Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by Irwin99, Jun 10, 2019 at 17:32.
7 finals? Can’t be, really?
Because it's hard to win the CL. You have to avoid key injuries, you have to have a little luck, and you have to maintain good form for most of the tournament. Remember, the best team in Europe doesn't no always win the CL.
We never had a lucky break ?
The two times we won it - first we scored twice in injurytime and then John Terry slipped when he was to take the final penalty. I would say we had our fair of lucky breaks the years we won it.
He didn't mean lucky in that way. He meant it as extreme underdogs.
Oh, I'm talking about thr 2000 game.
Not sure Shearer would have made a difference in 99-05 but certainly in 97 as per below. An even more frustrating semi than the Leverkusen one.
Your numbers are off surely.
In any case, leaving aside this one freak season, it's far easier to get to cup finals if you are out of the picture in the league. See Chelsea win and Liverpool 05, very much like us focusing on the Europa win to make it to the CL because we couldn't even make Top 4.
I think it is 6 finals each right? With us winning 4 and Liverpool winning 3 of theirs.
I liked Silvestre at LB. Problem was he saw himself more as a centerhalf and at times played there during 99/00, when he was quite a rookie and it showed.
But yeah, we really should have gone big for another centerhalf in the summer of 1999. It was a clear weak spot and we didn't do anything serious to rectify it.
Yeah you're right. They made 6 finals. I am not sure why I put 7 finals. Maybe I mixed up the Super Cup or something when I checked wikipedia.
Also for the 6 finals for Man United...I was comparing them with Man Utd under SAF so the EL in 2017 wouldn't have counted.
Basically my point is that United (who have been arguably the bigger club) reached 5 finals under SAF while Liverpool who has had much worse teams reached at least the same number of finals during Man United's height and have double the number of European Cups.
It's an interesting statistic. Why is Liverpool able to do so well in Europe even though they are arguably a smaller club than United?
In a nutshell. Tight fisted spending policies hampered United. Sir Alex knew very well the kinds of players that would help United win the Champions League in the years before we did it in 99 as well as after but the fiscal/transfer policies made them impossible. As only one example, he was interested in Figo when other Premier League managers and clubs didn't remotely have him on their radar.
I didn't want Veron although he was a highly skilled player. I didn't think he would do well in the fast paced Premier League and he didn't. He often took too much time and was out of sync with some players as his technique was superior but suited to Europe. However, I could see that he was bought more with Champions League football in mind.
Liverpool, Real Madrid and AC Milan are the only three teams who are seemingly always capable of reaching European Cup finals even when they utterly suck domestically.
Man United, Barca and Juventus just cannot.
I have no idea why, but there is a clear pattern.
Yes I noticed too. I was asking what Man United fans think the reason is for this (with respect to Liverpool)
Possibly but probably not. We needed other players too. Sir Alex really wanted him at United and did all he could. According to one of his books Shearer was un-cooperative and surly. It wasn't that he rejected United - it was the way he did it.
If that was true, the bloke seems to have a bit of a personality disorder. It's one thing to be focused on the money as his hometown team offered him more and intent on playing for Newcastle but Alan Shearer always comes off to me as lacking in personality and being a bit of a miserable shite.
And for all the Shearer blah blah blah, I think the bloke has no medal in his trophy drawer - he certainly doesn't have a cabinet because there is nothing to put in there. He got what he wished for - a big fat payday back in that time with nothing to show for it.
We reached three champions League finals post 99 and beast Chelsea in one. We were unlucky that the other two were against one of the best teams to ever step on to a football pitch.
When you look at it like that. Post 99 if there was no Barcelona (and I mean that particular Barca) we'd have 5 CL.
You're assuming Utd would have beaten the teams who would replace Barca.
We would had a chance. As I said, our two finals were against a team that would probably beaten any team. Including the teams that have won the competition since.
Sure, there'd be a chance. I was just having issues with him saying Utd would have had 5 CL's. It doesn't work like that.
The team we had and the form we were in yes. I think it's a fairly fair assumption.
Nothings 100% but I figured that was a given.
Wasn't good enough simple as. After 2001 our grip slipped on the league winning it only once in 5 years.
The point I'm making is that we always had to be the best at home and abroad to win the CL. Pool and Chelsea weren't even in the top 4 when they won it. Liverpool have won the 'Champions League' this season having not even been champions of their own league in 3 decades.
You don't think our 08 team was that good?
Agreed. I always think United and Barca, aside from their really great sides, always struggle to reach the end stages in Europe. As you say there is definitely a pattern and I have no idea why either.
I don’t think we were as good after 99 for the next few years, and we needed a bit of luck to win it in 99.
Variance is huge in UCL titles. Great teams usually win one or two, but not always.
It's a cup competition and as such being the "better team" doesn't count for as much as in the League.
Liverpool fans are that much more passionate (at home) and are more effective at pushing their team on.
The real damage to our historical stats was done before SAF started, as since that time we have had more or less the same results.
The last two Liverpool final appearances have come during the period of one of their best ever teams.
The "United Way" is more gung-ho than the historic Liverpool way. Being gung-ho doesn't (and didn't) work as well in Europe as a more defensive/tactical approach or having a more balanced team.
Our recent peak coincided with the move to the CL format and that is harder to win.
Mhh let me see..
1999-2000 - Madrid were stronger. Though looking back, we shouldn't have been 3-0 down at home.
2000-2001 - Bayern were better than us
2001-2002 - An absolute travesty that we lost that tie.
2002-2003 - Everyone goes on about Ronaldo hat trick. Barthez should not have let in 2 of those goals.
2003-2004 - Howard gifts Jose his biggest gift of his career.
2004-2005 - Milan were just better than us.
so looking back, maybe 2 of those years you can the team we faced was clearly better than us. The other times we kept shooting ourselves on the foot. Also interestingly, we were at home in the second leg for 4 of these ties and lost them all.
Scholes' goal disallowed
At times in the CL during SAF's time I found us to be too cautious, we appeared to be worried about what teams could do to us instead of the damage we could do. Also to safe away from home with the "oh we'll get them back at OT and put them to bed" attitude.
If we got the away goal in a 2-1 defeat in the 1st leg that's not a bad result, sometimes we wanted the grab a 0-0 or a 1-0 defeat with the second leg at OT and think its job done. A big CL night with the crowd behind us could still lead to us getting knocked out and at times did. 96-97 SF Dortmund 0–1 (A), 0–1 (H) 97-98
Quarter-final Monaco 0–0 (A), 1–1 (H) 99-2000 Quarter-final Madrid 0–0 (A), 2–3 (H). Its hard to except that we only have 3CL for the size of Club.
I stand corrected. They were simply created from the same part of the pitch, with the same constraint. My apologies.
Agreed, and agreed. Thanks for chiming in with your opinion
Fergie also tried to move away from the 442 which he thought was figured out by our opposition and it took a while for that to bed in. That and replacing PS which we bascially didnt do until VDS.
We should have won it in 2004.
That and 97 are our two big missed years in the Champions League.
Mainly the major shitstorm of not adequately replacing Schmeichel.
I remember when we got walloped on the counter against PSV away,Kezman and Van Bommel were great on the night, and SAF all but said we needed to change our style up abit.
Even then he was seeing the strengths of a good counter attacking set up.
Let's do some math. Next year the clear favorites for the PL will be Man City and Liverpool. You could easily say Man City have about a 45% chance of winning, Liverpool about 40%, and Arsenal, Man Utd, Tottenham and Chelsea each about 3% chance. Those are pretty good odds for Man City and Liverpool.
In the CL, Man City and Liverpool are probably 95% sure of getting through the group stage. After that, though, it gets tough because there are usually 6 or 7 clubs who could beat you on a given day. The favorite might have at best a 20% chance of winning once the knockout stage starts. That's 1 out of 5 versus almost 1 out of 2 for the PL.
Man City have arguably been the best team in Europe the last two years and have not even made it to a CL final. The odds are against you no matter how good you are in the CL.
Tactically we were inferior in Europe. We had the right players to win it but it seemed the likes of Bayern, Madrid and Barca were always one step ahead of us tactically. More often than not, these clubs could beat us in the CL without getting out of 3rd gear.
It often came down to a bit of luck when we beat these clubs.
But you look at Klopp, and his regular hammerings of Europe's elite with an inferior squad, and you see some managers have methods in the CL that are 5 years ahead of everyone else.
Yeah we had a nit of a shit defence in the early 00's. in the 2001 / 2002 season when we lost 5 matches by December against Newcastle Bolton, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea and people were quick to point out the initials were an anagram of Blanc.
Didn’t try building on our 99 success until 2001, by which time we were considerably weaker unfortunately. Even then I think if we’d signed VDS to replace Schmeichel, kept Stam, and signed someone like Redondo instead of Veron then we’d have won it once more at least.
Very frustrating that we didn’t strengthen properly after our 99 and 08 wins.
Separate names with a comma.