Just saw his interview.. he said successful not biggest. To be fair he's not exactly exactly wrong is he? Love United fans getting their knickers in a twist over some spin.
Gary Neville - Pundit
- Thread starter Jamie Shawcross
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
In isolation you could find it easy to ignore or maybe even take his point and discuss it.
But with G.Nev coming out with some viral soundbite every weekend, it gets very tiring and he just becomes a video generator for socials, sponsored by Huel of course.
Last edited:
this hot take is brought to you by HuelExactly. The number don't lie.
And quite honestly, 6 v 3 European Cups, gave them the edge over us, even before they drew level on league titles.
Personal opinion, but given how hard the CL is to win, i would rank one as at least double the value of a Premier League win when comparing trophies.
What a strange take.
So unless you are a player that has also had a successful managerial career, then your opinion is worthless ?
So who does that leave British TV with? Graham Souness? Im sure you love him.
I dont think they're that comparable. Milan in the 2000's where always there or thereabouts in the champions league but struggled to have the same impact in the league. Good cup teams exist. Not that i disagree with the wider point.
Its unfair criticism of him this time out, I just think the weekly clickbait statements from him are annoying. Its kind of shallow and weak. Shit stirring that will get a lot of engagement but its kind of trolly and boring.
Is Scholes paid to speak his truth, or act as a recruiter for MUFC?
IIRC, Milan only won one CL in the 2000s, which was at OT v Juve.
But i take your point, you do get teams that go on great runs in cups, but normally the cream rises to the top in the CL.
I wouldn't say that United under Fergie were a bad cup team, but he only won 2 CLs to 13 Prems.
That is because in the CL you eventually run into a great team, such as Peps Barca in Rome and Wembley.
I bet Fergie would trade a couple of his league titles for one more CL.
What was a bizarre comment? Did he ever say Liverpool were the bigger club?
He is clearly talking about who is the most successful club, and that now cant be debated.
They won it again in 2007, made the final in 2005 too
It was much easier when Liverpool won 4 of these though. Only 5 wins to lift the cup and some absolute rubbish in there. In 78 for example their run was Bye - Dynamo Dresden - Benfica - Monchengladbach and Brugge in the final.
In 77 it was Crusaders, Trabzonspor, Saint Etienne, Zurich, and Monchengladbach in the final.
I think he often sacrificed a team that would be successful in europe for a team that would win a league title. And vice versa.
I think most united fans would probably give up a league title or two for another european cup. We were outrageously spoiled in league wins. Not so much in europe (though 2 wins is pretty good by any normal measure).
Last edited:
That old vid of him talking about Liverpool after Klopp cringes so badly.
Is payment = hurting the club you claim to support and the club that made him? Cause in that case most pundits (Shearer towards Newcastle, Carra, Souness and Hansen at Liverpool etc) had failed miserably in their job
Yep, during our 20 year peak under Ferguson, no team retained the European cup. In fact, from 1998 until 2016, us and Valencia were the only two teams to make it to the final in consecutive years. It was much, much harder to win because you basically had a lot more opportunity to get knocked out. Compare that to the 70s, when teams pretty much always retained the trophy. When Liverpool won their first four, they basically had walkovers in three or four of the ties, and only one or two tough games. So they basically won the trophy if they could win those couple of tough games.
In the late 90s and 00s, you had so many more chances to get knocked out. The group stage(s) were very tough and then you can end up with Milan or Bayern as your first knockout game. The knockout phase was basically the exclusive domain of the top 3 teams from Italy, Spain and England, plus the cream of the challengers (Porto, Lyon, Benfica, Monaco, Leveruksen, PSV etc...). Imagine how many we would have won if we'd have played Anderlecht, Panathinaikos or Ferencvaros in the QFs each year.
You simply can't put the same value on European Cups when only one team per league was allowed compared with when you had the best 3 or 4 teams from each league. Plus, in the mid 90s we had to face that stupid rule limiting to three foreign players, even including welsh. So we ended up hamstrung by having to drop half of Cantona, Schmeichel, Giggs, Irwin, Keane, Kanchelskis etc... while other teams like Ajax and Juventus could basically field full strength teams.
Thanks. Stand corrected.
Yes, they got a bye in 77/78, thanks to winning it the previous year.
And bar the final, all rounds are two legged, so a bit disingenuous to say you only need 5 wins to lift the cup. You played 8 games to reach the final.
But yes, i agree, it was easier then given it was Champions only. But you can make the same argument for United in 68 and no one is here devaluing Busbys European Cup win, and nor would we if United had an easy run then.
Are you able to give an example of that?
I cant remember an instance of Fergie, in any way, sacrificing the chance of winning the CL.
I agree with this. It is harder now multiple teams from the top leagues enter the CL.
But are we now marking down Sir Matt's 1968 win too?
I'd say playing 2 up front in terms of Hernandez and Rooney and a couple of other combinations helped us get the goals against weaker teams we needed to win the league but was a bit of a liability when we ran into ac milan or barcelona. We switched players around when we met them but there was always an element of square peg in round hole rather than a really complimentary trio who'd played hundreds of games together.
I'd say playing Van Nistelrooy up front on his own and being as dependent on him for goals hurt us in the league. Especially when he wasn't available and we were throwing someone in after not playing for months. I think the extra midfielder helped in europe though.
That isn't "sacrificing" the CL to win the league though.
That is just shuffling the deck to give his side the best possible chance of winning a game.
Of course he wasn't going to sit deep and pack the midfield, like he did in the Barca semis in 08, when United are playing Wigan at home.
Well, I guess by that criteria then you have to say it was easier to win than our 1999 or 2008 victories. Obviously I'm biased, but I'd also point to the fact that in our favour in 68 we had to overcome Real Madrid and Benfica - by far the two best teams in the history of the European Cup until that point. Four of Liverpool's wins came against teams who only ever made it to one final in their history - they've been very lucky in that respect.
I realise I'm cherry picking a bit here, and Liverpool's six wins is still impressive, but I think the quality of wins and level of competition is kind of relevant in a discussion about the palmares of different clubs.
Yes, you are cherry picking.
Honestly, when you are comparing strength of opponent in one competition v another from over 50 years ago, you kinda know that you are reaching.
It is the kind of thing i would expect a Liverpool fan to be doing when they had their league title drought and United were winning everything.
We used to laugh at the RAWK forum doing this kind of stuff! Not seen one of those posts for a while!
To take it back to Neville, i don't think it was a criticism of United. It is just fact now they they are the most decorated club in the country. Hopefully, as Neville said, it will be another reminder to those incharge at United how far we have fallen.
The Richard Hammond of football punditry.
We sat deep and packed the midfield because we couldn't keep up with their midfield. Barcelona would have approached that Wigan game the same way as any other match.
We were in a goal difference arms race with City in the league at the time. It wasn't about beating Wigan, it had become about beating them by 4+ goals. We didn't need 3 midfielders to control the match so we focused more on getting goalscorers in the team. I mean it felt like going full circle with moving away from that in 2000 (to me).
So in them big european matches we were forced to surrender the initiative and play on the counter and outside of the game that we had been playing for 3/4's of the season up to that point. It worked quite well despite that to be fair to the man. I think having a dedicated, balanced midfield 3 probably would have helped in europe though rather than plugging welbeck or park or phil jones into midfield. Hell it probably would have worked quite well if anderson turned out better than he did. So maybe it wasn't how it was planned
I don't get this argument. In all sports the competition matters when assessing the legacy of a team or player. For example, I don't think many people would think our 93-94 team would stand much chance against or 07-08 team, even though they were both title winners. Because the 07-08 overcame much stronger opponents to win the league.
It's the same in boxing or tennis, that who you beat matters for your own legacy. Just because it happened longer ago, doesn't mean it can't be analysed. Would you say, for example, that Villa's and Sunderland's 6 titles pre-war, are the same as Chelea's six titles post-war?
Mate if you think Neville's problem is too much honesty, I am not sure what to say.
The difference is, despite being a clown and bit of a tit, Hammond does actually know an awful lot about cars.
I meant Scholes, sorry
Spot on. Fergie's record in Europe is underrated.
To start with, he didn't get any European football for his first five years due to the Heysel ban. We would have qualified for something in 86 and 88 and that not been a thing, that would have given the players a lot of experience. English football was well behind the big nations by the time we were allowed back.
Despite that, he won the Cup Winners Cup in 91 (beating a very good Barca side) and the Super Cup a few months later against an unbelievable Red Star side.
The foreigner rule then fecked us over in the Champions League. In addition, UEFA's weird format changes every year didn't help. We had to play two two-legged rounds to get into the group stage in 93.
By the time the format was settled by 96/97, he had a decent record. Losing semi finalists in 97/02/07. Losing finalists in 09 and 11. Winners in 99 and 08. That recors in 16 years compares well with Klopp (1 success and 2 finalists in 9 years) and Guardiola (1 success and 1 finalist in 9 years).
I can’t believe how on The Overlap he was talking up Slot’s PL win as possibly the best ever after Ranieri’s. It’s actually pathetic how willing he is to crawl up our rivals arses.
So none of Fergie’s come close do they? That’s ignoring all of Wenger’s, Mourinho’s etc, even Conte’s was just as if not more impressive. Dick.
So none of Fergie’s come close do they? That’s ignoring all of Wenger’s, Mourinho’s etc, even Conte’s was just as if not more impressive. Dick.
You've decided Scholsey's on the autistic spectrum. How?
I hate how he feels the need to do this shit. Slot’s league win was nowhere near impressive. I’d argue that Klopp’s was more impressive.
Well his son is autistic, so there is a chance his dad has a touch of it.
I havent decided anything. I'm on the spectrum and i recognise a few behaviours...is that ok?
I hold Ferdinand in higher regard as a United legend than Neville or Keane, truthfully. Neville served the club for longer and Keane did more as a player (having said that, his and Rio’s trophy counts are incredibly similar), but I simply cannot like two people who seem to want the club to fail over someone who is as enthusiastic about United being successful as Rio.
People call him immature for a nearly 50 year old man, but why can’t people just be allowed to enjoy themselves anymore? Top man.
People call him immature for a nearly 50 year old man, but why can’t people just be allowed to enjoy themselves anymore? Top man.
I think some, even in Liverpool might disagree after several decades without a title but a couple of scruffy CL wins from 8th and 4th positions. Chelsea also managed a CL from well down the table. It’s a cup competition, dependent on luck.
Loving Palmer today wasn't he