wrong thread or has been posted elsewhere:
Looks as if there's a friendly LFC - BVB on August 10!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...r-Bayer-Leverkusens-German-star-Emre-Can.html
Aye, saw that yesterday.
We seem to be playing a lot of high profile friendly games.