https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_UEFA_Champions_League_Final#Statistics
But we were?
Keane and Scholes both scored against Bayern in the group stage. Keane, our best player, was at his absolute peak. Scholes although not quite at his own formidable peak was a serious menace and in flying form at that end of the season. You seriously suggesting replacing Butt and Blomqvist with Keane and Scholes might not have prevented Bayern dominating us that night?
Not trying to turn this thread into another discussion, but... would that 99 team stand a better chance against Pep's Barça than those who played in 2009/2011 ?
If you actually read my post right instead of trying to prove how badly you getting your posts wrong, Barcelona got destroyed by a very mediocre Real Madrid side that 2008 united side parked the bus.
I think Barca would maybe win that one, but what the 99 side had the 08 never had, a strong midfield, so they would have the tools to make a better go of it against xavi and insista etc, but that Barca side were something else
Yes. They'd still lose in 2011, but they'd make barca work harder for it. They might just nick a win in 2009. A matter of mentality. The 08 side was actually the better team
Stats don't tell you all the truth about a specific game.
1999 Scholes wasn't one of the greatest midfielder of all time, only late on his career he earned that status. And we didn't beat Bayern that season.
Now you're going to try and argue inserting two of the greatest midfielders of all time, both arguably approaching the height of their powers and in immense form, into the biggest final in our club's history wouldn't have changed anything against a team they'd already beaten twice in the same season?
I am done with this guy
We know that, but no one can predict what could have happened with Keane in that side, his presence could have gone in both positive or negative way.
We weren't, that's the reason why I don't take seriously the group stage games. Spurs beat and humiliated Madrid in the group stage but Madrid went on to win the competition.
@Oneunited26
That 1999 were tactically very naive and would have opened spaces in the back trying to attack and Barcelona would have punished them. That game would go the same way as Mourinho's 1st classico. If a tactically mature and developed SAF with an amazing 2009 squad with a tones of talent couldn't beat them, I wonder what a massacre it'd be if a 99 SAF had to face that Pep's Barca.
Are you seriously saying Carrick was the equal or better than Keane?
So let’s get this straight 99 vs 08, they both play a flat 4411, you saying Carrick scholes Ronaldo and giggs can get the better prime Keane scholes beckham and giggs taking into consideration that 08 united midfield had 2 ageing midfielders, Carrick who is very slow, Ronaldo who doesn’t really track back could beat that midfield. And this is where you overrate Rooney and tevez, it’s gone on record Ferdinand called tevez one of the worst players on the training ground. Again you going on about how great Rooney and tevez are, not considering the fact York and Cole together almost shared 60 goals between them, to Rooney and tevez’s weak 30 goals between them
Quick ans -- yes.
In 2008 Carrick was 27. 33 year old Paul Scholes was better than a young version of him, even the great Barcelona side targeted Scholes as the most dangerous player. That midfielder went on to dominate world football the way 99 side could only dream of. The 2008 side produced a ballon d'or after almost half a century at United, an United best scorer, a best defender of the PL and more other talents.
While I can see what you are saying and can agree with some of it, please tell me you aren't saying prime Carrick was better than prime Keane (or even that Pep would pick Carrick ahead of Keane).
Oh come on, you say that like Beckham didn't come second to Rivaldo in that season's Ballon d'Or. Personally I feel he should have won.
Apparently prime Keane and Scholes who got the better of prime zidane and David’s, prime vierra and petit 3 of the four who were part of the 1998 World Cup winning France team, the prime Bayern team that went on to win the European cup two years later, can’t get the better of a flat 442 08 side containing carrick and ageing scholes who was even more prone to bad tackling because of age. If prime Keane and scholes can take on prime petit and vierra, but some cannot take on a much slower engine room, well that makes sense hahahhaa
To be fair, Scholes wasn't at his prime in 99. He didn't reach his peak until a few years after the rest of that famous class, and in 99 he was still rotating fairly evenly with Butt. I'd definitely pick 06/07 Scholes ahead of the 98/99 version as well, particularly in a two man midfield.
Both Irwin and especially Schmeichel were past their best by that stage, so Evra and VDS win that one.
I’m inclined to go with that too but although his early season form was dire, Schmeichel put in some great displays in our biggest matches , particularly Juve,Inter and Arsenal.
In my preference, yes, I'd prefer prime Carrick than Keane as he offers specifics qualities that are vitals to modern football. To get an idea of who Pep would prefer in his team, just compare Busquet with Keane and then imagine who he'd prefer to have in his team. The most best quality of Keane was his aggression, he had little football qualities, basically a better version of Mark Nobles. So excuse me if it's blasphemous but I'd prefer Carrick over keane in my ideal team. Keane wasn't even the best in his post in England, Viera was the better player.
He comes second, not won it? Nuance. Even if he had won it, that doesn't make him close to Ronaldo, he's not even half the player Ronaldo was. Beckham was more a celebrity than a great player; he was like Lingard in regard to there football career, too much advertising in medias and little football qualities.
I'm curious how old you are, because you seem to be rating Keane based on what the media focus on. The reality is that Keane was an extremely good passer of the ball who was brilliant at controlling the team around. Carrick was a better long passer, but I'd give Keane the edge in pretty much every other aspect (and I was always a huge Carrick fan). The aggression and leadership that he had was the icing on the cake. You saying he had little football qualities and only focusing on the aggression tells me you didn't actually watch him much yourself.
Beckham like Lingard.
You really do base everything off what the media says.Again this thing about age. I watched keane for a long time to assess my view on him. He was a good passer of the ball, not a great one and his passing have been overrated by United fans. You'll struggle to find, outside of United and British circle, a set of people who'll place him among the best midfielders.I'm curious how old you are, because you seem to be rating Keane based on what the media focus on. The reality is that Keane was an extremely good passer of the ball who was brilliant at controlling the team around. Carrick was a better long passer, but I'd give Keane the edge in pretty much every other aspect (and I was always a huge Carrick fan). The aggression and leadership that he had was the icing on the cake. You saying he had little football qualities and only focusing on the aggression tells me you didn't actually watch him much yourself.
He was also better than Vieira, although that is closer. Vieira spent pretty much his entire career playing next to another defensive midfielder; the only time he was expected to do that role himself he struggled quite a bit. Keane managed to be the only defensive midfielder and the main man controlling his team around (in a team that was best in the country and one of the best in the world) in a way I can't think of another player doing in the last 20 years.
Beckham like Lingard.
lol. At the time that they played most people, even most Arsenal fans I knew, rated Keane ahead of Vieira. As more and more time has passed this has changed because of the media pushing that narrative of Keane being nothing but an aggressive beast. This is a man who consistently dominated every top midfielder who he came up against - including Vieira himself. He didn't do this just with aggression.
You are making the mistake of mistaking his celebrity status with how he is actually rated in the football community. Yes, of course his world-wide celebrity status is higher than his football ability warrants, considering he is the most famous footballer of all time. But then people do exactly what you are doing - feel he is overrated and proceed to massively underrate him. The reality is that he had a three year period (99-01) where he was truly one of the best players in the world. After that he dropped off a bit but he still remained a very good player. To compare him to Lingard is laughable. He was comfortably better than any player we have in our team right now, with only Pogba (and possibly but unlikely Martial) having the ability to reach that level.
Beckham's transfer fee was the highest of any player in football the year we sold him
For reference @LoveFootball is listed as 29 which would have made him like 10 or 11 around 1999 and judging by his posts I'm confident he wasn't even following United at the time anyway. In all his weird defensive posts about his age he's skirted around the issue by saying "I [technically] was old enough to have watched the 99 team live" and tries to prop up all us ridiculous arguments with rubbish like "I studied [X] closely" i.e. "I watched a couple of grainy YouTube videos once."
Zidane went from Juventus to Real for double the amount Madrid paid us for Beckham and that 2 years ago. One of the complaints of United fans is that we sold him to Madrid for very small fee.
It always this story about the media crusade against United, right? Those fecking media always underrating our best players; it has nothing to do about how the world view them as players, hein? First it was Scholes, then Carrick and now Keane being underrated by media. For Scholes I accepted he was massively underrated by British medias, but Keane? Keane is one of the most overrated player, the english media made him great.
Sorry I didn't mean Lingard is as good as was Beckham, not surely Beckham was miles better than Lingard is. What I meant is that like Lingard, he was more famous than his football talent suggested. And i don't agree he was one the best player at anytime apart from the 99 seasons were he really had an outstanding season on his standard.
I know sometimes truth heart sometimes they make you laugh because
I actually find myself looking forward to your replies now because of how hilariously absurd they're getting. David Beckham was just a shitty albeit more popular version of Jesse Lingard and Roy Keane was simply proto-Mark Noble.
It really takes a high level of stupidity thinking that people put their real age on different platform on internet.
Apparently Roy Keane dominating and facing some of the France World Cup winning midfield options in zidane, petit, vierra and deschamps makes him overrated. Yep the 99 team that beat Barcelona, juventus, Bayern the latter two you can ask Bayern and Juventus fans were some of their best ever sides they have ever had. You can’t get the better of France World Cup winning midfielders if you were not pretty damn good, no player can be overrated if they can take on the France World Cup winning midfielders, that’s just a fact. Next we be hearing Zidane and vierra are overrated
