Definitely. Probably the best attacking partnership we've ever had and their movement would give the 08 defence some serious problems.
You're 33 and think that you're older than the Earth? You should avoid arguing about age on an internet board, you won and gain nothing doing it. Your question has nothing to do with my point. I was giving my opinion about the thread, I'm older enough to have watched the two teams, I find the 2008 side much stronger than the 1999 side, if you don't think so that's you problem and you should have disagreed and gave your proper opinion.I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive mate, I'm 33 for example and I have no trouble admitting thatRegarding your other point, my 20 year old sister is old enough to have watched the 99 final live but that doesn't mean she has a solid grasp of how good that team was over the space of the entire season.
Congratulations for your 20 year old sister, she's a grown women now, I don't know why you thought it was a good idea to bring a member of your family in conversation with a stranger on an internet board.
It's a stupid way of thinking.
Keane, for my money, is the greatest force on the pitch for either side, but it doesn't count for much if there's no midfield battle to be fought. He's chasing shadows; having to cover for a non-adept cm partner in a 2man midfield, whilst also having Rooney dropping immediately into any vacated space. Keane can't stop all of that by himself.
Scholes and Carrick '08 have no need to go to war: they will pass and move and pass and move - the same way Barcelona ran rings around us in midfield with no brawn is the same way we'd do to the 99 central midfield. You can't battle and tussle with what's not there to tussle with.
The '99 team would have to be set up totally differently to even the game out tactically, which immediately takes away from their strengths and what they were.
Scholes and Carrick '08 have no need to go to war: they will pass and move and pass and move - the same way Barcelona ran rings around us in midfield with no brawn is the same way we'd do to the 99 central midfield. You can't battle and tussle with what's not there to tussle with.
The '99 team would have to be set up totally differently to even the game out tactically, which immediately takes away from their strengths and what they were.
Who are you to tell me something is a stupid way of thinking?
I carefully chose my words to put across an opinion, that’s all. Not saying it’s right. It was a generalisation.
Last edited:
That is true, however since the rebranding to the CL no team has ever retained it never mind won 4 in 5 years. What Madrid have done is unprecedented in almost 30 years. That has to count for something.
On a side not I hate Real Madrid more than any club except Liverpool, so I am saying the above from an unbiased point of view.
Jesus Christ, get a grip
– I asked a simple question based on your ridiculous assertion that our 08 team would batter 99 "4-0 every day of the year" or whatever and instead of answering it you keep going off on these weird, hyper-sensitive tirades. As @Cee90 pointed out, I was simply interested in how age skews people's perceptions of football and specifically singled your post out because it was (and still is) clearly the most extreme proclamation in the thread. Now we're still going at it because you keep skirting around the question instead of answering it, which is conspicuous as feck.Don't get me wrong, you could quite easily have said "I'm not comfortable discussing my age on a public platform" and that would have been the end of it for me but no, you decided to make a bunch of ambiguous statements about "data" showing that you were technically old enough to have "watched the 99 final live" which is akin to sticking "old enough to have watched the Berlin Wall fall live" as your age on a dating app and then getting angry when potential suitors ask you your actual age. And then to top things off, you decided to attack @Cee90 for having the audacity to try and diffuse the situation by breaking down my thought process to you.
But feck it, for the sake of everyone here's sanity I'm willing to overlook this age-complex of yours and move closer to the topic at hand. So what you're telling us, as a guy who is "older enough to have watched the two teams", you genuinely believe that over the course of let's say 100 games, the David Beckham of 1999 couldn't knock a single set-piece past Edwin van der Sar? Or the marauding Paul Scholes of the early 00's couldn't bury a single screamer over the course of 9000+ minutes? Or the Ryan Giggs of 99, in the season he tore one of the greatest defences in Premier League history to shreds in the dying minutes of an FA Cup semi-final replay couldn't get the measure of Wesley Brown just once? You're telling us in your heart of hearts (and this isn't really an exaggeration given how adamant you've been about this so far in the thread), despite apparently knowing both teams inside out, you really feel that Roy Keane of 99, the hero of Turin would allow his team to get dicked 4-0, over and over again? Sure thing mate, you're clearly the expert here.
Last edited:
It's a tough one.
The 2008 team had Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo who were irresistible, Vidic Rio and VDS were immense too. The 1999 team had Cole and Yorke with their telepathic link-up play. Keane, Scholes, Giggs and Beckham at the peak of their powers and the Great Dane with Stam partnering Johnsen/Berg is underrated as a defensive unit.
The 1999 team never knew when they were beaten, they fought until the last second of every match which means their opponents could never switch off. It's too tight to convincingly call for me. They'd both be capable of beating each other by the odd goal 5/6 times out of 10.
Two great sides that I feel very privileged to have watched.
The 2008 team had Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo who were irresistible, Vidic Rio and VDS were immense too. The 1999 team had Cole and Yorke with their telepathic link-up play. Keane, Scholes, Giggs and Beckham at the peak of their powers and the Great Dane with Stam partnering Johnsen/Berg is underrated as a defensive unit.
The 1999 team never knew when they were beaten, they fought until the last second of every match which means their opponents could never switch off. It's too tight to convincingly call for me. They'd both be capable of beating each other by the odd goal 5/6 times out of 10.
Two great sides that I feel very privileged to have watched.
I've always had a very soft spot for the early Fergie team of 1993-94.
Schmeichel
Parker Bruce Pallister Irwin
Kanchelskis Keane Ince Giggs
Cantona Hughes
I think as a team, that was probably one Fergies very best, the only arguable weak link is Parker and even then Parker was a very solid and reliable right full.
Bruce and Pallister was his first great Center half pairing and those late Bruce goals against Wednesday were beautiful. He was a fantastic leader of men!
Lovely balance of pace, power, skill and physicality in the middle of the park. Kanchelskis was quite limited in terms of skill but christ that lad had pace to burn!
The flair, skill and quite often the sublime came from Giggs and Cantona and the old war horse Hughes.
Sorry to hijack the thread sort of speak but I would argue this team was as good as the treble winners and but for UEFA and their stupid "Foreigner" rule cost us the 1993-94 Champions league. Certainly should of progressed a lot further had Ferguson been able to field his best XI as above.
Schmeichel
Parker Bruce Pallister Irwin
Kanchelskis Keane Ince Giggs
Cantona Hughes
I think as a team, that was probably one Fergies very best, the only arguable weak link is Parker and even then Parker was a very solid and reliable right full.
Bruce and Pallister was his first great Center half pairing and those late Bruce goals against Wednesday were beautiful. He was a fantastic leader of men!
Lovely balance of pace, power, skill and physicality in the middle of the park. Kanchelskis was quite limited in terms of skill but christ that lad had pace to burn!
The flair, skill and quite often the sublime came from Giggs and Cantona and the old war horse Hughes.
Sorry to hijack the thread sort of speak but I would argue this team was as good as the treble winners and but for UEFA and their stupid "Foreigner" rule cost us the 1993-94 Champions league. Certainly should of progressed a lot further had Ferguson been able to field his best XI as above.
I don’t think that team would have stood a chance against that Milan side
Getting out of the group with Barcelona and Bayern in it was an achievement in itself, especially considering Barcelona’s objective that season was to make the final on their own stadium. That being said, they were weirdly managed and I seem to recall the 3-3 game with the Rivaldo freekick was a big feck you to LVG from the Brazilian (maybe @fontaine can elaborate)
Both inter and Juve were exceptionally strong, Juve in particular (look at their starting line up for the semi final, it’s immense) Either team could turn up on the day and beat anyone in Europe.
I think that we deserved to win every game on the lead up to the final in 1999and were the Better team. In 2008, we were out of our depth against Barcelona and looked vastly inferior. Very Lucky to have gone through IMO.
They really weren’t at all though... look at where they finished in Italy.
It is one of those hypothetical matches where you'd be lying if you knew exactly how it would go down.
The 99 side was for my money more battle-hardened, less fearful of big sides and had more 'character' in big match situations which would lend the 99 side an advantage in this big encounter vs the 2008 set up.
Giggs in his prime against Brown, well you'd have to fancy Giggs and I am not sure Evra had the nous to deal with a Beckham - even the likes of Lizarazu struggled to contain the 99 version of Beckham who was the best right midfielder in the world that season.
Keane and Scholes would IMO dominate Scholes and Carrick - simply more legs and character in the former duo despite the 'composure' and stability of the latter pairing. Keane was much more competent at passing it out from the back under extreme pressure and unlike Carrick much more forward thinking, not to mention his leadership in such a big game would be invaluable.
Keeper wise, VDS edges it as his 08 season > Schmikes but it isn't a huge advantage.
Rio and Vida trump Stam and Johnsen but Yorke and Cole could make mockery of even the most strongest of defences... whereas Tevez, Rooney and Ronaldo didn't really tear elite defences apart - their goal record in big games was not astonishing.
Ronaldo v 99 Neville - seems like a mismatch on paper but Neville was a tough defender to beat and he's a wily competitor. Would not be an easy feat for Ronaldo to make a mug out of him.
In short, I think the 2008 team looks the more 'wholesome' on paper, it looks the more 'accomplished' side but I think in the heat of the battle, under extreme pressure the 99 side is less likely to crack in a one-off game and to win a 'treble' I think is an unbelievable achievement and should never be forgotten.
The 99 side was for my money more battle-hardened, less fearful of big sides and had more 'character' in big match situations which would lend the 99 side an advantage in this big encounter vs the 2008 set up.
Giggs in his prime against Brown, well you'd have to fancy Giggs and I am not sure Evra had the nous to deal with a Beckham - even the likes of Lizarazu struggled to contain the 99 version of Beckham who was the best right midfielder in the world that season.
Keane and Scholes would IMO dominate Scholes and Carrick - simply more legs and character in the former duo despite the 'composure' and stability of the latter pairing. Keane was much more competent at passing it out from the back under extreme pressure and unlike Carrick much more forward thinking, not to mention his leadership in such a big game would be invaluable.
Keeper wise, VDS edges it as his 08 season > Schmikes but it isn't a huge advantage.
Rio and Vida trump Stam and Johnsen but Yorke and Cole could make mockery of even the most strongest of defences... whereas Tevez, Rooney and Ronaldo didn't really tear elite defences apart - their goal record in big games was not astonishing.
Ronaldo v 99 Neville - seems like a mismatch on paper but Neville was a tough defender to beat and he's a wily competitor. Would not be an easy feat for Ronaldo to make a mug out of him.
In short, I think the 2008 team looks the more 'wholesome' on paper, it looks the more 'accomplished' side but I think in the heat of the battle, under extreme pressure the 99 side is less likely to crack in a one-off game and to win a 'treble' I think is an unbelievable achievement and should never be forgotten.
That was just a blip, check where they finished before and after that season and they had almost same players.
We hardly were second best in the return leg, unless you mean possession stats.
The squad itself was amazing but Lippi had an absolute nightmare at the beginning of that season, Zidane started poorly due to his World Cup Hangover and Del Piero got a lengthy injury which really took the sail out of their winds. They'd won back-to-back Serie A's prior to this and improved exponentially by the time we played them after Ancelotti replaced Lippi in February. They knew they had no chance of winning the league which is why they went all in on Europe. To put further emphasis on how not-shit they were, they led Serie A for most of the following season but collapsed during the last couple of games, blaming some controversial refereeing decisions.
Doesn't negate the second part of my comment.
Ronaldo.
I think out of 10 games, the 1999 would win more simply because the team is more balanced. But it's just my opinion.
Agree, that was a top quality Juventus side. No doubt about that.
As for the main question, I'm going for the 1999 boys. Ole off the bench.
As for the main question, I'm going for the 1999 boys. Ole off the bench.
Look at the teams we played against and beat in 1999. Completely different in terms of calibre. Great teams are made by great opposition and 1999 was stacked. Not just on the continent but domestically as well.
You can't beat magic.
Note: I believe Bayern was also going for a treble in that final.
You can't beat magic.
Note: I believe Bayern was also going for a treble in that final.
That Semi-final first leg against Juve at home for long stretches we were totally outplayed.
The midfield trio of Deschamps, Davids and Zidane totally bossed Keane and Scholes. They were amazing.
Later in the game Fergie instructed Beckham (as he usually did in these cases) to tuck inside to help Keane and Scholes.. but that negated our attack on the right wing
A very very good Juventus team were really good that night. The first half they toyed with us
Oh I agree 99 all the way, who did the 99 side beat to win this treble? Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, juventus, inter, Barcelona, Bayern, they beat Bayern without the two most important midfielders in the squad that never gets enough credit. This is the same 99 united side that overcome teams with prime rivaldo, Zidane, petit, vierra, zola, bergkamp, overmars, figo, Anelka, seaman, to name just a few, so let’s not make out 99 didn’t beat many teams they beat the best of the best. Now if they can beat 99 Bayern without Keane and scholes, they can take anyone at full strength because they could. Only team that can overcome 99 side is the pep Barcelona side of 08-11
People going on who would win, if 99 united can beat one of the most powerful arsenal, Bayern and juventus sides in their history with better midfields than the 08 united sides, then they will put this united 08 to the sword through shear will and character. People say what made 99 unstoppable, it was the will and spirit with an incredible roster of talent.
08 united team never played a 3 man midfield 90% of the time, united 08 would set up with carrick, scholes, Ronaldo and giggs in midfield, put that up against say Keane, butt, beckham and blomvquest, 99 would easily overrun that 08 side, Rooney and tevez would work hard but 99 united side have best much stronger teams than 08. Now if we add prime scholes and giggs, and 08 united had Nani and Anderson instead then the 99 united would seal it
I don’t think 08 united had that level of midfield talent, no way can I see 08 united midfield of carrick, scholes, Ronaldo and giggs keep up to speed with the 99 united midfield. Say it’s Carrick Anderson Ronaldo and Nani against Keane, scholes, beckham and giggs, 99 would swarm them through being just better midfield. Keane, butt, prime giggs and scholes would walk into the 08 team. I would argue the 08 united side were allot like 1999 arsenal, very powerful and efficient, strong upfront and good at the back
Last edited:
You've got your individual battles all wrong mate. For me the 2 teams would like line up as-
Schmeichel
Neville Stam Johnsen Irwin
Beckham Scholes Keane Giggs
Yorke Cole
vs
Van Der Sar
Brown Ferdinand Vidic Evra
Hargreaves Scholes Carrick
Ronaldo Tevez Rooney
In midfield you have 3 vs 2 situation and as good as Keane was it was no easy task to be able to harry the 08 version of Scholes and Carrick out of possession. Also any space he vacated would be immediately occupied by Tevez or Rooney. The 08 team will win the midfield possession battle. Also for 99 Scholes and Keane to be able to play through the middle they would have to contend with Hargreaves who at that time was one of the best CDMs in the world. For the 99 team the most feasible avenue of attack would be going out wide. Beckham vs Evra is an intriguing battle but you can be damn sure that Rooney would be tracking all of Neville's overlapping runs essentially making it a 1v1 between Beckham and Evra, a battle Becks wouldn't win through pace, he would have to rely on his pin point delivery into the box. And as good as Becks was I would put my money on Vidic or Rio winning most of the headers against Yorke and Cole. The 99 team's most potent avenue of attack would be through their left with them isolating Brown against Giggs, with Ronaldo not tracking back this would be one of weakness.
On the other hand the 08 team would have most of the ball and the movement of the front 3 would cause the 99 defense all kinds of problem. Tevez and Rooney would harry the back 4 incessantly and the likes of Johnsen and Neville would be prone to mistakes in possession if pressed. Also you have Ronaldo who the team will constantly be looking to isolate against one of their defenders and even against Stam never mind the other 3 I would except the 08 version of Ronaldo to be able to beat them again and again. Evra with his bombarding runs would push Becks back and Rooney drifting infield would cause Neville all sorts of problem, he himself admitted he was not comfortable with a wide man moving into the inside channel. Plus in Rooney he has an opponent he won't be able to bully, same with Ronaldo against Irwin.
The match would play out with the 99 team being up against it for the most of it but having joy through their left with Giggs giving Brown a run around. But the 08 team would have too many avenues of attack and I would expect them to able to crack that 99 defense open at least twice.
@King7Eric I will respond to your post in more detail but will say that the Juve midfield was for me as good as the Barca midfield - difference being it wasn't a tiki taka coached outfit but in its own way much more versatile and physically robust. The 08 United midfield would not be able to handle that Juve midfield - it would have to be the passive outfit. Even the 99 unit struggled but in patches it could go toe to toe.
Yeah, as I said earlier I think in terms of individual ability the 08 squad are superior in quite a few areas but 99 was more than the sum of its parts. There are so many intangibles that people aren't considering, like Beckham's set-piece threat and his relationship with Neville down the right, Ole's uncanny ability to score when it mattered, the seemingly telepathic understanding Dwight and Yorke had, Roy Keane's body being at a stage where it could keep up with his unstoppable desire to win every football match, Scholes' impact as an attacking force – something we only got a glimpse of in 08 against Barca. Whether you think any of this is enough for 99 to beat 08 is entirely in the eye of the beholder but to act like 08 would wipe the floor with 99 or to imply 99 had an easy run to the treble like some posters have been doing is delusional.
Whether 08 midfield would have been able to handle the Juve team is moot since we are discussing a match between the 99 team and the 08 team and comparing the 2 teams I see the 08 outfit being the superior one. Also the 08 midfield didn't play against Pep's Barca, we played them without Hargreaves (and also Fletcher) which were major losses.
Anyway I look forward to your detailed response. Always fun to discuss tactics.
I've not read the whole thread so have missed this. Anyone suggesting that the '08 team would wipe the floor with the '99 side either didn't really see the '99 side or was too young to get what was going on. The Group Stage was rock solid and we went on to play some of the key teams of that era in the knock outs.
We had possibly the best - certainly the most complete - United midfield of all time and all 4 of them were in their absolute prime.
We had one of the most fluid, lively and exciting partnerships we've every had up front, Jaap fecking Stam and 2 of our best ever full backs. Oh, and Peter Schmeichel.
Keane alone is reason enough to believe the '99 side could overpower the '08 team. He was an absolute force of nature back then - just the ultimate leader (and an very underrated footballer).
I'm amazed that some of our own fans are so desperate to defend a viewpoint that they'd come out with nonsense like that.
"99 TREBLE WINNERS by a long long way! Beckham,Keane,Scholes,Giggs all in their pomp,theres no debate here tbh!
For whatever reason that Juve side (and their main star Zidane) often seemed not to be properly motivated in the league games. And even then from 96/97 to 00/01 (Zidane's time there) they've won the league 2 times and finished runners up twice. Not to mention 3 consecutive CL final appearances in the seasons preceding the one in question.
It's stupid because
Are you sure you're 33? You seem more interested on being an internet warrior.Jesus Christ, get a grip
Don't get me wrong, you could quite easily have said "I'm not comfortable discussing my age on a public platform" and that would have been the end of it for me but no, you decided to make a bunch of ambiguous statements about "data" showing that you were technically old enough to have "watched the 99 final live" which is akin to sticking "old enough to have watched the Berlin Wall fall live" as your age on a dating app and then getting angry when potential suitors ask you your actual age. And then to top things off, you decided to attack @Cee90 for having the audacity to try and diffuse the situation by breaking down my thought process to you.
But feck it, for the sake of everyone here's sanity I'm willing to overlook this age-complex of yours and move closer to the topic at hand. So what you're telling us, as a guy who is "older enough to have watched the two teams", you genuinely believe that over the course of let's say 100 games, the David Beckham of 1999 couldn't knock a single set-piece past Edwin van der Sar? Or the marauding Paul Scholes of the early 00's couldn't bury a single screamer over the course of 9000+ minutes? Or the Ryan Giggs of 99, in the season he tore one of the greatest defences in Premier League history to shreds in the dying minutes of an FA Cup semi-final replay couldn't get the measure of Wesley Brown just once? You're telling us in your heart of hearts (and this isn't really an exaggeration given how adamant you've been about this so far in the thread), despite apparently knowing both teams inside out, you really feel that Roy Keane of 99, the hero of Turin would allow his team to get dicked 4-0, over and over again? Sure thing mate, you're clearly the expert here.
It is a stupid way of thinking as it has no substance and based on nothing apart from guessing. And sorry I didn't meant to attack you.
Oh I agree, but Is it better talent? Look at the goals record of 08, three made it to double figures, two of the three didn’t even break 20 goals, so that I disagree with. Keane, scholes, beckham, giggs, York, Cole, solkjaer and sheringham all were match winners. I argue 99 had more depth in an attacking front and some in defence, even the 99 left back was our leading penalty taker.
Like I say, that 99 side can beat anyone they proved and I argue they beat stronger sides than what the 08 side would offer. Apart from Ronaldo, our attacking intent was not in great form, Rooney and tevez only clicked for a few months between September to November, mostly ronaldo was scoring the goals with a defense doing the part.
The will and mental strength of the 99 side made them unstoppable, and it took a mental test to do what they done that stuns me many don’t even look back on, to go and beat Arsenal 2-1 in extra time with 10 men, and 3 days later they go to Turin and turn juventus over after going 2-0 down with prime David’s and Zidane is what I call a mental and physical achievement even by today’s standards.
Oh I agree but what sets the 99 side apart is three things
1 - beating Bayern in the final without Keane and scholes, that does not get enough credit
2 - beating arsenal 2-1 with 10 men with prime vierra, Pettit, overmars, and anelka with that back line, then to best juventus away with prime David’s and zidane to just name a few
3 - the 99 CL opponents were one of Europe’s strongest I had ever seen, and we passed every test. Bayern twice, Barcelona, inter, juventus, 99 faced them all
For me what always was a problem for the 2008 united squad was the midfield it was always the weak link, was never convinced with Hargreaves and Anderson, Scholes and giggs always had a few slow games, carrick was ok, but the 99 united midfield was so strong, put them in a 5 man midfield of Keane scholes butt beckham and giggs, that midfield had everything.
99 passed every test we beat them all, 99 didn’t hide they went toe to toe like warriors and came out winners. We faced the storm of arsenal with 10 men, 3 days later we in Turin winning 3-2, we beat Bayern without Keane and scholes, that gets no credit what so ever, we were in the group of death, Bayern 99 were the peak of how brutal of a side Bayern were and we won. Now could 08 beat the 99 Bayern side? that’s debatable in itself, could 08 pass the group of death and go toe to toe with one of the strongest arsenal sides who were mentally strong, 99 side I would put my life in their hands, 08 not so much. I wouldn’t be so confident 08 midfield of Scholes and carrick could get the better of vierra and Petit in their prime, even with Ronaldo they would be bullied
Fergie played a 442 against Barcelona in 08, and considering Hargreaves missed huge chunks of the season I would not be confident he be fit, would they get more of the ball? You can’t have two scholes, one has to go, but 08 Never dominated the big games much they were always struggling because they had the slow midfield of scholes and Carrick. In the final of 08 he played a 442 Hargreaves played right back, so really they be matched in a 442 both sides. Hardly did Ferguson play 433 in 08, So say it’s 08 carrick scholes Ronaldo and giggs, against say Keane butt Beckham and blomvquest my money is on 99 through a younger midfield. Keane scholes beckham giggs in their prime against older Carrick scholes giggs and crocked Hargreaves half the time, 99 have the advantage
Last edited:
How does asking someone their age to gauge how lucid they were over the course of an old football season translate to "being an internet warrior?" I mean that's how this whole affair started, right? You made a massive statement about how 08 would dick 99 4-0 "every day of the year" and I asked how old you were. That's it. And then you got super defensive about your age before making a bunch of vague statements to skirt around the question.
I literally asked you how old you were outright, that's like the fundamental opposite of just guessing. What is wrong with you man? How is asking someone a simple question to get a better understanding of their perspective stupid? And why are you ignoring my attempts to move on from this silly age rubbish and talk about football? I said what I had to say about that and made a whole host of points on why I think you're underselling the ability of 99 and you called me a bloody internet warrior like it's 2002 or something. You're having a complete shocker here mate but it's not too late to move on.
I wouldn't go there if I were you, @LoveFootball really doesn't like people talking about age in the context of comparing classic football teams and I'm afraid he might have an aneurysm if he reads this
. All valid points though.Indeed. I feel like a lot of people are overselling how much better the 08 midfield was compared to 99 considering they only really had one season together. Sure Carrick was a class apart but Scholes was approaching his last legs and Hargreaves was shifted around a lot more than people are suggesting before he eventually fell apart. Compare that to Scholes and Keane who had plenty of time ahead of them, as well as Beckham sometimes tucking into three during more difficult games. None of this is a slight against our 07/08 side mind you, I was a season ticket holder at the time and travelled to all of their finals so I absolutely adored them for giving me such an enjoyable few years before our eventual decline.
Last edited:
Oh I agree 08 was our last final golden generation side, it’s the last time we looked good, but people seem to overlook our 08 midfield was pretty slow, Anderson was ok, Hargreaves was pretty much a crock, Nani was meh, giggs was ok but nothing special, people saying 08 midfield could get the better if the 99 midfield? No way. 08 struggled against all the big sides, Nicky butt was very underrated he was keeping scholes out of the team to give Keane licence to kill lol Keane would eat Carrick for breakfast. I love the 08, it’s not got the overall tools 99 had, and if anyone said you can have one squad it would be 99. I just have a problem when 08 goals numbers we only had three players scoring double figures, that should also be considered. 99 never relied one player has much. The 2008 midfield would struggle consider fergie was playing scholes Carrick and giggs allot, that makes 99 Ferguson very happy for a younger 99 midfield to overrun them, Keane scholes butt beckham and giggs would be rubbing their hands at a very ageing midfield, and that midfield would have a problem getting from A go B when younger legs are pressing them
Last edited:
I think it's unfair to call Hargreaves a crock in the context of 07/08 but I can see why people would discount him for his overall injury record. Nani on his day was fantastic too but far too inconsistent so I wouldn't describe him meh as much as frustrating. I mean if it wasn't for his sending off against Madrid, I think we would have made the final that season but we're drifting away from 08 again so I guess your point still stands to a certain extent. Giggs is a midfield option was okay but it definitely felt like we were papering over cracks at the time. Anderson was immense in 07/08 but his overall career trajectory was pretty terrible too.
True there, maybe a crock was unfair, but if they going toe to toe with one of the most mentally will strong sides that could attack you from all angles, Neville, Irwin, beckham scholes Keane Giggs, butt can shield the side and break up the play, then frustration and injury record is a problem. 08 came at the right time, but I do think 99 Could win the 2008 CL for that exact set of players and their ages, 2008 I don’t think could win the 99 CL and that’s the difference. I could not be with a straight face and say, 08 can beat Barcelona, Bayern, inter, juventus, and could 08 lose two key players? And still win? That is something I don’t think is possible. To lose Keane and scholes and best that Bayern side is one of the greatest feet’s of all time
In 38 league games the 2008 vintage only won by a margin of 4 goals or more on 5 occasions, against the might of Newcastle, Sunderland, Villa and Wigan. Is that the sort of company 1999 United should keep?
Not only that, in 7 Champions League knockout games, United only scored more than 1 goal once. They were the kings of grinding out narrow wins, especially against top opposition, and it would likely be a similarly tight outcome in this theoretical match-up.
On paper yes. Historically im not so sure.
People fail to remember that we only really played two strong teams in 2008.
One who we had to park the bus for our dear lives against, Barcelona and the other we were a kick away from losing to, Chelsea.
Compare that to 99 where we had to play Barcelona twice, Bayern Munich three times, Inter Milan twice and Juventus twice.That 2008 team would literally get suffocated by 99s high press and intensity.
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing is it wasn't just Yorke and Cole you had to worry about. You also had to worry about Scholes, Beckham, Giggs, Sheringham and Solskjaer as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
They toyed with us at OT (first half) the same way we toyed with them at Stadio Delle Alpi. The better team won the tie tbf.