Did we deserve to win the 99 title, not being beaten throughout for example? Even if we came second in our group and went through as two of the best placed finishers from the 6 groups?
RAWK goes into Meltdown 2010/2011
- Thread starter samabachan
- 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.
- Status
Did we deserve to win the 99 title, not being beaten throughout for example? Even if we came second in our group and went through as two of the best placed finishers from the 6 groups?
I dunno. I don't really remember much about the comp except the final and the Utd/Juve game.
I had no problems congratulating Utd fans on their victory though. And nor will I have if you win it again this year.
Fair enough, Nick. I don't understand the off-topic nazis, mind. Who cares if the convo goes off topic? There isn't a finite amount of pages and every thread does to some extent.
But, on that note and to get things back on topic, what about that guy off RAWK?at that guy.
touché, but last time things escalated the thread had to be locked and posts deleted.
yea,
rawkDidn't seem to affect United too much. I seem to remember you comfortably beating Barcelona in the 1991 Cup Winners Cup final - Not a bad achievement considering Barca had a '10 year' start.
Every time the thread gets back on track and we're all pissing ourselves laughing, the resident scousers come along and create a diversion to take it off track.
They hate us laughing at them.
So let's get back to doing just that.
They hate us laughing at them.
So let's get back to doing just that.
Fair enough, Nick. I don't understand the off-topic nazis, mind. Who cares if the convo goes off topic? There isn't a finite amount of pages and every thread does to some extent.
But, on that note and to get things back on topic, what about that guy off RAWK?
If you think this shit is off topic you shoulda seen the Blue Moon thread circa. the Japanese earthquakes
When you take into account that for nearly 2 decades Ferguson has pretty much ruled the roost here in England. I'd have expected more from my club/manager when it comes to winning European football's top prize.
3 final in 4 years is impressive. But why has Fergie only managed to achieve such a feat now ?. Is this side better than the post-treble winning side ?. Or could it be that your gaffer has finally matured, tactically, when it comes to playing against Europe's finest (Schalke excluded of course).
I know what I think. How about you ?
What is hard to see about the Gerrard CL final dive?
You do know that we only had the chance to play in Europe under him for the first time in 1990-91 don't you? And guess what? SAF won the CWC beating Barca's dream team which went on to win CL the following year in the final. He then won the CL at only his 4th attempt at winning it. And now he has gotten us to 3 finals in 4 years after a 4 year period of transition during the mid 00's, how is any of that an underachievement?
Fergie has pioneered the way back into European contention for English club's after our ban for one club's misbehaviour. If you want to point the finger for underachievement in Europe, look no further than Arsenal and Chelsea, club's that have had a similar number of appearances in European competition as United but have had nowhere near the same level of success.
He's already got the best record though, so to expect him to be better than the best (himself) is kind of retarded.
Cup competitions are volatile. In 2004 we got knocked out by Porto who survived a blatantly onside goal we scored. Our path to the final would have been quite straight-forward. Those are the breaks.
We also always focus on league success as well as European success, unlike two-bit flash in the pan managers like Benitez who come in, throw all their eggs in one basket, forsaking all else. Domestic competitiveness is a hindrance if you want to succeed in Europe, but we wouldn't have it any other way.
I have my own views and opinions. RAWK aren't the official spokesperson of the entire fanbase and you'll find that most sensible fans don't go there for the very reason why you're laughing at them.
We'll he's been in 4 finals and got to the semis 3 times in a 12 year period which is pretty impressive to be fair. Of late he seems to have got it right in using the squad efficently enough to have players rested for Europe and to fight for the league. But this is hardly the thread for such a discussion.
i've hammered fergie over the last 15 years over coming up short in europe.
However, IMO true european champions are those that win europe but also win their domestic league. How can you say you are really european champion but not even the best in your country?
On that basis, fergie rules the roost (in the CL era). He has two doubles. Yes, JM has 2 doubles but one was in a slightly weaker league in portugal.
Kovacs is the only other gaffer that has 2 european/league doubles (ajax 72 and 73).
Europe was historically valued much higher than the league IMO on the continent. Yer Milans and Madrids give up on the league in the business end of europe and it shows in the statistics of their european trophy haul.
It is immensely difficult to wage war on both fronts and fergie has consistently given us top domestic finishes to go with what we've done in europe.
even the scousers with their '5' , have done the european double the same number of times as us.
However, IMO true european champions are those that win europe but also win their domestic league. How can you say you are really european champion but not even the best in your country?
On that basis, fergie rules the roost (in the CL era). He has two doubles. Yes, JM has 2 doubles but one was in a slightly weaker league in portugal.
Kovacs is the only other gaffer that has 2 european/league doubles (ajax 72 and 73).
Europe was historically valued much higher than the league IMO on the continent. Yer Milans and Madrids give up on the league in the business end of europe and it shows in the statistics of their european trophy haul.
It is immensely difficult to wage war on both fronts and fergie has consistently given us top domestic finishes to go with what we've done in europe.
even the scousers with their '5' , have done the european double the same number of times as us.
Also don't forget the stupid 'foreigners' rule in the 90s that often decimated our team in Europe. It was hard to swallow that players like Hughes, Giggs and Irwin were regarded as foreigners.
irwin would still be a foreinger if there was a UK team. But I get your point, esp about the welsh, scottish, and NI lads.
Ferguson himself will admit Utd have under-achieved in Europe under his stewardship. It is something he only recently has started to rectify.
Stupid argument for me.
Another equally mental view is one that says, "surely proper 'champions' of the Champion's League actually qualify as champions of their own country?"
Both ridiculous in my view. Whoever wins the CL can clearly claim themselves to be champions of Europe no matter how fans from other clubs may attempt to diminish their achievements with petty tribal bollocks.
Makes no sense. Using your logic, in snooker or any sport which has a ranking system how can you be World Champion if you're not ranked World No. 1?
Of course whoever wins the CL are the Champions of Europe, that's what the winners are. But, I've always said I think it's ridiculous that teams who finish 3rd/4th in their league are allowed to compete in the Champions League, why call it the Champions League then?
I have to say that I felt great pride in the fact that the last time we won the CL, we did it as Champions of England, not from finishing 3rd/4th/5th.
They can, but they can't claim to be the best team in Europe, which many a scouser did, even though you came 5th in your own domestic league. It's a cup competition, shit happens. Stoke could end up winning the FA Cup!
Qualification is the reflection of prior season's performance.
However trophies are a measure of current season's performance. Teams can change dramatically between the prior year and current year.
I still don't understand how one can be 'the best in europe' when they aren't the best in their own country. that is like saying you are the fastest 100m man in the UK but not in your county. Domestic leagues are a subset of european geography.
In 98 we qualified for the competition and were not Champions of England. Are you dismissing that 99 European Cup?
I don't think the qualification rule is bad.
Qualification is a reflection of prior year performance.
A broad measure of testing yourself against the top teams comes from drawing from teams that rank 3rd and fourth from the prior year.
However, current year domestic success is very relevant.
I don't have a problem of a team qualifying into the CL by getting 2nd or 3rd or whatever. But teams finishing 4th and 5th and winning the CL, then proclaiming to be best in europe is a bit wrong.
in tennis you aren't 'world champ'/world #1 unless you end up world number 1 at the end of the year in ATP rankings.
People can claim whatever they like. It doesn't necessarily reflect reality
Liverpool were Champions of Europe in 2005. Were we the best team? I don't give a shit either way but we clearly weren't, finishing 30-odd points behind Chelsea.
The measure of the 99 team should come from their achievements, not what 98 did.
the 99 team were champions of england and europe.
Now, our 68 side, city could say they were better as they ended up winning the league that year.
I never mentioned anything about 1999, I said about the last CL we won which was 2008. That's why I mentioned that one and about winning the competition as champions of our own country.
I'm well aware of the fact we won the CL in 1999 after qualifiying for it as runners-up in 1998. But then, we went into the final against Bayern as the newly crowned Champions of England. It was Champions v Champions in the final that year, I prefer that when it happens.
It's a greater achievement to win both your domestic league and the CL in one season then just one of them.
This is quite correct, and is perfectly illustrated by our 99 treble, something that no other English team has done before, and what is it, only been done 7 times throughout all of Europe? We won every single cup in the treble by the skin of our teeth, what was it? 1 point in the league, that penalty save and the Giggs wonder goal in the semi-final replay, and then what happened in the Camp Nou. As with this season (one has already gone), the line between winning the lot and winning nothing is very thin indeed.
That's not the point she made. In her opinion we should not have been competing in the 98/99 European Cup. Your treble goes out of the window if that was the case.
He used to talk alot about it before Moscow, but that put the record right, and his personal European record is now beyond reproach.
The talk now is of the club, and getting Manchester United more trophies.
You do realize that when we won it in 1999 we qualified without being champions right?
English sides were still playing 4-4-2 in Europe in the '90's and you think my arguement is made up?
Pre Heysel English 4-4-2 in Europe ruled, post Heysel English 4-4-2 in Europe got humped, what was the result of Heysel? A ban on English clubs in Europe.
Ten years might be a bit OTT but Heysel set English clubs in European football back years. Redknapp still plays 4-4-2 in Europe and still achieves the glorious victories and utter thrashings that United went through in the 90's. English football lost out big time.
But Fergie has put it back where it belongs. He just needs to win these finals he keeps getting to.
Out of interest, what's the view point on the 08 success of United?
Personally I deemed them the best side in the competition, but second best in Moscow and a tad fortunate to get to penalties, albeit the game was closely fought. United weren't massively outplayed or anything.
Luck is part and parcel of any final - Birmingham got it this year, Liverpool got it in '05 in the sense that Milan crumbled - it just happens. You can't really use it against a side.
Personally I deemed them the best side in the competition, but second best in Moscow and a tad fortunate to get to penalties, albeit the game was closely fought. United weren't massively outplayed or anything.
Luck is part and parcel of any final - Birmingham got it this year, Liverpool got it in '05 in the sense that Milan crumbled - it just happens. You can't really use it against a side.
I think we should have finished the game in the first half; we completely outplayed them. Chelsea responded strongly in the second half and I think extra time might just have been shaded by Chelsea.
We outplayed them until their first goal and should have probably been 2-0 up if it hadn't been for Cech's heroics, though they were the better side in the second half. It was a close game, draw was a fair result.
Both correct, and it might be added Chelsea's goal came right out of the blue and was freakishly lucky, an Essien shot taking TWO deflections before landing at Lampard's feet.
We were the best side in Europe, on the night both sides played to a really high level and it could very easily have gone the other way. I'd say Chelsea shaded it in Moscow but nobody could argue we didn't deserve it over the season.
- Status