Manchester City 19/20 season

[redman5]

The irony of Liverpool fans criticizing Utd for being lucky in the CL. We were on the wrong end of some of the poorest decisions ever seen in the competitition during our era of dominance. The Porto & Madrid games stand out the most. We were the best team in the competition in those years & would have won the title but for abysmal officiating. We also ran into the best club side ever in 2 finals. Your 2 CL titles were as stuffy as they come. You were completely played off the park by Milan in your first final. The less said about your run through Europe's fallen giants & the horrendous penalty decision in last years final the better. Don't even get me started on the 4 European Cups you won while being financially doped with the Pools money.

The thing is, the great Barca side were not always 'great' during your 20 years of domestic domination. You on the other hand had pretty much everything going for you during those 2 decades of ruling the roost here in England. A manager who was the best around during that period. Copious amounts of money thanks to your success coming during the Sky TV era. Being able to field, on a regular basis, nearly half a team of talented players who all came through the ranks at the same time. Yet for all those advantages you only managed 2 CL wins in that 20 year period. & you have the gall to start crying about bad luck.

Oh, & if you do some research you'll find that the Moores were simply investors in both Liverpool & Everton football clubs. They most certainly were not latter-day sugar daddies. You'll also find - if you can be bothered to look - that your club actually outspent us during the time we were dominant at home & abroad. We built our success on having the best scouting system around. Ray Clemence, Phil Neal, Kevin Keegan. All players from the lower leagues who helped us become the force we were, & all of them cost us next to nothing. When we sold Keegan in 1977 for £500,000 we bought Kenny Dalglish as his replacement for £440,000. So not only did we make a profit on the deal, but we went on to bigger & better things. We won 6 European trophies in 12 years from 1973 to 1984. It had f**k all to do with money but everything to do with being a well run club with top people - on & off the field - helping to keep it going.

 

[Infordin]

Man City’s summer transfer window was a failure imo.

Rodri is a good player but not a Fernandinho replacement. He doesn’t have the aggression or speed to cover defensively like Fernandinho does. A better like-for-like replacement would have been someone like Ascacibar.

Cancelo was a very expensive but pointless transfer. A very overrated fullback who is abysmal defensively and not great enough going forward to make up for it.

Over 100m spent and the team hasn’t improved at all.

 

[Josh 76]

The thing is, the great Barca side were not always 'great' during your 20 years of domestic domination. You on the other hand had pretty much everything going for you during those 2 decades of ruling the roost here in England. A manager who was the best around during that period. Copious amounts of money thanks to your success coming during the Sky TV era. Being able to field, on a regular basis, nearly half a team of talented players who all came through the ranks at the same time. Yet for all those advantages you only managed 2 CL wins in that 20 year period. & you have the gall to start crying about bad luck.

Oh, & if you do some research you'll find that the Moores were simply investors in both Liverpool & Everton football clubs. They most certainly were not latter-day sugar daddies. You'll also find - if you can be bothered to look - that your club actually outspent us during the time we were dominant at home & abroad. We built our success on having the best scouting system around. Ray Clemence, Phil Neal, Kevin Keegan. All players from the lower leagues who helped us become the force we were, & all of them cost us next to nothing. When we sold Keegan in 1977 for £500,000 we bought Kenny Dalglish as his replacement for £440,000. So not only did we make a profit on the deal, but we went on to bigger & better things. We won 6 European trophies in 12 years from 1973 to 1984. It had f**k all to do with money but everything to do with being a well run club with top people - on & off the field - helping to keep it going.

Grow up mate. Your not in the playground anymore. Jeez!

 

[redman5]

Grow up mate. Your not in the playground anymore. Jeez!

What are you on about ? If you don't want to challenge my post then don't. But please don't try hide behind some ridiculous inane comment.

 

[TheReligion]

Grow up mate. Your not in the playground anymore. Jeez!

He's lost his marbles lately. He's happy to go on about United being lucky to get the class of 92 (no mention of the great coaching set up etc) but when talking about Liverpool puts their success down to a fantastic scouting network and wonderful business. No luck involved.

The bias is laughable.

 

[Josh 76]

He's lost his marbles lately. He's happy to go on about United being lucky to get the class of 92 (no mention of the great coaching set up etc) but when talking about Liverpool puts their success down to a fantastic scouting network and wonderful business. No luck involved.

The bias is laughable.

That's just one flaw in his post. I found plenty, but can't be bothered to play hide and seek with him.

 

[Ludens the Red]

It certainly was a great period.

How is this period different? England have had 3 of the last 4 finalists, and also had 2 Europa finalists last season.

The difference is that English dominance in Europe in 06-09 meant more back then just because Utd were doing well. Of course, it had nothing to do with Milan's great team coming to an end, Real not even making the quarters for years, Juve struggling to recover after Calciopoli or Bayern being consistently crap.

Lads, if you hand on heart think the top english clubs of this era are the same quality as the top English clubs between 2006 and 2009 you should probably head over to your local gp and check yourself for head injuries.

United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal between that era were four of the strongest in Europe. Reflected in the fact they had very successful managers in charge. Reflected in the CONTINUED success in the Champions League. Reflected in the top tier of talent.

Now we have city and Liverpool and that’s it and city can’t even make a CL semi final.....
Look at the state of current Arsenal and United in particular, one with a comedy manager the other with a rookie manager.
Chelsea also have a rookie manager and can’t go more than three games without losing. Arsenal have won 6 games this season and are 10th. United have won 9 out of 30 and are 7th.
Spurs were a shambles for the most part in 2019 with their CL final appearance masking the end of the cycle for that squad.

I can’t actually fathom how people think this is debatable.
Honestly just accept it, and move on, why does it even matter so much? Why are you so defensive about it? Enjoy your success.

 

[TheReligion]

That's just one flaw in his post. I found plenty, but can't be bothered to play hide and seek with him.

Yeah there's plenty of garbage which is totally contradictory to whatever veiled point he's trying to make.

 

[redman5]

He's lost his marbles lately. He's happy to go on about United being lucky to get the class of 92 (no mention of the great coaching set up etc) but when talking about Liverpool puts their success down to a fantastic scouting network and wonderful business. No luck involved.

The bias is laughable.

If it was simply down to a great coaching set-up how come you never repeated it again during the following 2 decades.

 

[TheReligion]

If it was simply down to a great coaching set-up how come you never repeated it again during the following 2 decades.

There you go again. Who said it was simply down to the coaching set up? No one. But in your opinion it must have been pure luck and nothing else as you're too big and proud to say it might have been because United had (still do) one of the best academies of the time and the best manager in history (who was prepared to take a huge gamble and give them game time).

I don't know what's up with you at the moment but your posts are utter bollocks. Just so full of steaming bias it makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously.

 

[redman5]

That's just one flaw in his post. I found plenty, but can't be bothered to play hide and seek with him.

That's funny because you always seem quite happy to point out flaws in other people's posts. Maybe you're just telling fibs about the 'flaws' in mine. Maybe there isn't any, & ridicule & deflection is the best you could think of.

 

[redman5]

There you go again. Who said it was simply down to the coaching set up? No one. But in your opinion it must have been pure luck and nothing else as you're too big and proud to say it might have been because United had (still do) one of the best academies of the time and the best manager in history (who was prepared to take a huge gamble and give them game time).

I don't know what's up with you at the moment but your posts are utter bollocks. Just so full of steaming bias it makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously.

No offence mate but your posting style is shit. You constantly try to beef up your point by using ridicule such as garbage, utter bollocks, losing his marbles etc. But you very rarely answer the questions I posed to you. If you can't answer the question then don't waste my time. & to think your buddy calls me childish.....Jesus H Christ.

 

[Borussin]

Few months ago, Utd fans were admiring City and wishing we were in the position.
But at this moment, how many City players would you buy? Considering their age and injuries.

Keeper. No
Back four. Maybe Laporte (But with his injury, you probably wouldn't risk it).
Midfeild. Debryne, yes. Bernard Silva? Got Bruno now, so probably not.

David silva and fernindino ....too old.

Forwards. Sterling, yes.
Augero? Not worth it with price tag and age.
Mahrez? Possibly.

So basically.
Debryne
Sterling
And possibly Laporte and Mahrez.

How weird is that!

I can't stand Manchester City, not because I think they are rubbish, I just can't stand their owners, and their barking mad paranoid and angry online fanbase.

But honestly - despite the fact they aren't going to get anywhere near the league this season, doesnt mean they are rubbish. They still have an exeptional squad, as you would hope considering how much they invested in it.

Are you honestly saying that only those 2 or 4 at a push would better your team? I am presuming you are Man Utd fan? Silva, Gundogan, Jesus and Sane are all going to improve many teams in this and other leagues, as well as Sterling, Mahrez, DeBryne and Laporte. As would the likes of Walker and Ederson. Even squad players, or players fans of other teams love to make out are rubbish are going to improve many squads. Cancelo and Rodrigo may not have impressed enough yet, but we should all know better than to give up on players after 6 months. As I am sure you haven't done with Maguire for instance.

Guardiola's problem this season with the squad was not replacing Kompany, his influece off the pitch as much as on leaves a big void. Losing him, then Silva next year, and Fernandinho the one after are 3 big losses. Although I doubt Guardiola will stick around too much longer to ease that period of transition.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Lads, if you hand on heart think the top english clubs of this era are the same quality as the top English clubs between 2006 and 2009 you should probably head over to your local gp and check yourself for head injuries.

United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal between that era were four of the strongest in Europe. Reflected in the fact they had very successful managers in charge. Reflected in the CONTINUED success in the Champions League. Reflected in the top tier of talent.

Now we have city and Liverpool and that’s it and city can’t even make a CL semi final.....
Look at the state of current Arsenal and United in particular, one with a comedy manager the other with a rookie manager.
Chelsea also have a rookie manager and can’t go more than three games without losing. Arsenal have won 6 games this season and are 10th. United have won 9 out of 30 and are 7th.
Spurs were a shambles for the most part in 2019 with their CL final appearance masking the end of the cycle for that squad.
Honestly just accept it, and move on, why does it even matter so much? Why are you so defensive about it? Enjoy your success.

I think the English league needs a few more seasons like last one (okay that one maybe a bit much - certainly more in the vein of 2005-2010 when multiple teams were regularly reaching semi finals) for the overall league to be considered as strong as the one from 2004-2011, yes. Some of the 'giants' have fallen - but Man City are obviously better, Tottenham (up until this recent mess) are also much better, and Liverpool are miles better (and 2004-2010 was easily our best extended period in the last 30 years until Klopp's arrival).

On the other hand, I think it's definitely much stronger in the section that's below that top 4/6 etc - I'd fancy the current Wolves to do over any team of its equivalent from that era.

It's the hilarious insinuation that the league was only strong when Manchester United were, coincidentally, winning things. There was a huge dip in the quality of the league - some time around post 2011 (which actually started with two of its top players - Xabi Alonso and Cristiano Ronaldo fecking off to Madrid in 2009) when you had your last great team all the way through to Leicester's season. It has quite obviously since picked up, primarily with the arrival of Pep Guardiola and Jurgen Klopp.

Oh and for the record, I reckon this Liverpool side beats any team in England from 2004-2011. City being inconsistent this season, along with doing sod all in Europe means it's hard to actually judge their greatness despite winning two in a row in emphatic fashion. Who knows? Maybe they'll win it in Europe this season. If we look at league/domestic they quite clearly come out on top for being relentless (having a bottomless pit of money helps, when you can field two top quality teams - especially in winning things like domestic cups), but they really need a
I'd place the teams currently as per below (I'm not equating style or anything like that - just brutal machine like ability to win games)
Liverpool 2018-2020
Manchester United 2006-2009
Chelsea 2004-2007
Manchester City 2017-2019

Yes, I know Man Utd won three in a row and we haven't won one yet, let alone defended it - of course it's bloody hard to win three in a row and you lot have done it three times or something ridiculous. I'm saying that this Liverpool team comes out on top, in a one on one (see Liverpool in knockouts under Jurgen Klopp) or in the league (see also our points totals in the last 70 or so games).
This team is simply just better. The only question is what legacy will it leave? They've won 1 European Cup, and on their way to winning a league title. They need at least one more of either in the next 2-3 seasons, preferably one more of each to really cement that place.

A team can be better/greater, but not have the continued success - which is where Man Utd 2006-2009 come out on top. That team was both. But in a single league season or a knockout two-legged tie or a one off game, they likely lose.

 

[TheReligion]

No offence mate but your posting style is shit. You constantly try to beef up your point by using ridicule such as garbage, utter bollocks, losing his marbles etc. But you very rarely answer the questions I posed to you. If you can't answer the question then don't waste my time. & to think your buddy calls me childish.....Jesus H Christ.

My style might be shit but so is your content hence you getting called out on it and not just by me. Firstly you make a mug of yourself in the VVD thread and now you're at it again.

You're in no position to be asking questions when the very foundation of what you're asking is totally and utterly flawed.

 

[redman5]

My style might be shit but so is your content hence you getting called out on it and not just by me. Firstly you make a mug of yourself in the VVD thread and now you're at it again.

You're in no position to be asking questions when the very foundation of what you're asking is totally and utterly flawed.

I replied to a post by someone cry-arsing about bad luck being largely responsible for United's failure to extend their domestic domination to that of Europe during the 20 golden years under Ferguson. I pointed out all the advantages that United had during that period. One of them being having the likes of Scholes, Giggs, Beckham, & G Neville, all come through at the same time. You responded by saying it was down to having a great coaching set-up to which I asked the question why did you never manage to replicate it again. Simple enough question. So seeing as your club never produced anyone again of the quality of the aforementioned, it's not unreasonable to put them all coming through together as something quite fortunate, or even lucky. Wouldn't you agree with that ? Or am I simply losing my marbles again ?

 

[TheReligion]

I replied to a post by someone cry-arsing about bad luck being largely responsible for United's failure to extend their domestic domination to that of Europe during the 20 golden years under Ferguson. I pointed out all the advantages that United had during that period. One of them being having the likes of Scholes, Giggs, Beckham, & G Neville, all come through at the same time. You responded by saying it was down to having a great coaching set-up to which I asked the question why did you never manage to replicate it again. Simple enough question. So seeing as your club never produced anyone again of the quality of the aforementioned, it's not unreasonable to put them all coming through together as something quite fortunate, or even lucky. Wouldn't you agree with that ? Or am I simply losing my marbles again ?

You like to ask questions when you've been rumbled for talking codswallop. You did the same in the VVD thread when your own fellow reds agreed with my view and not yours. I asked why you viewed United getting the class of 92 as luck whilst you harp on about Liverpool's fantastic scouting and transfer business of the past as some kind of self made genius.

Everyone gets a bit of fortune somewhere along the line. I'm not sure what your point is. You just seem unwilling or unable to say anything positive about United or negative about Liverpool.

 

[Ludens the Red]

I think the English league needs a few more seasons like last one (okay that one maybe a bit much - certainly more in the vein of 2005-2010 when multiple teams were regularly reaching semi finals) for the overall league to be considered as strong as the one from 2004-2011, yes. Some of the 'giants' have fallen - but Man City are obviously better, Tottenham (up until this recent mess) are also much better, and Liverpool are miles better (and 2004-2010 was easily our best extended period in the last 30 years until Klopp's arrival).

On the other hand, I think it's definitely much stronger in the section that's below that top 4/6 etc - I'd fancy the current Wolves to do over any team of its equivalent from that era.

It's the hilarious insinuation that the league was only strong when Manchester United were, coincidentally, winning things. There was a huge dip in the quality of the league - some time around post 2011 (which actually started with two of its top players - Xabi Alonso and Cristiano Ronaldo fecking off to Madrid in 2009) when you had your last great team all the way through to Leicester's season. It has quite obviously since picked up, primarily with the arrival of Pep Guardiola and Jurgen Klopp.

Oh and for the record, I reckon this Liverpool side beats any team in England from 2004-2011. City being inconsistent this season, along with doing sod all in Europe means it's hard to actually judge their greatness despite winning two in a row in emphatic fashion. Who knows? Maybe they'll win it in Europe this season. If we look at league/domestic they quite clearly come out on top for being relentless (having a bottomless pit of money helps, when you can field two top quality teams - especially in winning things like domestic cups), but they really need a
I'd place the teams currently as per below (I'm not equating style or anything like that - just brutal machine like ability to win games)
Liverpool 2018-2020
Manchester United 2006-2009
Chelsea 2004-2007
Manchester City 2017-2019

Yes, I know Man Utd won three in a row and we haven't won one yet, let alone defended it - of course it's bloody hard to win three in a row and you lot have done it three times or something ridiculous. I'm saying that this Liverpool team comes out on top, in a one on one (see Liverpool in knockouts under Jurgen Klopp) or in the league (see also our points totals in the last 70 or so games).
This team is simply just better. The only question is what legacy will it leave? They've won 1 European Cup, and on their way to winning a league title. They need at least one more of either in the next 2-3 seasons, preferably one more of each to really cement that place.

A team can be better/greater, but not have the continued success - which is where Man Utd 2006-2009 come out on top. That team was both. But in a single league season or a knockout two-legged tie or a one off game, they likely lose.

Have to disagree with the underlined bit. Spurs, Everton and villa were good and consistent sides back then, they’d finish 5/6/7th and get to cup finals/semis.
I’d rank them above Wolves. There’s not really anyone else who’s consistently finished in those positions in recent times. Leicester having a great season but have been mid table last few seasons. Who else is there? Sheff Utd are 5th, they weren’t even in the league last year. Dunno who these solid sides in the 5-10th positions have been.

As for Liverpool beating any team between 2004-2011. That’s debatable but i don’t think Arsenal fans (unbeatables) Chelsea fans (Mourinho era) or United fans(Ronaldo/Rooney era) would agree and there are arguments to be made for all. What I would say is we are 25 games into a season and Liverpool have not actually won a league title yet.

 

[redman5]

You like to ask questions when you've been rumbled for talking codswallop. You did the same in the VVD thread when your own fellow reds agreed with my view and not yours. I asked why you viewed United getting the class of 92 as luck whilst you harp on about Liverpool's fantastic scouting and transfer business of the past as some kind of self made genius.

Everyone gets a bit of fortune somewhere along the line. I'm not sure what your point is. You just seem unwilling or unable to say anything positive about United or negative about Liverpool.

If you're not sure what my point is then why are you replying ????? If you read the post from @ExecutionerWasp001 you might then have an idea as to why I've gone on the front foot. But listen, the opportunity is still there for you & @Josh 76 to address my reply to the aforementioned poster & highlight all these supposed flaws in my argument.

 

[ExecutionerWasp001]

If you're not sure what my point is then why are you replying ????? If you read the post from @ExecutionerWasp001 you might then have an idea as to why I've gone on the front foot.

I don't even know what your response to my post was all about. Why have you gone on the front foot when you don't have a leg to stand on. The point i made was that bad luck has far exceeded the good luck we had in the CL in our era of dominance. You on the other hand have been very lucky in the competition. You weren't regular qualifiers & have managed to win 2 with more than your fair share of luck along the way.

I don't know why you can't accept that the Pools money played a massive part in your success. I'm not saying it was anything like the levels of financial doping we have seen at Chelsea & City. It was a big help all the same though.

 

[Random Task]

I replied to a post by someone cry-arsing about bad luck being largely responsible for United's failure to extend their domestic domination to that of Europe during the 20 golden years under Ferguson. I pointed out all the advantages that United had during that period. One of them being having the likes of Scholes, Giggs, Beckham, & G Neville, all come through at the same time. You responded by saying it was down to having a great coaching set-up to which I asked the question why did you never manage to replicate it again. Simple enough question. So seeing as your club never produced anyone again of the quality of the aforementioned, it's not unreasonable to put them all coming through together as something quite fortunate, or even lucky. Wouldn't you agree with that? Or am I simply losing my marbles again?

If you are putting the emergence of Giggs, Scholes, Becks, Neville, Butt, etc (AKA Co92) down to a fluke occurrence, then you are conveniently ignoring the facts. The most successful teams in our history each contained a strong core of academy products, from the Busby Babes to Fergie's Fledglings (SAF's first attempt at building a team) to the CO92. Our teams from the '70s and '80s were perhaps not as successful as those previously mentioned, but they possessed a strong core of academy players nevertheless. The last time United played a league game without at least one academy player present was the 1930s, fast approaching 4000 games at last count, and that run looks set to continue indefinitely.

The club has lost sight of its roots since SAF retired. We have recruited all the wrong people - from the players to the backroom staff to the manager himself - in our desperation to get back to winning ways. Only recently regaining that sight with the appointment of Ole and a more strategic, less scattergun approach to transfers. As long as we stick to buying young, hungry players and promoting youth from within, all else is secondary.

 

[manc4red]

Have to disagree with the underlined bit. Spurs, Everton and villa were good and consistent sides back then, they’d finish 5/6/7th and get to cup finals/semis.
I’d rank them above Wolves. There’s not really anyone else who’s consistently finished in those positions in recent times. Leicester having a great season but have been mid table last few seasons. Who else is there? Sheff Utd are 5th, they weren’t even in the league last year. Dunno who these solid sides in the 5-10th positions have been.

As for Liverpool beating any team between 2004-2011. That’s debatable but i don’t think Arsenal fans (unbeatables) Chelsea fans (Mourinho era) or United fans(Ronaldo/Rooney era) would agree and there are arguments to be made for all. What I would say is we are 25 games into a season and Liverpool have not actually won a league title yet.

So what you are saying is that there is hope for us still.

 

[Suedesi]

And what is the difference in winning a trophy after John Terry slip with yours CL trophy from last year?

The argumen is that United were European powerhouse during that 2006-2011 period, something that Liverpool is yet to prove with this team.

Quite frankly, they are. Back to back finals, winning one, and will probably go far this year as well.

As painful as it is for me to admit, fair do's.

City on the other hand

 

[DAK222]

Lads, if you hand on heart think the top english clubs of this era are the same quality as the top English clubs between 2006 and 2009 you should probably head over to your local gp and check yourself for head injuries.

United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal between that era were four of the strongest in Europe. Reflected in the fact they had very successful managers in charge. Reflected in the CONTINUED success in the Champions League. Reflected in the top tier of talent.

Now we have city and Liverpool and that’s it and city can’t even make a CL semi final.....
Look at the state of current Arsenal and United in particular, one with a comedy manager the other with a rookie manager.
Chelsea also have a rookie manager and can’t go more than three games without losing. Arsenal have won 6 games this season and are 10th. United have won 9 out of 30 and are 7th.
Spurs were a shambles for the most part in 2019 with their CL final appearance masking the end of the cycle for that squad.

I can’t actually fathom how people think this is debatable.
Honestly just accept it, and move on, why does it even matter so much? Why are you so defensive about it? Enjoy your success.

I'm sorry, but you're just conflating several discussions here. Let me talk about my post first. It's a widely accepted on here that Liverpool are doing well in Europe right now mainly because other top teams are in transition. I simply pointed out that the same was true during the English dominance of Europe in 06-09. Are you disagreeing when I say that Real, Bayern, Juve, Milan were hardly top dogs in Europe in those years?

Let me address your post now. Yes, United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal between that era were four of the strongest in Europe. Absolutely. And part of the reason was, once again, traditionally strong teams from other leagues were struggling. But, let's move on.

You say "if you hand on heart think the top english clubs of this era are the same quality as the top English clubs between 2006 and 2009 you should probably head over to your local gp and check yourself for head injuries". And you're basing this on what? The English teams' performance in the CL in those years? That just means they were all good cup teams. What does that have to do with their competence in the league exactly? Between 2004-2005 and 2012-2013, in spite of some amazing runs in the CL and often beating you lot at least once a season (with even a double in '09!) Liverpool challenged for the league a grand total of ONE time. And how strong were Arsenal in the league in those years? It was basically between you and Chelsea the whole time. So you really shouldn't add beating Liverpool and Arsenal to the league title as some amazing achievement in those years and then point to their performance in knockout competitions as evidence of their strength in the league campaign. Ffs for years, Liverpool were derided for being "just a cup team", and with good reason!

 

[Feed Me]

Why are smug Scousers being given free rein to infest this thread and derail it? This is for conversation about Man City, no?

 

[Ludens the Red]

I'm sorry, but you're just conflating several discussions here. Let me talk about my post first. It's a widely accepted on here that Liverpool are doing well in Europe right now mainly because other top teams are in transition. I simply pointed out that the same was true during the English dominance of Europe in 06-09. Are you disagreeing when I say that Real, Bayern, Juve, Milan were hardly top dogs in Europe in those years?

Let me address your post now. Yes, United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal between that era were four of the strongest in Europe. Absolutely. And part of the reason was, once again, traditionally strong teams from other leagues were struggling. But, let's move on.

You say "if you hand on heart think the top english clubs of this era are the same quality as the top English clubs between 2006 and 2009 you should probably head over to your local gp and check yourself for head injuries". And you're basing this on what? The English teams' performance in the CL in those years? That just means they were all good cup teams. What does that have to do with their competence in the league exactly? Between 2004-2005 and 2012-2013, in spite of some amazing runs in the CL and often beating you lot at least once a season (with even a double in '09!) Liverpool challenged for the league a grand total of ONE time. And how strong were Arsenal in the league in those years? It was basically between you and Chelsea the whole time. So you really shouldn't add beating Liverpool and Arsenal to the league title as some amazing achievement in those years and then point to their performance in knockout competitions as evidence of their strength in the league campaign. Ffs for years, Liverpool were derided for being "just a cup team", and with good reason!

I give up, I actually give up....

Okay, Liverpool fans you are all right, I am wrong.
Football now is incredible, unbelievable, best standard of football ever. Football ten years ago was rubbish, all players were alcoholics, overweight and had no fitness levels. Nobody pressed or passed the ball, that was only invented in recent seasons, hence why football now is so much more superior to how it was before. This current Liverpool invented off the ball movement, back in the day, fat alcoholic players would stand still, not moving, not passing and not pressing. They'd simply all play long balls to Sam Vokes type players. Passing from the back and attacking wing backs were never seen, defenders of old would just boot the ball up the field due to their complete lack of technical composure. The game is also so much faster, back in the day games were played at a snails pace, with people often dying of boredom in the grounds.

It is clear the Premier League is miles ahead of what it used to be, we should all be so grateful. The top four now is as strong as its ever been and English clubs are dominating European Football.

 

[DAK222]

I give up, I actually give up....

Okay, Liverpool fans you are all right, I am wrong.
Football now is incredible, unbelievable, best standard of football ever. Football ten years ago was rubbish, all players were alcoholics, overweight and had no fitness levels. Nobody pressed or passed the ball, that was only invented in recent seasons, hence why football now is so much more superior to how it was before. This current Liverpool invented off the ball movement, back in the day, fat alcoholic players would stand still, not moving, not passing and not pressing. They'd simply all play long balls to Sam Vokes type players. Passing from the back and attacking wing backs were never seen, defenders of old would just boot the ball up the field due to their complete lack of technical composure.

It is clear the Premier League is miles ahead of what it used to be, we should all be so grateful. The top four now is as strong as its ever been and English clubs are dominating European Football.

What an amazing counterargument. Punching a straw man. Wish I'd thought of that.

Why are smug Scousers being given free rein to infest this thread and derail it? This is for conversation about Man City, no?

You'll see that it's not just smug Scousers posting above. But I do agree that the thread's gone off topic a bit. So I'll shut up here.

 

[Suedesi]

I'm sorry, but you're just conflating several discussions here. Let me talk about my post first. It's a widely accepted on here that Liverpool are doing well in Europe right now mainly because other top teams are in transition. I simply pointed out that the same was true during the English dominance of Europe in 06-09. Are you disagreeing when I say that Real, Bayern, Juve, Milan were hardly top dogs in Europe in those years?

Let me address your post now. Yes, United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal between that era were four of the strongest in Europe. Absolutely. And part of the reason was, once again, traditionally strong teams from other leagues were struggling. But, let's move on.

You say "if you hand on heart think the top english clubs of this era are the same quality as the top English clubs between 2006 and 2009 you should probably head over to your local gp and check yourself for head injuries". And you're basing this on what? The English teams' performance in the CL in those years? That just means they were all good cup teams. What does that have to do with their competence in the league exactly? Between 2004-2005 and 2012-2013, in spite of some amazing runs in the CL and often beating you lot at least once a season (with even a double in '09!) Liverpool challenged for the league a grand total of ONE time. And how strong were Arsenal in the league in those years? It was basically between you and Chelsea the whole time. So you really shouldn't add beating Liverpool and Arsenal to the league title as some amazing achievement in those years and then point to their performance in knockout competitions as evidence of their strength in the league campaign. Ffs for years, Liverpool were derided for being "just a cup team", and with good reason!

Real were re-building, and did that in part by largely courting our best player.
Bayern were in transition
Juve have never been top dogs in Europe, historically. Inter were pretty decent, Milan were top dogs in 06-09 - they won the cup in 07 and should have won in 05.
Barca were also pretty good, winning it in 06, making the semis in 08 and winning it in 09.
Also Chelsea were an absolute machine in Europe... Much better than City currently for example.

Your argument is kinda silly to be honest - Bayern were in transition last year and played without Kimmich and Mueller, does that nullify Liverpool's win?

 

[_00_deathscar]

Have to disagree with the underlined bit. Spurs, Everton and villa were good and consistent sides back then, they’d finish 5/6/7th and get to cup finals/semis.
I’d rank them above Wolves. There’s not really anyone else who’s consistently finished in those positions in recent times. Leicester having a great season but have been mid table last few seasons. Who else is there? Sheff Utd are 5th, they weren’t even in the league last year. Dunno who these solid sides in the 5-10th positions have been.

As for Liverpool beating any team between 2004-2011. That’s debatable but i don’t think Arsenal fans (unbeatables) Chelsea fans (Mourinho era) or United fans(Ronaldo/Rooney era) would agree and there are arguments to be made for all. What I would say is we are 25 games into a season and Liverpool have not actually won a league title yet.

I'd give the edge to this Liverpool team, but I can certainly see Chelsea and Man Utd of those respective eras having a very, very good argument.

That Arsenal team isn't close. I'd place both the treble winning Man Utd side and Man City 17-19 ahead of them.

Achievement wise, Chelsea and Man City won a load of domestic cups (which is also partly down to having insane spending power) - but over a 3 season period it would read:
Liverpool: 1 European Cup (and an extra final in that period, plus however far we get this season) + 1 League (and the craziest points total in history for a runner up)
Manchester City: 2 Leagues, no European Cups (very poor showing in Europe)
Chelsea: 2 Leagues, no European Cups (two semi final appearances and both very close ties, once losing to eventual winners - credible)
...which is pretty even as far as achievements go.

Chelsea clearly did better than Man City in Europe in that time frame though while also dominating league and domestic cups. And Man City dominated the league (in terms of playing style/attacking verve etc) like no other team before it, and thus get credit for that.

Of course, you can't completely ignore domestic cups - but it does help when you have 200m to spunk on a quartet of decidely average full backs without it hurting you at all financially...

 

[_00_deathscar]

Your argument is kinda silly to be honest - Bayern were in transition last year and played without Kimmich and Mueller, does that nullify Liverpool's win?

It doesn't - but that's why that "European teams were in transition" argument used to discredit Liverpool's runs in Europe is silly - because the same could be said for the 04-08 period certainly - i.e. that England were the top dogs only because none of the other leagues had enough teams who could keep up and they were all in a transition period, just prior to La Liga ruling for a whole decade from 08/09 to 17/18.

Does anyone discredit La Liga ruling for a whole decade in that period by saying "the English and Italian teams were a bit shit though, eh?"

You could twist that back and forth to suit your preference essentially, so that argument is silly.

At any given point in time, there will be teams in transition - leagues even. You're never going to have a strong England, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal or even 3 of those, all at once.

 

[redman5]

If you are putting the emergence of Giggs, Scholes, Becks, Neville, Butt, etc (AKA Co92) down to a fluke occurrence, then you are conveniently ignoring the facts. The most successful teams in our history each contained a strong core of academy products, from the Busby Babes to Fergie's Fledglings (SAF's first attempt at building a team) to the CO92. Our teams from the '70s and '80s were perhaps not as successful as those previously mentioned, but they possessed a strong core of academy players nevertheless. The last time United played a league game without at least one academy player present was the 1930s, fast approaching 4000 games at last count, and that run looks set to continue indefinitely.

The club has lost sight of its roots since SAF retired. We have recruited all the wrong people - from the players to the backroom staff to the manager himself - in our desperation to get back to winning ways. Only recently regaining that sight with the appointment of Ole and a more strategic, less scattergun approach to transfers. As long as we stick to buying young, hungry players and promoting youth from within, all else is secondary.

But those successful periods have large gaps in between, which suggests that your club, probably more than anyone, needs the stars to align before you come good. You hold the record for the most title wins, yet those 20 wins have been won by just 3 managers. Should Klopp bring us the title this season he'll be the 5th Liverpool manager in something like 45 years to do so. I'm not knocking United's record in producing talent via their youth system, I'm simply suggesting that throughout your history, if your academy doesn't produce a glut of good players all at the same time, you've more often than not, struggled to make an impact on the game. Of course, fortune runs both way, & if it were not for the Munich tragedy then there's a strong case for United fans to claim that they'd have won more titles, & possibly another European Cup or two. I wouldn't argue against that. But I've lived through United's 26 years in the wilderness & it's amazing thinking back how little quality there was that came through your youth system during that period. We currently stand on the threshold of winning our first title in 30 years, but currently only have TAA as an academy product. It's worth pointing out too that you also need the good fortune to have a great manager in charge when great talent does comes through. Busby & Ferguson both obviously fall into this category. So the big worry for United fans must be the thought of the likes of Greenwood, Williams, McTominay etc failing to reach their full potential due to the reoccurring theme of appointing the wrong managers.

 

[SER19]

Guardiola. Spends nearly a billion without cl and gets blown to pieces by klopp.

'Pep you're the greatest innovator in the game, a manager were blessed to have grace this league. What inspired plan do you have to overthrow Liverpool.'

Guardiola : buy me Messi.

Don't know how he comes up with these ideas. What a god

 

[redman5]

I don't even know what your response to my post was all about. Why have you gone on the front foot when you don't have a leg to stand on. The point i made was that bad luck has far exceeded the good luck we had in the CL in our era of dominance. You on the other hand have been very lucky in the competition. You weren't regular qualifiers & have managed to win 2 with more than your fair share of luck along the way.

I don't know why you can't accept that the Pools money played a massive part in your success. I'm not saying it was anything like the levels of financial doping we have seen at Chelsea & City. It was a big help all the same though.

Bad luck my arse. For a large portion of that 20 years you had the best team, the best manager, & the biggest wallet to buy pretty much anyone. Do you want me to name some of the average clubs you failed to get past during that period ? & what about the good luck you enjoyed in both finals where you won the CL ? It's laughable on here how any success we achieve is down to good luck, whereas poor old United only have bad luck. Luck, whichever way it falls, generally runs for relatively small periods. Not 20 f**king years.

& as for the pools money thing. We were a very well run club who lived within it's means. We worked harder than most at identifying players who'd fit into the way we play. Some players we paid good money for, some players we unearthed playing in the lower leagues. We most certainly didn't need a financial leg-up from the Moores during the 70's & 80's. It was some years before Liverpool paid over £1m for player, whilst the likes of United, City, & Forest had already splashed that sort of money well before us. Even when we signed Barnes, Aldridge, & Beardsley, in 1987 we did so on the back of the £3.2 m we received from Juventus for Ian Rush. But if you're so confident I'm wrong go do a little research & prove me wrong. Don't just come on here saying I'm wrong.

From Bryan Robson Wiki :

Manchester United[edit]
Robson moved to United for a British record transfer fee of £1.5 million on 1 October 1981 and signed the contract on the Old Trafford pitch two days later before a game against Wolverhampton Wanderers. The record fee set by Robson was not broken for six years, when Liverpool paid £1.9 million for Newcastle striker Peter Beardsley i

 

[Jericholyte2]

https://www.football365.com/news/pe...r-city-liverpool-premier-league-title-opinion

How many hundreds of millions of pounds has he already spent at City FFS?!?

 

[redman5]

https://www.football365.com/news/pe...r-city-liverpool-premier-league-title-opinion

How many hundreds of millions of pounds has he already spent at City FFS?!?

Pep talks more about Liverpool than I do. No wonder City fans suffer from acute paranoia & insecurity.

 

[adexkola]

Pep talks more about Liverpool than I do. No wonder City fans suffer from acute paranoia & insecurity.

There's no quote in there

 

[Suedesi]

Why is a Man City thread full of scousers arguing how great their team is. You're on a good run of 1 CL and 1 PL champions elect, can't even imagine what you'd sound like if you win a few on the bounce.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Why is a Man City thread full of scousers arguing how great their team is. You're on a good run of 1 CL and 1 PL champions elect, can't even imagine what you'd sound like if you win a few on the bounce.

Unbearable.

But the serious answer is because...

• Their fortunes for now are intertwined. Without Liverpool, Man City would be having a sub bar but acceptable season (top of the league)
• As is the fate/legacy of their managers. Don't get me wrong, Guardiola is an absolutely incredible manager. But the longer this goes (and the longer his European Cup 'drought' goes on), the more harshly he'll be judged. He'll always be considered in the top echelon of managers ever - but at those levels you do need to win the European Cup too somewhat more frequently, especially with the benefits he's been afforded over his rivals (primarily, money).
• Man City have spent an insane amount of money - and they're being shown up by a team who has spent a fair amount too, but much more wisely and having to do with losing (key) players to be able to spend that money instead of spunking 200m+ at four very, very average fullbacks.

 

[padr81]

Unbearable.

But the serious answer is because...

• Their fortunes for now are intertwined. Without Liverpool, Man City would be having a sub bar but acceptable season (top of the league)
• As is the fate/legacy of their managers. Don't get me wrong, Guardiola is an absolutely incredible manager. But the longer this goes (and the longer his European Cup 'drought' goes on), the more harshly he'll be judged. He'll always be considered in the top echelon of managers ever - but at those levels you do need to win the European Cup too somewhat more frequently, especially with the benefits he's been afforded over his rivals (primarily, money).
• Man City have spent an insane amount of money - and they're being shown up by a team who has spent a fair amount too, but much more wisely and having to do with losing (key) players to be able to spend that money instead of spunking 200m+ at four very, very average fullbacks.

Doesn't Sir Alex only have 2? Only 3 managers in history have more.. Paisley, Ancelotti and Zizou.

 

[adexkola]

Doesn't Sir Alex only have 2? Only 3 managers in history have more.. Paisley, Ancelotti and Zizou.

Something about how Big Sam would have been able to win 6 CLs with Pep's teams