I completely agree with this. Said so much in other threads too.
Tonight proves why Mourinho should never manage at OT.
- Thread starter Livewire1974
- 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 completely agree with this. Said so much in other threads too.
This is starting to piss me off. Football is played on the fecking pitch, not in a computer simulation where you can roll the dice a thousand times and see who is most likely to win.
Chelsea were the better team on the night, against Bayern, against Barcelona, because they put the ball in the net more times. They didn't hit the bar, or have 75 shots saved by Valdes or Neuer, but they hit the goal.
Talking about "forgetting the goals"...Christ
If we can't fecking argue that one team was better than another despite losing, we might as well close down the forum.
Better is subjective, beautiful football is subjective, and all other arguments is subjective
The only objective things no one can argue is the scoreline printed on the paper, it's history
You can argue any length you want on who deserves to win the match, but at the end of the day there's only one winner, one who puts more goal in their opponent's goal.
Now i'm not saying there's not an instance where one team doesn't deserve to lose, but still, they are the loser, and no amount of beautiful football can overturn that.
So yeah, we can say that Chelsea was the winner of last year Champion League, and deservedly so for being lucky, better, tighter, or put whatever subject you'd want, but they deserve that for putting in more goals that Barcelona (yes, i'm talking about the penalty kicks)
I really don't get how people can say luck isn't involved without a referee's mistake. A player can take the same shot in the same circumstances 10 times and it would be slightly different every time. That doesn't mean he's worse or better on the day, he just can't hit it perfectly every time, no one can. So of course, if great players miss chances that they usually score more often than not, luck was involved. How anyone who has ever hit a ball himself can deny that is beyond me. That's the beauty of the game, that's what allows the underdog to compete in football.
Mourinho is a magnificent manager but we cant afford having a manager who keeps hopping from one club or another, expecially when one considers the state he left Chelsea and Inter in after he left.
Klopp or Guardiola are my men.
Klopp or Guardiola are my men.
I think Klopp would be an intriguing choice but I think we are deluded if we expect a future manager to stay much longer than a few seasons because that's how it is.
It really depends on when Sir Alex wishes to retire...although he is always keen to win the Premier League (don't think he much cares about the FA Cup to be honest) he is desperate to nail another Champions League, and that may take another two seasons depending on players coming in this summer and the maturity of the young players.
One thing though: NOT David Moyes please.
The fact is that contrary to a lot of opinion on here is that Jose has not coveted the United job like some have suggested. He has only made overtures to Chelsea. His charm offensive with Real Madrid was about courting the English media and footballing public, rather than specifically United fans. He said to Paddy Crerand that he could not see himself ever managing United.
Right, the winner is the winner and the loser is the loser. No one is arguing otherwise
Mourinho is friendly with SAF. He CANNOT publicly express his desire for the job because he would deem it disrespectful to SAF while he is still encumbent.
I think it naive to think that Mourinho would NOT like the United job. Seriously, do you think any coach would turn it down if offered it. Really?
There's a massive difference between a manager who tries to remain to a club as long as possible (until he's kicked out) and someone who actually hops from one club or another. Mourinho is the manager's version of Ibrahimovic and Vieri.
His exits from Chelsea, Inter and (seems like it) Real were all due to his "disagreements" with the owner/president.
So how can you be so adamant that he wouldn't find United a relative haven and stay a reasonably long time before what he referred to in the past as his final job - Portugal?
The better team always wins the game if it was won fairly yes that is an indisputable fact and if you disagree you are logically incorrect.
However what people are confusing is being the best team in any competition and being the 'best team' of all.
Define the 'best team'.
Is it the team who wins the league that is ranked the highest?
Is it the team with the supposed 'best players'?
Is it the team that wins the head to heads vs the other 'best teams'?
You cant define the best team in an accurate and total manner so you have to define the best team in each competition.
If a team wins a fair competition by fair means with no referee error, or outside influence they are automatically the best team in that competition, whether you disagree is immaterial, there is no accurate argument against it, because that is as true as death following life.
Therefore no matter how much people like to make out, Chelsea were indisputably the best team in the ECL last season, as Man United were in the league. Plus thew ECL features both home and away matches and a 6 game mini league, so its not as though its quite as random as the domestic cups.
A discrepancy may arise in the FA cup whereby true luck does play a part in that random draws for home/away games may favour one team by giving them home games.
When United beat Barca to reach the CL final in 2008, few would have had the same argument that Barca were still a better team than United, than when we beat them last season. Why?
Was it because we did worse in the league? Because we had apparently worse players? Both things are immaterial to the ECL, since the league is a different competition, and better players is subjective, having better players does not make you a better team by default.
The main thing to remember with all of this is that when Barca and Bayern missed all those chances that was not luck because luck refers to a random series of events which favours someone else, every time Barca and Bayern missed a chance it was either due to poor finishing - a minus point for them, or good defending - a plus point for us. none were missed due to arbitrary events such as a beachball, or referee deflection.
You cant say ' oh but on another day Barca/Bayern wouldnt have missed those because its hypothetical, to which I could then claim, on another day John Terry might not have slipped, or Drogba might have scored near the end.
Its illogical.
Please feel free to leave your individual definitions of 'the best team' though because its interesting to see what we come up with as to why this fallacy arises.
A lot of United fans and media journalists have just assumed that he has desperately courted the United job and his behaviour in that Real Madrid game recently was cited as evidence for this.
I don't think it's true, if you look at the facts. I agree he would like it, I don't think he had his heart set on it like some suggested or he would not be making such obvious overtures to us.
At Inter he was ADORED. Moratti loved him like a son and yet he still left.
The man tend not to stick to a place for long + love spending alot of money on a regular basis. Both characteristics which goes against to the United way. To be fair he tried to introduce youths in the Inter team. However it was evident from day 1 that its not his nature to do so.
I'm sure there have been many games where the best team hasn't won - a team can play great, but just be unlucky (or fail miserably!) in front of goal, and the team they're playing can be dire, but have one lucky moment, and win 1-0.
What state did he leave Chelsea in? As one of the best teams in Europe who reached Champions Leaue finals, semis, won FA Cups and League titles after he left?
Inter dropped off to 2nd in the table and then sold a load of their best players... Hardly his fault.
What disagreements at Inter?
Ok agreed in that Inter didn't want him to go...my mistake. But he wanted to go to Real and probably had it in mind regardless of whether Inter won in the CL final against Bayern.
Real is a bigger club than Inter and perhaps it was simple as that. If he came to United, there would be no other "bigger" club for him to coach (Barcelona impossible now).
I'm not saying Mourinho isn't inclined to leave after 3 or 4 seasons. I'm just saying he may change IF he came to United.
For goodness sake, if he coached United for say 4 seasons and won a CL and a couple of Prems, then left, surely that'd be better than having someone hang around forever and a day without continued success?
Some have serious doubts about Mourinho's suitability (Sir Bobby C?) but he is a candidate, and I'd rather have him as a candidate than the likes of Moyes.
Jaysus. If you're not better at putting the ball in the net on the day, all the other categories (possession, chances created, shots on target, shots off target, shots that hit the bar..) mean feck all. Any attempts to allude to those after a loss come from a desire to see the silver lining (which is fair enough) or discredit the opposition (which is just bitter and Scouse like)
The better team on the day puts the ball in the net more.
The better team on the day puts the ball in the net more.
There's luck and there's, well, insane luck. I'd say Chelsea were lucky to win the CL last season – but not insanely so.
What makes their win more or less legitimate in my book is the nature of Barca's performance over two legs in the semi-final. Barca didn't perform flawlessly only to be denied by sheer, insane luck on Chelsea's part. There was a feeling Barca – and Messi, not least – were underwhelming to an extent. That's not to say they were poor, they were still the best team on both nights, but they were nevertheless sub-par by their standards. That combined with defending (including goal keeping) which was better than many give Chelsea credit for and, yes, some sheer luck – was enough.
As for the final, well – most would probably say Bayern were better on the night, but again not immensely so. They were better than us in '99 too – yet few would claim our win was a travesty. It was on the wind, in the cards, call it what you will – we were supposed to win that match. And I would say something similar applies to Chelsea.
We're talking about some very good football players here. Was it coincidence or plain, stupid luck that Drogba grabbed the goal for them in the final – in that manner? I should say it certainly wasn't. No more than OGS scoring the winner for us. Again, there's the kind of luck any team needs in order to win against the odds – and there's the kind of freakish, unprecedented luck which has nothing to do with football (i.e. the beach ball incident, etc.). I would say Chelsea's CL win was within reason, so to speak, in terms of luck.
What many are arguing is that the aim of the game is to put the ball in the back of the net.. So the team that gets the ball in (despite playing poorly) were still the better team. No point having 70% possession if you don't score.
I can see where they are coming from to be honest..
I agree with this.
If Bayern in '99 had properly cleared the ball from the corner, I don't think Sheringham would have scored. To me, it was a culmination of circumstances going our way and a testament to the view a football match is decided on very fine margins.
No, Chelsea were the best team over the two ties, neither night were Barca the better team, to claim so is incorrect. It shouldn't have to be spelled out over and over, if the aim of football match is to win the game, and a team does so fairly they were the best team, no ifs, buts and maybes, it doesn't matter how much possession, passing, penalties and chances they had, they were the inferior team because they lost 3-2 on aggregate.
Tell me how in a game where the object is to score more than the opponent that Barca were the better team in any respect?
Barcelona definitely weren't the better team in either leg. The better team doesn't blow a 2-0 lead whilst playing 11 against 10. The better team doesn't fail to score whilst the other teams does score. Not unless a blatant offside goal is the goal you conceded or a bad penalty decision.
I think that's being too black and white about it. When we played Arsenal in the FA cup final in 05, we dominated them for 120 mins, I don't think they had a shot on target until extra time. Yet they won. They weren't the better team but they won.
You can lose to a team that is not as good to you by being the worst team on the day, I wouldn't argue against that. But you can definitely lose games you don't deserve to lose and that's without even being screwed by a decision. At the end of the day luck definitely plays a part in football. When RVP scored that goal against Villa on the volley there was undoubtedly some luck in that goal, you don't see them often, it's not like he suddenly had the technique to hit that shot in one game, but didn't have that ability over the rest of the games this year. Or Rooney with the bicycle kick against City. Or if you concede an own goal because the ball just came off you. Shit happens, you get little breaks in your favour, sometimes you don't, it's not all there is to winning or loosing but it definitely plays a part.
Inferior rob? ha. great word choice
That's an absurdly narrow definition. One of the reasons people spend large parts of their lives discussing football is that it is indeed possible to win a match without being best in terms of – call it what you will – overall play.
This is common sense. You may suspend common sense and look solely at the score if you want to – but it's an absurd way to judge a match of football, the outcome of which is often decided by extremely narrow margins.
Mourinho will be good at Chelsea, but how long will he stay there before he needs a new challenge again?
What is the longest he has ever stayed at one club in his entire career (even before management?)
What is the longest he has ever stayed at one club in his entire career (even before management?)
But by saying 'best team' you are being narrow, because the best team can only be that.
'best passing team' 'most possession' 'most chances' are all different things but they dont equate to being a better team. Using dominance and posession to judge who is the better team is something teams like Arsenal do to hide the fact that they haven't won a game.
Yeees...but if the only possible definition of “best” is “the team that won the match” the term itself is superfluous. Yet people do in fact discuss which team was “best” on the night – or over two legs, or in the course of a whole season. Why? Because a football match has a certain rhythm, it ebbs and flows in a certain way which may be understood and interpreted by those who watch it. This goes well beyond sheer statistics like possession and number of shots on goal. It's a matter of often very subtle variations. You need to watch the game, and understand these subtleties, in order to pass judgement on which team is actually the best.
Now, there isn't necessarily any consensus regarding these subtleties, which is precisely why such discussions in some cases go on for years.
I'm not saying your definition of “best” is positively faulty. I'm merely saying it's not the only one – and also that it's obviously so narrow that one might as well leave it out altogether: It adds nothing to what is a matter of sheer fact, namely who won the match.
Think this thread is in need of a timely bump, given the circumstances.
I still have my doubts about him. One thing that will never change is his massive ego. It's just a part of his management style.